Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 3

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Mar. 2005 and Aug. 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. See How to archive a talk page.

1999 constitution
The constituion increased the power of the president in general, and placed new government restrictions on the media.

I have to get out the consitution of 1961 and compare, but as for the second: what restrictions are we talking about here? Article 101, that says (translated, of course):

"The communications media have the duty of assisting in the dissemination of the values of folk traditions and the work of artists, writers, composers*, motion-picture directors*, scientists* and other creators* of culture of the country. The television media shall include subtitles and translation into Venezuelan sign language for persons with hearing problems. The terms and modalities of these obligations, shall be established by law."

Are we talking about Article 108:

The communications media, public and private, shall contribute to civil education.

Calling these "restrictions" is a real stretch. Besides, there are many provisions of the constitution which are much more important.


 * I don't understand Spanish enough but I think it might be important.

http://www.nodo50.org/haydeesantamaria/docs_ajenos/pserrano_venezuela.htm Ericd 02:09, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You are just reading the Constitution. There are de-facto restriction, derived from what the Constitution mandates.

Based on these mandates, the Government-dominated Parlament passed a law (with the unanimous NO-vote of all the opposition parties) called Ley de Contenidos (Contents Law). This Law has a complex way to classify content, based on violence, sex, etc., and regulates the times these contents can be broadcast. It imposses huge financial penalties, and also temporary and permanent shotdowns of TV and radio stations. Broadcasters have complained that the Government uses the law to punish media that opposes it, and is lenient with the one in favor of it, they argue that the law forces broadcasters to exert self-censure, in order not to be punished.


 * Not unlike FCC "obscenity" regulations and press access to the White House in the U.S.

True or not, several prominent opinion journalists. critical of the government (Marta Colomina, Cesar Miguel Rondon, Napoleon Bravo) have been let go, and their programs have been shotdown by their TV stations, after the passing of this law.


 * I agree that this Contents Law should be included (along with the national and international reaction), but I think it should go in the "media" section of "Policy". But that doesn't invalidate the fact that the law and the constitution are two different things. DanKeshet 21:56, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I don't know all that much about the subject, but this seems to paint a very rosy picture of the heroic social-democratic Chavez boldly taking on entrenched business interests and the US. A much different picture could be painted. The economy has been ruined under his rule, unemployment is somewhere around 20% and many more (maybe 30%) are undermployed. It has been asserted that he is duping the people, consolidating power around himself while making populist but ineffective gestures. Some of these things should at least be mentioned. As it stands, I think the page is NPOV, though I reverted my tagging of it as such because I don't know enough about it. Psychobabble 03:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article you linked is subscription-only. The opposition viewpoint is mentioned in our article, but I agree that it needs work.  More so than that, though, it's sparse on facts.  If the gist of one argument is over the effectiveness of the reforms, it seems to me we should have more articles on the reforms themselves.  I started Plan Zamora, but Barrio Adentro seems like the one begging for an article the most. DanKeshet 03:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree 100%. This article, up to about 3 or 4 months ago was very well balanced and gave what I felt was a rather accurate and informative picture of the Castro wannabe. Recently though, alot of garbage has been stuffed in here by the usual supects. No indication of some of the less than exciting aspects of Bolivarism has been touched on.

...calculate the square root
 * GDP per capita is down 11% in the last six years
 * See : http://www.latin-focus.com/latinfocus/countries/venezuela/vengdp.htm
 * Integrated that function and divide by the current population and &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;
 * Read this : http://biz.yahoo.com/ifc/ve.html
 * inflation is up 292% in the last six years,
 * food inflation, which is the one that hits the poorest the most. is up 383% in this same period
 * unemployment is over 17%, up from 10.5% six years ago.
 * A mandatory ID card, and get this, the Cuban government is bieng outsourced to set this up and administer it!


 * Basicaly, things have gotten worse for the poor, not better. They have been driven further and further into Chavez's arms because more and more people now need government handouts just to simply live.


 * This article needs some serious work, especial the "2004 a new coup" section. TDC 04:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree we are in 2005 isn'it ? Ericd 21:26, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What about splitting off a separate "Chavez adminstration" article like we do for Reagan administration, with just a summary here. There are important things like the Rodrigo Granda affair or Telesur that belong under that (even Plan Zamora and Barrio Adentro belong there too), that aren't really about Chavez personally as much as they are about the government during his presidency? DanKeshet 04:14, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the subscription. The article was a review of "the revolution will not be televised. Here's some highlights:
 * "The appeal of Chávez should be called what it is: a symptom of Venezuela's problems, not a solution to them. Latin American history (utterly neglected by the filmmakers) is full of charismatic strongmen who have promised redemption in exchange for power. The reappearance of this caudillo figure is a troubling sign--suggesting that the region's initial steps toward liberalism can be easily reversed. Indeed, the logic of Chávez's revolution has only become clearer over time. He brilliantly channels outrage at real grievances to win political victories, but these victories all serve to consolidate his own power: Social welfare programs become opportunities for presidential patronage; political allies, many of them from the military, replace competent administrators; increased reliance on executive decrees undermine the legislative process.


 * Fortunately, Chávez's own constituents have begun to see through the façade. Even among the poor--some 80 percent of the Venezuelan electorate and long Chávez's base of support--his approval rating has fallen to little more than 30 percent. Last week, a broad array of opponents launched a petition drive to force a recall of his presidency next year. If past efforts are any indication, they will have little trouble collecting the 2.4 million signatures required. And the most recent polls show that two-thirds of the population would vote against Chávez in a recall election.


 * If and when he's rejected, it won't be a result of persecution by Venezuelan elites or meddling by the United States, as the makers of Revolution would suggest. It will be a result of his betrayal of the masses who long supported him. The film has made itself complicit in this betrayal, selling out "the people"--in whose name it, like Chávez, claims to speak--for the theater of "revolution."Psychobabble 00:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how this could help improve the article. Please be more specific about what you'd like to see changed. DanKeshet 01:09, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just read this piece and there is a distinct narrative presented. The quotes given, the wording used (eg in the first paragraph), the "this argument against Chavez but then THIS" style of writing. It's not a specific problem, it's a whole narative, and what it needs is someone who knows about the situation to write in some of the facts to broaden the picture. Psychobabble

There's been a lot of work on this in the last couple of weeks, and it's looking much better. The major formatting change with the "policy under HC" made a big difference, helping to put some things in a better context. If the NPOV tag is up there because of my objections then please remove it, if someone else has a beef then leave it up :) I just have a couple of comments: Good work guys. Psychobabble 01:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The Sadaam picture is nowhere near the explanatory text.
 * I would still like to see some analysis of the actual effect of his policies on the poor (unemployment, inflation etc.)
 * With all the editing, does the (fairly NPOV) footnote actually refer to anything in the text?


 * Thanks for the appreciation, Psychobabble. I didn't note it at the time, but your mention of the "distinct narrative" definitely guided me in rewriting the first paragraph and a few other in the middle.  Going down your list in order:


 * I have removed the POV tag (added by an anon) pending actionable problems listed on the talk page.
 * I moved the Saddam picture into "international relations", bumping the picture with Khatami up to the oil area.
 * Regarding the effects of his policies on the poor: I think we're going to have to wait some years before we really know. We can give raw figures for GDP, inflation, etc., but there are many different interpretations for them.  There was a big dip in all economic indicators during and after the lockout, then a big rise afterwards.  But it's unclear whether the big rise had anything to do with social programs, or whether it was just PDVSA going back to work and the price for oil shooting up.  Also, if we're going to evaluate the effect of the programs, I think infant mortality, literacy, life expectancy, etc. are other types of statistics that need to be evaluated.
 * The footnote was too specific for an overview article on Chavez. It is partially reincorporated already on Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002, but I'll try to reincorporate more of it.

DanKeshet 02:46, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Current GDP estimate for 2004-2005 is 14%. See: Venezuela > Key economic indicators (Deutsche Bank)

Editors needing to research more points of view in favor about Venezuela and Chavez let me suggest these links: Venezuelan Views, News and Analisys Venezuela's Electronic News A website devoted to investigating US meddling in Venezuela Bolivarian Constitution (NON-OFFICIAL TRANSLATION)

state of the union spech
Hi TDC, I did in fact try to go the linked speech, but it gives me a 404. I have googled for the text of the speech, but I cannot find it. Do you have a copy? The wording of the sentence, in any case, is wholly inappropriate. Regardless of what Chavez said, we have no way of getting inside his mind and knowing why he said it. DanKeshet 20:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I found the speech. The link must have been changed in a mass adding of accents to Chavez; the correct link was http://proveo.org/chavezdiscurso.pdf The link as it appeared in the text was http://proveo.org/Chávezdiscurso.pdf I have read the PDVSA-related parts of the speech, and have been unable to find which part our text was referring to. I admit my Spanish is not top-notch, but then again, a reference to a 19-page document in Spanish isn't exactly going to help most of our readers, either. The parts I read about PDVSA said the following things (paraphrasing, not translating): the downturn in the economy was almost entirely, perhaps entirely, due to "terrorists, destabilizers, and coup-makers" (meaning, PDVSA). Following the strike/lockout, PDVSA has finally been truly nationalized. Before, it was a lie to say that PDVSA was nationalized; it was a state-within-a-state, run by elites for the benefit of transnationals (more or less). Now, it is truly run for the benefit of the Venezuelan people".

I couldn't find a part where he said that he had precipitated the crisis in order to achieve this, though, only that this has been the result of the strike/lockout. Can you quote the text that backs up the assertion we had? Thanks, DanKeshet 21:24, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Images
We have seven images in the article right now: 5 of them are "fair use" AP/Reuters, 1 of them is of unknown origin, and 1 was just added (Chavez w/Khatami; what's the license on that?). Commons has 3 images of Chavez: 2 with Lula and 1 speaking on his own. They're decent pictures. I suggest removing two fair use pictures from the article and replacing them with images from commons (we don't really need two images of Chavez with Lula). What do you think? DanKeshet 20:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I for one don't like the article too much (as I'm no fan of Chavez), but aren't the images regarding the billboard and the march misleading? I mean, there is no image of an opposition march, or a 'No' billboard for that matter. Of course they are true iamges, but it's just telling part of the truth. This obviously changes the neutrality of the article. --ZooTV 18:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

labor
I replaced this text from "Early presidency"


 * During elections for local officials, Chávez added a referendum on dissolving Venezuela's labor unions. Though it is unclear what authority was invoked, he attempted to consolidate all Venezuelan labor unions into a single, state-controlled Bolivarian Labor Force.

with this text in "Labor" in "Venezuelan policy under Chavez"


 * During December 2000 local elections, Chávez placed a referendum on the ballot to force internal elections within unions. The referendum, condemned by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) as interference in internal union matters, passed by a large margin on very thin turnout. In the ensuing elections, Carlos Ortega declared victory and remained in office, whereas Chavista candidates declared fraud.

It is clear these two are talking about the same referendum. I have not found any source saying that this referendum was to "dissolve Venezuelan's labor unions" although I've seen quite a few saying it was to force elections to be monitored by the CNE, something the ILO and ICFTU strenuously objected to as interference in internal union affairs. If I understand correctly, the FBT (Bolivarian Workers' Force or Bolivarian Labor Force) was a pro-Chavez bloc in the CTV which contested Ortega's election (in both senses of "contest"). It is now one of two pro-Chavez blocs in the UNT. It was never officially controlled by the state, although I believe there was coordination between Chavez and the FBT, something which is internationally frowned upon as interference.

So, do you have sources that talk about this referendum? I can collect links that describe the referendum as I have described it above. DanKeshet 20:39, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Concern over neutrality of article
I have a number of concerns about the neutrality of this article.

For a reader unfamiliar with Venezuelan history or the Chavez presidency, the tone of the article seems to marginalize the Chavez movement and place unbalanced emphasis on opposition controversies.

The &#8220;early years&#8221; section highlights that many people were killed in Chavez's failed coup attempt, and portrays his statement "por ahorah" as the threat of someone who was just responsible for "hundreds dead." These suggestions might be acceptable if the coup was discussed in any sort of historical context. There is virtually no discussion of the political and social climate that prompted the coup, or of the traditional power dynamic of the Punto Fijo pact in Venezuela between the Christian Democrats (COPEI) and Democratic Action (AD). I am not an expert on Venezuelan history. But a fair and balanced discussion of the coup should include at least a superficial historical background.

The early presidency section very subtly suggests that Chavez's early acts as president were designed to solidify his power for years to come (which is sympathetic to the suggestions of communism and totalitarianism so popular in the dominant discourse surrounding Venezuela). The discussion of the legislative and judicial emergencies is a good example of this bias. While these acts were controversial and should be analyzed as such, there is again no discussion of the context in which these measures were taken. Was this a part of Chavez's platform? Was it a campaign promise? Did he have a popular mandate to do it? Were the existing power structures considered corrupt and/or illegitimate by the majority of the people? These are not rhetorical questions. I do not know the answers to them. But a fair portrayal of the Chavez presidency should address them.

The discussion of the 2002 attempt against Chavez is the most egregiously unbalanced section of this entry. It is also the topic that has been most widely debated and discussed in the international media, although this is not apparent from the entry. Among the most important items omitted are: discussion of the private media's involvement in the coup, as documented in the film "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and numerous other independent analyses, possible US involvement, controversy surrounding the violence that erupted outside of the presidential palace, the media blackout after Chavez's kidnapping, controversy surrounding whether or not Chavez ever did resign, REASONS for the coup attempt, reasons why it failed, etc. Again, these are not rhetorical points. But they absolutely should be given equal discussion in a balanced and neutral article.

The sections on Chavez's policy and social programs are superficial at best. There is no discussion of the philosophy behind Chavez's policies and social programs. Very little discussion is given to the incredible poverty and inequality of wealth that exists in Venezuela, the historical causes of this poverty, and how Chavez's programs are supposedly designed to alleviate the situation. The description of the land reforms is factually inaccurate - there has been no expropriation of privately owned land in Venezuela so far; the 2.2 million hectares of land distributed have all been state owned land. The only discussion of health care reforms uncritically brings up the Castro-Chavez connection. The Castro-Chavez connection is not discussed in a balanced or critical fashion. Chavez's intra-continental goals are not discussed at all. There is no discussion of Venezuela's record 17% economic growth in 2004.

The excessive omissions, selective and one-sided discussions of the opposition controversies surrounding the Chavez presidency, and the tone of this article have forced me to conclude that it is not written from a neutral point of view. While it should be obvious that I am sympathetic to the Chavez presidency, I do not mean to suggest that I am uncritical of it. I do, however, find this entry to lack the balance and critical thought otherwise displayed throughout Wikipedia.


 * Well you are very welcome to edit the article, especially since you seem to have a fairly precise idea of what you intend to write, and you intend to do it in a spirit of exactitude and objectivity. An insider's view would be very precious for the project. Rama 18:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * A few answers:


 * 1) It was in slightly better shape last week before an anonymous user made many changes to it: some of the examples you give were added by this anonymous user (e.g. the land expropriations). I am away from my usual computer and thus unable to substantially contribute to fixing up the article after that, but I will help in about 10 days.
 * 2) If you go back about a month, social programs weren't discussed at all; the entire article was about attempts to remove Chavez from power. I hope that you appreciate the progress it has made.  However, those additions I have made have taken me many many hours of research, especially considering that reading Spanish sources is a heavy task for me.  My first priority in writing about them was merely to mention all the most important ones.  You will note that there are still major social programs that aren't even discussed: the Bolivarian Universities, the entire 1999-2001 programs which the armed forces carried out, etc.  The educational missions are given the most cursory of treatments.  If somebody like yourself were to participate in discussing the social programs, in what context they were conceived, who supports them and who opposes them, etc., I'm sure that it would improve much faster.
 * 3) Regarding the 2002 coup attempt: If you want to add balance, please do so first at the linked daughter article. When that article is in pretty good shape, we can import it's lead paragraph here and The reason that the coverage of the coup is sparse in this main article and extended in the daughter article is so that we can present a balanced view of the presidency, which includes his policy, and not have it be dominated by the various attempts at his removal.


 * I really hope that you register as a user and help improve this article. Peace, DanKeshet


 * Thanks for the responses. I really do appreciate all the work that goes in to making these Wikipedia entries so good. I'm also a newbie when it comes to the procedures involved with contributing to Wikipedia articles - for example etiquette between contributors, etc.  While I can't dedicate that much time to editing the Chavez entry on my own, I would be happy to provide any of the authors who have been spending the most time on it with a list of sources I've used to learn about this fascinating and controversial figure.  I can also provide sources that place the Chavez presidency in a larger Latin American political context, as a handful of other states have recently begun to make a turn toward the left.  Some of these sources may be copyrighted, so please advise about how to proceed.  Thanks, Sprins 20:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You mention the 17% growth of Venezuela. What about the growth in 2003, when the state petrol company PDVSA's workers striked during weeks? According to this page Venezuela's real GDP (i.e. without inflation) dropped 9.2% in 2003 (more in nominal terms). In 2004, it rose 8.8% in real terms. This means that at the end of 2004, GDP was still lower than at the beginning of 2003! Truly, an admirable success for Chavez... Luis rib 18:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a matter of POV... Many people think that the opponents were cynical enough to kill Venezuelian economics for they own interests... However 8.8% would be more than enough to solve most of the problems in France. Ericd 19:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

8.8% was high because the base had been lowered a lot with the 9.2% drop the year before. That's basic mathematics. The same happened in Argentina: a drop of 12%, followed by an increase of 10% (I don't remember the right numbers in that case, but it was something like that). The fact is that Venezuela is IN A WORSE SHAPE than in early 2003, not in a better one! Luis rib 19:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The numbers can be in the article, but there are two separate narratives for why the numbers are like they are: Chavez is ruining the economy through Castro-communism (opposition narrative, obviously), and the opposition's various lockouts/coups, etc. are designed to cripple the economy in order to force Chavez out (Chavista). Then, there's the third factor: many people say that any increase in the numbers is strictly because of world oil prices, and has little to do with Chavez's policy (except perhaps, that he's an oil price hawk).  So, just including the numbers in order to "prove" one or the other would be misleading, because different groups  use the same numbers to buttress different arguments.  DanKeshet 19:53, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * You're totally right, and my post's objective was just meant to point out that the 8.8% growth in 2004 were not so exceptional when compared to the 9.2% drop the year before. Someone has previously commented that There is no discussion of Venezuela's record 17% economic growth in 2004 (17% probably being the nominal growth rate). Well, I believe there's a LOT of discussion about that, including of course the discussions you mention. Luis rib 20:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Cool. If you have a way to fit that in, that's great, but it just seems too early to me to make judgments about these things. DanKeshet 01:01, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK I was misleaded by nominal vs. real rate. This would be a drop of 0,4% in real rates. But may I notice that the fact that the economy is recovering while Chàvez stay in power account for the Chavista's narrative ? However, there's a lot of external factors. Ericd 11:30, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually the total drop is 1.2 %, because growth rates (like interest rates) are compounded. The economy may be recovering, true, but that doesn't change the fact that it dropped while Chavez was in power. Also, huge deviations in growth are very disruptive. Finally, high oil prices in last few years should have been a huge boost for the Venezuelan economy, but they weren't. Chavez's economic performance is not much better than the previous clique of oligarchs. Luis rib 21:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-1,13% Ericd 21:24, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. Excel tells me -1.2. Whatever...Luis rib 21:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did Chàvez claim that he was a democratic socialist or a social democrat ? Ericd 21:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changes left over from anon. IP
I'm undoing some changes from an anon. IP, made in March. I hope that we can talk about some of these, because some of the points belong in the article, but in a more NPOV way:

Abstention rates
The abstention rates in the elections are controversial for the following reasons:


 * 1) Chavistas say that they registered more people to vote who were previously disenfranchised, thus making the total number of voters go up while the % of registered voters voting down; opposition says Chavistas fraudulently registered voters.
 * 2) I've had difficulty tracking down the compulsory voting reg.s and enforcement in Venezuelan history.
 * 3) The anon. IP didn't include the actual numbers so that we could see how much abstentionism went up, and what turnout was in later elections, only saying "abstentionism became a permanent feature of elections".

Labor referendum
This is covered on the talk page above.

Land reform
Luis, I don't understand what that sentence means: "However, the eventual reach of such reforms is questioned as Venezuela has an urbanization rate of more than 85%." Who 'questions' it? What is the question? :) Also, hasn't the Chavez government also introduced urban land reforms (not so far discussed in this article)?


 * The point is that land reform redistributes agricultural land. Yet, most Venezuelans live in cities and are not doing agriculture anymore. Thus, globally the impact of land reform will be small (even if it may matter a lot for individual people). Land reform can be useful in countries that have a big rural population, less so in more urbanized countries. In Venezuela's case, most poor are likely to live in suburbs, therefore poverty program should rather target the suburbs. Luis rib 23:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Two responses:


 * 1)The Chavez government has introduced urban, as well as agrarian, land reform. See.
 * 2)It's only your opinion that rural land reform isn't important because Venezuela is highly urbanized. The other argument is that the program was created in part because Venezuela's countryside has become so depopulated, as a method of making living in the country and farming financially viable for more Venezuelans.  DanKeshet 23:53, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

lighter skinned vs. elitist
An anonymous editor changed the sentence "Traditionally, lighter skinned groups have held economic and political sway over this oil-rich nation." to "Traditionally, elitist groups have held economic and political sway over this oil-rich nation. " I reverted it, not because I have any good sources right now on the racial history of Venezuela, but rather because the change rendered the sentence meaningless. Traditionally, elites held power. That's what made them elites! :) If there is disagreement on the ethnic and racial history of Venezuela, that sentence should be clarified or deleted.  DanKeshet 03:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The term "lighter skinned" is a blatant suggestion that racism is the force behind Chavez's revolution. As a Venezuelan, I can say it is not so. In the Caribbean (and this includes Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and the Guayanas), racism is not a major social force as it is in the US and Europe. This is mostly due to the fact that the majority of people are of mixed heritage - so racism doesn't make much sense as it'd mean discriminating against your own family. I know this may sound strange, especially to someone from the "developed" world, but it is the truth. Calling someone "negro" in Venezuela is often taken as a sign of affection, not offense. The Chavez problem has more to do with the impoverishment of the people due to the previous corrupt goverments - a problem that Chavez has not solved, as his goverment is much more corrupt than the previous ones. The thing is that in Venezuela's recent history, governments have made a point of keeping the people poorly educated, as educated people would never elect such leaders. Chavez has played to the people's desperation, but continued to follow the previous' governments policy of disinformation and poor education. Even though I don't like him, I know he's a natural consequence of our recent history, and that there is no short-term solution to the Venezuelan problem - people must just learn the hard way. But I'm getting away from my main point, and this is: the use of "lighter skinned" in the encyclopedia's article is just wrong. The Venezuelan problem is not related to racism, no matter how much your personal ideology wants to make it so.


 * I don't know exactly who you're responding to, as I don't know who added the sentence in the first place. I have read arguments made about the indigenous- and African-descendent character of the revolution, but I don't know much about how true they are.  I reverted the change because the new sentence was meaningless, not because the old one was necessarily true.  I will simply remove the sentence and leave it up to somebody who believes it's true and knows more than I do to come here to defend it.  DanKeshet 07:05, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Some Changes Made
Hi, I made some changes to the Media section, and to the Strike/Lockout section &#8211; thank you to the person who edited the additional paragraphs I added. I still have problems with the article, there seems to be a lot of implications that wouldn't be made if more information was presented. A specific problems is this sentence: "Alí Rodríguez, then president of PDVSA, handled the difficult crisis confronting the oil industry like the former guerrilla commander that he had been back in the 1960s and 1970s, and rather than trying to look for conciliation with the workers, he chose all out confrontation." I didn't know, but can believe, that Rodriguez was a guerilla commander, but the way that information is presented in this sentence is clearly prejudicious, to my mind. Beyond that the sentence is clearly laying blame on Rodriguez for his handling of the strike/lockout - hardly neutral. Besides, it could easily be argued that by declaring their aim to be the removal of the Chavez administration it was the organisers and participants in the strike/lockout who began the spirit of confrontation. I would edit this sentence so it read more like, "Rodríguez, then president of PDVSA and former guerrilla commander...", but I think the whole sentence should be axed - indeed the whole strike/lockout section should be drastically re-wrote in my oppinion. I'm new to this whole wikipedia concept, and unfamiliar with etiquette and procedures - what is the right thing to do about this? --Hegar 08:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You're right on both counts - to raise a potentially controversial question here first, and that the sentence should go (I've done it). Such general judgemental statements don't belong in Wikipedia; we need to cite (relevant) facts and let readers judge for themselves. Giving the complex and troubled recent history of the Venezuelan oil industry, placing all the blame on Rodriguez is highly POV; disentangling the detail would be a hell of a job I don't have time for.Rd232 09:31, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the statement "This has been compared to the way the 'interim government', who tried to replace the president during their short-lived coup attempt, robbed the Miraflores safe before escaping the Presidential Palace" since it lacks a proper reference (See my notes below in the Chavez's speeches section). This section still needs further work. Ali Rodriguez was a former guerrilla commander, but I don't think that is particularly relevant here. He no longer is CEO of PDVSA though, and neither is RAfael Rodriguez the minister of mines. :Jesús 09:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Changes
I made some general changes regarding the entire article. The main changes concerned the removal of certain disdainful adjectives whenever the opposition was mentioned, as well as phrases meant to discredit them which were either out of place, unproven or also made against the government. I added the economy section, which is meant to be expanded to display the general economic unorthodoxy and irresponsability under the Chávez government. I added the "authoritarism" phrase at the introduction, as allegations of his authoritarian presidency are made by most and all respected objective observers.
 * Are they made by "most" or "all" respected "objective" observers? You are contradicting yourself, when you can be more clear and state that they are made by observers who share your POV. 172 21:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel the article is extremely biased for Chávez and many important and alarming facts of his presidency's lower points (his relationship with rogue regimes and anti-US activism, his support of FARC rebels and his refusal to label them terrorist, his friendship with Evo Morales and funneling of money to bolivian opposition, his hand in the ecuadorean protests, the nuclear program, the 100k russian rifles) are simply ignored or rarely mentioned.
 * Laughable. The article even includes a pictures Chavez with Khatami and Chavez with Saddam, despite the fact that it ought to include pictures representing Chavez's ties with countries whose bilateral ties with Venezuela are more significant, such as Cuba, China, and Brazil. 172 21:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article needs infinitely more work before it can be considered a serious biographic article, as well as being NPOV. For now, it's absolutely biased for Chávez. I also can't believe that before I mentioned it, nobody had mentioned his incessant, rude and unbelievable bashing of anyone he opposes on rallies and in national TV (including his hinting that Condoleeza Rice may be in love with him, the time he bet Bush he would last longer in Miraflores, his claims that he would never visit the US until it's people had overthrown the US government, etc), it's a great demonstration of the bias in this article. Kapil 18:41, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This article has no business calling his speeches "rude and unbelievable bashing." Please distinguish your personal opinions from straightfoward, factual reporting of events. 172 21:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If people in Venezuela or elsewhere are describing Chavez and his speeches as incessant, rude and unbelievable bashing we have every business to describe this. If people are not saying this we don't, but how Chavez is perceived is important, SqueakBox 22:53, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are people in Venezuela who sound like Kapil. But there are also people who are receptive to his speeches. They are likely the vast majority of the population; Chavez is, after all, currently enjoying a 70 percent approval rating, according to a Datanalisis poll. Even so, we should not be praising his speeches, and we should not turn this article into a soapbox for his supporters, even though they are the vast majority of Venezuelan voters, just as we should not allow it to be turned into a soapbox for the elements of the population who supported the failed military coup in 2002. 172 02:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll just add that much of what Kapil says is not actually fact, but rather innuendo. There is no proof Chavez has helped FARC, Evo Morales, or anybody in Ecuador.  Kapil says that the fact that Venezuela makes arms purchases is "alarming", but we would never call the fact that the U.S. outspends Venezuela in arms by many orders of magnitude "alarming".  We don't say that when any of hundreds of other countries purchase weapons it is "alarming", even when, like weapons purchsed by the Dominican Republic, they end up in the hands of terrorists who invade Haiti and overthrow the democratically elected government.  I'm not saying this article is 100% NPOV, but the way to get things toward NPOV is by adding facts, not innuendo. DanKeshet 06:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Then edit over my edition, but don't lazy revert, as I also removed many biased opinions (not facts) from the page. Also, don't remove the NPOV tag cause the article is flamingly and openly pro-Chávez biased as of now. Kapil 07:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. You have provided no evidence that the article is "flamingly and openly pro-Chávez biased," but rather, as DanKeshet stated, innuendo. 172 07:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have downloaded two Chávez speeches (available through www.aporrea.org, search for it yourself) as well as a one hour video of his 23 January speech. In merely three speeches, as well as many articles available all over the place (mostly from BBC news and El Tiempo newspaper, as well as the Granma newspaper, CNN and Aporrea but also Indymedia) he:

1) Calls Condoleeza Rice "Condolencia Rice" and says she is in love with him

2) Dares Bush to a bet, as to who will last longer at the presidency "Bush in the White House, or Hugo Chávez in Venezuela"

3) Refers to the cuban refugee community in Miami as a "terrorist mafia"

4) Says he won't return to the US until its people free themselves from the US government

5) Hints at the possibility of becoming a guerrilla if Venezuela were invaded

6) Says he wants to start a nuclear program

7) Purchases 100,000 rifles identical to the ones used by the FARC, for a 30,000 strong army

8) Boasts about his personal friendship to Robert Mugabe

9) Makes incessant rambling about the "oligarchy" in his country

Etc, etc

I don't know about you, 172, but these are more than enough to warrant insertion into a serious biographic article. It's laughable that they're not there, and even more laughable that you defend their omission. Even if your bias is blatant, you cannot expect the more serious members of this community to ignore all the absurdities Chávez constantly commits without simple mention in the article. And don't call me a "Pedro Carmona" attacker, I have yet to refer to you as a Chávez accolyte. It's not an option to upload the entire speeches and video, so you're gonna have to trust the entirety of the world's media (unless you consider it, as well, to be "innuendo"). Kapil 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/reconquista-popular/2005w04/msg00036.htm -> The speech where he talks about Condie being in love with him. Kapil 07:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.perspectivaciudadana.com/040306/americalatina02.html -> If you can read spanish (I'm more than sure you can't), read the headline to this news story. Other than that, the George Bush bet speech is located somewhere in there, just search for a "Señor Bush". Kapil 07:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/05/18/venezuela.arms.deal.ap/ -> Even if you think the 100,000 rifles are for good purposes (good toys for the children?) you can't just omit it from the guy's biography, even if you think the US is the great satan and has infinite amounts of rifles or whatever babble. Kapil 07:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.radiomoron.islagrande.cu/2005/04/30/chavez.asp -> 10th paragraph, the one about the people of the United States having to liberate themselves from their government. Kapil 07:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do I really have to keep looking for more sources? Don't you keep up with the news? How is calling César Gaviria an asshole, calling José María Aznar an "idiot" not bashing? Should I get those for you too? Should I search for every single instance where he bashes the "oligarchy" and accuses mostly everyone who is against him of being US puppets? I believe you should search for stuff yourself, it's infinitely clear that in 4 minutes of search I was able to find proof of half of my alegations. You should keep abreast of the news, my friend, you're either clearly misinformed or just plain in denial. Kapil 07:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can read Spanish and speak it fluently. You had no reason to assume that I couldn't. You'd be surprised, but I personally find his speeches over-the-top too. But our personal reactions are irrelevant in an encyclopedic entry. (See No original research.) Apparently his tone strikes a chord among a large segment of the Venezuelan electorate, which seems to be supported by recent polling data showing him gaining popularity since the landslide defeat of the recall referendum. Re: Even if you think the 100,000 rifles are for good purposes Do not assume what my POV is. You're not doing too well. At any rate, what I think-- or what you think-- does not matter. Again please note the "no original research" policy. 172 07:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Say whatever you want about the no original research or whatever, there are facts such as his bashing of everything and anything, and they're not in the article, and they should be. That, and opposition claims should be included, as the opposition point of view is not given and a completly pro-Chávez one is. Not everyone who disagrees with Chávez is an enemy, and it is important to note in the article both that many people loathe him deeply, and that he attacks them constantly. As simple as that. Also, "Pedro Carmona attacker" is also POV, so don't call me that again. Kapil 08:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposition claims should be reported, and opposition figures can be quoted. But your personal reactions to his speeches cannot form the basis of the intro. The reason we have the "no original research" policy is to keep people from doing the very same thing that you're attempting to do on this article and other articles. For example, let's say someone cheery-picks excepts from Bush's speeches and then makes the claim that Bush's speeches are "bashing of everything and anything." Someone could do the same for Alvaro Uribe. Even more plausibly, someone could do the same for (say) Boris Yeltsin, a populist known for his fiery speeches like Chavez, but one of the right. Regarldless of the politics, this is simply sloppy research. 172 08:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're a cock and a lazy reverter, and I want to have nothing to do with you and your POV pushing (here and in the Fidel Castro page). Edit whatever the fuck you want, but unless it's neutral, the NPOV tag stays. Kapil 16:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Your idea of "neutral" is not in accordance with the NPOV policy. If you want to emplace that tag on the page, please give a list of problems, showing how they are in conflict with the policy. "We don't slag off Chavez enough" won't do and neither will "his speeches bash everyone". All politicians bash those they see as their enemies. We don't fill our articles with commonplaces. We try to educate the reader, not bore him or her with ranting. Okay? Grace Note 05:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|left|30px]] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, . Please.  Also, please distinguish between contributors.  I commented on your contributions and you blamed me for reverting them, which I never did.  DanKeshet 16:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Kapil, I am not the one who is "POV pushing." I have merely been pointing out sloppy research, and you have failed to provide a reasoned counterargument. (Sorry-- cursing at me and calling me a "cock" does not cut it.) 172 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

100,000 rifles
I have added a section on the military under Chavez. I did it pretty quickly, because I figured I was going to get in an edit conflict. I included a mention that the Venezuelan military has diversified its sources of weaponry, buying from Brazil, Russia, Spain, etc. It might not be a bad idea to include what they actually bought from each country; we probably have articles on each of the weapons and transports.

Regarding the criticism of their purchases (both those from Brazil and Russia), I have included them here but they might be better off in a new Venezuelan-United States relations article, where it could get into greater detail about all the back-and-forth over the purchases, over the F-16 parts, the "democracy initiative" at the OAS, etc.

DanKeshet 18:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. You might've done it quickly, but I cannot find any problems. 172 18:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality
Don't have the time to pretend to be disquieted by left-wing peons such as yourself, Grace Note, so I'm just gonna paste the simple list I wrote off the top of my head for 172: I have downloaded two Chávez speeches (available through www.aporrea.org, search for it yourself) as well as a one hour video of his 23 January speech. In merely three speeches, as well as many articles available all over the place (mostly from BBC news and El Tiempo newspaper, as well as the Granma newspaper, CNN and Aporrea but also Indymedia) he: 1) Calls Condoleeza Rice "Condolencia Rice" and says she is in love with him

2) Dares Bush to a bet, as to who will last longer at the presidency "Bush in the White House, or Hugo Chávez in Venezuela"

3) Refers to the cuban refugee community in Miami as a "terrorist mafia"

4) Says he won't return to the US until its people free themselves from the US government

5) Hints at the possibility of becoming a guerrilla if Venezuela were invaded

6) Says he wants to start a nuclear program

7) Purchases 100,000 rifles identical to the ones used by the FARC, for a 30,000 strong army

8) Boasts about his personal friendship to Robert Mugabe

9) Makes incessant rambling about the "oligarchy" in his country

Etc, etc That these facts aren't included (which hint at his destabilizing activities and alarming governance style, which would make almost any leader in the world a pariah automatically) is a breach of neutrality. That you don't agree with me matters as much as a pile of sawdust. Kapil 05:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So it boils down to his making speeches you don't approve of. Please find some verifiable commentary on his speeches. Until you do, I'm going to be removing the tag at every opportunity, since it represents nothing more than your personal opinion of Chavez, and I call on other editors to do the same. Persisting in replacing the tag without substantiating it is not something that is likely to be considered as an act of good faith. Grace Note 05:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''The policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that it's possible to write an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view. The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. It is crucial that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased. This comprises one of the great merits of Wikipedia.'' There, that the claims of opponents of Chávez are not taken into consideration (including the fact that he's a FARC apologist, importing their same kinds of rifles and would break off relations with the US) represents a point of view which is not fairly represented in the article, therefore the article lacks neutrality. Euphemisms don't work either, I'm affraid. Kapil 05:32, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You've changed your tune, Kapil. Now you want the article not to feature his speeches but to be filled with your personal libels. I'll be back tomorrow to revert you again. Hopefully, editors with as little respect for your approach as I have will remove the tag, which once again you have placed without substantiating it as I asked. Grace Note 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This has been compared to the way the 'interim government', who tried to replace the president during their short-lived coup attempt, robbed the Miraflores safe before escaping the Presidential Palace. There's no proof the Miraflores safe was robbed by the interim government, and the use of quote marks for the word "interim government" is used with derision by Chávez supporters, not as a grammatical aid or whatever. I changed this to remove the quotes and explain that the robbery is merely a claim, but this was edited out by none other than 172. Objective my ass, you just happen to know how to gang up to make it seem as if you were a majority (what a surprise, you are communist). Oh yeah, I'll also revert, I have a legitimate claim and it won't go away. Kapil 05:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Kapil, "interim government" is put in quotations as a grammatical aid, since it makes reference to what coup plotters called the junta. Not including it in quotations would be tantamount, and as absurd as, calling, e.g., the August 1991 coup in the Soviet Union "State Emergency Committee." 172 06:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. An interim government is an interim government, as in, the government temporarily in place when the legitimate government isn't. "Interim government" states disbelief, mock or doubt that the entity involved can be considered an actual interim government. Kapil 06:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously arguing that Carmona, who didn't even get any decrees published in the official journal and was ejected within 48 hours, was in any meaningful sense head of a "government", interim or otherwise? "Interim government" in quotes is not an unreasonable description - suggest another if you think it's so terrible. Rd232 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Present sources, Kapil. Your opinion is worthless here. Are you just not getting that?Grace Note 06:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The Saddam Hussein picture. Why remove it? Because his speech at the MRT is more important, or the ALBA is more important? That's not fact, that's an opinion. Therefore, you have no right to remove the Saddam Hussein picture unless you're opining. Are you? Kapil 05:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * 172 has explained his reasons for removing that picture. I endorse them. Illustrating the article with photos of Chavez with leaders he often has dealings with is not just more appropriate but is also not inclined to push a POV. Grace Note 06:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is important that Chávez's desire to strengthen his country's international relations with pariah states and distance himself from the US and its allies be mentioned, and the fact he visited a dictator such as Saddam Hussein and approved of his government should be displayed in a picture. That's way more important than his endorsement of the ALBA, though to prevent opinion they should both be included. If you think otherwise, they should both be removed. But both pictures have equal merit. Kapil 06:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Strangely enough, Kapil is the only one expressing the procommunist sentiment. I replaced the picture featuring Khatami and the picture featuring Saddam (in other words meetings with noncommunist leaders) with a new picture featuring Hu and another new picture featuring Castro (both Communists). Kapil then claimed that I was removing pictures of Chavez's dealings with his fellow tyrants. Apparently he is implying that Communist Cuba and Communist China are not pariah states, and that their leaders are not so bad company after all. 172 06:22, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You are comparing China's pariah status with Saddam Hussein's. Weak, even for an 8th grade scholar. Kapil 06:25, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not. I'm just trying to reconstruct your reasoning, attempting to make sense out of the senseless... BTW, I've even been invited to debates to represent the side in favor of PNTR with China (against some labor reps, incidentally). But since I'm the Communist, that's no surprise, right? I would expect someone like you to know better than some pinko who fails to see the "butchers of Tiananmen" as pariahs. 172 07:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken if you are comparing China's pariah status to that of Saddam Hussein, even if they're similar in some way in their human rights record. Kapil 18:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Newsflash - Chavez hasn't gone round the world looking for pariah states to associate with (note absence of Burma, North Korea, etc). Associations with Iran, Iraq etc are primarily because of oil. Heard of OPEC? Venezuela's a member! China is simply a trade deal like the US does every day. Only with Castro (and other Latin leftwing leaders like Lula) is there any serious ideological and personal affinity. Get some perspective, kapil. Rd232 07:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Newsflash: http://www.neoliberalismo.com/Archivo-01/KIM.htm -> Read. Oh yeah, he wants that sweet, sweet North Korean oil. You get some perspective, Chávez is meeting with horrid dictators (from Lybians to Iranians, with the infamous "VeneIran" tractor factory (no oil there, is there?), to Saddam Hussein, to his kind words of encouragement to Kim Jong Il). Even if he's doing it for oil, it still makes him repudiable. If he isn't, all the more. Kapil 18:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oooh, a tractor factory - ye gods, is there no end to this man's madness?! But seriously, normal economic relations with various countries, and developing relationships with countries with similar interests (notably OPEC/oil) is hardly a crime. (And let's not forget US self-interest in relationships with Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan, to name just two.) More worrying is the procession of defence deals, including possibly missiles from North Korea. As for what Chavez associates (or even Chavez himself) said ten years ago, how relevant is that now? Most of the present British Cabinet were leftwing socialist/communist at one time; no danger of them being accused of that these days. Rd232 21:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * does it occur to you that perhaps at least some of Chavez's policies are wrongheaded and idiotic, without any rational basis except for general anti-Americanism? J. Parker Stone 20:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Enough of this. Chávez is aligning himself with dictators, for whatever reason, and whether this is benign or not is not a judgement call for us to make. That the US government is benevolent towards Saudi Arabia is something to be treated in the US page, not here. That Chávez has decided to shun the US in favor of questionable leaders such as Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein is something worthy of displaying in a picture, regardless of his motives (be them innocent or macabre). Unless you have some real objections, the Saddam Hussein picture should return. Kapil 21:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and out of 54 countries in Africa, he most closely aligns himself with Robert Mugabe, another hardcore dictator. Is this because of Mugabe's leverage in OPEC? Perchance because of Zimbabwe's close cultural roots with Venezuela? Pshaw, the facts speak for themselves, I'm not about to let all of you people ignore them for the sake of whatever the hell you're ignoring them for. Kapil 21:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's funny how whenever you're in a discussion with left wingers, they always, always tend to think you're an unconditional US supporter and compare everything you say with everything the US does. Kapil 21:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I neither said nor implied that you supported anything - just that it's unreasonable to make a big issue over something (making deals with dictators) which however unsavoury is relatively normal. It should be mentioned, but in proportion to its importance in policy (or events), not in proportion to how objectionable people think it is. Rd232 10:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been loathe to get involved in a dispute over images, because it just seems so pointless when there's so much content left to be written. But when you say "Chavez is aligning himself with dictators" and therefore argue that we should remove pictures of Chavez with Hu and Castro, you must realize how absurd this sounds! DanKeshet 07:22, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Unless Kapil (and the mysterious anon editor, assuming that isn't him) provide reasons for the NPOV tag, or propose changes to make the article neutral, I will remove the tag in a few days. The tag is meant to indicate "work in progress on the POV issue", but that's not really happening now, and can't until Kapil responds with his precise concerns as they relate to an encyclopedia article. Rd232 20:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already stated the reasons, the article looks too seriously at Hugo Chávez and doesn't mention his constant charades and lashings-out at international figures, his fiery rhetoric is just merely mentioned and some worrying facts are just barely mentioned (for example, the nuclear thing). And don't assume I was the mysterious anon editor, I'm not assuming you're a delinquent therefore you shouldn't assume that from me. Kapil 21:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And the tag is meant to say "this article's neutrality is disputed', as it's stated by the tag itself. That work isn't being done to correct this is irrelevant, as these people seriously consider the article to be encyclopedic content when many, many equally important facts are simply omitted, thus the information presented is mostly of pro-Chávez sources. Hardly neutral. Kapil 21:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not good enough. You need to be more specific about criticisms, or propose revisions. Otherwise the NPOV tag will eventually be removed regardless. Rd232 07:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, there are specific criticisms all over the place. Read. Kapil 19:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "All over the place" is right. We need a list of concrete things that need fixing that we can then work through. Either that, or just make the edits you think necessary (maybe proposing them here first if likely to be controversial). The NPOV tag means something is broken. Let's try and fix it. Rd232 20:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chavez's speeches
I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the areas that Kapil has pointed out. For example, I think it would be very POV to just say that Chavez "rambles endlessly"; but certainly, there's room for mentioning "Alo Presidente", is there not? DanKeshet 07:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, but briefly, not giving room for people to come along with reviews of random speeches based on their personal opinions, in the same manner that, e.g., Encarta does in their entry on Chavez. 172 07:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * You do agree that mention is necessary. That's the basis of my dispute, there's not even mention of this kind of behaviour in the Hugo Chávez article. Kapil 07:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you put half as much energy into drafting well-sourced NPOV sections on these issues as arguing about them, we'd have made a lot more progress. Rd232 10:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We really should, I think, separate off a Chavez administration article to focus on policy. Chavez should be more about the man, with his doings in government summarised. Rd232 10:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * So, would "Chavez administration" focus on the section we call "Policy under Chavez" or would it include the chronology of his presidency as well? DanKeshet 17:42, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Chronology as well. The aim would be distinguish more between the man and the government. Rd232 20:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But the man is essentially the face of the government -- otherwise we wouldn't be calling his followers Chavistas... I see no problem attributing Chavez policy to Chavez. J. Parker Stone 20:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of attribution, it's a question of managing the content, which increasingly grows too much for one article. And however great the role of Chavez in setting policy, there is still a distinction between the government and the man who leads it. Having so much about the government in this article obscures the man, which is the actual subject of the article. Rd232 20:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To emphasise, I did say that the government stuff should be summarised here - and maybe focus more on his personal role in it. Also more personal background and philosophy and personality etc. It's supposed to be a biographical entry! Rd232 20:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * In some instances this would also make for more natural linking (to Chavez administration) from places like Venezuela, and reduce the risk of duplicating content because most of it is in a not-quite-logical place. Rd232 20:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm for it, but think we should add some more content to this page first. Specifically, a section on his &quot;political style", including the fact that many people have called him "charming" and many others "vulgar".  The article is not unmanageably long right now. DanKeshet 21:31, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * but mainly due to the fact that he ended the long-running understanding between the US and previous Venezuelan governments to sell them oil very cheaply in exchange for their support - Is this at all serious content? Can we be expected to believe someone's opinion that the US is irked at Chávez for selling their oil at high prices, moreso than his fiery rhetoric, close personal friendship with Fidel Castro and other dictators (Robert Mugabe? Ever heard of him? Ever heard Chávez calling him his brother? Does this have anything to do with OPEC prices and shit?) and covert support of guerrilla groups and "revolutionary" entities? It's laughable to believe this article is NPOV, though if it's really necessary I'll go through the entire article listing phrases that are downright pro-Chávez, though a far more serious matter is the exclusion of some of the more worrying facets of Chávez, which are harder to summarize quickly. Kapil 21:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Economic policy: I included it, someone removed it. Can't it be mentioned that for all years in the Chávez presidency (excluding 2004), the economy was so erratically handled as to decline enormously and pitting the country in the biggest crisis it has ever had? No need to mention that? The gigantic growth in 2004 was not really 'growth' when examining the economy as a whole on a year-by-year basis, as the economic contraction was about 20% of GDP in the first four years of his presidency. What about he United States has consistently opposed Chávez, though constitutionally elected, recognizing the Carmona government during the 2002 coup, calling Chávez a "negative force" in the region, and requesting support from Venezuela's neighbors in isolating Chávez.? The way the article is written, when presenting most opposition claims, includes a small "correction" phrase which is pro-Chávez, in most the same way biased media always does. It's as if this article was written by the editor of the Granma. Kapil 21:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed the pro-Chavez correction from that sentence; I agree with you 100% that it was biased and it had bothered me for a while. Re: the Economic policy and economic statistics, this is covered in some detail in the talk page.  We can add more about the economic outcomes, but we have to include all narratives that explain the reasons for the different economic indicators, plus I think it's important to include the social indicators as well.


 * I can assure that all of your fellow editors are human beings, not orangutans, and that you should treat them with the respect accorded to human beings. Insults and personal attacks, as you have been reminded above, do not help us edit the article.  Please continue to find specific bias in the article.  It is really necessary.  It helps to improve the article, and you may be surprised to find the number of people who agree with you on specific points. DanKeshet 21:42, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just irked because I added it as a stub to be expanded, and someone lazy reverted and removed it for no reason. I apologise to whomever it was. Kapil 21:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * An example of the "add a line in the explanation as a biased correction" bias: Carlos Ortega (who was not present at Pedro Carmona's inauguration but greeted him the next morning at the Palace). Yes, this is a fact, but its inclusion in that phrase is unnecessary and serves only to discredit Carlos Ortega. His meeting Pedro Carmona at the palace should be mentioned, of course, but elsewhere in the article. Kapil 21:54, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at the following:. Now, of course, many of these claims are dubious and not true. But many of them are also true, which I can attest to because I saw the news originally from a variety of sources. Not one of these claims (pretty popular claims too, some of them) is presented in the Chávez page. Kapil 02:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Before complaining about the Pro-Chavez sources, Kapil, maybe you should find your info somewhere else than www.neoliberalismo.com.

Besides, what's wrong with the nuclear thing? The US, Russia, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Iran, maybe North Korea, all have nuclear power, why shouldn't Venezuela?


 * I'm new here, and found this article by mere curiosity, as DanKeshet as stated, Chávez is a very interesting character, and a very hard one to be NPOV about. I would like to contribute to making this article NPOV, as in my opinion it is biased at present time. I'll start with a a couple of points, though I won't go into all the details right now (due to lack of time):


 * Personal Style: This is just a quote from IMHO an obscure journalist, that seems to be rather out of place. It is a significant ommission to say that Chávez's speeches are not like Castro's in style and not to mention that they are very similar in length. Then the "people like it" statement at the end: I'm sure a lot of people do, but also there is other people out there who strongly dislike it precisely for its lack of formality and diplomacy. If this quote is to be in, it should be expanded, perhaps also bringin into it the Aló Presidente and his customary verbal attacks on his adversaries. Kapil has mentioned a few, and as soon as I learn how to make quotes I'll bring a few more, if necessary.
 * Strike/Lockout: There are two problems here.
 * 1) The statement: Nevertheless, Chávez, PDVSA's CEO Alí Rodríguez, and Minister of Mines Rafael Rodríguez have repeatedly expressed that the ruling will not be enforced. Makes it sound rather like a rather softer situation than the fact that none of these workers were allowed to return to work, or to join other oil companies. In my view it needs to be rephrased. Also there is no mention of the well reported incidents to do with those who lived in company accomodation camps and were kicked out overnight, and whose kids were forcibly removed from PDVSA funded schools. This is a rather significant ommission of a fact.
 * 2) The statement This has been compared to the way the 'interim government', who tried to replace the president during their short-lived coup attempt, robbed the Miraflores safe before escaping the Presidential Palace. Who has made this comparison? Why isn't there a quotation here? This is the first time I ever here of the interim government having robbed the Miraflores safe before escaping the Presidential Palace. Was this reported in any respectable media? I was glued to all sources of information at the time, and I do not even remember the government's media sources making such claims and allegations. It would be best simply to remove this statement, if it cannot be backed.
 * The external links: all go to pro-Chávez sites. May be a link to someone claiming to be impartial such as http://www.vheadline.com/main.asp or perhaps some opponents as well would make it fairer.
 * Jesús 10:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Guardian and The Nation are not "pro Chavez sites", though generally they probably are pro-Chavez. The five blogs now linked (after my edit just now) are all anti-Chavez. I've added Vheadline. Rd232 11:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Granted they are not, though their articles do generally have a pro-chavez bias. It is not about making them all pro or against, but rather to have a balance. Ideally have a couple of extreme pro and against, and if possible also find some more balanced ones.
 * Jesús 14:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

FARC
If there's proof that Chávez has supported FARC, please post it here. [Colombia has repeatedly, if not entirely consistently, denied such an allegation. Otherwise, we could say that the U.S. has repeatedly accused Venezuela under Chávez of aiding FARC (this could be a good place to mention the 100,000 rifles). [[User:DanKeshet|DanKeshet]] 02:55, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * And I've done so, in international relations. DanKeshet 03:47, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Colombia under the previous administration accused Chávez of harboring the FARC. Álvaro Uribe hasn't mentioned it, but people in his administration have, and the Colombian Congress have been very busy with a foreign agenda of their own, constantly accusing Chávez of it. But even if it's not true, there's no mention of it in the Chávez article (the claims that he harbored FARC terrorists). Kapil 04:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that this would fit under international relations. Please be specific.  Don't say: "Chavez harbored FARC", or "Colombia accused Chavez of harboring FARC", but rather name the people in Uribe's administration or in the Congress who have accused Ven. of such, and include citations where possible.  Note that I can't help you find these citations, as my Spanish is pretty much good enough to read documents, but not good enough to do complicated things like search and evaluating snippets of documents to see if they're relevant.

Also, the phrase I removed said Chavez's support for FARC was a reason for strained U.S.-Venezuelan relations. It needed an "alleged" in there. I have already changed it to say that the U.S. has implied (at times, stated directly) that Chavez is supporting FARC. DanKeshet 15:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * My view on the matter is that, as of yet, there appears to be little to no outright proof that Chavez or his government (as a whole) are intentionally aiding the FARC & co, thus such a claim is mostly baseless, when made along those lines. In fact, Venezuela has actually provided some useful aid in fighting FARC et al, though not as much as some would want. However, there have been multiple instances of individual Venezuelans either passively or actively aiding FARC, ELN and AUC members, something which does cause problems and does deserve to be mentioned (just as several Colombia-related Wikipedia articles mention that a number of Colombians have also aided those parties). To mention some recent examples:
 * ,.
 * Juancarlos2004 02:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chavez administration split
The more work that is done on this article, the more it begins to become "Venezuela under Chavez". This creates issues of duplication (eg specifics about the importance of oil to Venezuela, which is in Venezuela article) and parent/daughter structure with the Venezuela article. Rd232 10:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I'd say give it a day or so and if nobody objects, go ahead and split it. DanKeshet 15:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

the man is closely identified with Venezuelan govt. politics since '99 (or whenever it was he was elected.) i see a split as unnecessary. J. Parker Stone 22:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a question of structure, Trey, as well as of emphasis. Splitting would make for a more natural structure in relation to Venezuela etc, and allow a greater focus on the man in this article. Yes, he's the key driver of the government, but splitting would encourage more focus on his background, motivations, political style etc - a usefully different/complementary approach to the policy/chronology stuff. (You'd think Kapil would support the split on these grounds, but he hasn't said anything either way, I think.) Rd232 22:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I support it. Kapil 00:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Trey, when you say that you think it's unnecessary, do you oppose it or are you indifferent? DanKeshet


 * pretty much oppose, but if you guys're gonna do it i don't mind too much. J. Parker Stone 20:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

economic policy
This question is meant mostly for Kapil, as he brought it up, but others feel free to chime in: what do you want for an "economic policy" section? I bring it up because some of the things brought up earlier (economic indicators like unemployment, GDP, etc.) would seem better in a section on their own, entirely outside of the "policy" section, in the new Chávez administration article. There, they can be given the multi-narrative treatment. Things that I think might be appropriate for an "economic policy" section include capital export controls, minimum wage, attempts to use some of the currency reserves, etc. But really, virtually the entire "policy" section could fit under an "economic" header: many of the social policies (land reform, state-subsidized food and health care, oil hawkishness, oil taxes) could be classified as economic policies. DanKeshet 14:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's really enough for an independent Economic policy section: Protectionism, currency controls, vast minimum wage increases, state intervention in the economy, etc. That and the erratic mismanagement of the economy and PDVSA, are enough to create a full subsection. They also belong in their own section, as they're economic policies. Kapil 20:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal style
The section titled "Personal Style" really odd - does this belong in an encyclopedia entry? Also, Eric, TDC, and all the others who bring up concerns here, these are all good points. The article has some good key information, but the layout is rather poor. Perhaps we should mark it to be reviewed/Wikified? ZanturaeonZanturaeon


 * I'd added the quote as a means to kick off a section that discussion had indicated was needed. I rather thought it would develop quite quickly - but, er, it hasn't. (The recent software upgrade (lockouts) may be a factor here.) Rd232 28 June 2005 22:02 (UTC)
 * BeefCake removed the one-quote draft personal style section (diff). Fair enough. Anyone want to develop it properly? Rd232 19:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll try to have a go at it over the weekend. It'll be hard one to write being NPOV, but hten again, so is a lot of this article. :Jesús 05:10, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, take note that I added a bit about his "personal style" under "Media", when mentioning Alo Presidente. I don't know how this could tie in to the other "personal style" section, but I'm anxious to see what you come up with. DanKeshet 05:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

changes from anon. IPs
Down the line:


 * The number of people killed in the first coup (by Chavez): the linked BBC article says 18. If you have a source that says 200, bring it here and let's get to the bottom.  Just randomly changing the number when the first is sourced doesn't work.
 * "Despite this and a huge oil windfall, the average Venezuelan is worse off today than when Chavez took over." This is a hugely subjective judgment.  If you want something included, use facts that people can't argue over: health statistics, literacy rates, income figures, etc.
 * "Moreover, the military play too big a role in the running of the country." Says who? "too big" is a judgment.  If you want to talk about the role of the military in running the country, why not discuss it in an NPOV way down in the policy section?  But it's not "the military plays too big a role", but rather "the role of the military has grown and changed."
 * "He backed a second failed coup attempt in November 1992.". Were there two failed coup attempts in 11/92?  Because there's a bit about this attempt in the sentence right above it.
 * business strike vs. general strike. It was definitely not a general strike, as the numerous reports from Chavista neighborhoods showed.  I actually think work stoppage would be the most NPOV way to describe what happened.  It was a cross between a strike and a lockout.
 * "despite the fact that no vote counting and audits were made..." The Carter Center did extensive checks into the accuracy of the election. If you don't agree with their methods, that's fine, but they certified it according to their own normal process so "despite" doesn't apply.
 * "No formal investigations..." The Carter Center investigated the charges, formally. If you don't think the investigation was good, fine.  But it was an investigation.

There were some more questionable changes (and a couple good changes), but I can only do so much right now. DanKeshet 03:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)