Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolivarian propaganda (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Consensus appears to be that the subject is real and notable. Issues with the precise content, and title, of the article are beyond the scope of AfD (which is not for cleanup) and should be discussed at the article talk page. The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Bolivarian propaganda
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability (term "Bolivarian propaganda" or any related term has never been used in a reliable source), almost full article is unfixable violation of WP:OR (particularly WP:SYNTH), systematically biased and intended as a page attacking the subject. There is nothing which can be actually referenced for this topic without constituting a violation of the aforementioned policies. There are no equivalent articles for any other contemporary political movement except in extreme cases such as Nazi propaganda, and there is no reason for there to be about this one, any more than for any other. Zozs (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be kept as it is an important piece of Chavez's story. There is a substantial amount of reliable sources saying that there is obvious propaganda being use to promote his ideologies. I doubt that The New York Times, BBC, The Boston Globe and CATO Institute can not be reliable.'''

The article has not changed much since it was decided to KEEP back in April 2012. It was a unanimous decision. Until my recent edits involving education and some pictures added, there was no discussion about deleting this article. In fact, there were only 10 edits since the decision and when I began editing the article. This article should not be deleted.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The labeling of something as 'propaganda' (rather than as 'normal' expressions of support for an ideology, certain political views)--except in notable cases (Nazi Propaganda, Propaganda in the Soviet Union, etc.)--reflects a clear subjective judgement (negative POV). Thus this article could only refer to opinions/allegations, or to media campaigns (by political parties, the government, supporters, etc) not traditionally labeled 'propaganda'. This same material would be better suited (and, in some cases, is already covered) within existing articles. For example, there already exists multiple articles on the ideology associated with the 'Bolivarian' movement (Bolivarianism, the Bolivarian Revolution, Chavismo, Socialism of the 21st Century, etc.). There also exist innumerable articles on the politics of this movement, and countless articles on Venezuelan media and popular culture (Media of Venezuela, Censorship_in_Venezuela, Community and alternative media in Venezuela, Media representation of Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan art, Television in Venezuela, Culture of Venezuela, Aló Presidente, 'popular culture' sections of Hugo Chavez, etc. as well as articles for each of the Bolivarian Missions, for each of the 15 elections held since 1998, etc.).--Riothero (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "Bolivarian propaganda" has been used before.


 * Here are a few uses:


 * To get an idea of the importance of Bolivarian propaganda as a source of alternative political education one can use the testimony of Hugo Chavez himself - Manuel Anselmi


 * After the meeting, Chavez and the Bolivarian propaganda machine spun the meeting as a new high in Venezuelan church-state relations. - B. WELLS/GENNATIEMPO EMAIL 05/19/06


 * The primary purpose of the so-called "ALBA houses" established within Peru during the last year is to spread Bolivarian propaganda via programs like the Venezuelan "Miracle Mission" that provides eye surgeries to poor Peruvians. - Embassy Lima (Peru)


 * The example of Puno suggests Bolivarian propaganda carries little weight for dissatisfied citizens seeking tangible benefits from local governments. - Embassy Lima

If anything, the page should have a lot more contributions (preferably more neutral) in order to save it.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still does not justify its uses, and that's 4 random sources. In the WikiLeaks source, "Bolivarian propaganda" is just a term someone used in some leaked e-mail. Elcomercio.pe is also just displaying some leaked e-mail. And that "cable gate" is just some leaked confidential document. This term is not used in publications, it is not used by the media, it is used nowhere, because it simply does not exist, as Riothero argued. A pro-Chavez campaign exists, but just the same as a pro-Obama campaign exists, which has an article which is nothing like this article, which definitely cannot be fixed. Zozs (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the nomination should have made clear what the nominator thinks has changed since the last AfD, rather than just posting a new AfD with the same reasons. Use of the term is not widespread in the secondary literature but it's there.  The article itself is well-sourced and the complaint seems really to be about POV concerns.  I think the solution there is to add further information to present a balanced, neutral POV, not delete the article.   GoldenRing (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but exactly how are you refuting any point? You're just saying "I don't understand the deletion request". That's fine, if you don't then just don't post here. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If you cared to read beyond the first few words of what I said, then you would have found that use of the term is not widespread in the secondary literature but it's there. The article itself is well-sourced.  You're not listening and it's verging on disruption.  GoldenRing (talk) 09:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Disruption? Anybody can accuse someone else of disruption. Another cheap cop-out and non-argument. If there's anyone here who isn't listening or failing to get the point it's you. Yes, the article is well-sourced, that's something I acknowledged from the start, do you even read? "It's there"? No, the term "Bolivarian propaganda" or any similar terms do not actually exist in any research, publication, or whatever. Like others said the subject cannot be truly called notable, the article is just made from connecting up sources. Zozs (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The article was just agreed to be kept a few edits prior to this second nomination for deletion. Substantial changes were made during the first nomination and more can be made.--Zfigueroa (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Just because the first AfD didn't deal with the actual issues of the page doesn't make the page good. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: Unlike other countries, Venezuela has long crossed the treshold between mere political campaign and outright propaganda. See Propaganda: Ad hominem, ad nauseam, appeal to authority, appeal to fear, appeal to prejudice, bandwagon, inevitable victory, join the crowd, the lie, blac-and-white fallacy, selective truth, common man, cult of personality, demonizing the enemy, disinformation... if we go though the whole list, we'll find that the Chavista regime uses the vast majority of propaganda techniques. And so, call a spade a spade. Nobody ever said that propaganda was something that can only be found in nazi germany or in soviet russia. After all, in other countries you watch Big Brother, but in Chavista Venezuela, Big Brother watches you! Cambalachero (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So what? That is only your irrelevant opinion. You're not understanding the issue at hand that is that the only article this article can exist is through violations of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and notability guidelines. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact, that you people must understand, is that while there may be "institutionalized propaganda", in your opinion, there is no study, research, or publication which systematically deals with this "propaganda" (which a non-biased user may simply call a normal political campaign), other than passing mentions of "propaganda" in news items about Venezuela. The article, no matter how well sourced it is, is simply a massive violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Additionally, the article takes the form of an article attacking the Chavista political campaign. The article contains random criticisms of the government which have only a very weak relationship of the topic and copypastes of random lines from articles criticising the government, which are used in an original research WP:SYNTH manner to say whoever made the Wikipedia article wants to say. Zozs (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are not many researchs or books about the Chavista regime because, unlike nazi germany or soviet russia, it is still a modern government, still located in the newspapers rather than in the history books. It is still ongoing, and we do not know yet how will it end and what will come after it. Historians always prefer to work with historical periods wich are finished, so that their work do not get outdated in a few months. But, as Wikipedia is not printed, it does not have the same problem. It is acceptable to work with modern things that most historians do not work with just yet, and reliable newspapers are accepted as sources even if the subject lacks actual academic studies. Cambalachero (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure it is, the problem is that there are not many newspaper articles which have really focused on this, rather this article just references random lines (violation of WP:SYNTH) from articles about Venezuela which are somewhat related to the topic. Original research is not allowed in Wikipedia. I suggest that you view the article, review Wikipedia policies once again, and re-consider your decision. Additionally, the notability of the subject matter itself is not established, as said by others. Zozs (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete: Delete for the reasons laid out by Zozs. The article is mainly a collection of loosely related snippets of information, most of which could probably be more effectively integrated into other articles (the education section into Education in Venezuela, for example.) The title term is obscure, and although the article has a decent number of sources, the sources fail to establish the notability of the title subject. --4idaho (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: First of all I wish to highlight the WP:N of the article: There is no doubt that Chávez and his successor Maduro governments have marked a significant period in Venezuelan history. Chávez has created a great popular support, especially from the lower class persons, and most of this support was created by the way president Chávez communicated his charisma and used the media to his advantage. I consider that the article has good content but also a WP:POV issue, which can be solved with further editing and contribution, not a WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation which seems to have been talked about in the previous discussion: if the WP:POV is a problem more references should be included to turn the article more neutral. For example, its introduction could be more descriptive, and the other sections could explain the ideology of the propaganda or the ways it is featured. For example, the first paragraph of the background section currently explains the Bolivarian Revolution concept, but then criticizes the government through several sources, while it could explain more about the effects of the Bolivarian Revolution in the Venezuelan ideology. The term "propaganda" can usually be misinterpreted to have a negative connotation and as a synonym, for example, of "indoctrination". If the title of the article is the problem it should be renamed with a more appropriate title, and if there's information that would be better in another article some of its content could be merged with them. I don't know if some things that I said would be better in the article's talk page, but this is my opinion. The article should not be deleted, and the article's most notable contributor, SandyGeorgia, should be informed about the deletion request. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not explained how the subject matter is notable in its own right and not by extension (although Chavez is), the only thing which could grant it "notability" is the random mention of "propaganda" in a few articles about Venezuela. Additionally, you have not explained how it is not an OR or SYNTH violation. And there is systematical POV because of the nature of the article. Zozs (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In short I'd say that the most important aspect of the article is the effect of the ideology in the people and not the propaganda itself. However, as I mentioned before, the methods of how the propaganda is featured could be described (billboards, wall paintings, toys, books, etc.). I also consider is not an OR or SYNTH because the content of the article can be sourced properly while fixing the POV issue. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any research, source or article on "the effect on the people"? Is there any research on the "propaganda"? How would you source, in such a manner that it is not "SYNTH"? It is my opinion that this is impossible. Zozs (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The effect on the people I'm referring to is mostly that of the Bolivarian ideology and Chávez presidency, which can be expressed in the huge support he received, the demonstrations in favor of his government and, giving an example of a research, poll regarding their opinion towards Chávez. The ways of expressing the propaganda can be cited referencing the political campaigns carried out (during an electoral period, for example) or urban paintings supporting Chávez or being against the United States government, like the one that is shown in the article. If I happen to find this kind of "propaganda" or paintings I would be glad to take pictures of them. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * So basically, there is no research about that "propaganda" and this can be done only through original research. Articles about the political campaigns can exist, but this article is just a mess and intended as an attack. There is nothing into it which is worth saving. Zozs (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The detail is explaining exactly what do you mean with "propaganda". Putting the political campaigns apart and thinking about what the article says, "messages and pictures used to influence the behaviors and opinions of the Venezuelan people and promote Hugo Chávez's version of a 21st-century Bolivarian Revolution", then we would be facing the political bias dilemma. The most recent expression of this "Bolivarian Propaganda" would be the resolution 58 and the new government curriculum, which has been accused of several times to be politically biased due to its content, and could be named as a propaganda precisely for being messages that can change the subject's opinion. I think that the article can reach a neutral point of view by not seeing this messages or pictures under a negative light, but as an effort to gain support from citizens, just like in a political campaign the candidates are looking for people to vote for them. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, making a "Bolivarian propaganda" article based on using bits from here and there would constitute original research, which is a point that you are not refuting. The resolution 58 information fits on the Education in Venezuela article. Zozs (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I still consider that these messages and pictures still fall into the term of "propaganda" because of their influence (or their attempt) towards individuals. Chávez has been a very influential person, to the point that some persons even consider him now as a saint, and during his government there was (and still is) a lot of propaganda about him. Something as simple as a soda advertisement can be considered as propaganda because of the influence it has on people, and there's nothing wrong about it, it depends on the way you see it or it is expressed, and that is part of the POV issue. At least that's the way I see it and why I think this article shouldn't be deleted. I think it could be renamed, merged or cleaned up, but not everything in it is an attack on the government. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (Apropósito, si quieres podemos hablar en español cuando la situación lo permita en vista de que es el idioma natal de ambos.) --Jamez42 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Original research, original research, original research. Not only is everything you are mentioning original research, you are ignoring the fact that the problem of this article is that nearly 100% of content is original research. I prefer to talk in English so that everyone can understand, as this is a public discussion. Zozs (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The issues that the article has can still be fixed, and that's why I'm voting for it to be that way. The political campaigns, the education, the paintings, they all can be included in this article to talk about a common subject. I rather to speak in English during this conversation meanwhile, I'm just suggesting it for any other time. --Jamez42 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: While I believe the main problem with this article is the WP:POV, which is too obviously biased too ignore - yet that doesn't mean it needs to be removed, it just needs to be worked. I this the issue at hand is an important part of the Venezuelan society, and as such, shouldn't be ignored. It just needs to be better sourced and have some instances rewritten so that it doesn't violate the WP:SYNTH and have a neutral point of view. --yeah_93 (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So I just did a search of Wikipedia articles with "propaganda" in the title. These are the instances when it referred to a state (click "show"):

As you can see this kind of article (this is a KIND of article, it is not only the fact that the word "propaganda" is used in the title, it is the whole type of article which this is part of) is used only with extreme cases like the propaganda of a single-party state and only when there is well available documentation and research on the subject, NOT like this article, which is just arbitrary bits from news articles used as a reference to produce an article which fits the author's opinion. You people need to understand that with the current state of available sources, it is impossible to do an article like this without violating original research guidelines. It is not only that it is currently violating original research policy, it is that it simply cannot exist until any research or documentation becomes available on this topic. Zozs (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Single-party state as in being the most dominate party in a nation for almost two decades? I mean Chavez's party in Venezuela has changed names but they've always remained loyal to Chavez for 15 years now. That is the same amount of time that the Nazi party was becoming the most dominant party in Germany (1930-1945). So it is not too far fetched to call Venezuela a single-party state. But that is just my opinion Zozs. Just like it is your opinion for wanting to delete this article.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Single-party state is obviously a state where all other parties are inexistent, because it is a dictatorship. The thing is that most of you saying "Keep" are not making any arguments, just displaying your biased point of view. "Chavez is evil", "Chavez is evil", "Chavez is evil". That's all the arguments you guys have for "Keeping" this. Now you're comparing Venezuela to Nazi Germany. The thing is that everyone is free to post his opinion there, but he must make it from arguments which relate to Wikipedia policy, not from one's own personal view of the subject, which is what all the "keepers" are doing here. Zozs (talk) 13:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Zos, you brought the nazis into the discussion yourself, in the opening of this discussion. No, there is no point of comparison between Chavismo and Nazism as a whole, because Chavismo is not attempting or calling for any Holocaust, and thus does not deserve the universal rejection that Nazism deserves. Having said that, Zfigueroa's point is not about that: it's that, if we seek international well known examples of governments attempting a similar type of government, limiting civic freedoms and using all media to praise the glorious leader and say the most horrible things about the domestic or international opposition, then yes, nazism is one of the first examples that comes to mind. Cambalachero (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm not saying that anyone is evil. I am just saying there are similarities in some cases. I used my opinion just for the Nazi case too. Even what you provide Zozs is your opinion. But the major consensus here is that the article is a Keep and we just want to improve upon it. Of course there are some problems with the article, it is about a controversial subject and is still occurring at the moment. It isn't a situation that has been happening for long enough to have the extravagant research you demand Zozs. There are plenty of books out there about this topic and they just need to be used to improve upon this article. Also, most of the propaganda sources you provided have been long established for over 50 years. That gives people plenty of time to research what has happened in effected areas. Chavez's propaganda has primarily happened in the past decade and is still developing (as you can see from new content being placed in the article). We all know that Bolivarian propaganda does occur and not only in Venezuela. It has happened at a regional and international level. I have seen images in places like Cuba and Bolivia. The Wikileaks sources also explains how wherever Chavez went, his Bolivarian ideas followed.--Zfigueroa (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Both your latest posts are still only based on personal opinion. The thing is that you are free to give your opinion here, but it must be in regard to the article and Wikipedia policy. Your arguments are based on: "But the Venezuelan government is authoritarian!", which is merely a completely personal opinion, which does not belong in any AfD discussion. When I gave the example of "Nazi Propaganda", it was not any comparison of the Venezuelan and Nazi governments but simply discussion about how articles on the topic of "[x] Propaganda" are used on Wikipedia. You argued that Venezuela is a "single-party state" (personal opinion), and you guys argued that there is "much use of propaganda there", which is still just personal opinions and not backed by research. Zozs (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You are the one making such statements Zozs. No one ever called the government authoritarian or said Chavez is evil. None of us said that. What the majority of users here want is an improved article, yet YOU dispute each of their decisions. If you look at your edits on the article, you removed things YOU thought were not good even though most were properly sourced and you did not provide sources to back your edits. YOU are the one who also pasted dubious tags everywhere since according to YOUR opinion, you did not find certain things reliable. You need to realize that you are one of the most opinionated users commenting in this discussion. You have also reverted many of my edits before calling them "propaganda" when I was able to provide even more sources. All edits I made to any article were not my opinion but the research of the sources I used. I just want to make that clear. Again, I use only sources. So please stop accusing others of being opinionated.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that both of you are claiming that the article should be kept because "widespread propaganda in Venezuela exists", yet that is your personal opinion, as the subject matter has neither been proven to be notable nor backed by research acceptable by Wikipedia. If you brought that non-original research, then your argument would be actually valid, but that research is not coming. If such propaganda exists, then improve the article so that it is something other than a massive violation of WP:SYNTH with a bit from here of this news article, a bit from there of that news article to make it say exactly what the involved Wikipedia editors want it to say. Now, the current version of the article is only suitable for deletion. Zozs (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That is why the users here want to keep the article. This article hasn't been edited for almost 2 years since I began editing. Many things have changed in the past 2 years for Venezuela.--Zfigueroa (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence has been presented that the topic is notable, and there are no sources used in the article that specifically discuss the topic. In rhetorical speech, the word "propaganda" is frequently added to the name of any political group - Communist propaganda, Yankee propaganda, right-wing propaganda, feminist propaganda, etc.  We should not find every noun in the dictionary then apply every possible adjective and generate as many articles as possible.  TFD (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the term "Bolivarian propaganda" may return few hits, the Venezuelan propaganda phenom is notable; Bolivarian refers to the last few decades of Venezuelan history, during the Chavez/Maduro years, where the propaganda issues have differed from historical issues.   Notability for recent Venezuelan propaganda issues is not hard to establish;  have a look, for example, at what is going on in Venezuelan schools, where a Cuban curriculum is mandated.  "How Maduro is interfering in Venezuela’s schools ... However, their main concern is that the new regulation takes power away from parents and school authorities, and opens the door for political actors to use schools as places for propaganda. Experts agree, pointing to the slanted nature of some of the textbooks currently being distributed. They point, for example, to an illustrated copy of the constitution that is being sent to many schools in which Hugo Chávez himself is portrayed as a quasi-religious figure along with Simon Bolívar. The pictures show Chávez teaching children and Nicolás Maduro standing next to the actual text of the constitution ..."  There are many other examples ... the spin around the "coup" of 2002, the notion that the US was involved, etc.' and the article should be/could be expanded to cover more of them.  The now defunct Venezuela Information Office was a key part of the campaign in earlier years, and their are still other quasi-official mouthpieces for the government that could be covered.  What has happened in the movie industry is another example to be covered.  This is a question of using the best search terms and knowing where to look.  Is "Bolivarian" the best term to use in the article name?  Well, is it right to name the article "Venezuelan propaganda", when this phenom is occurring only since the "Bolivarian Revolution"?    Are there examples of Venezuelan propaganda pre-Chavez?   Or is it better to call the article "Venezuelan propaganda since 1998"?  Propaganda in Venezuela would not be an adequate title, as the campaign is international.  Venezuelan propaganda ?  Whatever the title is, the phenom occurring since the "Bolivarian revolution" is real and distinct.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your personal opinion not backed by sources. Some random opinion article on an unknown web news site saying Chavez is a "quasi-religious figure", yeah, that's a joke. You fail to establish the notability of the subject matter, and do not address the issue of the article being based on the whole on original research. Zozs (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears from reading the article, and the sources already there, that my "personal opinion" is backed by a large number of reliable sources. Renaming the article to Chavez/Maduro propaganda doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm open to other suggestions.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * These sources aren't research or publications on "Bolivarian propaganda". They're simply hand-picked publications which are not research about "Bolivarian propaganda" but simply contain criticism of the government, and are used to push original research and a POV. Zozs (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I read an article on The Huffington Post (definitely not an "unknown web news site") that describes that supposed issue. --yeah_93 (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per Godwin's law. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is Zozs' personal nomination for deletion
Zozs, it seems that you are the only one who continuously pushes to have this article deleted. You think your opinion is greater than 7 other users and refuse to take down the nomination for deletion. I know that some other users have asked for the deletion, but the majority has spoken and it has been a week now. Throughout this nomination page you have accused others of only using their opinion when the whole reason the article was nominated and is still being nominated is because of your personal opinion. This nomination is no longer due to Wikipedia's standards but due to Zozs' personal opinion and needs to be dealt with promptly.--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.