Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 24 and July 14, 2006.

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

Doublecheck wording and facts in Early life section

Chávez was born on July 28, 1954 ... attend high school at the Daniel Florencio O'Leary School, graduating with a science degree. [16] ... At age seventeen, [ ed note: that means 1971 ] Chávez enrolled at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences. After graduating in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with master's degrees in military science and engineering ...

We need to check the facts and terminology here, because the numbers don't add up. First, graduating with a science degree from high school is a bit misleading, because a high school diploma is referred to as a bachiller en ciencias. Can someone verify that this terminology just refers to a high school degree? Next, if he enrolled in the Academy at 71, how did he have two master's degrees in 4 years, when a typical Bachelor's degree in Venezuela is 5 years? The reference for this section appears to be this which says, "graduándose de Bachiller en Ciencias" and "Licenciado en Ciencias y Artes Militares, Mención Terrestre, Especialidad Comunicaciones, en la Academia Militar de Venezuela," so where do we get two Master's degrees out of that, and there is no mention of engineering, rather a specialty in communications and military arts?

Chávez was raised with his five siblings , but the reference above says he had 3 siblings: can someone clarify (stepsiblings, half siblings maybe?) ?

Methinks this whole article needs to be more thoroughly checked. Can anyone clarify? Sandy 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

An anon editor changed the son-in-law as being married to a different Chavez daughter, casting further doubt on the accuracy of this section. [1] Since it was an anon editor, we don't know the reason for the change. Does anyone have any references to double check the accuracy of this entire section? Sandy 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted the first query on this a week and a half ago. It would be spectacular if someone with access to resources in Venezuela could help resolve this. In the meantime, I reworded or deleted the suspect text. Sandy 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Updated ToDo and POV lists

The talk page has reached 210 KB, and some sections need to be archived. I'm consolidating items left on lists here, so that we can archive upper sections of the talk page.

For reference:

• Last December 10 (Featured article) version
• Last version of Saravask (editor who brought article to FA) 17 March
• Pre-revert version of June 10

To Do (left over from my list after the revert)

• The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
• Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999, Template:ChavezElections1998
  • Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added. Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ? I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box. Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG
• Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions. This includes (at minimum):
  • Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
  • Update foreign policy secttion 2004 – present
  • Update current events, for example, no mention of Caracas – LaGuaira autopista, no mention of North Korea
  • Update domestic, economy and statistics
    • Still need to address internal and external debt, inflation, devaluation, deterioration in health care, and failure to build enough housing, considering massive oil windfall
      • Housing shortages are mentioned. And if you're going to add all of those negative points, don't forget to include supporters' arguments. Writing for the enemy is essential in this case. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Housing shortages are mentioned, but can be better quantified with the data that shows that, in spite of the oil windfall, Chavez hasn't kept pace with previous admininstrations, which had less money to work with. I can "write for the enemy", but where am I to find data to support that case: pull it out of thin air or make it up? Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • What about Venalysis? There have to be some sources out there (in Spanish, at least) that provide a favourable view of Chavez. -- WGee 15:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • What about Venalysis? Does hypocrisy know any bounds? 141.153.75.69 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I've never once said that Venalysis is not biased. I've also never said that we should refrain from using Venalysis as a source to describe the supporters' POV. And rather than being a polemicist, why don't you do something more constructive, like tackle one of the ToDo lists? -- WGee 15:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm a bit busy. My participation in this article will be inherently limited. 141.153.75.69 15:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
                  • I've appreciated whatever help you've been able to give. I'm busy too, and will probably just tag the article POV and give up, if we don't start making faster progress. No Don Quixote complex here, and I enjoy working in a consensual environment, but don't want to work in an environment of nitpicking words and reverting, when there is still so much major work to be done. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
            • I guess it has to do with my bias towards hard data. I tend to look for concrete, quantitative data, rather than general and vague statements of support. And, then I apply a statistical and mathematical eye to the data (the unemployment chart is terribly misleading, for example, and doesn't explain the annual December dip at all). My question was, where am I to find the data? By that, I mean accurate, reliable, verifiable, and not distorted. Maybe you can pick one criticism, and show me what you can find, so I can follow suit? VenAnalysis is in English. Or, are you saying it's fine to just add vague statements like "supporters claim", which I tend to avoid? If that's what is wanted, I can find those in the more well-recognized English press, but IMO, without data, the bias still exists, and there is little data to support Chavez. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
              • But I give you hard data INE is the official source on most poll statistics (unemployment, poverty, etc) BCV for economic indicators (debt, GDP etc) We can use unofficial sources as well but the previous are quite reliable. Housing numbers failures do come from that same government too you know, as for comparing it to previous administrations it is apples and oranges since the government claims Caldera built shacks instead of houses.Flanker 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Any oil price related or OPEC issues which are outdated?
    • OPEC price hawking, Citgo issues, destruction of PDVSA, guerilla as head of PDVSA
  • Review omissions which create POV
  • Review vis-a-vis Saravask's last version, which had reduced article size.
• Since The Carmona Decree is linked, address POV still in that article.
  • Well I disagree it is the pinacle of POV :D, Sumate one is still leaking here or there.Flanker 18:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Also finish fixing Criticism and Bolivarian Missions, which are still unbalanced.
• Check *all* references for dead links, and continue with work of replacing "biased" sources with reliable, primary sources. This doesn't imply deleting of references.
• POV on speeches:
  • Do we need *seven* speeches by Chávez, balanced by *zero*?
    • That's not a NPOV violation; opponents' responses can and should be summarized. By including Chavez's speeches, the reader gets an idea of his style of rhetoric. And since this article is about revealing him, that's quite appropriate. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Review newer list of speeches on June 10 version, and decide which to keep.
  • Can anyone review the newer list, and see what we need to keep? Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Address imbalance in External Links.
• Improve picture in lead (172 said he would do it, hasn't)
• Freedom of speech issues not mentioned in article
  • Don't forget the supporters' arguments. And try to find sources that attribute the lack of press freedom directly to Chavez's policies (unlike the Amnesty International report, for instance, which fails to mention the cause of the lack of judicial independence). -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What fails to mention the causes is this Wiki article. There are volumes of reports and accounts of how Chavez consolidated power, eliminating all oversight (not just judicial). *This* article glosses over the entire subject. AI goes into the level of detail appropriate for their report: it's not their job to connect it to Chavez, just to point it out. Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not up to us to arbitrarily attribute the negative reports to certain policies. Thus, all reports in the article should mention a direct link to Chavez's policies. -- WGee 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, disagree. You changed some of my earlier edits to indicate there was no judicial oversight, but what you took out is that there is no oversight, period, and complete consolidation of power and elimination of separation of powers. The consolidation of power and elimination of oversight is what directly ties him to the negative reports. Sandy 17:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
          • That particular edit was made because the source didn't verify a complete consolidation of power. -- WGee 18:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Review early life, which appears to have some errors
  • If no one is going to do this (someone who has access to literature in Venezuela), we need to delete or tag the possibly inaccurate statements. Sandy 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Later (after we get article restored)?
  • Súmate and vote rigging to extend term from 5 to 14 years, electoral fraud, stacking of Supreme Court and consolidation of power not covered well (if at all)
    • Claims of electoral fraud are mentioned to an extent. The rest of the claims can be included if they're from reputable sources and balanced by supporters' claims. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Review Enano's concerns in foreign policy: Nothing about Lula da Silva, nothing about Evo Morales, nothing about his relationship with Iran nor Lybia, nothing about the 2005 parliamentary elections, nothing about the weapon selling prohibition, nothing about the currency control, the 2002-03 general strike information very incomplete.
  • Shorten (subject to consensus)
    • As part of this job, check all daughter articles, and see if summaries per Summary Style can be shortened.
  • Have we sufficiently addressed or summarized the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly anywhere?
  • Wikify all new text: lots of missing wiki links.

POVlist from SG

• Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
• Seven Chávez speeches, no balance (overall balance problem in External links?)
• After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because? By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
• No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes. No context for why abstention numbers are important.
• No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices. The entire section on the new constitution fails to explain how Chavez pulled it off, via extra-legal or extra-democratic means. Need to explain in plain language what was done.
• During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection. It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 14-year term (and now he's talking about even more).
• No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
  • That was in the article before, but since people failed to understand its significance, it was removed. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• On April 9, 2002, CTV leader Carlos Ortega called for a two-day general strike. There's an abrupt introduction: no mention at all of all that led up to it, or how Chavez was dismantling a state-run oil industry that was well-respected in the industry overall.
• Approximately 500,000 people took to the streets on April 11, 2002 They took to the streets for many days.
• No mention of problem with new "universities"
• In early and mid-2003, the Venezuelan opposition began the process of collecting the millions of signatures needed to activate the presidential recall provision provided for in the 1999 Constitution. No mention of grassroots, civilian, vounteer organization, Súmate -- just "the opposition". No mention of raids and need to secure the signatures, or "gerrymandering" of the 20% number needed to effect a recall. Wasn't there a prior requirement of 15%, that he also got changed to 20 ??? Anyone ??
• Media, it sounds like the so-called "opposition" controls the air waves. No mention of the government-owned channels, or the data showing that Chavez commandeered more cadenas than any president before him. POV, by completely glossing over the issue of his control of the media. Leaves out extent of government-owned media, reach, and influence, especially considering Chavez cadenas and hours-long diatribes on radio.
• although drawing heavily from Simón Bolívar's ideals, according to whom? He calls it that, but no case is made for there being any connection between Chavez and Bolivar's ideology or philosophy. Good marketing. Need to clarify his claim vs. reality.
  • That's a minor issue of semantics; it can be easily rectified. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No discussion of significant escalation of crime under Chávez, or how he has furthered social insecurity, class division and racial hatred. (ref name=PostCrime Reel, M. "Crime Brings Venezuelans Into Streets", Washington Post, (May 10, 2006), p. A17, Accessed 24 June 2006.)
  • Plently of mention of rising crime under Chavez, as claimed by The Economist. Class divisions can be explained by mentioning that the most vehement criticism of Chavez comes from the upper middle and upper classes, as Flanker was trying to do earlier. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Little discussion of deterioration of independence of the judiciary or separation of powers, very serious issues threatening Venezuela's democracy.
  • Independence of the judiciary is mentioned; we don't need a whole essay about it. The "serious issues threatening Venezuela's democracy" can be mentioned where appropriate in the article. But again, we don't need anti-Chavez essays. And if we're going to embed criticism in the article, why do we need a seperate Criticism article? -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Pictures unbalanced: earlier version had a mix of favorable and unfavorable portrayals and captions. When text update is completed, add pictures which are reflective of text.
  • I don't think the pictures give a favourable view of Chavez; they just depict him in various political situations. What unfavourable images are you thinking of, anyway? -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Images that portray events not favorable to him, including but not limited to his foreign policy gaffes. Sandy 13:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Disagree. The only one I think could be considered POV is the family one. The article for George W. Bush would never have any pictures like that, all the ones there are distinctly pro Bush, the ones here even are less "positive" then those - -- ×××jijin+machina | Chat Me!××× -- 16:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weapons buildup, drug trafficing center omitted
• No mention of Plaza Altamira military protest against Chavez, or the deaths there.
• Confrontation and disagreements with Catholic church not covered, in fact, the Personal life section is misleading by leaving it out.

POV list from Flanker

Well we cannot have one side and not the other:

• Most issues of Human rights are not put in context, AI, and HRW detail only critiscism (that is what they are for) but compared to other countries it is not that relevant aside from the accusation (even sweeden check it out. [2]) and I would not even mention Colombia and the US itself [3][4]
  • You argue for verifiability, not truth (I argue that it's better to aim for both :-) Your discussion of AI and HRW context belongs in their articles. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Context should be mentioned so as not to mislead readers into thinking that the right-wing and centre-left governments of Latin America maintain spot-on human rights records while leftist Chavez runs a Stalinist regime. So it's not necessarily a matter of truth, but a matter of NPOV policy. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• The economy was sabotaged for 2 years when the oposition was strongest, numbers need to reference the poverty hump for example: have a look.[5]
• Political prisoners report is vastly outdated, the only one of the list that is in jail is Carlos Ortega and that is because he returned to Venezuela and was using forged documents.
• Chavez's version of the 92 coup, even though I disagree with it it must be added for balance.
• The reason why the Sumate drive was being rejected (preemption of sorts for Sandy)
• The reason Sumate is being charged
• The recent threat on ending airwave frequency consessions is NOT shuting them down (think FCC) [6], I could find a translation of the comments made by Chavez, that said it is NOT policy it is empty habladera if we are to add everything Chavez says but does not do then we are bordering the irrelevant.
  • Threats accomplish the same thing: restriction of freedom of the press. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't base the article on your interpretations, Sandy. That would be rather misleading. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention of the dozens of infrastructure projects slated to finish or open this year (Metros, rail, stadiums, bridges, highways etc) of course the viaduct1 collapse and the oposition claims of negligence are inevitable as well.
  • Counteracted by no mention of all the deterioration in the infrastructure, and his failure to even keep pace with older administrations on building housing, who did not have the oil windfall Chavez has to work with. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and add the criticism, but there's no reason to gloss over his achievements. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention of Venezuela being one of the best host for refugees in the world [7]
  • Don't forget this: AI on refugees in Venezuela Sandy 01:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And this: Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life Sandy 14:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• The Carter Center claimed that in 2000 the elections demonstrated the will of the people (their definition of fraud is disproving this) however they could not verify the elections for logistical reasons.
• Atributing every single sucsess and every single failure on Chavez as opossed to the executive, other branches, local/state/federal, and lastly the people themselves. I can understand policies initiated by most branches as "Chavez allies" but the judicial has ruled on many occasions against the government most recently the case against Mari Pili [8]
  • There are no other branches. Chavez has consolidated all power in his hands, and eliminated oversight, including judicial. That's not only verifiable, it's true :-) Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Seriously though, we can't assume throughout the article that Chavez is a dictator. If you really want to expose consolidation of power on a large scale, head over to the Vladimir Putin article :-) -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Absence of multiple polls (including oposition polls: consultores, datanalysis, Keller and assoc) showing Chavez with a 50-60 point lead over his nearest rival for the presidential election.
  • Of course he'll win (he's got a well-versed mentor and lots of tricks like nationalizing illegal immigrants), but don't forget this: [9] Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't exclude these vital polls because of his alleged "tricks". -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention that not a single journalist is currently jailed in Venezuela [10]Flanker 16:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • And ? Sandy 21:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  Misleading. 141.153.125.31 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Sumate mentions charges for libel, leaking classified documents, and inciting racial hatred. But all of these inhibitions to free speech are commonplace in most Western states, heard by courts frequently. Just look at the recent leak of classified CIA documents in the New York Times; some politicians want the journalists tried for treason. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But it glosses over the obvious PAcheco was pardoned by Chavez, he even stated that his own side needed thicker skin with re: to libel and slander. That law was not made by Chavez it was made by his supporters in the AN that could not tolerate being insulted, it again goes to the issue of what is Chavez and what is government, and true he had veto power to stop it but refused for internal politics. Poleo is currently evading justice and is wanted for murder of Danilo Anderson. My statment still stands there is not a single journalist jailed in Venezuela and if it must be mentinoed that there WERE the presidential pardon must be mentioned.Flanker 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• No mention Venezuelan democracy is ranked by its citizens as the second most satisfactory in the region. Showing the most rapid increase overall since 97 [11] [12] Flanker 04:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope you'll thoroughly read your references: they don't seem to say what you imply. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • According to the poll, only 40% of Venezuelans are dissatisfied with their democracy—the second lowest percentage among the countries polled. If the Transparency International survey deserves mention, surely this one does as well. -- WGee 17:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes the answer is weakly presented 40% of Venezuelans distrust democracy down from what 60%?Flanker 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Index of Economic Freedom

Venezuela's rank on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, which measures the degree of capitalism in nations, should not be included in the article. Firstly, to use Venezuela's low rank as criticism is to imply the POV that divergence from capitalism is a bad thing. Secondly, it is universally known that Chavez has no intention of running a laissez-faire capitalist economy; accordingly, he (and other leftists) would see a lack of "economic freedom" as a positive thing. -- WGee 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel that criticism should only be aired if it accepts his own world view, but that is not in accordance with policy. 141.153.75.69 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe your missing my primary point: to use Venezuela's lack of laissez-faire capitalism as criticism is to imply the POV that divergence from capitalism is a bad thing. That directly violates WP:NPOV. -- WGee 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy does not require that criticism adhere to the standards of the article subject. That Heritage is pro-capitalism does not mean that their criticism of him pertaining to economics is irrelevant. It is precisely a different perspective which should be represented. This is a tortuous misrepresentation of policy. 141.153.75.69 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Electoral fraud, human rights violations, political repression, rampant corruption, and increased crime are universally accepted as "bad things". Divergence from laissez-faire capitalism is not universally accepted as a "bad thing". It is only your POV that it is a bad thing, and you are making that known by including the Index as criticism. Include the Index as a non-critical observation of the degree of capitalism in Venezuela; but do not lump it together with criticism. -- WGee 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The arguments to avoid NPOVing this article are getting silly. Sandy 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember to assume good faith; I am not intentionally trying to avoid NPOV policy (I assume that you're referring to my arguments). -- WGee 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume anything about what I'm referring to. Content additions with edit summaries that say they were added to make a point just got me up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and since we have SO much work to do, I find going back and forth over one sentence frustrating. Sandy 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that he is attempting to parse and establish the universality of criteria by which someone or something may be criticized readily demonstrates that WGee does not understand WP:NPOV. 141.153.75.69 05:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will summarize the Heritage Foundation claim tothe extreme, if things like infant moratlity can be said in a sentence so can this.Flanker 15:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

2006 Survey

A 2006 survey found Venezuelans came in a close second of people most proud of their country. The government asserts that under Chávez “There’s been a real emphasis on rediscovering what it means to be Venezuelan,” MSNBC. (Associated Press 27 Jun 2006). America tops in national pride, survey finds Retrieved 27 Jun 2006

Flanker, can you please explain why you added this statement to "Focus on foreign relations"? Can you provide context, name the survey and surveyors, and since there is no wikification of this survey (as there is for Index of Economic Freedom), explain there were only 34 countries surveyed, explain the bias that exists in the survey against other countries surveyed, indicate it wasn't democracy they were proud of (as in the case of USA, rather sports, science and arts -- perhaps their contributions to MLB?), clean it up, establish some relevance to Chavez, and put it in a place that flows and makes sense? A user shouldn't have to click on the link to know what it is or why you added it, and the location in which you added it had no context and made little sense. Thanks, Sandy 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping you will frame the sentence in a context similar to the Economic of Index Freedom. It is a well-known index, there is a Wiki entry about it, including methodology and criticism, and readers are able to form an opinion about the index. On the other hand, we know nothing about the survey you posted, its methodology, why it uses only 34 countries, what criticism there is, etc. There isn't even mention of this survey on the website of those who did it, so there appears to be little encycloped value in adding the statement, as the reader can't determine what it means, beyond media reports. Sandy 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought I put it in the 2004-present part, wanting a wikilink to a non-traditional poll is too much, this is not a ranking that is that relevant to get its own wikipage but it is still highly important this and the latinobarometro poll will show how Venezuelans view Chavez outside of elections.Flanker 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Time to shorten the article?

Efforts to NPOV the article seem to have stalled, so rather than spinning wheels over work that isn't getting done, I'm ready to turn my attention to shortening the article. With a more appropriately-sized article, it may be easier to see what work needs to be done. I suggest shortening the longest chunks (which never get to the point anyway, and where the verbosity obfuscates the issues):

• 1999: Economic crisis
• 2002: Coup
• 2003-4: Recall
• 2004: Focus on frgn relations
• Impact: Frgn policy

My prose is, um, not the best. If I'm going to do this work, I'll need help. If someone else is going to do it, I'd like to get moving. Sandy 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Prose is, I'd say, a concern behind verifiability and neutrality, and much more easily rectified. By all means, proceed. 141.153.75.69 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

A proposal could you give me time to rewrite just the economic policy and post it here in the talk page? that is the way I want to proceed more slowly and with everything on the table, it is the sub-subject I know most about.Flanker 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also we should archive discussion from where you wanted to. I decided to use the lead first since it is easiest.Flanker 16:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the article from 114 KB to 92 89 KB, by ruthlessly sacking a lot of material already in the daughter articles, and using Summary Style. There is much more to do, and I can do the same to upper sections of the article (I started at the bottom, because it was easier). I'm going to stop for a while to give others a chance to catch up, and make sure there is concurrence. Flanker, with all of the Economic stuff more consolidated, it should be easier for everyone to work now. The daughter articles is where the detail should be, with the main article using Summary Style. I've tried to pull everything together into the Criticism article, but it still needs a LOT of work (I pulled from many different sources, and some are better referenced than others), so please be patient with that article: I need more time to work on it. The Foreign policy and Bolivarian Mission articles also have a lot of the detail. I think it will be much easier to work, if we focus on the daughter articles, and try to keep this article as a shorter summary. We simply must get this article down to a manageable size, and begin to provide missing detail in the daughter articles, IMO. Sandy 17:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

PS – I've cleaned up references as I could as I worked, but the Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez article needs MAJOR work on the references. They are there, but haven't all been added correctly. Can anyone help? Sandy 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a big change and I may to read the article over than checking the spaguetti differentials. One question why add critiscism of Hugo Chavez so many times? I counted 7 wikilinks to the article 1 on the lead , 1 on the template way below, 1 on critiscism and 4 on the domestic policies.Flanker 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the Criticism link so that I could delete HUGE chunks of text from every section. The article is too long. I don't know what you mean about 4 wikilinks to criticism in Domestic policy. I added in *all* of the daughter articles (including to the template, where some were missing), linked them, and am working may way through them. Criticism was briefly summarized, using Summary Style, and is all referenced in the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article. As much as some editors have objected to the criticism, I thought removing the detail would please them. Sandy 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I figured out what you meant (multiple references in Impact of Presidency – not Domestic Policy). So, I took them out of the applicable sections, and put one at the top. That makes it even more prominent. Sandy 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also a LOT of the references were removed, I don't think the article would benefit with removing 50% of them almost, prose size is paramount article size itself trivial.Flanker 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary style. The content is briefly summarized here, *all* of the references are in daughter articles. That will help us (and future editors) recognize that content should be added to daughter articles, and briefly summarized back to the main article. We cannot continue bloating a main article, which was already at 120 KB. I could have deleted the glowing top sections of the article, which you might not have liked. Instead, I deleted mostly criticism, thinking that would please those who have objected to NPOVing the article. A lot of the Presidency section still needs to be deleted and summarized. The article size was, and still is, absurd. Sandy 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Size update After my reductions per Summary Style, the current article size is 86 KB, which is still 78 KB of prose. For readability, 50 KB is the recommended limit: we can still summarize the top of the article (all of the Presidency: 1999 – present) which is adequately covered in numerous daughter articles. Sandy 20:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

REWRITE: Lead

Old version

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (IPA: ['uɰo rafa'el 'tʃaβes 'fɾias]) (born July 28, 1954) is the 53rd and current President of Venezuela. As the leader of the "Bolivarian Revolution," Chávez promotes his vision of Latin American integration, what he terms anti-imperialism, criticism of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy.

A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after being the architect of a failed 1992 coup d'état against the democratically-elected President of Venezuela. Chávez was elected President in 1998 on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority, and was reelected in 2000. Domestically, Chávez launched the Bolivarian Missions social programs with the stated aim of combating poverty and its effects. Abroad, Chávez has acted against the Washington Consensus by supporting alternative models of economic development, and has advocated cooperation among Latin American nations.

Chávez has been criticized during his presidency by many Venezuelans, other foreign countries including the United States administration of George W. Bush, active members of the Venezuelan military, and human rights organizations. He has been accused of electoral fraud, human rights violations, political repression, rampant corruption, and increasing crime; and has survived both a brief 2002 coup and a failed 2004 recall referendum.

Chávez has garnered a mixed reception in Latin American politics. Though he has gained avowed allies in Cuba's Fidel Castro and Bolivia's Evo Morales, more moderate left-leaning leaders have been cautious in giving support. Conversely, other governments oppose Chávez, viewing him as meddlesome, overly confrontational, and destabilizing. Whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and high-profile figures in modern politics.

Size 5.23 KB

Prose 1.90 KB

New Version

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías (IPA: ['uɰo rafa'el 'tʃaβes 'fɾias]) (born July 28, 1954) is the 53rd and current President of Venezuela. As the leader of the "Bolivarian Revolution," Chávez promotes his vision of Latin American integration, what he terms anti-imperialism, criticism of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy.

A career military officer, Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after being the architect of a failed 1992 coup d'état against the democratically-elected President of Venezuela. Chávez was elected President in 1998 on promises of aiding Venezuela's poor majority, and was reelected in 2000. Domestically, Chávez launched the Bolivarian Missions social programs with the stated aim of combating poverty and its effects. Abroad, Chávez has acted against the Washington Consensus by supporting alternative models of economic development, and has advocated cooperation among Latin American nations.

Chávez has been criticized during his presidency by many Venezuelans and abroad by various sectors both locally and abroad by a wide spectrum of society. Chávez has also garnered a mixed reception throught hemispheric politics. He has survived both a brief 2002 coup and a failed 2004 recall referendum.

Whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and high-profile figures in modern politics.

Size 1.9 KB

Prose 1.32 KB

Changes

• Even though it was changed before this I will add it anyhow I removed the socialist sentence, democratic socialism is the best wikilink to describe him. Socialism is not close to good enough wikilink, he does not refer to himself as a socialist either but a "socialism of/for the XXI century", obviously not something for a lead itself. IF this were done for encyclopedic reasons "dem socialism" should stand but there is NPOV dispute over democratic. That dispute itself is quite weak but since the voices are loud(note: I do not mean anyone here) it creates an atmosphere of confusion, so we should just remove it for neutrality.

• Summarized every single complaint into the most summarized yet specific sentence I could think of.

• Ditto for hemisferic politics (to include Bush).

Flanker 16:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I think you're generally heading the right direction, and I like to see all the referenced detail removed from the lead. I'm glad you brought it to the talk page first. I suggest it may still need a bit more wordsmithing (not my strong point), and I defer completely to the opinions of others on the whole issue of whether we should have referenced statements in the lead, as it seems that the winds change on that topic with every FA review I read. If we end up with something like this, I have to add back in the State Dept and MilitaresDemocraticos criticism references somewhere. Sandy 17:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think it would be too much of a problem, heck almost everything can be added in critiscism.Flanker 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph needs re-wording; based on one interpretation, it says that Chavez promotes United States foreign policy. Also, while I agree that the description of criticism need not be so specific, I believe the paragraph about Latin American political relations is OK as it stands now. It is at least better, in my opinion, than the summarized sentece, which is so vague as to be uninformative. -- WGee 17:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I noted in the lead that Chavez "promotes his vision of democratic socialism," as indicated by a speech of his quoted on ZNet. His version of democratic socialism is a vital component of his style of governance and accordingly deserves mention. -- WGee 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well guys why don't you add to it? my prose is lacking as well. We can treat this as a sandbox of sorts any change to the bottom should leave an edit summary too.Flanker 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• It seems the intro has far more POV now, considering a section of criticisms has been added, but no section on what is probably at least an equal amount of praise. The contention that moderate-left leaders are "cautious" in giving support also needs to be removed or cited, considering Bachelet, Lula, Kirchner, Vazquez, Preval, etc. are constantly meeting with Chavez and praising him. "Other governments oppose..."??? What governments? Why not say they are "conservative" considering the other leaders were marked as either leftist or center-left?? The Milatares Democraticos website does not come close to being a citable source, unless it's an article on political propaganda websites. Any person with means can put up a website criticizing someone, we need to use a higher standard for including such citations. It should probably be rewritten to see if we can add more citations from The Economist and Jackson Diehl (apologies for the sarcasm). -- Nc11 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The entire article is praise. The criticism is one small section that offsets and balances. Some of the leaders you list are distancing themselves from Chavez as well, and this is covered in some of the references. MilitaresDemocraticos is listed to provide evidence that criticism is not restricted to certain sectors, and contrary to a statement made earlier by someone, the Plaza Altamira resistance was not only upper classes. Are you saying that the resistance and demonstrations in Plaza Altamira -- including, by the way, the deaths we haven't even mentioned yet -- were not significant and that their website was just "anyone" ??? That would be an amazing claim. MilitaresDemocraticos was not used to cite or reference any statement: it was used to indicate widespread criticism from multiple sectors. Sandy 22:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe it was you and the anon IP who opposed mentioning in the lead that Chavez is opposed only by the right-leaning governments in the region. Which centre-left Latin American presidents do you claim oppose Chavez? -- WGee 23:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Where did I use the word "oppose"? Have you read all of the various articles along the lines of "The Chavez effect", a version thereof available on just about every news source? Sandy 00:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
        • When I inserted the independent clause "Conversely, the right-leaning governments of the region oppose Chavez," one of you two quickly altered it to remove the reference to right-leaning governments, claiming that not all of the Latin American governments opposed to Chavez are right-wing. I'm simply asking for evidence of this claim. (By the way, are you referring to news analyses that chronicle the rise of the left in Latin America, such as these: [13], [14]? If so, what are you trying to imply by mentioning them?) -- WGee 00:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • • Hehe the press is so sensationalistic, first it was all this leftwing wave and now it is all this rightwing backlash... Fact is it is not as clear cut as that and anyone that did not see Uribe being relected was not paying attention (changing the constitution without a referendum tsk tsk) the left in Colombia is stronger but jeez. With re: to Chavez it is actually interesting that Venezuela gets along better with Uribe and Duarte (both the only conservative leaders in south america with the exiting of Toledo) than with Garcia a supposed leftist but we really don't know (the only thing we know is that he was a disaster) AMLO winning in Mexico would be good news on the long run for LatAmm but in the end it is the same result as Garcia, both are due for weak presidencies with a minority in congress. Venezuela right now gets along great with Cuba, Bolivia, Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Guyana. Well with Chile, Ecuador, Colombia, DR, Haiti, Carib, Panama, Costa Rica. Not as well with the rest of Central America, frozen with Peru, Mexico (might change) and US.Flanker 03:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't want to enter into a debate since I believe it should be summarized however only Right wing elements blast Chavez, true Garcia piggybacked on it to ger right wing votes but it still stands as the lone exception. As for getting sources there is a difference between what makes it to wikipedia and the truth, sure we can get both sources to blame the other and both should make it based on accuracy over precision however in here (talk page) we are not bound by that we can seek the truth and maybe if we agree it can make it in.Flanker 01:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I find Sandy's earlier point within this subject heading rather bizarre (That the "entire article is in praise"). There is massive criticism throughout the article of Chavez and his policies, including under his domestic impact (where much of the article that should be devoted to explanation is just devoted to attacking the Bolivarian missions) and in the Bolivarianismo and Chavismo section. Cheers, Hauser 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am weakly in support of WGee's version with the caveat that prose changes might still elucidate much clarity. As for the left-right issue, the problem lies primarily in the focus on state-state relations. Firstly, heads of state and "leaders" more broadly are not the only ones who are allowed to make pronouncements on regional figures, particularly those who are attempting to coerce and bribe their own version of "integration" over the objections of other parties. Venezuela "enjoys good relations" but this is not the question. A figure such as Kirchner is a joke but there are attempted third way Silva figures who have reservations, even though they are mostly kept private. These issues were only exacerbated when the results of Chavez's protege revolution in Bolivia slapped the latter in the face.

As I said, cautious support and active opposition should not be held as the only two possibilities. Chavez has not simply strained relations with individual countries but has become a hate figure not merely for the terrible rightists but many in the center whose concern is democracy and sovereignty. Though the outcome and implications of the Mexican presidential election, for one, is unclear, what is is that the very accusation of a candidate having association with Chavez or merely having Chavez-like tendencies is increasingly viewed as a value-negative.

The passage can be reworded but editors should not simply gloss over the complexities in favor of a two-dimensional analysis. As for the articles Sandy mentioned, I recall a few from varying publications.

• "That Chávez Thing Is Over"
• "Seeking United Latin America, Venezuela's Chávez Is a Divider"
• "Chavez's Incredible Shrinking Revolution"
• "Will Chavez Lose His Luster?"
• "In Search of Hugo Chávez"

Perhaps those are what you had in mind? 141.153.75.69 07:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! I don't have time to read all of them, or engage in tit-for-tat over what has been indicated throughout the press, but in general terms, it has been mentioned many times in the press that Brasil is also moving away from Chavez. The "oppose", WGee, was about the right or left-leaning qualifier, not whether they "opposed" him. They are moving away from fully supporting him, even if they maintain good relations. It's tiring to spend so much time on one qualifier, rather than tackling the hard work to be done on the article. Sandy 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But the press really doesn't know much does it? Brazil is supporting Venezuela in the UNSC almost from the get go. Plus there will be a summit in Caracas in a few weeks about Mercosur. All of the stories were about a potential personal relationship, which is unfounded really. Lula may be more mellow than the firebrands but that is because the right wing oposition is strong, not because he sees what they are doing as anyway wrong.Flanker 13:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those articles came after Uribe (a sure fire thing and not an enemy of Chavez) and Garcia was elected by less than a 5 point margin, again sensationalism. Chavez is rejected throught the region don't get me wrong he was rejected in Venezuela in 98 and it did them no good. However his ideas do resonate deeply with the people in the region, I have my own theories about the elections in Peru and they all go against perception, however how could a nobody a few months ago, with a potential human rights violations in his closet and not a single term as an elected leader anywhere come this close to winning an election? Sure the oponent was Alan Garcia but Flores Nano 3rd place finish shows a complete rebuke to right-wingism, a much bigger rebuke than against Chavez. I do agree that the article must be different than the one Sandy is reading ;)Flanker 13:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Now we're using frontpagemag as a source??? Does anyone else realize that you can find a source to say just about anything about Chavez??? We really should be more discerning, even with articles from the mainstream elite press outlets in the US. Nc11 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Lula, under heavy political pressure from the National Congress and foreign governments to continue the pro-market policies of his predecessor, is understandably unenthusiastic about supporting Chavez's socialist endeavours. However, what about Néstor Kirchner, Tabaré Vázquez, and Michelle Bachelet? I haven't noticed them turning away from Chavez. And while Lula is weary of Chavez's policies of nationalisation and interference in regional affairs, he still maintains and will continue to maintain, it seems, cordial relations with him, for the sake of the South American Community of Nations and regional energy projects. So perhaps the sentence should read: "He has gained avowed allies in Cuba's Fidel Castro and Bolivia's Evo Morales, and enjoys cordial relations with the more moderate left-leaning presidents of the region."

I understand the anon user's concern that we should mention all of the dimensions of Chavez's foreign relations, rather than simply inter-presidential relations, but I'm not sure if that's feasible in the lead. Although congressional pressures certainly influence a country's foreign affairs, inter-presidential relations are more important and, accordingly, more widely reported. Thus, it is my opinion that inter-presidential relations should have prominence in the lead.

-- WGee 16:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to add it by all means, just don't erase completely what was removed. Even though this is sort of trivial we have to start somewhere.Flanker 23:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses. Firstly, FrontPageMag is not being used as a source, nor (as far as I am aware) are any of the other articles. I was simply giving examples of such material that Sandy had recalled reading about recent opposition to Chavez.

This conversation should not drift too far into any sort of polemical nature as we should focus on content rather than simply the subject, though we may feel strongly about it. I am glad to see that returning tonight there hasn't been an edit war over a few single words in the introduction; hopefully this means somewhat of a compromise consensus is being formed over that aspect. I have to say though that despite SF's pooh-poohing of Uribe, Peru and Mexico (despite my previous mentioned qualifications in the latter case) demonstrate that Chavez is being increasingly viewed as intemperate and meddlesome, even among those who would ostensibly be sympathetic to his politics. And I do not share his analysis of Peru's implications. Garcia was not simply a lesser evil vote for rightists. Many people who voted for him acknowledge the failures of his earlier interventionist measures and are hoping for a mid-way between "neoliberalism" and Humalan aggressive and chauvinist populism. All indications are that he will follow a moderate path with (perhaps modified) free trade agreements with Washington. That could change but Morales could declare himself king of Bolivia tomorrow – a lot is possible in Latin American politics. But this is an entirely different species of the "left", and one that should be encouraged.

Looking forward to further edits. 151.205.34.71 09:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But that is also superficial assesnment, what is Garcia lashing out on? Why did he pick on Chavez first? Lets face it he was peddling a right wing vote on a close election, and still is BTW with regional elections, time will tell if he will continue his attacks after that election and polls keep on showing that he must bury the subject. So any insertion of what Garcia is doing should keep this in mind: Is he really against Chavez or is it all a circus? Is he really attacking him from the left? will that attack garner leftist votes? etc. Garcia is the lone exception of international "leftists" (after all he has yet to start a second term) railing on Chavez.Flanker 18:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead with the rewrite.Flanker 18:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I haven't paid attention to this discussion of the lead, and didn't intend for my silence to indicate concurrence one way or the other. I just find it silly to focus on specific paragraphs here and there, and have instead been trying to reduce the article size, use Summary Style, clean up all the daughter articles, so that we can later nit-pik the wording in the main article. Guess I just prefer big picture work to working on individual sentences, and the overall structure of this whole series of articles needs to be addressed, and shortened. If others want to keep the lead, fine. If others want to revert to the earlier lead, fine too. I think the lead should work itself out last (same way I felt about external links) after the MAJOR work which needs to be done is completed. Sandy 19:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee rewrite

I like it. But, we need to tweak (or understand) these two points:

• Chávez's far-reaching political and economic reforms have evoked much controversy and media attention in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both scathing criticism and adulation. For that sentence, you wikilink to the criticism article, which hasn't yet been balanced to include this "adulation". Maybe you can solve that by only linking the criticism, and leaving adulation out of the linked text?
• Venezuelans are split between a majority who says he has empowered the poor ... Majority needs to be referenced: I've seen too many polls that say they're not happy either (don't know where to put my hands on them right now, but will do so if needed). Sandy 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I corrected the first problem. The sentence you mentioned in your second point is taken directly from the the BBC profile on Hugo Chavez. I'll insert an inline reference if you like. -- WGee 22:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much a direct quote from a primary source :-) I'll try to find the reference I saw to a recent poll, and see if it warrants any wordsmithing, without having to do the point-counterpoint mess. The new lead looks good to me. Sandy 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, we were editing at the same time. No, no need to insert the reference, at least on my account, until/unless I come up with a solid refutation (and I don't know where I saw the data right now). Sandy 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Found one: need to track down the reference here to a 14% approval rating. [15] Don't know what the poll was. Sandy 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another "majority" view, from VenAnalysis. [16] Sandy 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I, too, still have problems with the word "majority" in the lead. Here is the third reference (which acknowledges that Chavez will likely win elections, but points out problems in approval): [17] says 70% of Venezuelans want a change, 41% manifiesta simpatía por el presidente frente a 47% que asegura lo contrario, dijo, 41% are in favor of Chavez, while 47% are not. It also says, in terms of rejection of Chavez policies, En cuanto a los principales problemas que afectan a los venezolanos, los consultados mencionaron inseguridad (36%), corrupción (23%) y desempleo (13%), (biggest problem is crime), El 78% pidió mayor democracia, orden, unidad, eficacia, ética y equidad, 78% want more democracy, order, unity, etc., Mientras el 65% reprobó al equipo de gobierno de Chávez frente a un 21% que lo calificó de regular y 11% que lo aceptó, 65% disapproval rating, 11% in favor, El sondeo reveló que 84% de los venezolanos rechaza las confrontaciones que mantiene Venezuela con Estados Unidos, aunque la mayoría dijo valorar las posiciones soberanas del presidente ante otros países, a whopping 84% reject the anti-USA stance of Chavez administration, Asimismo, 77% rechazó las ayudas financieras que impulsa el Gobierno en el extranjero frente a un 12% que se mostró de acuerdo, 77% reject foreign financial assistance, etc. That's three references, with little effort, that dispute the majority word: let's avoid dueling references, and lose that one little not so important word. He won't win the elections on the strength of his approval rating: he'll win them because the other side hasn't put forward a decent candidate. Sandy 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Found an abbreviated version in English. [18] At the same time, found an English version of the abstention problem stemming from concern over voting machines and CNE partiality: [19] Sandy 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I proceeded to re-insert the word "majority" because I was extremely sceptical of the 14% approval rating recorded by The Economist, and the anon IP did not justify his argument with sources. The BBC article was also more up-to-date, and the organization enjoys a reputation for neutrality and accurate reporting. But now that I see the El Universal polls, which seem more reasonable, reliable, and detailed than The Economist one, I'm willing to drop the disputed word "majority". -- WGee 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, I am glad to see that you have dropped this condition, but I do not think you fully appreciate the objection. Were we even to accept it as given that Hugo has the unconditional support of a "majority" we can not be certain that they "say he has empowered the poor", which is what your introduction argued. The BBC may state that, and that is fine for their purposes, but we should not. --151.205.34.71 20:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The BBC's profile on Hugo Chavez and our article both have similar purposes: to educate the uninitiated. The BBC's generalization gives average readers the gist of the support and opposition's claims, which is also what we want to do in the lead. -- WGee 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What Is it that you guys need with polls? Voter intention? approval? I can find a lot of them most of them recent even from opo pollsters (You might laugh at the questions asked though :))Flanker 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Coup and Workers' Strike

The sentence on the tv channels during the coup is fairly neutral now. Is the citation still needed.

--Salvador Allende 18:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why you call it neutral, and it still wasn't referenced. Alleging doctored footage from the TV stations definitely requires a reliable source, and the numerous accounts of what happened on the bridge are covered in the documentary article. Sandy 23:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The sentence uses the words "allegedly doctored". It isn't itself alleging doctoring it is saying that doctoring has been alleged; huge difference. Basically it makes two claims:

1.The anti-Chavez media showed footage of,it claimed, Chávez supporters firing on anti-Chávez people.

2.Some have alleged that this footage is doctored.

Neither claims, in themselves, are disputed.--Salvador Allende 18:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You and I may know what is and isn't disputed in Venezuela, but all Wiki readers may not. The entire debacle is covered in the documentary article, and having to re-explain the whole thing in the main article -- which already needs to have its size reduced by at least half -- will just bloat the article again, with a story that is already told elsewhere and will probably never be resolved. The average reader doesn't know what the "alleged" doctoring claim is about, and there is no context for the sentence, unless we re-explain the whole darn story. Sandy 19:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, at least a mention of the behaviour of the private media is essential for the article to be balanced and complete. A link is provided, besides, to the main article on the coup, to which people can go if they're confused.--Salvador Allende 20:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you can find a way to work something into the media section? If you are going to allege the "private TV stations" submitted doctored video, you need to provide a reference for that allegation. Sandy 00:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Whacked references

Well, somebody whacked out the references, and I can't figure out who, why, or how far back to revert to get them back. Sandy 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What references? my last version seemed to have them working.Flanker 18:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that must have been me. I edit using Mozilla Firefox with the Google Toolbar, and sometimes when editing in tabs, a bottom chunk of the article randomly gets deleted. There's a little note about it in the edit window, but I'm not sure what they're doing to fix it. Anyway, I'll replace the references. -- WGee 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird thing to me was I couldn't figure out where it happened or how to recover :-)) Sandy 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chavez category

Can anyone teach me how to edit and fix categories? Why is Sumate alphabeticized under C, and how does it get fixed in Category:Hugo Chávez ? TIA, Sandy 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Presidency lead

I really don't know why it is needed at all even in summary, the article lead IS the presidential lead, aside from the Coup 92, we remove that and we have the presidency lead. Why double introductions? Impact of presidency lacks one and it is not needed either IMHOFlanker 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The main article needs to flow and to have context. You can't just lop off an entire lead, which provides transition and context, because it's in a daughter article. Summary style means summarize in the main article what is in the daughter articles: that doesn't mean to leave a choppy main article with no transition between topics. The article content needs to be shortened: not the transition and context. And, as mentioned yesterday, I was waiting for other editors to catch up to the huge changes I made yesterday, before introducing further change. Sandy 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It might take me months to catch up after that many changes :) I decided to just re-reading the article is easier.Flanker 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to re-read the article. I worked from the bottom up, didn't even touch the top of the article (which still needs a major overhaul), and there was actually very little that I took out and summarized. If you start at the bottom, it will be obvious. I summarized all of the new content very briefly, moving it all to the criticism article. You started at the top, which I didn't touch. Sandy 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this will help. This is the compare of everthing since I started consoldating. Most of the changes in the top were yours: I did not summarize or touch that section other than adding the sentence about the European Union. I summarized the criticism using summary style, moved it all to the daughter article, linked in daughter articles, and moved some references to inline citations as you and I discussed earlier on the talk page, moving them out of general references. [20] Sandy 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sort out "treason" contradiction

Flanker, you were adamant in your content addition about politial prisoners, explaining that the allegations of treason against Carlos Ortega were based on statements he supposedly made about needing a long dictatorship to rescue the country. Your addition was: Carlos Ortega, head of the union, CTV, fled to Costa Rica but returned in 2005 and was jailed. Officially charged with treason, evidence presented was an audiotape where he stated, "We are going to need about 10, 12 or 15 years of dictatorship to rescue the country, I have no problem with that."

Now you've added a long paragraph where Chavez allegedly says basically the same thing as a justification of his "President for life" ambitions: Chavez argued that this was necessary as the job of rebuilding Venezuela was so big that it could not be done in 5 years. At other times Chavez has said that this project will not be finished until 2021. Chavez has also said he will retire from politics in 2021. This has led many to conclude that Chavez wants to be President until 2021. Chavez has denied this, though. However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term.

Can you help me understand why it's treason when Carlos Ortega says it, but something else when Chavez says it in justification of a 25-year term ? TIA, Sandy 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a quote about Chavez saying he will be president till 2021 (22 years not 25 the economist has it wrong again) then it will be added, the thing is that there is none. Chavez is a politician and even though he talks a LOT it has still not slipped tongue about ruling from the presidency till 2021, not to mention he has denied saying it explicitly. He has routinely said however that he will remain in politics till 2021 (maybe through puppets) something the oposition has claimed implicitly means running multiple times (itself irrational since the presidential elections are scheduled in 2006, 2012, 2018, 2024.). The only reference to actually removing term limits is fairly recent as a threat for the oposition to not boycott despite losing in almost every poll, and it was only about 2013 we can quote that if you like. Flanker 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. I'm not the one adding the content which implies that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Sandy 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

But I did not remove what the economist and oposition thought Chavez implied, I just added what Chavez says of the accusation. Aside from that I do not understand what you mean.Flanker 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources in Recall Vote

Could we get a source or reference for this comment in this sentence from the Recall Vote section: "Reports then began to emerge among opposition and international news outlets that Chávez had begun to act punitively against those who had signed the petition, while pro-Chávez individuals stated that they had been coerced by employers into offering their signatures at their workplaces."

It just seems like a pretty hefty claim to advance without any proof other than hearsay... If there are Reports, then one should be found, no? Should there not be one, I suggest the passage be eliminated, since it would not justify being in an wiki article and would obviously be based on political bias...

After all, a source was found for the Citizenship for Votes program allegations just a paragraph below...

Ditto for this claim: "Reports again emerged that Chávez and his allies were penalizing signers of the publicly posted petition. Charges were made of summary dismissals from government ministries, PDVSA, the state-owned water corporation, the Caracas Metro, and public hospitals controlled by Chávez's political allies."

If there are any such reports, whether from news agencies or other official bodies, let's get them. Why is it that all the sentences in the following paragraphs, stating claims of alledged fraud in the recall or even of its integraty by the Carter Center, each have a source, whereas these incredibly controversial claims do not?

"Reports emerging" sounds mighty close to Fox's "Some people say..." Let's get something a bit more respectable... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.213.4 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 July 2006 UTC

I had a correct, concise version of this, with references, prior to the revert. It reads "The list of signatories was subsequently collected by the government[36] for the purpose of reprisal[37]." See Special:PermanentLink/57698148 Loisel 21:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I look at what's going on in the article and in the talk page. It looks like a flame war between the hysterical right and the breathless left. I simply don't understand why it has to be this way. Loisel 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What flame war? all events have been quite civil, the only mild excpetion from those that want to punish people for having an opinion.Flanker 12:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example. "The recall vote itself was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote.[50][5] European Union observers did not oversee the elections, saying too many restrictions were put on their participation by the Chávez administration.[51] The election was overseen by the Carter Center and certified by them as fair and open.[52] Critics called the results fraudulent, citing documents which indicated that the true results were the complete opposite of the reported ones, and raising questions about the government ownership of voting machines. "Massive fraud" was alleged and Carter's conclusions were questioned,[53] although five other opposition polls showed a Chávez victory.[54]"

The hysteria is almost palpable. Quite clearly, the person who wrote most of this text was not interested in documenting Hugo Chavez, but rather wanted to make a case against Hugo Chavez. The entire passage "Critics called the results fraudulent, citing documents which indicated that the true results were the complete opposite of the reported ones, and raising questions about the government ownership of voting machines. "Massive fraud" was alleged and Carter's conclusions were questioned" is one giant pleonasm.

A true and correct version of the above would be something like: "The recall vote itself was held on August 15, 2004. A record number of voters turned out to defeat the recall attempt with a 59% "no" vote. The Carter Center certified these elections as fair and open. European Union observers did not attend, complaining about too many government restrictions. The opposition called the results fraudulent." You add the [citations] and you're done.

What the hell, man? Again, I'm not an expert, and I'm not gonna start editing this page, but there's no reason why people should be adding this sort of crap to the article. Loisel 12:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add a clarification. I think I see an attempt to cite some exit polls ("documents"). Instead of making it a hissing and spitting denounciation of Chavez, accompanied by a counter-argument of five exit polls in favor, it could be simply stated factually. "Five exit polls found Chavez victorious [citation], one exit poll found Chavez defeated [citation]."

The problem is not this particular paragraph. It's just the overall low quality attack-counterpoint style. I write scientific article for a living, and from this point of view the Hugo Chavez article falls short of my quality threshold. The paragraph says "fraud" twice, not counting the synonymous phrases it uses. Loisel 13:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the attack and counterattack is non-encyclopedic, we are trying to Rewrite parts of the article to create a better flow. But just for the record it is not a flame war.Flanker 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your original question, citations for that passage (relating likely to the Tascon list) will be easy to find (in one of the daughter aricles, perhaps Tascon or Sumate or Criticism – I'll look later, after the holiday). I have seen several FA reviews where it is indicated we don't need to reference statements in the Summary Style main article which are well referenced in the daughter articles. (I've been waiting for other editors involved in the article to indicate if they agree with the 20 KB of text I took out this week, reducing long passages to single paragraphs, moving content and references to daughter articles.) Regarding quite clearly, the person who wrote most of this text was not interested in documenting Hugo Chavez, but rather wanted to make a case against Hugo Chavez, you make an invalid assumption, and others have disagreed. That particular passage has elements from at least four different writers I can think of (and I don't know how many contributed before I got involved). Have you head of consensus? Your comments are constructive and helpful, and show a better way to write the article, but getting to your briefer version utilizes the past input of many editors who have contributed missing facts along the way. The paragraph began as a huge hodge-podge of claims and counterclaims. Because it is a highly controversial topic, some editors insist that the exact wording from each primary source be included and referenced. Now that more of the completely missing elements have been included, I am attempting to move more towards Summary Style, with this mind-numbing level of detail in the daughter articles, but your first point works against heading that direction. In other words, do you want an absurd level of point-counterpoint detial, each referenced, or a Summary Style article, with detail referenced in daughter articles? Your summary of the exit poll passage, for example, completely glosses over the allegations of massive fraud, resulting in a sentence that doesn't really add anything, and results in distortion. (Unless you're suggesting that Wiki is supposed to completely ignore that side of the Chavez history?) How is the article going to disucss the fraud without using the word fraud? Certainly, considering your experience, your help in rendering a better article, using Summary Style, would be helpful, but you can't rewrite paragraphs in ways that leave out significant historical facts and controversies. Sandy 14:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry, Loisel. I just noticed you didn't write the first portion of this talk entry, which appears to have been added by an unsigned, anon editor. Sandy 14:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a question of conciseness and presentation. You don't need to make up fiery condemnation of the guy, the facts as they stand are sufficient ammunition. He orchestrated a coup in 1992, he did collect the names for the purpose of reprisal, and he did nationalize whatever. These facts are not under dispute from any respectable source. But when you go into a paragraph which, to paraphrase, goes something like "The elections were fraudulent! For instance, the opposition said it was a fraud, and they used some mysterious documents to prove their case. In addition, an independent research panel of space aliens found MASSIVE FRAUD", you're doing the community a disfavor. The facts are simple, the story is short. He won the recall, Carter center sez it's good, EU observers not there because government bad, opposition calls shenanigans. If you really must, 5 exit polls agree, one disagrees. This is not ATTACK! COUNTER ATTACK! It's a short, boring summary of the situation. As it should be.

Again, my point isn't about that particular paragraph. My point is that the overall disorganized ranting in the article has no reason to be. Another semi random example is "Critics state that unemployment levels have not dropped enough, considering the massive oil windfall, and that the job creation may not be permanent. Some social scientists mistrust the government's reported poverty figures, based on contradictory statistics and definitions, and some economists report insufficient economic growth and continued repression of the economy." There's no references, it's just a shot in the dark, and appears to be in direct contradiction with all respectable sources of economic information that I know of. You don't need to fake a case against the guy! Render to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, documenting what he screwed up is plenty enough without making stuff up. Loisel 17:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Loisel, your comments are most helpful, BUT ... 1) I used Summary Style to cut 20 KB of criticism to daughter articles, and have stopped working on the article for a few days, pending input from other editors as to whether it is acceptable to have moved all of the references to the daughter articles, because we have such serious article size problems here. If we need to source every single statement here, even though they are extensively sourced in the daughter articles, we'll have a 120 KB article again. The fundamental question is how to deal with that problem. 2) I agree with Flanker. It has not been a flame war at any point, in fact, far from it. It has been an attempt to flush out the issues. That we need to better summarize them, no one disagrees, and your help is welcome. 3) You say no one disagrees on "point X", but on several of those points, Flanker has disagreed and he has presented sources which back up his disagreement. The "facts" as one editor sees them are not the facts as another sees them (Chavez supporters strongly refute that he collected the sigs for reprisal, so how are you going to summarize it that briefly?). I may disagree with a lot of Flanker's "facts", but certainly don't want to discourage him from being the points forward, particularly when they are sourced (even from dubious biased sources). Further, your summary (above) of the economic issues is simply incomplete, and doesn't reflect the fundamental issue that Chavez changed the way numbers are measured, resulting in apples and oranges, and economists have called his numbers into question. (This shows a weakness in summary style: obviously, if you haven't read the daughter articles, you don't know where this article is going, so perhaps we should revert all of my summaries.) So again, the issue isn't as simple as you portray it, and if you really want to help, it would be good if an independent eye did get involved to help us summarize. But first, we need to understand if it was OK to have summarized referenced content from daughter articles, to help deal with the article size. I don' think we can address your concerns until we figure out this whole Summary Style and article size problem. Sandy 17:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to pick one thing to respond, the entire thing would take too long. If you look up the source I had about reprisal, it says "el ministro de Salud y Desarrollo Social, Róger Capella, advirtió que "quienes hayan firmado contra el presidente Chávez" serán despedidos "porque se trata de un acto de terrorismo" ". I guess it's possible that El Universal is lying aboout what Capella said. But if Capella did say that (and the Venezuela specialists ought to be able to verify this quote real fast), and with the fact that he's a representative of the government, there can be no argument against "the government collected the signatures for the purpose of reprisal." You could nuance and say that Chavez never said anything, or that Capella wasn't speaking officially, or that the Greys had him under mind control, etc..., but those subtleties really don't belong in an overall article like this. At best, if you wanted to temper the statement, you could say "for the apparent purpose of reprisal." But in my field at least, we don't like adding little nuance words that don't add a whole lot of information, so I would skip "apparent." You can also find subsequent government statements (I think I even saw one from Chavez himself) tacitly acknowledging this reprisal strategy, and eventually renouncing it. Loisel 17:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Relatedly, the list has been used (continues to be used?) to exclude certain people from one of the weird Chavez missions/militia/whatever. This is also well documented, admitted to by the guy in charge, etc... I guess you will be able to find some religious zealot somewhere who thinks that Chavez is the Son of God and that it's all fabrications, but at some point you have to call a spade a spade. Loisel 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You've given a clear example, which to me, is (and always has been) irrefutable. However, facts which I continue to find irrefutable are refuted by other editors, and I believe in consensus. Hence, the article is a hodge-podge. Flanker considers the article unbalanced if any charge against Chavez goes unaddressed, and I guess that's his right. Involvement of more editors, such as yourself, would help cut through some of this. But we do first have to resolve this issue of whether references and detail belong in the daughter articles and can be summarized back to the main article, or whether we need to laboriously cite every single statement in the main article. Sandy 18:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A note: I'm not advocating one particular side in this article. Most of the passages I object to are obviously hysterical right wing fabrications. The other thing I don't like, and I don't know where it comes from, is the apparent inability to state the bad stuff in a plain way. Are the lefties removing it as soon as someone writes it up? Who's doing this point-counterpoint? Are the right wingers so thrilled by the bad stuff that they can't help make it into a novella? I don't know, but that's got to stop. When I read "unemployment levels have not dropped enough" to my better half, she laughed out loud when I said the word "enough". It sort of reminds me of when Jennifer Aniston's character in Office Space is scolded for not wearing enough flare. Loisel 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Loisel, your choices are to laugh and criticize, or follow the article's evolution and get involved. I'm not going to characterize what is happening, when everyone appears to be working in good faith. Sandy 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, since we have taken care to scrupulously reference all new material added since the revert (even though references have recently been moved to daughter articles), can you please point out an example of "hysterical right wing fabrications"? Or have you checked the daughter articles for the references for all statements? Sandy 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I sort of scoff at that too, but I guess something negative has to be said, the economy is growing at a 9.3% Clip so somebody has to say SOMETHING bad in this world... Sandy if you don't believe the BCV figures then I could also find what the IMF estimated it was similar. Most other economic indicators are extremely positive over the board, even private investment is higher per GDP than Chile (yup I can source it too) the only question mark that is reasonable to me is if prices continue to hover at this level, If they held steady at 40+ then we would reach developed status in a generation.Flanker 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy's recent summarisation

What you've done so far is largely fine, Sandy. One problem, however, is the lack of references directly following some quotes, leading me to question their very existence. I'll try to improve the quality of the prose, where needed, and attempt to counterbalance the criticism. -- WGee 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is consensus to keep the summaries, and if you are going to work on the prose, I don't mind doing the work of bringing back the necessary references: let me know. I didn't want to go any further, in case it was decided to revert the summaries. Sandy 19:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I say go ahead and add the references when you're ready; it's no use keeping the quotes without them, even temporarily. -- WGee 01:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, can you doublecheck something in the Economic Policy section. One place refers to Energy and Petroleum (Ministry)?, but later in the same section, it say Energy Ministry. Not sure if Chavez has changed the names, but you added the "and Petroleum"? Sandy 01:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I brought back some of the references. Not sure that's enough, and I'm still not clear on the Summary Style thingie. If more are needed, can you tag them, and I'll bring them back? I also don't see the point of the Hurricane Katrina paragraph, and still don't see the point of the Community Council paragraph (since we're trying to reduce article size). Sandy 02:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I left out "Ministry" by accident, so you were right in your correction (basically). According to what I've read in the Cabinet of Hugo Chávez article and at OPEC's website, the ministry is indeed called the Ministry of Energy and Petroleum. I used "Ministry of Energy" as a shorter form later, though perhaps I shouldn't have, to avoid confusion.

Personally, I'm not a fan of moving the references out of this article to the daughter articles; I think readers should have the references readily available without having to load and search through another page. In other words, I agree with the notion that "A perfect Wikipedia article is nearly self-contained." Thus, I'm in favour of bringing as many references back as possible. That doesn't mean I oppose summarising the article, however. -- WGee 03:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, unless anyone strongly disagrees, I'll bring back all the refs (tomorrow). Just as a mental note to myself, the article size was 89 KB before I started bringing back refs: I'll be curious to see what they add. Sandy 03:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I brought back the list of references which are based on the extensive text in the Criticism of Hugo Chavez article, summarized down to two paragraphs in this main article. Refs for a couple of summarized sentences bring the article from 89 to 96 KB. Look at the effect in the article, and please give me some guidance as to whether I should continue. Because I summarized and consolidated so much text, the number of references backing it up looks absurd, but no one reference says exactly what the text says (since it was summarized). On the other hand, if I leave only one or two references, someone will say "that's not exactly what the ref says". How to resolve this? The point is to use Summary Style, with all the text extensively referenced in the daughter article. I don't really know what to do next. Honestly, can't we rely on Summary Style, with references in the daughter article? I've seen FA candidate comments which indicate it's fine to do that. Need some guidance before continuing. Sandy 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I'm fine with you using Summary Style for the Criticism section, but when it comes to domestic policy and foreign policy, I think we should include the references, since they can be easily associated with their respective statements. To be honest, I'm not at all concerned with the technical size of the article; the only thing I'm concerned about is the length of the presidency section, which may repel some readers. 96 KB is a miniscule file size for most Internet connections, except dial-up possibly; but I've never used it and don't know exactly how slow it is. Still, the quality of the article is principal. -- WGee 00:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For an article of this type, references are crucial and ought not count against any preset size limitation. In math articles, we can get away with very few references, but I would estimate that each sentence of the Chavez article ought to have between one and ten references. Loisel 17:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See Flanker's comments below. When everyone agrees on the best resolution, I'll be glad to do the work. Can't win. In my book, the article size restrictions are not technical: no one will want to read an article this long, which is the other reason given for recommended size limits. Perhaps it's best I bring all the criticism back to the main aricle, and forget about trying to use Summary Style. Sheesh. Sandy 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm in favour of using summary style for the criticism section, as to not do so is evidently impractical. But in all other areas of the article, where it is practical, I urge that the references remain, for the reader's sake. -- WGee 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's my conclusion and plan of attack, unless anyone disagrees. A "perfect Wiki article" also "branches out" and "is of appropriate length", so we have competing principles. After reading up some more on Summary Style, I come to the conclusion that is is OK to refer to the daughter article for references (that is also what I've seen on featured article reviews). The idea is to create levels of detail depending on the reader's need. Adding a string of references on to a sentence which summarizes multiple paragraphs in a daughter article is aesthetically unpleasant, just seems goofy to me, and goes against the whole point of Summary Style. I propose the following:

• reference any direct (or semi-direct) quote, even when Summary style was used
• switch to the template which says For further detail, see ... which makes it more clear to the reader that the detail is elsewhere.
• don't source broad summary statements, but if I encounter a very specific statement, I may need to source it
• source everything in sections which don't have summary style articles (eg, Economic policy).

What will get more complaints from future readers? If we add 10 references after a one-sentence summary, that grabs attention and is obnoxious. If the template at the top of the section clearly says "See x for further detail", it seems clear to me that the reader should be able to figure that out. I also want to be able to encourage future editors to add detail to the daughter articles rather than the main article.

I'll get moving, unless anyone disagrees. I've already noticed several statements which were left over from the Saravask version which were never sourced. When I encounter those, I'll tag them. Sandy 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism, Foreign Policy were easy. I'm stumped on Domestic Policy section, since it's no longer in summary style. What's in the main article now is almost an exact copy of the daughter, Bolivarian Missions, with a paragraph of criticism left out. If we reference it completely, the other sections look naked and unreferenced (i.e.; unsubstantiated). I suggest that Domestic Policy needs to either 1) go back to Summary style, or 2) include all of what is in daughter article, including the extra paragraphs of criticisms and references. We have to go one way or the other. I vote for summary style for consistency, and because we are still two to almost three times the recommended prose size. Foreign policy needs to be cut down, too. (And I'll begin summarizing and cutting down all of the top of the article after we finish this.)Sandy 21:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of bringing everything back. The article is TOO LONG. I attempted to solve the Domestic Policy dilemma by bringing back all the positives (since they were no longer summary style anyway), and linking to the Criticism article for the rest which had been summarized. I'll stop there for now to see what others think, before tackling the top of the article. I've been willing to summarize and move out all the criticism, but I detect reticence to summarizing other portions. We open ourselves to later criticism of a POV fork, with the Criticism article.

Size recap:

Before I started summarizing – 114KB

After I summarized first time – 89 KB overall, 78 KB prose

Now – 93 KB overall, 85 60 KB prose. Still too big for readability. We'll need to chop a huge chunk from the top of the article. Sandy 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine, since you are so eager about it I'll let you follow the SS recommendations and your "plan of attack", but please don't further summarise anything except the presidency section, for reasons I stated elsewhere. Yes, the Domestic Policy section is largely a copy of the daughter article's intro with less criticism, but it's still summarised and includes only the main points (not to mention that there is such little explanation of Domestic Policy, anyway). Also note that there are no rebuttals, so a reduction in criticism will not result in a pro-Chavez article. -- WGee 03:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I've finished bringing back all the refs. I noticed that some statements were never referenced in Saravask's version. In fact, if you look at the entire top of the article, which we have yet to fiddle with, you'll see that most of his statements weren't referenced. I don't know (yet) if that means he referenced the statements in the daughter articles, or if it means he never referenced them. I prefer his style, where every sentence wasn't peppered with numbers, but I've complied with the consensus of referencing everything in the main article. Ready to regroup, see where we are, and see if we're ready to start reducing the top of the article. Total article size is now 99 KB, prose size should still be 60 KB, since we haven't changed prose. Sandy 23:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Allright, I've been reverting all of the essays and unsourced rhetoric against Chavez from multiple anon editors for two days now, and attempting to explain Wiki policies and procedures to the editors on their talk pages. Someone else needs to help out. Another essay was just added, which has nothing to do with Chavez. It appears that there are a number of editors out there who are not happy with the bias which still exists in this article. I have tried to explain that we will balance it more once we shorten it. I will move forward later today or tomorrow with shortening and summarizing the top of the article, so that more space can be allocated to better balancing the article. Sandy 15:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the last essay, and that's all one can really do. I think it's very unlikely, however, that the anti-Chavez essays were inserted because of a perceived pro-Chavez bias. Based on their contributions, I reckon they will only consider the article "neutral" when it consists solely of anti-Chavez diatribes, which, of course, will never be the case. Such edits are merely a testament to Chavez's polarizing rhetoric and style of governance, which have evidently provoked ire from some. -- WGee 17:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it was the various versions I deleted before which were arguing that the article needed to be more balanced. I feel badly reverting so much, but new editors might benefit from reading the talk page. Sandy 17:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but because of their contributions I'm weary of their definition of "balanced". -- WGee 18:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I see where the insanity comes from. And obviously, I hadn't seen anything yet. Loisel 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're seeing it. It would be stupendous if you'd hang around and give a hand :-) I was a math undergrad, too, and write a lot on medical articles: nothing like territory where things are at least a little more black and white, huh? Chavez is controversial: what is an obvious fact to one person, is heresy to the next. Sandy 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, in fact, I've been meaning to grab your recall vote text (the one you mentioned in a talk section above) and correct that passage. It would be great if you could do that, since we've got our hands full :-) We're still trying to finish the restore from the revert, shorten the article, figure out summary style, and deal with ongoing content additions. Sandy

I'll consider it when I have the time. We're moving in a few weeks and I have two Real Life articles to finish before then. Loisel 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Blatino

Kinda helpful to have my teenager around the house for the summer. "Blatino"? He says, sure, that's a black latino. He says there's also blackanese, and others. <shrug> ?? Not really sure what to do with that one. He says it's not a slur, but he's a kid. Sandy 01:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS – the category was just created, so we may be the first to notice it. Sandy 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm a teenager, and I've never heard of it (and I used to live in the most multicultural city in the world)  :-) It sounds offensive (though not as offensive as "blackanese"), it's not very encyclopedic, and I doubt the people to which the term applies would refer to themselves in such a way. Wouldn't the term Afro-Latin American be more appropriate for an encyclopedia? -- WGee 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, and when I search for "Blatino". . . I don't get the most pleasant results. -- WGee 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

. . .And this might be why: [21] -- WGee 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That would explain why my son has heard it. His schoolmates fit the description to a tee. Sandy 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I definitely don't know how to nominate a category for deletion: in fact, I'm still trying to learn how to nominate an article for deletion. Anyone? Sandy 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You echo my exact thoughts Sandy, but I was rather hoping someone else would go to the trouble. Someone please delete the category, immediately. It's one of my editing areas but I'm rather stranded in Cuba at the moment grappling with biogs of Castro's council of ministers. The wiki-bureaucracy drives me crazy. --Zleitzen 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List it at Categories for discussion. I'll endorse the nomination if you want to start it. -- WGee 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll do it. -- WGee 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Good! I'm still stuck in the "who wrote the user manual for this thing, anyway" phase. I found a reference here while I was trying to figure out on what basis to nominate for deletion. Sandy 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Critiscism references

Isn't this a bit excesive?

Flanker 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, did you see the discussion of this two topics up? Sheesh. Sandy 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarely. It certainly does not increase the burden on the reader. Loisel 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I haven't been up to date recently, but are they ALL needed? For example the first article from the Wash post was mostly an article about immigration and then the economics bit was found in one paragraph. My critique is not about sources or how many, I am for the most sources possible, but they have to fit the article not just add everything found to date. Flanker 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked any of them. Which is why I said "not necessarely." If they're off-topic, they're obviously "too much". Loisel 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

REWRITE:Economic Policy

Proposed introduction

Economic policy under Chavez is constantly evolving and hard to label, neither following the strict socialist path of Cuba nor the strict capitalist path of Mexico or Chile, it seeks to strike a balance. It does however borrow from other international expirience, Fiscal and monetary policy is keynisian in nature. Enterprenuership is heavily promoted but of a social co-operative variety borrowing from the Vasque community. Government direct investment follows neither import substitution nor a globalization path, seeking instead to meet internal, regional, and lastly global south demand. The private investment is encouraged but not at the expense of other priorities such as oil control and land redistribution. Most of the initiatives are at the mercy of a high budget costs forcing the government to expand its two pillars of traditional income: Tax collection has been revamped leading to fewer evasions. Oil policy was rerouted from production centric goals, to profit centric ones

Rest of changes found here Hugo Chávez/Sandbox

Changes

• I did not adecuately referrenced all that I added (It will take me a while to do so) so I did not meassure article size, will put current size if asked.
• I added an introduction so we can better understand what Chavez economically proposes, even though Oil dominates the economy it really is not within his version of the economy. It could be argued that it is only a cash cow and nothing else wanting to limit its percentage of GDP.
• I removed the 25% drop, and comparisons with the previous administrations, the first deals with an politically motivated number the oposition wants to blame the government with a nonexistant production drop (in a way contradicting since oil revenue is used to put down economic growth) if readded then a lot of unbiased independant sources must be added to counteract, the latter which adherence with OPEC quotas, Venezuela under Caldera produced almost 500,000 barrels above them.
• Added operating contract switch that was fairly recent.
• Added emphasis on the relation between political stability and economic performance. If anything it is underdeveloped in 1999 he inhereted a deep recesiion, there was moderate growth (3.2% if I recall) in 2000 and 2001 each, only to enter deep recession again after the first paro/lockout/strike of Dec 2001.
• Changed the date of the Datos link it is more like from 2004 till 2006.
• Readded the World Bank to provide a number + reference that is not official therefore not politically cooked in favor, maybe even impartial.

Comments

I know that most of it will be viewed as controversial since it is one of the most heavily edited sub-section so we might take a while here. I know that Sandy changed it from the more link centric version even removing the Heritage foundation link but this is more or less how I have viewed it, from expirience.Flanker 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I took out 20 KB from the bloated article, removing almost all of the criticism to a sub-article, and all you note is that the Heritage Foundation link is also gone? How ungrateful :-) Flanker, we have a sandbox. Can we please use it, instead of extracting entire chunks of text here, which are already viewable in the article? Hugo Chávez/Sandbox I'm not impressed with the new lead, and I can't work on large chunks of text in a talk page. Sandy 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed Flanker repeated and proposed text to Hugo Chávez/Sandbox, to avoid bloating the talk page. Sandy 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

But in the sandbox it would work very differently It would be impossible to track changes, or look at archives (EDIT I see you can, how did you manage to delete previous changes?) I thought the same way with the lead would work perfectly, but oh well. The first paragraph is as good as an encyclopedia will get at understanding economic chavismo IMHumbleO. Here is a link to an archived version in case of emergency Special:PermanentLink/61586623#REWRITE:Economic PolicyFlanker 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anybody have a specific comment they wish to add? I put the proposed intro on the talk page again in hopes to see a reply.Flanker 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone?Flanker 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

By "put the proposed intro on the talk page again", do you mean the sandbox? I'm not crazy about that rewrite, and I'm holding off for input from WGee, Loisel, anon and others on all of the consolidating I did this week, before introducing other changes. If we can all stay on the same page, we'll have less chance of another drastic revert at some point in our future :-) Sandy 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this thing to the bottom maybe people missed it.Flanker 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the changes made by WGee. A good portion of what you've written seems unsourced, and bordering on original research. Sandy 19:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I said I can source it... All I want to see if people want anything in particular sourced, if not it is removed. That simple.Flanker 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I told Sandy that you had a good idea in attempting to outline the goals and ideology of Chavez's economic policies. But before I could even consider accepting your proposal, I would have to see all the sources from which it is derived. -- WGee 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But if I source ALL of it might be a waste of time if say just a third make it through. Think of it this way imagine that you found it in wikipedia, and then add {{Fact}} where you want a source and I will find it. Guys/Gals I am not putting it up right now, we can do it slowly but I do want progress, it is frustrating to see my contributions stagnating in the talk page while the article itself changes constantly. It appears being bold applies to everyone but me.Flanker 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just list your sources here so we can look at them, and get beyond the original research issue. You've put forward a proposal that is completely unreferenced, so we have no means of making a determination. I also wouldn't say anyone else is being particularly bold. We are working slowly, methodically, with consensus, and with references. Sandy 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

But I don't have them this instant, look I have followed this issue for a while, all that I have proposed is from memory, it is not original research for one simple reason: if there is a single ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  left and I cannot source it then that statement will not be added, that is how this article started you know, people wanted to write something in wikipedia and they source it. As for being bold I certainly feel on the sidelines again, every small step we take to reach concensus here first is again dashed by 30 edits from when I last checked.(some are just copy edits which is not my forte but then again others are not)Flanker 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I went through it on the sandbox, did a pretty significant copy edit (but didn't get everything), tagged the new sentences (every one of them would need a reference), and put some inline comments on some sentences that just don't seem to reflect the facts as I know them. A couple of statements in particular were very POV. I hope that's a start. I also hope I've made it clear that I'm not really into working on a given paragraph before we reduce the article size and deal with the daughter articles, so I'm sorry not to have given this sufficient attention. I've had a bit of work on my hands just keeping the references in the right place, and am trying to proceed slowly, working with consensus. Sandy 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I will get on it, BTW the two pillars are taxation (around 55%) and the rest is petroleum related reveneue (taxes, royalties, PDVSA etc) Flanker 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

If the first paragraph can be sourced and the language altered a bit, it could possibly be plopped in at the top of the section without much difficulty. The rest the points you make can be surreptitiously added, if approved. The latter paragraphs are also lacking some of my recent edits, which I'm in favour of keeping. -- WGee 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee: article size

WGee, we *must* shorten this article. Yes or no? Do you think we can cut enough from the top, to get it to at least 50 KB prose, or are you going to add everything back in there, too <smile> ? It seems to me that the only cuts that have been made so far are of criticism, which is leading us back to an unbalanced, NPOV article, and opening us to criticism of a POV fork. Sandy 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't believe that making the criticism section more concise has led or will lead to an unbalanced article, at least not in Chavez's favour (there still aren't any rebuttals). Secondly, I only support making further cuts to the presidency section; the rest of the sections are appropriate sizes. Moreover, I have no clue how much text is incorporated into 50 KB, which is why I'd prefer we judge the article size visually rather than through the use of arbitrary technical targets. -- WGee 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you go about measuring the technical size of just the prose, anyway? -- WGee 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a pain in the neck: see here. One of the Wiki articles (either WP:SS or WP:SIZE) gives good explanations and correlations of article size KB with printable pages, explains why 50 KB prose is an outside limit, and why we should use Summary Style. I was most impressed when my spouse refused to even look at 22 printed pages of text about Chavez, proving Wiki's point. We aren't writing a book: we're writing an encyclopedic entry. As soon as an article gets too long, it has to branch and summarize. There is a complete article on Bolivarian Missions (Domestic Policy) and Foreign Policy: we need to give the reader a brief overview, and let them go to the daughter articles for more detail in the areas that interest them. We are doing too much in this article. I know there is resistance to dealing with the daughter articles, but it has to be done. Sandy 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, since you had me check, I realized you're supposed to use the printable version (I was using the full version, and chopping everything out, include pics, which was way more work). Doing it the way he explained to me, I get that we are now at 60 KB prose. Sandy 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See prose size here (probably, when I wasn't using the printable version, the size was getting hit with the references even though they didn't show in the text when I deleted Notes, so this is the correct way to do it). Sandy 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's aim for 50 KB then. I suggest we shorten the Presidency section first, and then see how far that goes. I still believe, though, that the Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy sections are appropriate sizes considering the length of their daughter articles. And, even after reading the SS article, I don't agree with the idea that all the references should be in the daughter articles. To keep them here would contribute to the article's stablity and allow for easier access to pertinent references. One of the consequences is the long list of references at the bottom of the article, but that's not an issue for most people. -- WGee 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright, how about if I try to sort through the references and see if I can avoid bringing over those massive lists? Perhaps I can bring only a few. And, give me some time to catch up and finish that before we start reducing the Presidency section: I got distracted by a very exciting Emmy nomination, and had to create the article :-)) Sandy 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, a few threads up I gave my stamp of approval to your "plan of attack", but I still oppose further cuts to any section except the Presidency one. Do you want to continue the discussion about the article size up there or down here? -- WGee 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that I know we're at 60 KB, I'm confident we can get what we need in reductions from the Presidency section only. I think we're OK on the Impact section. Presidency should do it. Sheesh, but I haven't reviewed the ToDO/POV list for days <sigh>.Sandy 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: WGee, we *must* shorten this article. Yes or no? Do you think we can cut enough from the top, to get it to at least 50 KB prose I will strongly oppose this move, and any further 'shortening' of this article. The quality seems to be deteriorating, not improving, as Sandy keeps 'summarzing' and 'shortening' it. 172 | Talk 18:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oil card quote

I did not want to create another talk item and drive my RWRITE down but I guess.

The Washington Post has put a quote from Chavez they sourced to the Argentinian daily Clarin a month before, evidently after finding the article in question here: [22] You can see that the quotes are not what the Wash post says:

"En Venezuela tenemos una fuerte carta petrolera para jugar en el tablero geopolítico y la vamos a jugar claramente en los procesos de integración regional."

Translation

In Venezuela we have a strong oil card we can play in the geopolitical card game and we will clearly use it in the regional integration process.

—¿Venezuela va a jugar su carta petrolera contra EE.UU.?

-Es una carta que vamos a jugar duro contra los más rudos del mundo: los Estados Unidos. Pero la vamos a usar con transparencia y con respeto.

Translation

Venezuela will play that oil card against the US?

-It is a card that we will play hard against the rudest of the world, The United States. But we will use it with transperancy and respect."

The rest of the answer are about regional integration only nowhere in the entire article is the Mass subsidized oil, if that quote is to be added then clearly it can not be from the Wash post because their own source does not say what they quote. And it has to go where regional integration is debated not the Northeastern oil subsidy. The Wash Post screws up again with re: to the topic at hand.Flanker 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First, you don't know *all* of the Post's sources, and second, I can't see that you're saying anything different than the Post says, or that our article says. I believe this passage is left over from the Saravask version. It says, Chávez has stated that such gestures comprise "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" and that "[i]t is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States."[96] What do you want to change? You can't just delete it because you disagree with it. Sandy 23:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not about what my opinion is, it is about how it is incorrectly quoted in wiki. And yes the quote is from the Clarin this is what the Wash Post says:

"Chavez told the Argentine newspaper Clarin last month that Venezuela has "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" He said, "It is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States.""

Clearly it has nothing to do with the Mass subsidy, the addition of it in wiki is a manipulation of context, Savarask did not have it here IIRC. That and if it will be added it should be in "regional integration" and it should be a full quote. Not what the Post did in an article almost entirely about the United States when it was not the focal point.Flanker 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither our article, or the Post article, says the comment had to do with the Massachusetts gesture. Saravask's wording says "such gestures comprise", which seems 100% accurate. How do you want to change that? We don't need to write a book about the quote, or speculate about what other sources the Post may or may not have had. Sandy 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it is obvious it should go where the Clarin article says: under regional integration NOT US-Venezuela petro-one-up.Flanker 00:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Our article does say that the comment had to do with the Massachusetts gesture: Chávez has stated that such gestures (incl. the Mass. one) comprise "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" and that "[i]t is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States." Chavez said this in October, and he didn't state that low-cost oil offers to poor US citizens would be part of the strategy. Of course it makes sense to presume the Mass. subsidy is part of the strategy, but that presumption should be left to the reader. -- WGee 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know how we can fix it. What Chavez said about using the oil card is generally accurate (although he apparently said "rude", not "tough", the Post misquoted that) and what Saravask reported from the Post is accurate vis-a-vis the Post article. How do we fix it? Sandy 02:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You can review the change I made, but it doesn't address Flanker's concern about the misquote. -- WGee 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I saw it, good fix. I don't agree there's a substantial misquote. I think the way you've handled it is fair and accurate. And yes, Flanker, Saravask's version did have it. I just checked, and I was sure no one had added that since we've been working.Sandy 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

According to WordReference.com, rudos means rough, coarse, or hard. So the translation "toughest" seems appropriate given the context. [23] -- WGee 02:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I had two points where it went (should go in regional integration), and what it quotes (mostly extending the second quote), 'rudos' means rude due to context if you follow the quote in the end he says "transperancy and respect", rude and respect are diametrically opposed.Flanker 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with your analysis. When I search for the Spanish translation of "rude", I get numerous results, none of them "rudos". [24] But anyway, I'm not going to argue with you about the Spanish language, which I know very little about. My primary point is that I've never heard a leader refer to another country as the "rudest". "Toughest" makes much more sense considering the country in question and the translation I procured. I think the fact that "rude" and "respect" are contrary is irrelevant. -- WGee 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Trust me it means both, (maybe borrowed from english) and in context it does mean rude. That said I don't think is THAT important, just that the second part of transperancy and respect should be included.Flanker 17:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Flanker that he meant rude, for two reasons: 1) he isn't known for having the, um, most polished speech with a great variety of vocabulary, and 2) the commonest usage of "rudo" in Venezuela is rude, regardless of what dictionaries say. A person who has the kind of unpolished speech and vocabulary that Chavez has would probably say "brusco" if he meant something like toughest. WGee, there's probably not a lot of world leaders who speak as poorly and colloquially as Chavez does: in fact, I think our article refers to this. He speaks to his audience, and he uses common and vulgar language. Have you ever read the things he really said about Condi Rice? At any rate, I think we're nit-picking here. The Post may have translated wrong (maybe they used the same dictionary as you :-), but the context is still the same. If we change the Post quote, how do we avoid engaging in original research? Sandy 17:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It would not be original reserach if we use what the Clarin quoted, as for language... I don't know I normally don't care about how somebody speaks, I worry more about what he does.Flanker 20:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we both agree he said/meant rude, let's see if WGee suggests a fix to the whole mess. I still want to leave the other version for contrast (since that's what was reported in the English-language media), so perhaps we can mention both somehow. Where it becomes original research is if it's you and I reporting -- against what most dictionaries say -- that "rudo" in Venezuela is rude. That's our word, not a referenced source. Sandy 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I dont really care about 'rudo' it seems it is always a misunderstanding ;) what I do care about is positioning in the article and finishing his quote (ie not quote him out of context).Flanker 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think WGee fixed the context, and believe the current context is completely accurate. I made an edit to fix the translation error (by glossing over it :-): let's see what others think of it. Sandy 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe your edit is good compromise, Sandy, and I agree with you that we shouldn't get into the business of translating statements ourselves. -- WGee 01:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The primaries will be held

Here is Flanker's summary, which he added to the Sumate entry under controversy:

On July 7 2006 opinion writer, government critic and presidential candidate Teodoro Petkoff labelled Sumate as authoritarian based on their demands that an oposition primary be held on their terms without the input of presidential candidates. Comparing such demands to The Carmona Decree.[10]

Here is the more complete story, which I added:

Based on a procedure recommended by Súmate for a presidential primary prior to the December 2006 presidential elections, candidate Teodoro Petkoff, an ex-guerrilla and communist, said that their procedure was authoritarian, and similar in style to The Carmona Decree. Nine other candidates agreed to the terms for holding a primary to select the opposition candidate, confirming their desire to allow the citizens to choose the opposition candidate. The primaries will be held on August 13, 2006. Another candidate condemned Petkoff's remarks against Súmate, saying that his statements don't help the country, and explaining that the conditions had been previously discussed between all of the candidates, including Petkoff.

Interesting good faith edit, Flanker. Sandy 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Teodoro is Chavez's #1 critic I would dare you to find one ranked higher, and his action is perfectly logical really, after Sumate met Bush they became Bush's candidate in the eyes of Venezuelan people anything that comes from their primaries is tainted and easily labelled as Bush's candidate more or less a death knell even if the Chavez administration is hit by catastrophy like a major corruption scandal. Teodoro knows reality, the only reason I do not support him was his disaster running Venezuela's economy in 96-99. However he knows why there so much rejection against the oposition and sumate is part of that. That or occams razor that he saw the polls and him losing the primaries ;).Flanker 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I know very well who Teodoro is. That's not the point. The point is, you added a completely tendentious edit, tellling one side of the story in a completely unfair way, when the headlines easily available to you tell the whole story, which is quite different. I've taken note, considering all the good faith I've shown towards telling both sides of the story and helping work out your edits. Sandy 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well labelling him something he admits being a mistake and rejects as a principle is not fair either ;) Although In my defense it was breaking news, I am sure their reaction would be forthcoming and I support the balance added.Flanker 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You might want to refrain from adding "breaking news" to Wikipedia, until you've verified the whole story and the validity of the information presented by the sources you prefer. A similar situation occurred when you added an MSNBC report about some survey, for which no other information is available, even on the site of the people doing the survey, rendering it not a particularly encyclopedic entry. Sandy 15:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Both stories are verified trust me given the standard for Verification it seems to be a mainstream source, that said if you want to hold off on adding breaking news until the dust settles and we can add balance then I guess I agree then.Flanker 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Criticism summary objections

Flanker, you are once again bloating the article with point and counterpoint arguments and additions. Many days ago, I removed almost all of the criticism from the article, summarizing it as briefly as possible. Now you're bringing back entire arguments. Perhaps I should stop arguing that we should use Summary Style, and simply bring back the entire Criticism article, to achieve balance in this article? You don't appear to be willing to allow for a brief summary of issues, with further detail in daughter articles. Sandy 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The version I fixed was not a summary actually it was the old Version with the Fair link and US government stance removed clearly POV, if we are going to summarize it lets make it neutral.Flanker 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The entire article isn't neutral, since I removed all the criticism to a daughter article. The point of Summary Style is that the article refers to daughter articles for detail. I'll be happy to bring all the criticism back (including domestic, economy and foreign policy) and forget about Summary Style, if you want to continue with obstructive edits. Sandy 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, I just don't think the current critiscism summary is balanced, perhaps we should return it to the previous hodgepodge version we had been working on until we can start summarizing it in a balanced way.Flanker 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a fine time to come to the conclusion that a summary, which was written many days ago, is not balanced. Have you not read all the discussion on the talk page over the last few days, which has included a massive effort on my part to move references back and forth between articles, per consensus? Do you think it's good faith to wait for me to do all that work, and then decide you don't want to use Summary Style or don't like the summary? Sandy 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I probably missed all of the details, the terrorism link was in another paragraph, so I apologize for not providing my opinion earlier. The section stills needs to be better summarized in a neutral manner rather than just summarize all of the claims against. And deleting the counter points.Flanker 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you wait for someone who has a capacity for neutrality to summarize it to your satisfaction, since you don't like my summary, rather than bloating the text by again bringing back point and counterpoint hodgepodge. Sandy 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I wish Sandy would give up the obsession with "summarizing" sections of this article. Reading through the "summarized" sections of the article, I believe the contents were much better written earlier, flowed better, and offered more detail and context. 172 | Talk 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess you consider Wiki policies and recommendations are secondary to your preferences. See WP:SS and WP:SIZE. If consensus is for a book, that will eliminate any possibility of re-applying for FA, which WGee expressed as his interest. If that is the way it is decided to go, I can bring back all the content from the daughter articles, and when we finish the top of the article plus the 2006 elections, we may have a record length for any article I've encountered on Wiki. It's interesting that you haven't contributed to all of the work over the last few weeks, and now have opinions that go contrary to Wiki style, recommendations, FA criteria, and policies. Sandy 18:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been an editor on this site for over three years. I have helped in the forming of some of these "policies" and "recommendations." They are not written in stone. While getting certain articles down to an arbitrary limit of 50 KB or 32 KB or whatever may be a good rule of tumb for avoiding repetition, rambling, and off-topic tangents, for certain subjects-- this article being a classic example-- a long article is appropriate. Some subjects inherently require longer articles than others. 172 | Talk 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is being edited too harshly

Please don't edit to prove a point, I learned the lesson of wikistress.Flanker 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see the problem with Sandy's additions here [25], though I removed a couple of excessive pictures. What I don't understand is the obsession with shortening the article. A long article is fine, given the international interest in the topic. 172 | Talk 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I do apologize for not reading all of the changes but I did become worried for a second and decided to restart from where I left it, I disagree with the oil card quote move though, (read the oil card subtopic on the talk page) Suffice to say it was quoted out of context by the Washington Post. As for the article size I am not opposed to it, what I do agree with Sandy that a summary of a particular event is better than a "he said she said", that said such a summary has to be balanced too.Flanker 19:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In principle a summary is of course better than a "he said she said." Still, I'm not seeing much of the "he said she said" to which Sandy is referring in the article. I hate to say it-- I think Sandy has sort of a habit of making a big deal out of nothing. 172 | Talk 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy please calm down. Flanker 19:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Sandy's feelings about the subject are way to passionate to allow him/her to edit calmly. I find it really odd that Sandy is still so discontent with the state of the article, which is better written than the vast majority of Wikipedia entries on controversial political figures. It also baffles me that Sandy still feels the article has a 'pro-Chavez bias.' The article may not have all the mud and dirt on Chavez one can dig up, but it's getting close. 172 | Talk 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, per your requests and objections, Summary style is removed (I may still need to get some of the templates, not sure I got to all of them). We are now at 124 KB, which includes 71 KB of prose, vs. 30 KB recommended, and 50 KB recommended as max. WGee expressed an interest in re-applying for FA status, and I don't believe this will make it, particularly since there is still more to add (current events, all the POV list, etc). 172, your comments above are bordering on personal attack, and I will consider them in the context of your history on Wikipedida. If anyone wants to proceed according to consensus, and revert to the last version which enjoyed consensus, that would be 14:21, 8 July 2006 SandyGeorgia. I personally believe this version, with this much detail, is absurd. Sandy 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a personal attack. I was commenting on Flanker's remark, "Sandy please calm down." If you think that my suggestion that you calm down is "bordering on personal attack," then I really suggest even more stongly that you calm down. 172 | Talk 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's not calm? Perhaps I can just edit faster than some others: speed in multi-tasking doesn't equal a lack of calmness. Sandy 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take this as an offense. Perhaps what I'm about to say is the effect of your ability to edit at a fast pace and "speed in multi-tasking." Regardless of whether or not it's your intent, you seem to be asserting ownership over this article, much like User:Polaris999 on Che Guevara. 172 | Talk 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To say that I am asserting ownership when we have proceeded so slowly and carefully, always according to consensus (until Flanker's edits of today) – and when I have done and undone work a number of times in accordance with the wishes of other editors – is absurd. It appears you really haven't been following this article, and are drawing hasty conclusions. Sandy 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy I know I may have triggered your wikisress and I apologize for doing so, but wholesale changes done to prove a point against me are not conducive to the quality of wikipedia, I agree with summarization but disagree on the way it is implemented.Flanker 20:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Flanker :-) Wikipedia is not something to "stress" over: it's a collection of ACSII characters. When two editors are objecting to Summary Style, as you and 172 were, against one who supports it, that's consensus. You didn't "trigger" anything. I merely complied with what you both wanted, and it took very little effort. I restored all of my pre-summary content and additions that have been made to daughter articles since I summarized. If it is decided to change it later, I gave above the last version we can revert to, which is where we had consensus. I suggest waiting to see what other editors have to say: maybe others prefer this version to the POV fork to criticism. Sandy 20:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are taking it well, I will take a break for today, hopefully tomorrow clearer heads can prevail.Flanker 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks fine now, and so do Sandy's additions. (As for the current events, I would've favored more content on Mercosur and ALBA and a little less on the Peruvian election. However, I acknowledge that this matter is hardly clear-cut. On one hand, the recent trade agreements will likely have much more far-reaching consequences on the Venezuelan economy than the series of barbs exchanged between Alan Garcia and Hugo Chavez in the lead up to Peru's presidential election. On the other hand, the Peruvian presidential election might have generated more international media coverage, and in that sense it might warrant more coverage than recent developments in Mercosur. Both views are reasonable, so I'll refrain from changing the balance of coverage on current events.) The article is much better written than most Wikipedia entries on controversial world leaders. The partisan references from Z-Mag, Venezuelaanalysis.com, etc. are largely gone. The article is reasonably comprehensive and up-to-date. I think it's time to start holding off on major revisions and let the page stabilize for a while. 172 | Talk 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that your conclusions are a remarkable leap for someone who hasn't been involved in the article, and I defer to those who have. We have yet to hear from most of them. I remain happy to do the work, regardless of the decision, as long as it is based on consensus. Again, I respect the fact that WGee indicated at one point that he wanted to preserve FA possibility, and I do not believe 80 KB of prose (which is where this will end up after we complete updates and the POV list) will get there. I don't think that we can even remotely argue that this article, in this state, meets criteria 5) It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles. You also imply that the article hasn't been stable, which I disagree with. We have proceeded slowly, methodically, and with consensus, while attempting to preserve prose and make sure everything is referenced. I can't imagine a more stable approach to editing, considering the extreme controversy surrounding the "subject". Sandy 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: I suggest that your conclusions are a remarkable leap for someone who hasn't been involved in the article, and I defer to those who have. I think that statement sums up what I've been saying about article ownership. As for FA, I think it's a lost cause. Chavez may be a far more controversial figure today than he was only six months ago, when the article was featured, following his rows with the Mexican and Peruvian presidents, his backing of Iran in its nuclear standoff with the U.S., and his backing of Bolivia's nationalization of the natural gas industry. Dealing with such a controversial subject, it's tough to imagine everyone being sufficiently pleased with the article for it to pass a FA review. 172 | Talk 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Time out people

172 is busting in without apparently having bothered to look at much of the talk conversation. What is the goal here, to get a condensed article and lead to other forks with more information or to effectively repeat the same and have endless claim/counter-claim wars? In any case, reinstating the old intro. and attempting to remove dispute tags is the worst way to go about this. Nobody is asserting "ownership". They are trying to make good, neutral articles. 72.65.71.202 22:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is this? I am familiar with the issues at stake here. I don't think a "condensed article" is helpful. Readers who are looking for a less detailed and comprehensive entry are free to read the intro and skim through the rest of the article. The article is thus useful, whatever the size, to readers interested in less depth. 172 | Talk 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you also believe that the fork articles should be deleted? Because the practical effect is that one editor feels an important criticism is left out, so another editor adds in a countering detail, and so on to the point where the article is bloated with excessive digressions on small points. If you look through the edit history you will see that happening in several sections, and it is the main reason why the article is so huge at the moment. The content needs to be summarized so that the reader understands the basic information and can access separate pages to view further detail. Nobody is missing anything absolutely essential to this particular article in the meantime by content being properly summarized. 72.65.71.202 23:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, who is this? Re: Because the practical effect is that one editor feels an important criticism is left out, so another editor adds in a countering detail, and so on to the point where the article is bloated with excessive digressions on small points. Nice theory, but having read through the article, I don't see too much irrelevant information. There may be pro- and anti-Chavez partisans working on the article, but squeezing the article into an arbitrary size limit is not going to help. Dramatically shortening the article, as you propose, would just lead them to start fighting over what's "absolutely essential to this particular article," as you put it. 172 | Talk 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's entertain that, then. You say that in downsizing the article that she is adhering to an "arbitrary" limit but I ask instead, what limit is not arbitrary? Is 200 KB too much and if not, how do we determine it? Again, do you propose that the forks should all be deleted? Because the practical effect is that the content becomes virtually identical, or that one is missing important pieces of information not contained in the other, causing a perverse duality of argumentation by edits. This is what summarizing avoids. I think there should be a discussion about what material is valuable at what length, but not simply rapid-fire reverts for someone making an effort.

That goes doubly for the introduction, which has been very contentious. Please identify specific issues you find with it. Saying that it doesn't flow well doesn't inform us very much as to why an entirely different version is better in all respects. 151.205.28.31 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

72.65.71.202 and 151.205.28.31, please sign up for user accounts (if you have not done so already). 172 | Talk 23:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm choosing to edit anonymously. I don't feel there is any issue which should prevent that. If I felt there was manipulation/misidentification I would use an account for the purposes of this page but as it is my edits here have been extremely limited and easily identifiable. 151.205.28.31 23:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I with 172 that article size should not be a hard LIMIT X KB but not the way it is right now or not the way of claim and counter claim there was a lot of work to reach previous consensus that is being destroyed.Flanker 23:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I, too, agree with 172 that Sandy was overzealous in his strict interpretation of Wikipedia size guidelines. The article's size, as I've mentioned before, is not paramount, and is accordingly less important than the quality of the prose and its comprehensiveness. And it doesn't seem to me that any of the information in the pre-summary version was really irrelevant.

I also realize that it is unrealistic to expect such a controversial article to reach FA status anytime soon, evidenced even by this talk page. However, I still intend to bring this article up to the highest quality allowable, and I certainly don't think that FA status is impossible to attain (though perhaps impossible to maintain in the long-term).

--WGee 00:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, if I were strictly interpreting size guidelines, we'd be going for 30 KB prose size, not 50 KB. Well, I guess we're going to need some process by which we can come to a consensus, before putting more work into the article. What do you all suggest? Do we just go on an editing hiatus for a specified period of time, and give everyone a chance to vote on whether they want to use Summary Style or write a book? Or do we just keep working our tails off, with no common goal? Do we set up a vote ... what's next? I'm pulling a lot of the heavy work on cleanup and referencing (what 172 is calling "ownership"), so I'd like to know that we have a common, consensual goal before I continue to exert so much effort. Sandy 01:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider your setting a size limit of 50 KB strict. But anyway, it seems there are more pressing issues to deal with than whether or not we want to shorten the article. What about addressing the POV lists that you and Flanker have made? Rectifying the (alleged) POV imbalance? Updating the 2004–present: Focus on foreign relations section? Explaining Chavez's domestic policy outside of the Bolivarian Missions? -- WGee 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I had put off doing those items until the article size could accomodate more text. It seems strange to have so much ancient history in the article (which doesn't even summarize well the history, leaving out significant info) and no contemporary history, but I was working in a way that would leave us room to accomodate new text. We've already discussed that I can't update the Domestic Policy section. Until today's events, I thought we were at the point that we were done with the bottom of the article, and ready to come to consensus on how we were going to reduce the Presidency section, and what else we were going to include. I don't want to just start doing that without consensus on which way we're going. Sandy 02:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But this size commotion is obstructing progress. You mentioned, for instance, that the history sections are lacking important information, so let's put aside this disagreement on article size and add the missing info. The article can certainly accomodate more text without being impossible to edit or read. -- WGee 02:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it's easy for you to say the size issue is obstructing progress, when I'm the one who has to write a lot of content that will get cut when people realize the article is too long :-)) I also wish you'd make up your mind: over the last week or so, you supported the direction the article was taking, with concurrence that I would do and un-do work several times. Oh, well, it's only work. I can go back through my lists after the dust settles, and people decide what they want to do, but the basic gist of what is completely obfuscated and missing in the Presidency section is a clear, simple, concise description of how Chavez stacked the court, eliminated balance of power, extended his term, eliminated oversight, and generally abused entirely of the democratic institutions. The Presidency section contains so much useless detail, that it obfuscates the simple clarity of the genius of Chavez under the effective tutelage of Castro, aided by Carter who certified that which he had not even observed. Sandy 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Wgee's post, I think he hit the nail on the head: The "size commotion is obstructing progress." Frankly, the claim that the Chávez article is especially long is a fiction. Sandy often points out that the article size is up to 122 KB, but this figure is misleading. KB size is not a good indicator of article length because it takes into account the references, notes, and templates. A more accurate indicator of length is simply the word count of the article prose. Considering the word count, the Chávez article is hardly Wikipedia's entry. For example, I ran a test and compared the word count in this article to that of FA History of Russia, which is seemingly smaller with a size of only 78 KB. Without counting the references, notes, templates, etc., History of Russia has about 11,303 words while the Chávez article has around 10,827 words. In short, the claim that Chávez article is especially long is an illusion, stemming from the fact that the references section is unusually big and the article has a lot of templates.

In response to Sandy's post, while I agree with his/her POV that Chavez has "generally abused entirely of the democratic institutions," the account that he/she is proposing above would be grossly POV. There are other POVs about Chávez aside from those of conservatives and moderates in the U.S. and the Venezuelan opposition. If we are genuinely working toward a neutral, encyclopedic entry, we should oppose moves to rewrite the article from either the perspective of Chavez's supporters on the one hand or his opposition on the other hand. 172 | Talk 07:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your entire long post (above) is a good indication that, in fact, you have barged in here without reading the talk page. We have not based our discussions of article size on the overall size: we have based them on prose size. Read the talk page. History of Russia has 69 KB of prose, Chavez had 71 last time I calculated it. You are making a lot of judgements for someone who hasn't even read the talk page.

With respect to whether we should employ Summary Style: we either do, or we don't. Currently, the only area which is really summarized is criticism. We argued in the Criticism AfD that it was not a POV fork, since it was only one area of summarization, using Summary Style to attain a concise article. It has now become a POV fork, since other areas of the article are not using Summary Style. Whatever we do, we do it equally. If we aren't going to use Summary Style, and we are going to exceed size recommendations, then Criticism can't be the only area summarized, as that creates a POV fork. Either we use Summary Style, or we need to eliminate the POV fork by bringing criticism content back. Sandy 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you were basing the discussions of length on. Either way, the article is not especially long. I hope you're not interested in shortening the article because you want to replace it with a POV "clear, simple, concise description of how Chavez stacked ... generally abused entirely of the democratic institutions." Now, the Criticism of Hugo Chávez is not a POV fork, but a kind of entry that has been becoming standard on Wikipedia. For example, we have articles on criticisms of capitalism, criticisms of socialism, criticisms of Marxism, etc. It is not a problem that criticism happens to be the only area summarized, so long as the summarized length is proportionate, and in this case it is. 172 | Talk 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage of the word terrorist

The age old question of who is a terrorist and if so how they should be labelled, I did not include the two ex militares democraticos as terrorists because even though their intent was to terrorize they were not as competent( no deaths 4 injuries), but labelled Posada as one, if he is not are the FARC and ELN terrorist too? Frankly I want to hear opinions from other editors specially annon.Flanker 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track. It's probably best to err on the side of caution in this case. I'd shy away from using the term unless necessary, avoiding it in the case of both FARC and ELN and the militares democraticos. 172 | Talk 05:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But what about Posada? The FARC and ELN are labelled terrorists on the critiscism section although indirectly.Flanker 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Domestic policy summary

I agree with Sandy that critiscism can be added here, however there is a deep unbalance in prose,the first 3 paragraphs are summarized and describe the positives on single sentences however the last 7 paragraphs are very verbose and negative where they could be easily summarized in the same manner, and that is after removing the economic duplication.Flanker 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've all been waiting a long time for someone (like you) to summarize and better describe his domestic policies. The fact that it hasn't been done is not a reason to delete the other side of the story. If you don't do it soon, I will go through all of the articles I have found recently, and attempt to do it myself, but I am growing weary of working on this article only to have everything reverted, and suggest that some others here should start sharing in the workload. No one yet has written the most glaring omission from this article, which is the environment that brought Chavez to power, and the brilliance of how he has stayed in power. Foreign Policy wrote it, Foreign Affairs wrote it, the US State Dept wrote it, but no, not Wiki. Instead, we have editors arguing against a concise summary, and a hodgepodge of adulation and criticism based on local press. Flanker, please stop reverting referenced content just because you haven't read the sources. There is no requirement on Wiki that sources be available on the internet, and if there were, we'd have to delete an awful lot of Saravask's content, which is based on books. Sandy 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow below books are very different, opinion Journal and Foreign Policy are online and linkable, books are linked to amazon and google books. as for reverting work well that is wikipedia, my work has been reverted many times by you as well, I gave good reason for my changes but you reverted without justifying all of it.Flanker 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide an example of *any* revert I made without an explanation. A simple Google search reveals a site for the source you have repeatedly deleted. The article is not available online, except for a fee. I have done the work of finding it for you: [26]. I understand that you may not have access to an English-language library which carries these publications, but I suggest that you do your homework before deleting referenced content. Sandy 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But what you view as a revert I view as a change and vice versa, remember the 53rd president link? you wanted to delete all the work I did (and may have done so since I lost my internet connection then) based on a single technicality, I did not open my browser and note your changes and just decided to revert, I checked every differential and changed what I thought was not appropiate and left what I thought should be added although better (domestic policy). You later reverted all my work again on a single event that I later agreed to but still reverted all my work again. As for the link I always believe the burden of proof is on he who posits, therfore he who adds to wikipedia.Flanker 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW if you have access to pay for material, could you please quote the excerpt you are referring to under ref? speifically as to why their labell of militarism should be added as how he somehow claims he is?Flanker 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, the amount of criticism in the section was unacceptable. You can't blame others for not adding enough explanation of his domestic policies; I could just as easily blame you for adding too much criticism. And just because we're not following your Summary Style recommendation, you are not entitled to add as much criticism as you like without regard to its effect on the article. If you want to add this new criticism, you must also ensure that it is balanced; you shouldn't leave that responsiblity to everyone else. -- WGee 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I will try and summarize what Sandy added later today, Heritage, Transperancy, crime, etc can all be summarized easily, there is no need to be marathonic.Flanker 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wgee, please provide a more clear summary explaining to exactly which version you reverted, so that we can tell what needs to be reconstructed. Flanker, if you add anything, you are beyond the 3 revert rule, as you have already deleted my edits three times. Please stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss edits you disagree with. Also, please stop with the ancient history: I myself carefully reconstructed every one of your edits in the incident you mentioned, which happened very long ago. If you want every addition that is not available online to be specifically quoted in the footnote, we've got an AWFUL lot of work to do in the references, including translating all of the Spanish articles. Your request, when I am referencing an easily available and well know US publication (Foreign Affairs) is unreasonable. WGee, please stop expecting me to do all the heavy lifting here, when you also have access to these articles. It isn't logical to ask me to do all the work when Flanker reverts everything I add. Sandy 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources that are not linked

I understand if books cannot be linked to (however there are excellent tools to search in books) However articles that are not linked from a source with published material on a web site cannot be a verifiable source, I would love to see Wiki policy on this.Flanker 16:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

After checking the ref/notes I also noticed that the recall quote of the 90% is also unlinked, the only source I find is the unverifiable and highly questionable militares democraticos, could he have been quoted out of context? or does such a quote even exist? Now not only its relevancy is in question but also its verifiability.Flanker 16:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If you (and others) will notice, almost NONE of Saravask's content was referenced. Shall we delete all of it? (Yes, that is part of why I was arguing for better use of Summary Style.) Flanker, you are again arbitrarily reverting and deleting content additions from referenced, valid, reliable primary sources. Please stop. Sandy 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, once again you are engaging in edit warring and reverts. You have reverted referenced content 3 times. Please refrain from disruptive edits, and allow a chance for other, less partial editors to review the work before you revert. I made substantial content additions based on reliable primary sources, and you have reverted all of them. This does not seem to be an indication of working in good faith. Sandy 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I frankly no longer care about what Savarsk did, no offense to him but this article is far removed from what he left, an article that cannot be linked cannot be verified by the editors, if it cannot be verified by the editors it cannot be verified by the reader. From what I can recall the Dec 10 version had either links to articles, PDFs or links to books on amazon and google that could be searched (though I am not sure) I don't see why you cannot provide a link to the article. As for my reverts I did far more work than what you claim for everything that you accuse me of I could say the same.Flanker 16:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Presidency section is relatively untouched from the revert, is mostly Saravask's work, and is mostly unreferenced according to current standards. You *first* reverted my work, so if subsequent reverts caused your work to be lost, it was of your own doing. Please refrain from disruptive editing. There is no requirement to provide a link to a verifiable source: you can go to a library, purchase the articles, whatever, but you can't just delete content because *you* haven't read the sources. This does not seem to be good faith editing. Sandy 16:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I live in Venezuela so checking the library for that is almost impossible not to mention countless worldwide readers that do not have access to a first world library. I am sorry that I changed your work but that is wikipedia I gave good reasons for what I changed.Flanker 16:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, however, deleting reference to a major US publication, because you don't have access, is not reasonable, and seems to imply that you you don't believe my edits are good faith. Shall we delete every source that people in the developing world do not have access to ? And, if so, should we also delete all the references to the Spanish-language press, that not everyone can read? Sandy 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy it is not about good faith, I trust in what you put in, it is about verifiability, take for example the Wash post had we just taken at face value what it sourced from the Clarin we would not have gotten to the bottom of how irresponsible their quote out of context was (whatever their stance against Bush they have a history of bias against Chavez too, the economist is against both too you know). The same thing happens with the Inter-american dialog think tank. I need to see what they say, how it fits etc. The sources in spanish are slightly different since both you and I can verify, those that cannot read spanish can at the very least translate with various internet tools (regardless of quality), and there is no shortage of wikipedia editors that read spanish and can verify what it says.Flanker 19:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. You have every right to question sources and interpretaton of sources. What shows bad faith is wholesale deletion of content additions without bringing your questions to the talk page or waiting to review the sources. You again started an edit and revert war, after I had carefully referenced statements which have been problematic for weeks. Sandy 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

But could you have brought it up here first instead? good faith means that the person means well overall, not that they are correct (ie correct as in more than just quoting). I never questioned the former but the latter is still an issue.Flanker 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Flanker, let's look at an example you might understand. I added content from a reliable, primary, valid, reference. You deleted it with no discussion. The burden is on the editor who makes the addition to reference it: I satisfied my burden, while trying to solve some ongoing anon edits we've been dealing with for days. On the other hand, the other day you (who are in Venezuela, and have access to up-to-the minute news and local press) made an edit about the primaries where you selectively chose to include one (out of nine !!) stories from the days' headlines, when you were in a very good position (better than I) to know how biased, incomplete, and inaccurate that one addition was. I did not revert your edit (as you did mine). I did my homework, found out within minutes of your addition that you had misrepresented the story (even though I'm not in Venezuela, as you are), and presented the full story. See the discussions above of the primaries. It is incomprehensible to me that while this news was "breaking" that you managed to see only one out of nine had opposed Sumate. And yet, I did not revert your edit, precisely because it was referenced from a reliable source. Sandy

Foreign Affairs article

Here is an Internet preview of the Foreign Affairs article that Sandy has used as a reference in the introduction: [27]. The summary says, "The Venezuelan president has an autocratic streak, no viable development model, and unsettling oil-funded aspirations to hemispheric leadership. But Washington and its allies should "confront" him indirectly: by proving they have better ideas." While Foreign Affairs is certainly a reputable journal, the summary suggests that this is an essay rather than a non-partisan analysis. Is this true? If so, it has no place in the lead and would be more appropriate to refer to in the criticism section. -- WGee 19:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, do you have a subscription to Foreign Affairs? If so, you have access to one year of back issues through their website. Then Flanker and I could verify your contribution to the introduction. -- WGee 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't have a subscription, but I can see if my friends do. (Wouldn't that mean they would have to give me their passwords, though?) I see from your link that you can get the article for $3. I didn't find it overly partisan, as (like so many other current articles) it explains how the US administrations have been ineffective, what Chavez has done well (and poorly), and it gives equal time to presenting various sides. For example, from this article we can get ideas of how to begin to write the sections of all that was wrong with Venezuela that led to Chavez, and all that he has done to gain support. I added it to the lead for a very simple reason: for days, we have had an anon editor repeatedly making additions (that one in particular) that were unreferenced. Rather than having to constantly delete the anon addition of one word, it would be better to reference it. There are numerous references to Chavez's militarism throughout the literature, so we may as well include it. If you don't like this one source, there are many more. WGee, can you please explain to exactly where you reverted -- your summary did not explain which version? Another edit that we are constantly battling is the issue of Chavez in his military uniform: the article gives the reason for that. He tailored the law so that he could stay in the military. The caption of the picture was accurate, and this article is the source. I suggest to you that it's worth the $3, as it will help write both sides. I'm not going to write them, though, since nothing I write will please Flanker. Sandy 19:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See you are not assuming good faith :D that breaking news link was the link plastered everywhere, I did not search for the story it simply landed on my lap. That said I agreed that it was out of line to use a breaking news source without letting the dust settle. (This is a response to above I don't know what is the problem)Flanker 20:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, there's good faith, and then there's facts. I searched the Venezuelan news sources minutes after you made the edit, and the full story was readily available. First I went to Sumate.org, then to ElUniversal.com, then to El Universal in English. The English version was not yet up – I got it the next day. It's water under the bridge: let's forget about it. I wish you would simply stop the edit warring, because when you do that, we hit the 3RR and progress on the article stops.Sandy 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The caption difference is simply POV, I understand accuracy but not precision in prose, there we can add "he said she said" however not on captions nor on titles, Chavez is the only democratically elected leader in Venezuela to have served in the military, no law was passed allowing that, it simple meant that the two societies did not mingle, saying that he changed the law to put on an uniform since MPJ is POV, while mine stating that he is the only president to have served in the military since MPJ is not.Flanker 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying that based on not having read the Foreign Affairs article, which is a reliable source? Is it your word that we include, or a statement referenced from a reliable source? Again, Flanker, while we continue to allow your assertions based on the obviously biased VenAnalysis, you object to every referenced statement from a reliable source, if it's something you don't personally agree with. Sandy 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is Venanalysis used in a photo caption or title? if so remove it.Flanker 20:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the Domestic Policy section to the version by me dated 23:13, 9 July 2006.

Flanker's concern with verifiability is a legitimate one; if one does not have access to your source, how can one verify the factual accuracy of your edits? For the sake of both Flanker and I, could you at least include the relevant exerpts from Foreign Affairs in the Notes section? The article may be only US$6, but I do not have access to a credit card. If one of your friends has a subscription, though, they could e-mail you the article, and then you could copy and paste it into this forum. If you could procure another, verifiable source of equal reputation, that would be quite helpful, as well.

Moreover, could somebody provide a brief synopsis of this caption fuss? You're brief explanation was a bit lacking, Sandy.

-- WGee 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Now you're getting unreasonable, too. Large chunks of the article deal with his militarism:do you really want me to type up ALL of it? I'm getting the idea I've been everyone's laborer here long enough. I have to cleanup, fix refs, translate, move into daughter articles, out of daughter articles, cleanup endless reverts, and all I'm doing is following policy by including a reliable source. SHEESH ! The article is in libraries. I don't have an online version: my spouse brought the article home from the library at work. And, it's not $6, it's $3. And, now you want me to get a copy, paste it here, and violate copyright ?????? And, I don't have any of the books or articles Saravask based his content on: shall I start demanding the same? You two are moving way beyond Wiki policies, and just as in the selective use of Summary Style, now employing selective use of references. OK, then. Tomorrow, when I re-add any content, I will include the specific quoted portions. If that's the way we're going to operate from now on, I'll expect the same from everyone else. Sandy 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Sandy nobody is saying it will not be accepted, just that we need to reach a consensus first, you can quote passages it is allowed under copyright law. When you post any other article we read it review it and change if we disagree it is open, your way is a black box and that is never good. (I believe that if we work this way it will be added but we need more than just a "trust me") Besides what other points of contention are there without a referene with link? the Alo presidente link is also not there do you happen to have one?Flanker 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, you are the one starting edit wars, reverting without discussion, and who doesn't appear calm. Your repeated requests to me to calm down, when I work very carefully and methodically, are an insult and patronizing. Pasting large chunks of an article here would go beyond Fair Use and would be a copyright violation. Please don't tell me to "calm down" when I am the one being asked to put my neck on the line, and when I probably know a bit more about Fair Use in the United States than you do. Sandy 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok then... how else can I react without sounding patronizing if you are threatening to hurt the article to spite us? If we cannot copy any sort of text and the text is behind a fee then what is the point of wikipedia? should we avoid pay articles? both are questions not statements.Flanker 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, can you please quote the Wiki policy that demands that the text of reliable sources be available on the internet? I've like to see it, since I've written a very detailed and well-referenced medcial article in which every single statement is backed by a medical journal-published statement, none of which are available on the internet for copyright reasons. I am the one adhering to Wiki policies, not only with respect to WP:RS, but also WP:SIZE, WP:SS, and WP:FA. Your requests are beyond unreasonable. Would you please go back and delete every statement which Saravask based on a book, which is not available on the internet? And excuse me, I have not threatened or harmed the article: it is you who starts revert wars, by deleting referenced content, simply because you haven't seen it and you don't agree with what it says. Sandy 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy they are two DIFFERENT articles... one is highly controversial the other is not, what if I did the same for venezuelan papers? (not a threat) I have a hard copy and no internet link and voila! you would not be able to refute a single thing I posit. That is not in the best interest of wikipedia. Books are different too you can search them in google http://books.google.com/ as well.Flanker 22:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is about the caption of him wearing a camo army uniform, the old caption said he was the only president since Marcos Perez Jimenez to wear one, that is misleading since he is the only president since MPJ to have served in the military, others never wore their uniforms ever. However the background is what makes this a point of conflict, the oposition in the military is angry that he is wearing a military uniform once retired, apperantly protocol is that it can only be worn during weddings, funerals etc. After the coup of 2002 he made a promise not to wear uniform again, he later broke that promise once or twice. Of course it is all so complex and evolved that it might be impossible to simply explain it all in a caption, that is why I believe mine is both NPOV and summarized. Flanker 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Sandy. Realize that you have adopted all of these tasks out of your own free will, and that others are contributing as time allows them. And no, the article is $5.95 for people without a subscription. Also, it is common practice to write the relevant exerpt in the Notes section; the notion that it goes beyond Wikipedia's policies is incredible. And it is quite reasonable to ask you do so when making such a controversial edit to the lead. -- WGee 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

That's cute, WGee. I'll file that. As I said, if that is the new policy here, I assume all will be held to it equally. Shall I begin adding the cite tags where the article doesn't comply, or will you? To say that adding the word militarism to the lead is "controversial" defies reality, when there are multiple reliable sources which easily verify that statement. Sandy 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't appreciate sarcastic comments, nor do I approve of your threats to edit the article to make a point. And I do insist that to say that a leader promotes militarism (especially in the lead) is controversial, polemical, debate-inciting, whatever you want to call it. And if I thereby defy "reality", so be it. There is a scientific consensus that human activity is responsible for climate change; still, that is a controversial claim in neoconservative circles. I am not necessarily campaigning for the removal of the word "militarism" from the lead; I'm simply requesting (not requiring) that you assist me and Flanker in verifying your source. To be upset by this request is what I truly find unreasonable. -- WGee 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then please refrain from starting your commentary with sarcasm. Where was I upset? I'm pointing out that a double standard is being employed with respect to references and Wiki policy. Certainly the wasted time that occurs with these revert wars is irritating, but not upsetting. I agree the sentence should be reworded to better incorporate the word: that has already been stated. WGee, I'm just curious: if you don't have access to a library, how do you verify any of the references here, and why are you applying this new standard to one source only? Sandy 22:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

When I asked you to calm down, I was being sincere. The way you lambasted the alleged double standard and my "unreasonable" request did make you seem rather uspet or, more accurately, indignant. I asked you to help Flanker and I verify the Foreign Affaris source, in particular, because a) many would consider the claim that Chavez is militaristic to be a controversial one, and b) the controversial claim was inserted into the lead, of all places, and presented as a fact. I'm not setting any standards or policies, nor am I bound to base my requests on any standards or policies or to apply my requests uniformly to all references. I do have access to a library, but since I live in a fairly small, working class town, it is quite underfunded and not comprehensive enough for me to conduct any research. I could possibly go to Toronto, but why would I spend $50 and travel for two hours on a bus to independently verify all of the non-web-based sources, if only one of them I find dubious? -- WGee 23:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt your sincerity, but it was sarcastic of you to add it right after I pointed out to Flanker that it was patronizing. The word "militarism" has been continually inserted into the lead for quite a while by anon editors: let's deal with it. I will add direct quotes to the footnotes from here forward for any source not available on the internet, but I think that is evidence of questioning my good faith and adherence to Wiki policies on reliable sources, and I will expect others to do the same in return. End of subject from my end: can we move on to figuring out where we are on consensu (see list below)? Sandy 23:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I must admit that I didn't read your preceding comment, so I didn't know you found it patronizing. Anyway, my requesting verification had nothing to do with assuming faith; it had to do with the simple fact that different editors have different interpretations of the same passages, based on their POVs. WP:AGF does not mean that I have to trust you to interpret everything correctly and without bias. -- WGee 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Selective quotes from Foreign Affairs

The quote which applies to the military uniform is easy to type up, as it is quite brief. From p. 48: "To rule, Chávez depends chiefly on the military, the institution he knows best and trusts most. Thanks to a specially tailored law, Chávez remains an active military officer, and more than one-third of the country's regional governments are in the hands of soliders directly linked to Chávez. As the editor of the daily Tal Cual, Teodoro Petkoff has noted, 'For all practical purposes, this is a government of the armed forces.' "

The edit I made used the exact words about the specially tailored law.

I also added the word "credible" to reports on the Tascon list. From p. 48: "There is also credible anecdotal evidence of the existence of lists of individuals' votes that have been used to deny Chávez's opponents jobs and services."

As to the use of the word militarism, it is peppered throughout the article, and much too much to type. Pages 46 and 47 contain a good summary of the sitaution that existed in prior adminstrations. Page 50 on contains a good description of how the "opposition" has failed.

Another edit I made was from page 46: "Despite the record oil profits that are funding social spending, his initiatives have yielded only very modest gains." This was an attempt to reference repeated unreferenced anon inserts that his policies haven't worked. It is unfair that we continue to revert all anon contributions, with no discussion of their validity. Not gonna copy edit all this typing, sorry for any typos. cleaned up, in case we need quotes later.Sandy 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you it clears up a lot, lets clear the air and start where we agree,

4 that starts about despite oil prices in my opinion should remain, however I disagree with calling him an analyst he is a critic overall.

3 militarism I gave two reasons to remove it, it is not his vision of militarism obviously it is what the oposition thinks it is his vision which is a big difference should go as is on critiscism.

2 Credible anecdotal evidence is very important to view it as he put it, to date nobody has found evidence that the gov is black listing people the only evidence is people themselves claiming foul play, even if you assume they are being honest it is not cientific evidence meaning that there is no proof they are nothing more than exceptions (maybe an overzelaus Chavista did not hire them, but that does not mean the government of Hugo Chavez is conspiring against signees).

1 Is hoplessly wrong, if anything they critiscize that he is breaking the law when he could easily change it (ie done to piss people off intentionally) and he is DEFINETELY not active in the military (a Lt. Col is a lowish rank all Generals would outrank him!!), of course my position is original research if I do not substantiate it, however I still think it should be removed and avoid at all costs putting statements in captions, add it somewhere else, critiscism perhpas.Flanker 21:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't say the author is a critic overall, since you haven't even read the article. The author isn't exactly an opinion writer: he's an academic. If militarism is not Chavez's vision, re-word the lead to incorporate the word militarism, don't just delete it, since it is what his governance is almost entirely based on, multiple sources can reference that, and the anon editor who keeps inserting the word is correct in principle -- the problem is with our wording. I didn't use the words "credible anecdotal evidence": I used "credible reports". You are a bit beyond denial on this one. Your opinion doesn't agree with reliable sources. With your number 1, I have no idea what you are saying. I asked User:Caracas1830 to come have a look at the military uniform issue, as he is the one making the edits and probably understands the nuance better than I do. It is not up to you to say a reliable source is hopelessly wrong: present the refuting evidence (although perhaps Caracas1830 will understand the point you are trying to make, since I don't). And, we could have resolved ALL of these points without your revert war, which would have allowed us to continue to work on the article. Sandy 21:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I know he is biased because I have read his work at the inter american dialogue think tank. [28] As for the military uniform I am not pulling rank, I am not saying that just because I know more does not mean it should be added I respect "no original research" despite it being completely against truth seeking. Wikipedia is completly oposite of what I believe and stand for, I believe in precission I don't believe in arguing ad hominem (eg bias! bias!) However it is what it is.Flanker 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So, VenAnalysis which is so far to the left it can't see the center, calls Shifter a critic, and we're supposed to consider that as an unbiased statement. LOL !! Sandy 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So now we are starting to debate bias, well how can you be a judge of bias if you have stated more than once that you think Chavez is a dictator? and that Carter is in cahoots? (well only once for the latter) and the BBC is pro-Chavez? frankly lets stop debating bias you have your opinion and I have mine, at least wikipedia allows for both or we would be at our necks ;) that said my opinion stands: the author, magazine and think tank is historically biased against the Chavez government. and should not be included in a CAPTION but certainly in the prose, now if you want to do the same in retaliation over every single caption then we are going to be here a while, I do agree that Ven analysis has no room in captions.Flanker 21:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is the distinction you are making between prose in the text, and prose in a photo caption? I'm not following the point. Are you suggesting we add yet another discussion of the whole military uniform issue to the text? Again, we're trying to fix something left over from Saravask, and others may understand that nuance better than I do, but I don't understand the distinction you are making between text inline and text in a photo caption. Sandy 22:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you cannot add all of the context needed to understand what is being added with military uniform controversy, even if you summarize both sides you are looking at a really bad caption... If anything I would rather delete the picture than putting what I said here:

However the background is what makes this a point of conflict, the oposition in the military is angry that he is wearing a military uniform once retired, apperantly protocol is that it can only be worn during weddings, funerals etc. After the coup of 2002 he made a promise not to wear uniform again, he later broke that promise once or twice.

there in any shape or form, I know the oposition, I read what they write and say, and what Caracas wants to add has all of the hidden POV in the world. Saying that he is the first member of the military etc is perfectly neutral and informative statement that picture will ever need.Flanker 23:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I understand your objection now to the caption: I defer to Carcas1830, as I haven't yet heard the other side of the story. I will not re-edit the caption until further consensus. Sandy 23:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

well how can you be a judge of bias if you have stated more than once that you think Chavez is a dictator? And, for the record, saying that someone has dictatorial aims is not the same as saying someone is a dictator. Chavez is a democratically-elected leader who has destroyed democratic institutions and has dictatiorial, authoritarian aims (not only my opinion, but based on plenty of reliable sources). But, you are correct that my highest condemnation is reserved for Carter, becasue what he did was cowardly. Sandy 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making condemnations against former U.S. presidents and other political figures. This is not an internet chat forum. 172 | Talk 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy how do you reconcile "reliable sources" where they call him a socialist liberator? the opinion from a reliable source is nevertheless and opinion, no more correct than yours or mine, verifiabilty does not mean an opinion is correct. As a matter of fact editorials are devoid of the fact checking a normal article has.Flanker 19:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert wars

18:19, 10 July 2006 WGee (Talk | contribs) (→Domestic policy – reverted to version of summarised criticism)

WGee, you replied to my query about the reverted version with: I reverted the Domestic Policy section to the version by me dated 23:13, 9 July 2006. I do not find a 23:13 version in the edit history, so I do not know what you reverted, and will have to go to diffs and compares. Is this a UTC issue? I use UTC, maybe you use your local time? In the future, when reverting, please give a clear edit summary. I'll figure it out this time via the diffs and compare, but don't really understand what causes this problem. Avoiding revert wars would certainly be preferable. Sandy 22:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I've found the compare which summarizes reverts: [29]. Do we have consensus on any of this?

• Incorporate militarism in lead, with proper rewording, per FA.
• Incorporate "modest results" in lead (both of these have constantly been inserted by anon editors), per FA.
• Military uniform, pending input from Caracas1830, who has edited this content in the past.
• Hurricane Katrina, I have no idea what Flanker is up to, but it seems to have lots of typos.
• Flanker added something about employment or poverty, can't tell what that's about, doesn't much matter since Chavez's numbers are questionable apples and oranges anyway, but I can't tell if his update is incorporated.
• Domestic policy, continues to be a POV fork, criticism needs to be added back in. If you don't want it all, then find a better way to summarize it. I will add it all back, and you can summarize from there, unless you give me a better plan. Double standard is employed with respect to Summary Style: either we use it or we don't, but we don't use it selectively to remove criticism only.
• Someone deleted all of the text about the disputed recall vote. I'll bring it back, and someone else is welcome to try to summarize it.
• Argentinian political scientist, can't recall who incorporated that info, need to discuss.
• "Credible" reports on Tascon list, per FA.

I think that's it. Sandy 23:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was a UTC issue; I use Eastern Standard Time in the history window. Anyway, I'll respond to your proposals point by point:

• I'm still not convinced that the article was a non-partisan analysis; rather, it seems like a comparative essay with a tendentious thesis. I'll check my local library to see if I can read the article myself, as your suggestion that it isn't "overly-partisan" wasn't very comforting.

A double standard again. Foreign Affairs is a reliable source, the article is from a non-partisan academian, more reliable than a clearly biased VenAnalysis, and even at worst, no more biased than VenAnalysis, which is used here to justify almost every pro-Chavez statement. I hope you can find the article somewhere, as it could be helpful to us in other areas. I notice that you and Flanker are using a double standard to support VenAnalysis additions, while rejecting content from other reliable sources. Seems tendentious to me. If we are going to reject anything as "partisan" it would most certainly include all of the content referenced to VenAnalysis. And, we can find multiple resources which refer to Chavez's militarism, so it's moot.

Since you are making an assertion of fact, it is necessary to provide a non-partisan source, and I am still not convinced that the publication was a non-partisan analysis (Foreign Affairs publishes both essays and non-partisan analyses). And while Venezuelanalysis is used to reference some pro-Chavez statements, it's opinions are not presented as facts. Thus, there is no double standard. -- WGee 19:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I assume you're referring to this statement: "Despite the record oil profits that are fuding social spending, his initiatives have yielded only very modest gains." It's is too specific for the lead, more appropriate for the Domestic Policy section. We don't want to analyse the results of his anti-poverty campaigns in the lead; we just want to describe what they are.

That is not what I added to the lead. That is the entire quote upon which a lesser addition was made to the lead. Look at the diff above, and please know what you are reverting. The point of the anon edits, which we shouldn't overlook, is that his policies have not yielded significant results.

Please know what you are reverting? I didn't revert that statement; in fact, I don't even remember seeing it in the lead at any point. Regardless, my argument applies equally. -- WGee 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. When I checked the diff I gave above, I realized that the reverts were so convoluted that it wasn't clear who did what, and some of my content was missing in the diff. It now appears that you never even had a chance to review the edits Flanker reverted. Sandy 02:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Chavez's current role in military, so I defer to Flanker.

I defer to Caracas1830. I added the reference because I saw it in the article, and it was a phrase that had been edited and reverted many times. I thought a reference would help. References don't seem to count much round these parts.

• Flanker changed the paragraph to say that Chavez made the subsidised oil agreement with officials in various Northeastern states, rather than just in Mass.. The paragraph should be sourced, though.
• His update, with which I agree, has been incorporated. He noted a 6.9% drop in offical poverty figures, rather than the previously mentioned 6.4% drop.

Personally, I think that kind of issue is better addressed by dropping the absurd level of decimal precision.

Rounding to the nearest tenth is hardly an absurd level of decimal precision. -- WGee 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• I would strongly oppose such a move. If you wish to add this new-found criticism, it must be summarised first and be accompanied by supporters' claims, or else it will cause a massive imbalance in the section. You can't add all the criticism you like and then expect Flanker and I to make the article neutral again. Actually, we should keep all critics' and supporters' claims in the criticism article; that's what it's for, after all. It makes no sense to have a seperate criticism article/section yet also include this criticism in various main article sections.

Not sure which move you're referring to. What new-found criticism? That was text *I* removed from the main article when we had all agreed to use Summary Style, Talk:Hugo Chávez#Sandy's recent summarisation something *you* all changed your mind on. You can't change your mind on only one section. We have numerous daughter (summary) articles which are not being used: only criticism is being summarized. I will not agree to applying a different standard to one area only. Either we summarize, or we don't, but no double standard.

(Sorry, my mistake, the criticism is not "new-found". It just slipped my mind.) -- WGee 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe your missing my point. We have a Criticism article. We have a Criticism section. Criticism should stay in the Criticism section and the Criticism article, just like Chavez's domestic policy should stay in the Domestic Policy section. This has nothing to do with summary style. We wouldn't include information from the Economic Policy section in the Foreign Policy section, would we? Thus, you are the one applying a double standard.

As for your complaint about criticism being summarised: Now, the Criticism of Hugo Chávez is not a POV fork, but a kind of entry that has been becoming standard on Wikipedia. For example, we have articles on criticisms of capitalism, criticisms of socialism, criticisms of Marxism, etc. It is not a problem that criticism happens to be the only area summarized, so long as the summarized length is proportionate, and in this case it is. -- 172 | Talk 17:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

-- WGee 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I see that we were talking about apples and oranges. (The text was originally in Domestic Policy, so I wasn't understanding your objection.) OK, since no other section of the article is employing Summary Style, I will bring criticism back to Criticism, rather than to Domestic Policy. If we later decide the article is too long, and decide to use Summary Style, then everything will be in its place for summarizing. See here: Talk:Hugo Chávez#Time to shorten the article?. Criticism was originally in each section: we separated, and created a fork, since we are not summarizing any other section via Summary Style. 172's argument is moot, since the ONLY area we are summarizing is Criticism. Sandy 02:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read 172's statement? He said that a "Criticism of" article is commonplace in Wikipedia, and that it's common practice to summarize only the criticism section and move most things to the daughter article. So, essentially, this "double standard" is a tradition at Wikipedia. Take it from an experienced editor who's written several featured articles. -- WGee 03:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, perhaps you didn't read the AfD on that particular article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Hugo Chávez As to "experienced editor", I was the one who put forward that argument. Support for the article was based on the fact that the article used Summary Style, so it wasn't a POV fork. It was *my* argument, and by failing to summarize the entire article, you have created a fork. 172 does not own Wiki :-) Sandy 03:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Your argument in the AfD really had nothing to do with summary style, per se; it had to do with the your claim that the article was too long. Nobody said that the main article had to follow summary style as a prerequisite for the creation of a "Criticism of" article. They just said that the main article couldn't bear the lengthy criticism, and that a seperate article was therefore in order. In any case, I completely oppose your proposal to move all the criticism back here, not because of 172's authority, but because of the historical precedent upon which his argument is based. I also think your proposal is intended to make a point, to demonstrate that the article will become too long if we don't follow summary style throughout. -- WGee 03:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wgee, you appear to be making bad faith assumptions. I have offered, back and forth, to go either way consensus went (review the talk page history if you've forgotten, and since all the work fell to me, why would I make a point which would mean still MORE work for me?). But, now you are wanting to have your cake and eat it, too: no summary for anything except criticism, which effectively removes criticism from the article. Convenient, huh? (And, by the way, what is your objection to Summary Style: IIRC, you've changed your mind several times, but never really explained? Is it because it's harder to also work on the daughter articles? By the way, should we AfD all of them, if we're truly not going to use them?) Sandy 04:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming bad faith? You're the one assuming that I want only the criticism section to be summarised to advance my POV, whatever you think it may be. And the recurring theme that you are a "labourer", that I am purposely straying away from "hard work", and that people are expecting you to do all the work for them is getting old. Moreover, my objection to summary style is that it makes the prose less fluid and explanatory, and pushes aside essential info which is necessary for a basic understanding of the subject. I also reject your strident claims that the article is too long and that we need to confine it to an arbitrary size limit; it's a fine size in my opinion. And no, we don't need to delete the other daughter articles because the main sections are, in fact, summarized, just not to the extent you'd prefer. -- WGee 04:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I have said before, if the conclusion and consensus is that we will not use Summary Style, and will instead have a long article, that will be fine with me. (Remember, I was trying to preserve FA potential for you, as you had expressed the interest. Further, the problems with editing the article are gone now that the refs have all been converted. Before, it was difficult to edit the article: that is no longer true.) If you believe the article is not too long, then it's not too long for Criticism, and we don't need to create only one Summary Style, POV fork. Summarizing does not address or fail to address prose problems. Either can be poorly or well written. But again, if the consensus is to not summarize, that is fine with me. The Criticism comes back to the main article, since it's not too long, but I understand you now want it all in one section rather than in the individual sections which we originally extracted the text from. I completely agree with you that we don't want to "push aside essential info which is necessary for a basic understanding of the subject", when it comes to criticism or any other section. I also think consistency is important: you brought criticism from a lesser article, to a main article about a "far-right" politician, so we can apply the same principle to a "far-left" politician. [30] Sandy 05:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Criticism comes back to the main article, since it's not too long. &mdahs; I'm sorry, but I will never agree to that. As 172 has said before (and as I have echoed), It is not a problem that criticism happens to be only area summarized, so long as the summarized length is proportionate, and in this case it is. Also, your demand has no precedent on Wikipedia; it is common practice to have a seperate "Criticism of" article and a summarized Criticism section in the main article. Finally, as a peripheral point, what I still fail to understand is how a reduction in main article criticism will make the article unbalanced, since there are no supporters' claims anywhere in the main article. -- WGee 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And in that edit, I included the term "far-right" to describe the National Front, not Le Pen. And I don't think that the term "far-right" is criticism when it has been used to refer to the National Front by every news organization. So, what you're proposing to do is exaggerate one non-partisan edit of mine (in which I inserted one term) and use it to falsely justify the insertion of pages of criticism? That's quite ridiculous. By the way, it wouldn't have mattered a bit if I contradicted myself; what matters is my opinion on this article, whose progress you are hindering by sleuthing around in an attempt to find my alleged inconsistencies. -- WGee 05:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear above. As you can see from the link I provided, I was not referring to the use of the term "far right". I was referring to the fact that brought criticism from another article to the article about the individual: something you don't want to do here, even though the appearance is created that I was duped into removing the content, as we had agreed to use Summary Style. Sandy 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you were quite clear. And I addressed your implication by stating that my edit was not partisan, and that the inclusion of one allegedly partisan term in other article would not justify the inclusion of pages of criticism in this article. -- WGee 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee, since you agreed to Summary Style when I removed the content from each individual section (which balanced each section), and you have now changed your mind for one section only, the appearance that I was duped into removing criticism is created. The article becomes POV. Sandy 05:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have interpreted the situation in such bad faith, insinuating that I have intentionally "duped" you. I have told you what I have to say about the issue, yet you insist on concocting conspiracies. Anyway, you really haven't addressed my points at all, not even my peripheral point about how the reduction of criticism in the main article would effect bias. -- WGee 06:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• What is there to bring back? The disputed recall vote is already discussed in appropriate detail.

I had added another sentence which explained the restrictions placed by Chavez. We never explain why the EU (justifiably) would not participate in the fraud, or what the fraud was: we allude to it, but don't detail it. I had summarized it in one sentence, referenced. Please see diff.

Well, I checked the diff above, and with all the various reverts, that addition got lost. I think this diff better encompasses the edits Flanker reverted, although it includes other edits that aren't mine: [31] The explanation of what Chavez disallowed (only partial, there's more) is in one sentence in this diff. Sandy 02:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• The addition was unverifiable and accordingly removed. People are going to have to organize their sources before making their additions. But if you have a source stating that Chavez was influenced by the writings of Norberto Ceresole, feel free to reveal it.

I don't recall who made that addition or what it was about. I just noticed it among the reverts. Sandy 01:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Their friendship and ideological influence is well recognized by Chávez. Read Norberto Ceresole, unlike Federico Brito Figueroa's article that does not mention anything about his inlfuence on Chávez. More than from Brito Figueroa, he was influenced by Marxist philosopher J.R. Nuñez Tenorio, an early organizer of the MVR. (Caracas1830 01:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)).

--WGee 00:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WGee hit the nail on the head here: Moreover, my objection to summary style is that it makes the prose less fluid and explanatory, and pushes aside essential info which is necessary for a basic understanding of the subject. I also reject your strident claims that the article is too long and that we need to confine it to an arbitrary size limit; it's a fine size in my opinion. In the attempts to summarize the prose in order to meet some sort of arbitrary size goal, I have only seen the quality of the prose go down. The article's current structure and size are absolutely fine. 172 | Talk 07:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm trying to follow proper protocol for requesting Wiki page changes. I just registered so that I could be bonafide for my comments on the Hugo Chavez article. I read all the relevant FAQs and how to's and I'll no doube screw up anyway. (I suspect my formatting is off. I'm trying.)

Here's my comment: I read the Hugo Chavez article and think it's the most slanted biased piece I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The author(s) clearly disapprove(s) of President Chavez and that's very evident from what the author(s) included and excluded. Specifically, they excluded positive material and included negative material.

I see people here discussing the page seemingly in good faith and putting much effort into updating passages. I'm stating this in good faith as well: I frankly think it's rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to make changes to this page. I think the article is so flawed by a lack of balance, painting President Chavez with only the blackest of brushes, that I would like to see it removed completely. I'd rather see no Wiki info on Hugo Chavez than see material so relentlessly slanted.

I'm sorry if this is harsh. I know feelings are involved and people are working hard. But it's truly what I think and what I hope for.

--Myrab 08:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)myrab

I don't think deleting the article is viable, posible or desirable, we can balance it without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What in particular do you see as incredibly bias against? please provide examples.Flanker 15:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my post and my concerns Flanker. I'll elaborate.

When writing an article on any person it can be slanted by a choice of what to include and what to exclude. I think that the author/s of the writeup on President Hugo Chavez opted to include negative material without including balancing positive material. Clearly negative material can be footnoted and therefore seem legit. It can well be legit. I'm not claiming any footnotes are false (frankly I'm not going to go through and check every footnote). I'm claiming that there is a lot of positive material about Chavez to draw from but you wouldn't know it from this Wiki article.

Here is one example of positive material that could be drawn upon to help balance the article.

• Citgo is mentioned in passing in the Wiki article.

• The article could mention that "On August 28, before Katrina hit land, Chávez announced a plan to offer discounted heating oil to U.S. poor through the Citgo Petroleum Corp., a unit of Venezuela's state oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela.

"We want to help the poorest communities in the U.S., Chávez said in his weekly television address. "There are people who die from the cold in winter in the U.S.

Venezuela is the United States' fourth-largest oil supplier and the world's fifth-largest exporter. It sells some 1.5 million barrels a day of crude oil to Americans." (http://www.alternet.org/story/25067/)

Me again. Mind you I'm not saying that my examples or any specific material should be included to balance out the negatives. I'm saying that *some* positive info from some respectable credible source should be included.

Now I'll start giving specific examples of the anti-Chavez slant of the article. So as not to overwhelm I'll give examples in measured doses, probably one at a time. Here's the first.

1) For the Chavez article, let's start at the start where the negative tone is set. First paragraph last sentence:

"He is also a radical critic of neoliberal globalization and United States foreign policy. [3]"

OK, right out of the gate President Chavez is fingered as a "radical." However, let's look at what Chavez is a critic of – neoliberal globalization. Well neoliberal is the term people in other nations use for neoconservatives, e.g., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush et al. "Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the New Right are different names for the same thing — a hands-off approach to the economy and a savage cuts to the welfare state." (Reference: http://badanalysis.com/catallaxy/?p=1691)

The neoconservatives (aka neoliberals) are extremists and radicals. An opponent of an extremist is what? Perhaps sane. Perhaps moderate. Perhaps many things but not automatically "radical." If I'm staunchly against torturing hapless folks in Guantanamo does that make me a "radical critic" or a critic of radical behavior?

Pat Robertson has openly and repeatedly called for the assassination of President Chavez. "Assassinations of heads of state have been against U.S. policy since an executive order against them was issued in 1976" according to the Wiki article on Robertson. Yet nowhere in the Wiki article about Robertson is this outspoken proponent of assination called a "radical."

I think "radical critic" is an inflammatory and dismissive term. A "radical" is popularly thought of as a creature of the fringe, kinda nutty, to be derided and ignored by the mainstream, by – you know – decent folk. It's a loaded word.

So at the outset the reader is conditioned to think of Hugo Chavez as a "radical." The rest of the piece will be read in that slanted light. He's already tainted. And it's just the first paragraph.

I'm well aware that Chavez is in fact a socialist, and that's opposite of neocon/neolib doctrine. But it could just as fairly be said that George W. Bush is a "radical critic" of Hugo Chavez. Isn't that equally true? Then Bush would be the one characterized as a nutty fringe guy. But the article we're discussing isn't written from that viewpoint; it's written with a different slant. An obvious slant. A slant that has no place in a supposedly objective encyclopedia.

Perhaps the author could instead say Chavez is a "critic," even a "passionate critic" of neoliberal globalization...

I will write more asap.

Thank you.

--Myrab 08:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix WGee and 172 mistakes in refs, please

My house was hit by lightening, and from one slow dialup laptop, it is not possible or practical for me to continually go back and fix mistakes introduced by other editors, as I usually have here. I have limited computer access: will someone please fix the error 172 introduced into the references, and explain to him about named refs (I don't believe he is accustomed to extensively referenced articles, but he needs to understand not to delete the first occurrence of a named ref). For WGee and Flanker, have a look at CCR. It is apparently a Wiki, you can't use it as a source, and the changes WGee made to the text amount to the (inadvertent) introduction of POV, as they overlook the cracking of a woman's skull in the need to "feed coca-cola to the masses." We need to see the exact quotes (not a wikified quote of a primary source) on everything referenced to CCR. The prevous text was not as POV as the new text is: you can't hide cracking women's skulls under "agrarian land reform" (or whatever the link was, sorry it's hard for me to check diffs without a good internet connection). If you are going to begin to work on Saravask's text, you need to consider that it wasn't properly sourced to begin with, and when making changes to that text, without examination of primary sources, you may be furthering the problem. The claim of dropping inflation should have screamed for a primary source, since inflation is a known problem. I'm sure WGee didn't intend to introduce POV, since based on his User page statements, he was probably only 13 years old when women's skulls were being cracked in Venezuela, he's probably never seen the coverage, and it's certainly not mentioned in the article. Nonetheless, those changes are going the wrong direction, and are not sourced with primary sources. That's all I can do for today. Sandy 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I assume we will hold all external links to the standard of WP:RS? I am ok with that, I guess.Flanker 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW inflation is a problem under first world (and yes even regional) standards however it is FAR FAR better than what he inherited, 10% inflation (likely to end this year maybe less) is far better than 100% 10 years ago and the 40% he inherited. Have a look at this graph -> Venezuelan inflation past 50 years. Flanker 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the condescending and insulting tone of the post above, frankly, I can't say that I'm looking forward to Sandy getting his/her high speed internet service back. For the record, I am accustomed to extensively referenced articles. I was actually one of the first editors to start the practice on Wikipedia. I know not to delete the first occurrence of a named reference. Stil, I make typos like all editors, which is hardly a big deal now that we're no longer using typewriters. After all, it takes much less time to clean up mistaken oversights by another editor than it does to rant about them on the talk pages. Furthermore, I am more concerned about the following remark by Sandy above: I'm sure WGee didn't intend to introduce POV, since based on his User page statements, he was probably only 13 years old when women's skulls were being cracked in Venezuela, he's probably never seen the coverage, and it's certainly not mentioned in the article. First, editors should avoid using Wikipedia to as a forum to express their emotionally charged political views. Second, the reference to WGee's being 13 years old not too long ago is a veiled attack on his competence as an editor based solely on his age, not his knowledgeable contributions he has made to many articles on Wikipedia. This kind of browbeating has no place in a productive, civil work environment on Wikipedia. 172 | Talk 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do make the effort to correct the deleted reference. The time it takes to check and recall info from diffs in history in a huge article is prohibitive to me from a dialup, while it does not take a fast connection to type a paragraph on a talk page, so please stop the sarcasm. You know well (going all the way back to the Chavez FARC) that I have always expressed that the press did not cover early events about Chavez well, and that people who were not following those events at the time in the local Spanish-language press would not likely be aware of them, so to construe my remark as attacking WGee's competence as an editor (rather than a commentary on the limited press coverage of such events in the international media) is disingenous. WGee is clearly a very competent editor. Please refrain from your personal interpretations of what my comments refer to, especially when you are aware of the views I've expressed about the international press. Sandy 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Found some press coverage: while accurately noting the behavior of Chavez's Generals, a complete absence of a description of the violence, as well as no discussion of why those particular firms were targeted by Chavez:

Venezuelan troops seize drink firms

Venezuelan troops seize beer supplies

Interesting that Chavez seized beer and coca-cola, rather than milk and diapers. 172, again, using your resources, I ask you as I asked you on the FARC: are you able to find any reference in the international press to the violence, specifically, the woman who was hospitalized with a skull injury or the video coverage of that event? If you weren't there at the time, it's not likely you would even know about this. Please stop fomenting discord between editors on this talk page, when you know the history behind my comments about the international press coverage. Sandy 13:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me guess the woman had her skull broken during a guarimba? Why not just state it in a summary fashion the violent protests during the reparos left 14 dead? why is it that a split skull has to be added for emotional effect?Flanker 14:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, please do not misconstrue my commentary. I have not said the split skull incident needs to be inserted: what I have said is that WGee's edits are moving away from the factual reality, because he may not be aware of such events. By moving in that direction, we risk the hodge-podge edits, because WGee's new wording now requires a rebuttal. What I said was that the previous text was not as POV, and did not require a rebuttal. Certainly, for fully-armed and protected National Guardsmen to throw unarmed, petite female employees to the ground in the effort to obtain coca-cola and beer for "the masses" is not comparable to what happens in violent protests. (PS: It appears from your response that you aren't aware of those incidents, either? I thought you were in Venezuela? It sounds like you haven't seen the coverage either, which is remarkable, as it was front page headlines for an extended time, replayed on television and on the internet. Were you not in Venezuela then?) Sandy 15:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The actions of individual state police authorities do not necessarily belong in an article about the ruling head of state. I think the incident to which Sandy is altering or attention may be worth noting in an article dealing specifically with the factory takeovers; but the incident is not particularly relevant in the Chavez biography. 172 | Talk 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, my statements are misconstrued. I have not said the incident needs to be covered in Chavez's article. I said that the text changes moved further away from the reality, introducing (inadvertent) POV, and noted that the original version also was not sourced. Flanker may have misunderstood, but if you are not clear on my comments, 172, please reread the talk entry above. Sandy 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Now we enter into specifics that 'petite young woman' was hit by a WOMAN National Guard and the latter claimes she spit on her face and was being abusive, so she knocked her down. Creating a spectacular video and picture. As for the rest you are being aggressive, now you question where I am? To start how is that relevant? And second is that a civil presumtption?Flanker 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are referring to different incidents, Flanker. I'm not understanding the rest of your comments? Not that it's relevant here, but are you condoning the National Guard's actions in that incident? Even if an armed female National Guard cracked the skull of an unarmed woman, is that acceptable? Sandy 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy there is intention and there are results, the NG was establishing order so she knocked her down hitting her with her BARE HANDS when she could have used a night stick, that she cracked her skull upon hitting the ground is very regretable but hardly what you presume. Here is the famous picture [32] Notice also how she is blocking her legs specifically to knock her down so the hit might even just be a push. As you can see most of it are oposition exaggerations made to stir more anger and hatred amongst themselves towards the government.Flanker 18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're on the wrong incident, Flanker. It has happened more than once. Sandy 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Really where? That is the picture that made the rounds, and is still used to date.Flanker 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether intentional or not, this relatively minor incident is irrelevant. In an article about George Bush, for instanc, we wouldn't mention an isolated case of CIA torture, would we? -- WGee 18:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Repeating myself for the third or fourth time, I have never suggested we should add these incidents: they were not committed by Chavez. My suggestion was that your recent edits result in indirect POV, exactly the same situation as raised by Flanker with respect to the text about the military uniform. (Is the idea here to repeat a claim that I said something often enough that it might stick? ) Sandy 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the statement "Chávez had successfully challenged Venezuelan land owners" to the less ambiguous phrase of "Chávez had successfully initiated a land transfer program". There was no insinuation of violence in the former statement, so I accordingly didn't hint at violence in my revision. If you want a reference to violence, mention it directly, not through broad, open-ended phrases. And now you are talking about factory expropriations. Did Chavez successfully challenge land owners? Or did he successfully challenge factory owners? The "NPOV" statement was so ambiguous and uninformative that it had to be changed. -- WGee 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed Sandy's reference to Micahel Shifter's Foreign Affairs article. I don't see a second citation of the article. So the removal of the reference should not be problematic. 172 | Talk 16:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There are currently two missing refs in the article (currently 50 and 52). One of them is to the FA article. If you don't know how to check for named refs, I can explain more after I get better internet access back. The missing refs need to be reconstructed from the diffs and history. Please take care when deleting referenced texts to review the references section once you complete your edits. Sandy 17:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I will see if I can fix it.Flanker 18:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. -- WGee 18:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks ! Sandy 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

POV: Colombia and Peru Elections

The sentence "The defeat of Humala (the Chávez-backed candidate) in Peru and the reelection of a U.S. ally, Álvaro Uribe, in Colombia can be seen as a rebuke to Chávez" is just a POV statement. I think this sentence as well as its reference ( an opinion article) should be deleted. In fact, during the Colombian electoral campaign, Chávez openly praised Uribe[33] and criticized Gaviria. JRSP 16:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I thought much the same when I read that line. Gatoclass 16:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Punditry in action if i ever saw one. All sentences MUST have a source.