Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

Foreign policy

Unless I've missed something, we only have Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez, but not Foreign policy of Venezuela. Compare the US: we have Foreign policy of the United States and Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration - and now Foreign policy of the Barack Obama administration. First off, having "administration" in the article name is probably more appropriate. (Indeed leaving it out could arguably be a breach of NPOV, if taken to imply, as it kind of suggests, that Chavez is the Venezuelan government in a dictatorial sort of way.) Second, and the reason I bring it up, is that I found a bit of Venezuelan foreign policy from before Chavez' election in the Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez article. I've got nowhere to move it to, and no information on how Chavez is following it up (or not), which would provide a reason to include it there. On its own, without a link to the present, it shouldn't really be there.

"Venezuela worked closely with its neighbors following the 1997 Summit of the Americas in many areas--particularly energy integration--and championed the OAS decision to adopt the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, also being among the first to ratify it (in 1997). "

Thoughts? Should we make a Foreign policy of Venezuela, even if it's a bit thin as most info we have is from the last ten years? And should we rename Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez? Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy of Venezuela and Foreign policy of the Hugo Chávez administration; sounds good to me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. JRSP (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good. But "administration" is normally used for the US. "Hugo Chávez government" gets 27k google hits, "Hugo Chávez administration" only 551. Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I've just found Foreign relations of Venezuela. Odd phrase (American I suppose) but it's standard for South American articles so I guess we should go with that. I've renamed the Chavez foreign policy article though. Rd232 ^talk 10:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this points in a direction for reducing the size of the Hugo Chávez article: follow the Jimmy Carter article and make the Chavez article focussed almost entirely on the person and their pre/post/presidency career, and leave all the presidency (apart from a very short summary) to Presidency of Hugo Chávez. This will allow much better treatment of Chavez as a person, and make the presidency stuff more maintainable (much less duplication). Additionally, we could also rename Criticism of Hugo Chávez to Criticism of Hugo Chávez government, and move those parts which are actually critical of Chavez personally to Hugo Chávez. Rd232 ^talk 10:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Foreign policy prior to 2001

The foreign policy section doesn't seem to have much information on Chavez's foreign policy in 1999 or 2000. Furthermore, it isn't clear based on the article whether or not his loud hostility towards the U.S. came during the Bush administration or if it already existed prior to 2001. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Venezuala's relations with the US deteriorated after the 2002 coup which Chavez blamed on the US, and closer relations with Cuba and China were then developed. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

So what your saying is that Chavez never really got into his denunciations of U.S. policy in general until 2002? That might in itself be notable. After all, many aspects of U.S. policy that he criticized were already taking place before 2002. The article states that he opposes the recognition of Kosovo because it weakens Russia. Is there any record that he said anything about Kosovo during the 1999 war? We know he denounced Israel's recent wars, but did he denounce Israel's actions in 2000-2001? Did he make any statements attacking the Clinton administration for promoting "neoliberalism"? Or did he just come up with this under Bush? Either way, it ought to be noted. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Year 1999 was the last one of Clinton administration and the first of Chávez. During that year Chávez administration was more focused on internal affairs, especially the drafting and approval of the new constitution and later, general elections in mid 2000. During his 1998 campaign and early presidency he criticized neoliberalism but not the US, at least not as directly as later. I think the first big clash was in late 2001 when he criticized the death of civilians due to the US intervention in Afghanistan. JRSP (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, closer relations with Cuba started very early, not after the coup attemp. In fact, this was one of the causes of tension with the US government particularly when Otto Reich was in charge of Latin American Affairs. JRSP (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Election and Referendum Statistics.

While I am in no position to challenge the accuracy of the statistics used in this article, I do question their presentation as modules at the margins of this article. I deem them grossly misleading, implying a level of illegitimacy in Chavez's administration and other referenda, and they should be altered or erased for the sake of objectivity.

There are five such modules, on the right-hand margin. They each consist of a title and source, followed by vote tallies. Consider the first as an example, found adjacent to the "Political Rise" section:

Hugo Chávez's Election Results — 1998 presidential election — Source: CNE data Candidate Votes  % Chávez: 3,673,685 56% H. Salas: 2,613,161 40% Valid votes: 6,537,304 — Non-voting: 4,024,729 37%

I have never read an article concerning a democratically-elected leader, where the total votes were noted as "Valid Votes". It implies there were "Invalid Votes" as well, rendering the voting process in Venezuela suspect.

What is worse, the total of Venezuelans not participating in the vote, the "Non-voting" category, throws even more suspicion onto the case. It delivers more implications that there was a corrupt nature to the Venezuelan democratic process, what forces were used to make voters abstain from voting? It makes the mind wander to various episodes in history where citizens were shunned from voting, either by edict or by force. It reminds us that there were large segments of society in the US, specifically African-Americans during the Jim Crow era, who were prevented from voting by coercion and intimidation. It impresses on the reader that, had those who didn't vote, did, the result of the election would have been different. As such, it casts a shadow over Chavez's win.

In the United States, when we refer to a sizeable percentage of votersnot voting in an election, it is largely perceived as a point of apathy. The Jim Crow days are gone, so Americans tend not to think of ghastly coercive tactics to keep segments of society away from the polls. The American perception of Venezuelan politics, however, is not nearly so benign.

I have never seen a figure as to how many Americans did not vote in a given election. I've seen statistics, and in elections where the presidency is not involved, voter turnout is usually quite low. They're usually presented as a percentage, usually rounded off. Even so, I have never heard the argument concerning an American election that this "non-voting" figure implies concerning Venezuelan elections. Throwing that number out there plants in the mind of the reader the possibility of corruption on any level, and were their politics not so corrupt, Chavez, demonized by American conservatives for nationalizing the Venezuelan oil industry and setting socialist policies, would never have won in the first place.

I urge the powers that be to either amend the modules by removing the "non-voting" statistics and changing the "valid votes" to "total votes", or to delete the modules altogether. Since the same statistics are in the text, this redundancy deems the modules superfluous. One can only come to the conclusion that they were installed to create an air of suspicion, and that constitutes a bias.

I thank you for your considerations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.126.139 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible radical revision

Looking again at this article today, I can't quite believe what a mess it is. We've talked about radical revisions before. Here's one possibility: clean out everything about Chavez' Presidency (leaving a very short summary - max 1 short para per key topic) and focus this article on Chavez the person. This will reduce redundancy and make possible an improvement of the Presidency stuff, in that article (avoiding massive duplication is a good start). So a very first draft of a revised Hugo Chavez article is here: User:Rd232/Hugo Chavez (pruned). If people agree we'd need to check that material wasn't being deleted which should be in the Presidency article (shouldn't be but I'm sure there is). Word of caution: there's loads of work that would need doing on the revised version (besides moving stuff from the current Hugo Chavez to the appropriate daughter articles), eg doing proper (but very short) summaries of stuff, general tidying and fixing. I'm not about to start all that work (I hope others would pitch in!) without people saying it's a good idea first... :) Rd232 ^talk 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the general idea, I still have to look at the details. Most of the material of the Presidency section has to be moved to the daughter article. IMO, one of the main problems with this article is WP:recentism, new information is constantly being added leaving us with an oversized and unreadable article, especially the Presidency section. On the other side, the outdated Presidency of Hugo Chávez article is seldom edited. Of course, Chávez is often in the headlines so it will be difficult to avoid recentism. But I think the time is right for condensing, at least there are no elections in the immediate future in Venezuela. JRSP (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done here, per WP:BOLD. Bits moved to daughter articles as necessary. Now the daughter articles need (lots of) work, and short, good summaries are needed for the Presidency section here. Also the Criticism article really does duplicate a lot of stuff from the daughter articles, at some point all the material worth keeping should be mergable. Rd232 ^talk 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Hugo Chávez article has a sister article for economic issues doesn't mean the main article can't have the short, one paragraph summary that I put there. The things that I added are very relevant - people who study economics understand that these things are the difference between socialism and communism. Chavez claims to be a socialist, but he is really a communist. Threatening farmers is a sign of communism, not socialism. Treating toilet paper as a luxury is a sign of communsim, not socialism. Communists like to harasss farmers - socialists don't. Chavez has never called himself a communist, but these actions on his part prove that he is one, and they should be mentioned in this summary.

I put a lot of effort into writing the economic part of the main article. I don't mind that a sister article was spun off, but at least please let me write a brief summary of the most important parts for a single paragraph in the main article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, first, the Economic Policy article isn't a "sister" article, it's a "daughter" article. The distinction is rather important: it means that what is here can (and IMO should) be merely a short summary of the most salient details of the daughter article. And it wasn't "spun off" recently, I merely consolidated info to avoid duplication and encourage quality improvement. Second, yes we do need a short, good summary here. However I do not see how giving equal weight to some important nationalizations and a tax on imported toilet paper (Venezuela produces its own) is sensible. Third, I'm an economist by training and you're entitled to your opinion that Chavez is "really a communist", but (a) in my opinion that's absurd and (b) our opinions don't matter, WP policies do, notably WP:V. Fourth, your remark (and edit) about harassing farmers isn't backed up by any sources. There are issues about land reform and threatened and actual expropriation of idle or illegally-held land (though AFAIK always with compensation except in the latter case), but these aren't currently anywhere in WP that I'm aware of. Which brings me to Fifth, can we please focus on improving the daughter articles and not obsess at this stage about the summaries here. The daughter articles need lots of work structurally, copyediting, adding details, and updating. Rd232 ^talk 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The stuff about oil that was already there did not have any source, but you didn't seem to be bothered by that. I included sources for everything that I added to the article, and now you have a problem? That seems really odd. Setting price caps on food, seizing 750 tons of food from sellers, forcing farmers to sell food at a loss, and threatening to seize land from farmers - all of these things are extremely signigicant to Chavez's economic policies. News sources from the U.S. and the U.K. have been covering his price controls on food, and the effects of these price controls, for about half a decade now. All of these things need to be very briefly mentioned in the summary. The toilet paper issue is also very relevant because labelling it as a "luxury" is going to be very signigicant to anyone in the U.S., western Europe, Canada, etc., because we all view toilet paper as being essential, not a luxury. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Take a deep breath. First, what's here is supposed to be a short summary. Refs should be avoided (except for quotes or direct attributions) as they're supposed to be in the daughter article. Second, there's nothing in your sources about forcing farmers to do anything. It's food processors and retailers. Third, we should avoid WP:RECENTISM and not provide excessive detail on recent events - especially here, when there is plenty of detail (possibly too much) in the daughter article. Third, only imported toilet paper was taxed and Venezuela produces its own, so it is simply wrong (if not actively scurrilous) to imply that toilet paper in general has been labelled a luxury. Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I decided that the toilet paper thing is not a priority. However, if I can cite a specific source that says that Chavez threatened to seize land from farmers (farmers specifically - not just food processors) then that would would be extremely relevant to the brief summary. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate for the daughter article yes (though Chavez says many things and follow-through isn't always there, so concrete policies and actions are preferable to Chavez speeches), but not for the short summary here. Only the major economic policies actually carried out belong here. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The summary of his economic policies now has three paragraphs - one that is praiseful, one that is critical, and one that is neutral. That's not too much, considering that what was there before was probably about 10 or 20 times longer. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Recentism and improper weight

Please, avoid recentism. Recent developments in the rice industry are ongoing news, we can wait some time to get a better view. Regarding imported TP, this is one of a list of several items, I really don't understand this particular obsession with it. BTW, this news is more than one year old and I haven't got any problem with TP availability. JRSP (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Chavez's seizure of the rice industry is indeed recent, but his policies that led up to it are not. This has been at least half a decade in the making - maybe longer. Setting price caps on food, seizing 750 tons of food from sellers, forcing farmers to sell food at a loss, and threatening to seize land from farmers - all of these things are extremely signigicant to Chavez's economic policies. News sources from the U.S. and the U.K. have been covering his price controls on food, and the effects of these price controls, for about half a decade now. All of these things need to be very briefly mentioned in the summary. The toilet paper issue is also very relevant because labelling it as a "luxury" is going to be very signigicant to anyone in the U.S., western Europe, Canada, etc., because we all view toilet paper as being essential, not a luxury. It's good that you don't have any problem with toilet paper availability - I wonder if your toilet paper is imported, which would mean that Chavez cxonsiders it to be a "luxury." Grundle2600 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Grundle, toilet paper is not a luxury item in Venezuela either. The source is clearly speaking of importing it. Interpreting that toilet paper, razors or furniture are luxury items per se is taking things out of context. JRSP (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I decided that the toilet paper thing is not a priority. However, if I can cite a specific source that says that Chavez threatened to seize land from farmers (farmers specifically - not just food processors) then that would would be extremely relevant to the brief summary. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You may be refering to this[1]. Please check that source is not talking about expropiating lands, in this context "properties" more probably refers to the goods being smugled. JRSP (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that the word "properties" was referring to land, but now that you mention it, I see how it could be referring to the consumer goods instead. The article is too vague - I wish the reporter had been more clear. I have changed the wikipedia article to match the wording that is in that article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, going back to the claim of undue weight. I live in the United States, and the only reason I ever developed an interest in Chavez was because I started reading about his price caps on food about half a decade ago. As soon as I first read about it, I knew exactly what would happen. He's trying a policy that has been verified to fail on numerous occasions, for thousands of years. Please see Four Thousand Years of Price Control for many such examples. Instead of admitting that his price controls are wrong, Chavez is using the military to seize food. Here in the U.S., Chavez's food policies are regarded as a huge deal. His food policies have received extensive, long term coverage. If there's any one thing that defines Chavez's economic policies, it's his treatment of the people who work in the food industry. It's very relevant, and deserves a brief summary in the main Hugo Chavez article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the big deal with the 750 ton figure? This must be like 12-15 trunks of milk, much less if we consider some of them carried rice or sugar. And what's wrong with a government fighting smugling? Per WP:NPOV we cannot take a stance on whether price controls are better or worse than free market. JRSP (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The 750 tons is from the source. The fact that price controls are causing shortages and hoarding also comes from the source. The fact that price controls are forcing farmers to sell at a loss also comes from the source. That's exactly why I cited those sources. If Chavez wants the smuggling of food to end, he should repeal the price controls. Or do you think that people will suddenly decide that they don't need to eat? There are only 3 options: 1) Force the farmers to continue selling food at a loss until a famine appears. 2) Continue the smuggling of food. 3) Repeal the price controls. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not putting into question the veracity of the 750 ton of food, I was pointing out that it is not a big figure relative to Venezuela's production and consume. Criticism of the price control policies may be appropriate if attributed to relevant figures and balanced with other relevant opinions but we should better reach a consensus at the Economy of Venezuela article before trying to summarize here; there is no point in trying to condense a text that is still unstable. JRSP (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The amount of food that Chavez had the military seize is almost irrelevant. The real issue is that he's using the military to seize any food at all. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

He's using the military to avoid smuggling, what's the deal? This is normal National Guard business. And just for the record, Venezuela is far from a famine scenario. There have been scarcity of items subject to price regulations but there have been always alternatives like flavored rice, milk with extra vitamin D (somewhat useless in a sunny country), etc. (and national toilet paper, BTW ). JRSP (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Here in the U.S., his confiscation of food has gotten quite a bit of media attention. So has his policy of providing low cost home heating oil to poor people in the U.S., so I added that to the article too. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

750 tons relates to confiscation of illegally smuggled food. To cite this out of context without explaining the smuggling is misleading. (Its also a bit misleading, as JRSP points out, to quote weight without further details, eg value or at least type(s) of food.) And - again - the details are in the daughter article and are too minor a point to justify inclusion in a short summary of major policy issues. Heating oil subsidy in the US is a foreign policy issue and quite separate. Could we please please move on from this? It's taking a lot of energy better spent cleaning up the daughter articles, and once that's done a good summary will be much easier. Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing blocked due to edit warring

When most of the info was moved from this article to the daughter articles, this article was shrunk from 134K to 49K. That's way too much cutting. There's no reason why this article couldn't be 80K or 100K.

Since I wrote much of the original section on Chavez's economic policies, I was aghast at how much of that info had been removed from this article. After the cutting, the only thing left in the section about Chavez's economic policies was a few sentences about oil. That was not in any way an accurate summary of Chavez's economic policies.

There was nothing at all left about his harassment of farmers, or about his nationalizations of several major industries. These things are extremely important to a summary of Chavez's economic policies, so I decided to put them back in, in brief, summary form.

Then other people kept removing them, and taking out key, important parts.

Any accurate summary of Chavez's economic policies has to mention those things.

Both of these paragraphs should be included in their entirety:

"Chávez is an outspoken proponent of what he calles a socialism of the 21st century as a means to help the poor. Chávez has encouraged cooperatives, and has provided poor citizens with housing and farmland so they can grow their own food and reduce the country's reliance on imported food. The country uses much of its substantial oil revenues to fund health care, education, poverty reduction, and other forms of social spending."

"Chávez has set price controls on many kinds of food, which, according to the BBC, have caused shortages and hoarding. According to Associated Press, Chávez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food, and also threatened to expropriate the property of farmers who sold food at prices that exceeded the government's price controls. According to the BBC, food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce food at a loss. Chávez has nationalized the telephone and electric industries, the cement industry, and the steel industry, and has taken temporary control of the rice industry. "

There is no reason why those two entire paragraphs can't be included. It's not as if the article is too long. Those two paragraphs are a basic summary of what has been reported in the international news media. All of that information should be in this article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Beyond a recommended size limit that should be borne in mind, there's no reason why an article should be any given size, it depends on the material. Quality not quantity! The reasons for the drastic cutting have been given repeatedly. It is expected that the summary will develop over time in both quantity and quality, but that this is dependent on improving the source material in the daughter article which the summary is summarising. This is a broad principle I've argued which no-one has yet disagreed with. I'm not going to address my problems with (parts of) your specific second para you insist on again, I've explained them enough above (misleading summary of sources, extraneous detail). Seems to me that an RFC (WP:RFC) is the only way forward here. Rd232 ^talk 14:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, there are several problems with your proposition. The most important IMO is your methodological approach: you say those paragraphs are a summary of news media reports but, the main article about Chávez should summarize from daughter articles and not directly from sources. So, as a first step, I'd suggest you to try first to get consensus at the Economy of Venezuela article. There are other problems that have already been discussed like the "750 ton" data which is a very fuzzy piece of information. Also when you summarize from an article you must properly represent all relevant positions; for instance, you use BBC to source the food producers' position but leave out the government position that is present in the BBC report. There are also some minor issues like WP:OVERLINK. JRSP (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Back on topic, though, Grundle and Rd232, I believe both of you have violated WP:3RR on this article and could have been rightly blocked. So please - don't do this anymore, ok? Work together on the talk page to figure out the right decisions. If you both, and whoever else was warring here agree to behave, I will downgrade it back to a semi-protect. Will you behave? -- Y not? 18:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I did violate 3RR; depends on the definition of revert (I might be tempted to nod in the direction of the BLP exemption for removing misleading info, but that would be debatable too). Anyway, discussion has about reached an impasse, which is what RFC is for. Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the 750 tons doesn't need to be mentioned. But I do want it to mention that farmers claim that Chavez is forcing them to sell food at a loss, as well the the nationalizations. I won't do the overlinking anymore - thanks for pointing that out.

Here is my new, shorter proposal for those two paragraphs. I have removed the references to the seizure of the 750 tons of food, his threat to seize the property of sellers, his temporary control of the rice industry, and the excessive internal linking.

"Chávez is an outspoken proponent of what he calles a socialism of the 21st century as a means to help the poor. Chávez has encouraged cooperatives, and has provided poor citizens with housing and farmland so they can grow their own food and reduce the country's reliance on imported food. The country uses much of its substantial oil revenues to fund health care, education, poverty reduction, and other forms of social spending."

"Chávez has set price controls on many kinds of food, which, according to the BBC, have caused shortages and hoarding. Food producers have claimed that the government was forcing them to produce food at a loss. Chávez has nationalized the telephone and electric industries, the cement industry, and the steel industry. "

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting there; the last sentence of the first para can be slotted into my version. "and alleged losses for food producers" or similar can be added in as well. The housing/farmland sentence is problematic since this isn't well-covered in the daughter article, so best leave it for now. For the rest my version covers the same ground better, eg not mentioning the BBC (since there are multiple sources for this in the daughter article) and not overgeneralising the nationalisations (specific companies, not entire industries, with exception of cement). Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this as a start:

Since 2005, Chávez is an outspoken proponent of what he calls a socialism of the 21st century as a means to help the poor. The country uses much of its substantial oil revenues to fund health care, education, poverty reduction, and other forms of social spending. Since 2003, following an extended strike which interrupted food distribution, his government has intervened in the food sector, by creating a series of subsidised supermarkets (Mission Mercal) and related missions, and set price controls on around 400 basic foods. The price controls, however, have caused "sporadic food shortages", hoarding, and alleged losses for food producers. Chavez's government has also nationalized a number of major companies, including in the telephone, electric, and cement industries, and encouraged cooperatives.

Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your proposed paragraph contains a major factual error. You are saying that the price controls came after the food strike. That is the wrong order. The food strike came after the price controls.

Also, it is a fact, not "alleged," that the food producers claimed that the price controls are forcing them to sell at a loss.

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The strike I'm referring to is the Dec 2002 - Jan 2003 strike, which was mostly the oil lockout but also some other things including some food distribution. I don't have decent sources to hand and can't find any in WP (Mission Mercal refers to it); another thing for the todo list I guess. As to "alleged", well we only have the food producer's word for it, so it's seems reasonable to qualify it. Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't have "decent sources" then you shouldn't put it in the article. It is a verifiable fact that the food producers have claimed that Chavez's price controls are forcing them to sell at a loss. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Guess I wasn't clear - I have seen (and read) detailed, decent sources on this. Which I don't have to hand. And, frustratingly, WP doesn't come to my aid by having its own. Hence my reference to a "to do list". Which brings me back (pausing to take a frustrated breath) to my original plea not to obsess about the summary here until we've improved the daughter articles. Just how much energy have we collectively wasted already, compared to postponing this discussion a month, by which time substantial daughter article improvements might be achieved and hence a much easier time making a decent summary? Rd232 ^talk 03:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "...Chávez is a outspoken proponent of what he calls a socialism of the 21st century..."? Dynablaster (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I was being redundant. Thank you for pointing that out. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Basic summary of what has been reported?

Grundle, you have said you saw no reason why your contributions have been deleted because it's a "basic summary of what has been reported in the international news media". I must disagree with that.

• Your contribution starts saying that according to BBC price controls have caused shortages and hoarding. I agree that this sentence summarizes well this article.
• However, you continue saying that according to AP the military have seized food and Chávez have threaten to expropriate. I don't think this is a fair summary of what source says, this information is presented within the context of an anti-smuggling operation; in fact, the article's title is "Venezuelan troops crack down on smuggling along Colombian border" so your summary is misleading.
• In the next sentence you just pick the food producers' claim but do not mention the government's position so this is not a basic summary either.
• Later you connect with some info about nationalization of some industries. How does this connect with the previous sentences? These have been processes where the Venezuelan State has bought properties, how does this relate to confiscating goods being smuggled to Colombia?

What is the main idea of this paragraph? JRSP (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The nationalizations of industries have nothing to do with the price controls on food (except the rice, which I removed in my newer, shorter verrsion anyway). The purpose of the paragraph is that I didn't want to write two seperate paragraphs because if I had, each of them would have been very short. The article did not say that Chavez denied the claim from food producers that his price controls were forcing them to sell at a loss, so what do you suggest be added regarding the government's position? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, the Presidency of Hugo Chávez#Latin American Summit incident now looks awfully recentist. Storm in a teacup. I suppose it should be in WP somewhere, probably, but maybe not in the Presidency. Perhaps in the media article, since the main reason for notability of the now-officially-forgotten (? I think) diplomatic incident is probably the ensuing media field day. Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right Grundle, the article does not report the government explicitly denying the food producers claim. Regarding the incident with the King of Spain, I agree this was more a sensationalist issue without a significant impact in the Spain-Venezuela relations; a few months later both Chiefs of State met and minimized the incident. For show business, there is an article named ¿Por qué no te callas?. --JRSP (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, how very Wikipedia! :) It does seem to suggest Media image would be the best place. Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Another proposal

This is what I propose for the first two paragraphs:

"Chávez is a proponent of what he calles socialism of the 21st century as a means to help the poor. He has encouraged cooperatives, and has provided poor citizens with housing and farmland so they can grow their own food and reduce the country's reliance on imported food. The country uses much of its substantial oil revenues to fund health care, education, poverty reduction, and other forms of social spending."

"Chávez has set price controls on many kinds of food, which have caused shortages and hoarding. Food producers have claimed that the government was forcing them to produce food at a loss. Chávez has nationalized major parts of the telephone, electric, cement, and steel industries. "

Grundle2600 (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You're drifting towards my proposal. Why not just accept mine? Rd232 ^talk 20:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Because mine makes it very clear that Chavez is making it difficult for the food producers to produce food, whereas yours is too vague. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Chavez is making it difficult for the food producers to produce food" sounds like POV. JRSP (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Those are the words that I used on this talk page, but not in my proposed text for the article. My proposed text is factual and sourced. That's why I cited those sources, even though they are already cited in the daughter article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with Rd232's version? I see some interesting facts in that proposal, like the info that price controls started in 2003. JRSP (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Lack of cited sources, I guess. So, online sources for these issues (I have offline somewhere not to hand) [2] and [3] and a Reuters article which oddly I can't find the original of: [4]. Rd232 ^talk 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

His use of the word "alleged" makes the article weaker, and does not match the source. The source says that food producers have claimed that the price controls are forcing them to sell food at a loss. It is a verifiable fact that they said this. Also, that stuff is a completely different topic than the topic of Chavez enacting social welfare programs to help the poor. The two subjects are totally different, and should be in different paragraphs. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This fisking is really starting to wear me down. "Alleged" is applied to the fact of losses, not to the report. I guess it could be rephrased to cite the claim, without "alleged" (eg "and according to food producers has forced them to produce at a loss".) I don't care if it's one para or two. Rd232 ^talk 18:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This one says price controls were enacted in 2003[5]. I can also look for stuff in Spanish, just let me know. JRSP (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well there are lots specifying merely "2003". I was after something more specific; my first one above (latinfocus) specifies 5 Feb 03. Spanish sources may be helpful with more detail on the circumstances of enactment. Rd232 ^talk 13:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This source [6] is from 28 January 2003. It makes clear that the strike/lockout is going on (though waning, the opposition speaks about "flexibilizar el paro"). It reports government plans to implement exchange and price controls. Chávez says that the government "is developing and installing a full integral national system of distribution of food and medicine". This BBC report also says that Mercal appears as a consequence of the Christmas 2002 events.[7]. The implementation started in April 2003.JRSP (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

My source, the BBC, specifically says that the price controls are causing shortages and hoarding. Anyone who has taken Economics 101 will not dispute this claim, unless they failed the class. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Shortages are mentioned in the other proposal too. I think the other version presents a wider view of Chávez administration's economical and social policies and also connects these policies with political events, I think this is a good idea. JRSP (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite - I don't think I've removed the shortage claim at any point, merely rephrased it. On your point, JRSP, yes, I agree. In particular, one of the longer-term objectives, for me, is to trace the significance of the 2002/3 period for the radicalisation of the Chavez government. There's some interesting stuff written about this, and it's the sort of thing a good encyclopedia should cover. I'm not suggesting putting more detail in the summary now (at the risk of repeating myself, I don't want to be debating a summary at this point anyway), but with the sources above we can add a little more detail to the Economy article, and so justify the summary mention I proposed above. Rd232 ^talk 18:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Also Grundle, be careful that this dispute between Chávez government and food producers is not necessarily within the context of a true free market; at some points of the chain of production of food you can actually have monopolies, oligopolies and cartelization of prices. Under these conditions, the question is not if the prices should be free or controlled but who controls the prices. That's another interesting feature of Rd232's proposal that mentions, for instance, the encouraging of cooperatives. JRSP (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no monopoly on food production. There are thousands of independent farmers, and thousands of independent sellers. Government price caps on food always cause shortages. If you aren't already aware of this, then please read Four Thousand Years of Price Control.

Before I added to it, the only thing mentioned in the summary of Chavez's economic policies was the oil stuff. I was the only person who had any interest in talking about his price controls on food. And even before the info was moved to the daughter article, I was the only person who added anything about that subject. Other people have changed what I added, but I was the only one who added any info on it.

I think the people trying to make changes don't understand what the articles are saying about this subject. Price caps on food always cause shortages. The very first time I read about the price caps, I knew they would cause shortages. It's the only reason why I ever became interested in Chavez in the first place. It's the one part of the article where I am an expert, and I was always the only person here who ever added any info on the subject. The nationalizations of rice and cement were done in response to the shortages, which happened because of the price controls.

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How about these three paragraphs?

"Chávez is a proponent of what he calles socialism of the 21st century as a means to help the poor. He has encouraged cooperatives, and has provided poor citizens with housing and farmland so they can grow their own food and reduce the country's reliance on imported food. The country uses much of its substantial oil revenues to fund health care, education, poverty reduction, and other forms of social spending."

"Chávez has nationalized major parts of the telephone, electric, cement, and steel industries. "

"Chávez has set price controls on many kinds of food, which, according to the BBC, have caused shortages and hoarding. Food producers have claimed that the government was forcing them to produce food at a loss. "

Grundle2600 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

moan, groan, aaargh. you're singlehandedly pushing me towards taking a wikiholiday. Your proposed paragraph has been criticised and found wanting repeatedly by several people; posting it again isn't going to change that. Separately, nobody is arguing that price controls do not cause problems (though the nature and extent of those problems varies depending on market structure, bla bla as I'm sure you're well aware). FYI, Venezuela has had price controls for long periods in the last fifty years before Chavez, it's not a new idea. (That doesn't mean it's a good idea, merely that there's more to it than than not knowing Economics 101, eg political v economic considerations.) Rd232 ^talk 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Then please add whatever you want. But please don't erase what I wrote. Even if you added enough to double it, the summary might still be too short. I am an inclusionist - I want everyone to have their say. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going count how often I've said it already. One more time: I was going for a very short summary now, and a longer, better summary after the daughter articles (the content being summarised) have been improved. At no point have you (or anyone else) disagreed with this principle. Nobody is stopping you having your say here on the talk page - but the article is edited via WP:Consensus. Now if you'll accept my version for now, then we can revisit the issue in a while, for reasons noted. Finally, a conclusion? Yes? Rd232 ^talk 22:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, why not work first in the Economy of Venezuela article and summarize later? JRSP (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I put a lot of effort into putting it into this article. The fact that you removed 100% of it is not fair. I'm the only person who ever added any of that info the the original aricle or to the summary, and you removed all of it. Now you want to alter my very short summary into something that is not accurate at all. I want the source to be accurately reflected. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I think now we really have reached an impasse. Please formulate a Request for comment. (I think it best if you do it.) Rd232 ^talk 00:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit block remains due to debate over two sentences

I want these two sentences to be in the summary:

"Chávez has set price controls on many kinds of food, which, according to the BBC, have caused shortages and hoarding. Food producers have claimed that the government was forcing them to produce food at a loss. "

Those two sentences are very short, and very accurate summaries of what Chavez has been doing. For some reason, some people here insist on watering it down and making it lose its meaning. I will not cave in to them - the article is supposed to be an accurate reflection of the sources. I am the only person who ever showed any interest in adding anything about the topic of Chavez's price controls on food to the article. The other people are simply trying to prevent me from having this info accurately included in the article. I want the article to be an accurate reflection of the source, so that's what I wrote. I have been following this issue for half a decade, and I have read many dozens of articles on this. Those two sentences are the shortest, most accurate summary of what has been in the news regarding this topic over the past five years.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So in response to my request that you post an RFC, you go and do this in the daughter article? The only issue with that edit not already discussed to death is that your change of title is inappropriate, as it includes a para on inflation. RFC, please, not edit war. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, "food producers" above is misleading, if not actually wrong. It's food processors, not farmers, and "food producers" is ambiguous. As to the first sentence, unless you're intent on appealing to the authority of the BBC and intending to be vague about the nature and extent of the shortage, I see little difference with my version, except that mine is more specific (Reuters saying "sporadic") and not suggesting that only one source thinks there are shortages. PS it's called "page protection" (see WP:PP), not "edit block". Rd232 ^talk 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And then you do it again addressing only the most minor point, of the section heading. RFC please, or reason why not. Rd232 ^talk 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What is RFC?

If you want to add to the aritcle, that's great! But please stop erasing my stuff.

"Consumer Prices" is not a governmnet policy. The correct name of the government policy is "price controls."

I agree with you that inflation should not be in that section. Perhaps a section on inflation, currency, etc., would be a good thing to add.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC is a request for comment (shortcut: WP:RFC), as linked in my original request above. Rd232 ^talk 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

RFC on radical revision

"A recent radical revision of Hugo Chavez (see Talk:Hugo Chávez#Possible radical revision) moved policy-related material to daughter articles with only a short summary; a more detailed summary was intended to be done after improving the daughter articles. Is this approach appropriate? If yes, which of the two short summaries discussed should be used temporarily?" !! time=15:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One version is Rd232's (above after remark "How about this as a start" - talk page diff), the other is Grundle2600's (various, latest just above). Rd232 ^talk 16:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you guys are talking, so I will unprotect. Play ball. -- Y not? 04:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal example

I'm not sure where to put something about Chavez's general attitude re personal luxury and such. It's talked about here re recently trying to set a personal example in terms of saving money and paying taxes. I seem to recall reading other things about Chavez's attitude to such things, as a longstanding personality trait (partly related to his military training, partly his beliefs, partly his personality); and it seems a significant enough side of him that it should be mentioned. But I'm not sure how to go about it and it really needs more sources. I'm sure those can be found; maybe hard though, outside biographies of him. Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the "personal life" section is the best place for this as it is basically his personal position. Appart from bios, his speeches could be a good source, the Aló Presidente website[8] has lots of transcripts, that could be a good place to search for. JRSP (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You could say much about his attitude to personal luxury. Take a look at photos of him and his watches, suits, and the amount he spent on his new plane, and you may get some balance. How many trips he makes abroard in comparison to other Presidents would be interesting.How many tag along on the "jolly" abroard would be worth a mention. Then there is the frequent claims of how much land he and his family own in Barinas state and how did they come to own so much land? It's a "can of worms" though. Not many in Venezuela pay much attention to his bouts of proclaiming the simple life is good since neither he nor his family work on that level. Same as many leaders though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.235 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What, you want a President to look like a hobo? Be serious. The other claims are AFAIK usubstantiated rumours. Rd232 ^talk 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section

The Criticism Section should name the critics, and avoid using terms like "critics claim", "Another charge is" and "Several public figures have even gone so far as". The Four Deuces (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think socialism would have to be a bad thing, but then, why does it bring forth such dimwits as leaders? I mean, listen to that guy, he's even dumber than Bush! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.207.106 (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That comment is trolling, not a response to the comment by The Four Deuces, which points out the existence of weasel wording. Chris Loosley (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we add some APPROVAL. If we're going to allow criticism then allow some compliments! I will say this....As an American I think the non-Catholic rebellious goats love to preach how good they are but then they publicly support assassination of world leaders. They support wars and killing. I think Chavez deserves some props for calling out the American hypocrisy. America is not a free nation. The corporations buy off the government and then force their laws on us. Very stupid laws. Everywhere an American turns, somebody is in our pocket or in our face telling us how to live, how to raise our family, how and where to work and constantly lying and marketing their rubbish. The corporations fill us up with contaminated foods and the FDA turns a blind eye. For goodness sakes, Monsanto made Agent Orange and now they make hormones for cows to produce more milk.....what kind of crazy mixed up "freedom" is this????? We put chemicals in babys milk and turn a blind eye. The worst part is that American corporations helped to break up the family. What American do you know who actually lives in the same area as the rest of their family? Not many. America is a very lonely nation- thats why you see so many "introduction" companys, dating websites or social websites. Socialism encourages family values. So I think Chavez challenges the American status qua and I think everybody can benefit from it whether or not we agree with him. I don't say I agree with him but I think something good must be said too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadapathy (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree- there should be a section summarizing support, and named as such. Only highlighting criticism provides a one-sided viewpoint. Wiki should strive for a balanced entry, especially about a public figure about whom there is so much controversy and hearsay. Shantroywells (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chavez's opposition to capitalism

The articles introduction lists that Chavez opposes among other things "neoliberalism". But doesn't Chavez, as an ardent socialist, oppose all forms of capitalism not just the neoliberal variant? Or does he assume they're the same thing? 69.133.126.117 (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Chavez, but I assume he doesn't oppose all elements of capitalism. Venezuela is a mixed economy, encompassing elements of capitalism and socialism. KenFehling (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't some American company buy some water company in Venz and then later charged a lot of money to operate and the people couldn't even afford the water later....and then the people revolted and took the company away and make it a community owned water company? Wasn't that in Chavez's country? help me out here....I saw it on some movie like Sicko or Who Killed The Electric Car. It was horrible and I couldn't believe a company in my own country would do such a low down thing. I can look it up and add it later but the entire article says its locked due to Vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadapathy (talk • contribs) 16:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The water thing you refer to was Cochabamba, Bolivia. Remember to sign posts with ~~~~ and also focus comments on how to improve the article - don't WP:SOAPBOX. FYI the article isn't fully locked (WP:PROTECTed), but it is WP:SEMI-protected - very new accounts and anonymous editors can't edit it. Rd232 ^talk 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Repatriate" Oil Funds?

Does anyone else have a problem with the article stating that Chavez has taken action to "repatriate" oil funds for government use? How can this comment not be slanted? Que embarrassing.

Jessemckay (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Steal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.176.151.10 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles should match the source

When someone changes the article from something that matches the source to something that does not match the source, that is vandalism. Chavez's price controls apply to all sellers, not just "prominent" ones. There is nothing in the source that says it only applies to "prominent" ones, so please quit adding that word to the article. Also, the source says that people of talent are "fleeing" the country, so please stop removing that word from the article. Wikipedia policy requires articles to match the source. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There really is no excuse for your ignorance at this point. Please read the reply to the message you left on my talk page. Dynablaster (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not ignorant. I read both of those sources, and I changed the article to match those sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia policy requires articles to match the source." - what a wonderfully meaningless statement ("match"??). See WP:V and WP:CITE and even WP:COPYRIGHT. Disembrangler (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability You can't just make stuff up. It has to be backed up by a source. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well since Grundle has now reached the WP:3RR limit for today, perhaps we can now have some discussion. First, and for this page the most basic point: the new sections shouldn't be here, but on the Economy in Venezuela page. Otherwise we'll end up with the WP:COATRACK we had some time ago and took some effort to deal with. Second, Grundle is reverting to his preferred version (from ages ago) of the food stuff. This is unhelpful, I thought we'd established that this version is better. (Complaining about a single word and using that as justification to revert to your version is also not exactly endearing.) Disembrangler (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not apply to reverting vandalism. The info should be in both articles, but it should be shorter in the main Hugo Chavez article, and longer in the spinoff article. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which clearly doesn't apply, as I have no doubt you know (WP:vandalism). Reported for edit warring. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring). Disembrangler (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not mark other editors' helpful contributions as vandalism. Dynablaster (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

When someone erases something that is sourced, and replaces it with something that is not sourced, that is not "helpful." It's vandalism. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read hundreds of articles about Chavez's price controls on food, and I have added the best sourced material to the article. I am the only person who ever added any info on that subject to the article. The other editors are trying to water down the info, and make the article less clear and less precise, and to not match the sources. I want the article to be clear and precise, and to reflect the sources. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's basically WP:AGF-ignoring bluster. See also editing policy and WP:CONSENSUS. Disembrangler (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to match the sources. You can't just make stuff up. Things in articles have to be verifiable. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding a single word which accurately summarises a source is not "making stuff up". Even if you disagree whether the word is accurate, it would not justify reverting to your preferred substantially different version. You're edit warring. As to the substantive issue: I gather form your edit summaries you seem to erroneously think that (accurately) saying the claim is made by prominent food producers implies the actual problem only applies to them. It doesn't imply that - it just means we don't have reported claims by non-prominent food producers. That's what accurate sourcing means. Disembrangler (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

PS This is why we have WP:3RR and related policies - because there is no deadline and by discussion we can clarify disagreements and misunderstandings. Disembrangler (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "prominent" does not "summarize" the source. The price controls apply to all food producers, not just the prominent ones. And why did you erase the source from the article? Grundle2600 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, after re-reading the source in the Econ article, I've changed the article. I think there was another source that quoted prominent businesspeople, which produced the "prominent businesspeople + food producers" combination which wasn't so clear (the "prominent" wasn't supposed to apply to the latter). As for "erasing" the source, I replaced it with a better one (Reuters, better because it has a clarifying quote). Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it's all very entertainingly POV for an editorial to yell "5000% increase in Venezuela emigration"; but maybe actual statistics would be more useful. [9] shows net emigration declining 2000-2006, a kick to 1.28% in 2007 and then 0.84% in 2008. It's placed 112 out of 171 countries in 2008 (171st has highest emigration right, 1st highest immigration) [10]. The editorial mentions 10,000 people per year to the US; Venezuela's population is 26m. No NPOV issues waving a 5000% figure, no. Disembrangler (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My source cited only emigrants who moved to the U.S., whereas your sourced cited all emigrants, regardless of their destination. However, I do think it's best to keep this out of the article until a more reliable source is found to back up the claim in my source. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote "The land is not private. It is the property of the state" has been taken out of context, Chávez is not talking about the land in general but about a specific plot of land (defined in the context of the program) that is actually state property. JRSP (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right about the quote, and I was wrong. Thank you for explaining that to me. I will not be putting the quote back in. However, the rest of that part is accurate, and since land redistribution is one of Chavez's biggest policies, it deserves at least a very brief mention in this summary. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I created Agriculture in Venezuela as a place to collect general agriculture and land reform details in one place (eventually land reform might merit its own article, but for now I think that's the best place). To the extent that the land reform starts to have actual economic impacts (rather than just laws and anecdotes), it can be mentioned in the Economy article too. A brief mention here would be OK, a neutral sentence is probably enough. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Chávez and coca

my edit deleted by user Dynablaster,

• Refrence :reuters:Venezuela's Chavez swaps coffee for coca in speech
• Refrence:The New York Times,Hugo Chávez, a teetotaler:CARACAS JOURNAL; A New Decree From Chávez: Less Elbow-Bending Alsoam (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't put into question that this information is verified. However, it is not clear to me how relevant this quote can be. We cannot put in the article every information about the subject. Verifiability is a necessary condition but not sufficient for inclusion. Would you explain why you consider this quote is relevant? JRSP (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

For instance :A featured article:Barack Obama#Early life and career:Obama has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind" At the 2008 Civil Forum on the Presidency in 2008, Obama identified his high-school drug use as his "greatest moral failure" . Alsoam (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But these are illegal substances in his country. Coca (not cocaine) is legal in Venezuela. Well before Chávez presidency I have been buying bags for infusion at a Peruvian market they make on Sundays near the Al-Ibrahim mosque and they sell the chewable stuff too. JRSP (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Coca is legal in bolivia but in Evo Morales article focussed on ccoa.

• Alcohol is legal in venezuela but chavez a teetotaler.Alsoam (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Evo Morales article mentions coca because he's a leader of the cocalero movement, so it is a relevant aspect to that article. Coca leaves are legal and widely available in Peru, but Alan García's article does not mention the word "coca". The queen of Spain had a cup of mate de coca when visiting Bolivia in 1992[11] and her article does not mention that. It's a question of relevance. JRSP (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not important?!

• Venezuela opposition demands drug test for Chavez
• US drugs official accuses Chavez
• Alcohol and teetotaler:Some suspected the latest measure has more to do with Chavez's friendly ties with Iran, where Islamic law forbids alcohol. Alsoam (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you explain the relevance of these links? Instead of pasting links, please type your rationale for considering this information to be relevant. JRSP (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

not relevant?! please read links:Venezuela's opposition is demanding leftist President Hugo Chavez take a drug test after he said he chews coca leaves to keep up his energy.

Venezuela's opposition viewpoint about chaveze drug use not relevant?chavez viewpoint about Alcohol not relevant to chavez article?!Alsoam (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC).

I'd already read them. If you've read them too you may have noticed that although the headline of the first link says "Venezuelan opposition" the article's body says one politician from a small party. The other link is not related to the quote you want to add[12] JRSP (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

please read reuters report [13] :The anti-U.S. leader has repeatedly defended the use of coca leaves despite accusations by the United States that he is turning Venezuela into a "haven" for drugs from Colombia.

please read The New York Times:Hugo Chávez, a teetotaler:[14] Alsoam (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no concern that the sources meet WP:RS. The problem is one of undue weight. Does this really belong at the biography of Chavez? Isn't this an election stunt? Wouldn't be more appropriate there? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

marriage,religion and style may use in Personal life,especially if it effect on government policy ,such restriction sale of alcohol (The New York Times), and US drugs official accuse(reuters) .Alsoam (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

about undue weight , first:chaves quote about his style not anti undue weight.second:see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete Alsoam (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Alsoam, this discussion is not progressing towards consensus. Considering that 2 editors have reverted your edits, please do not revert again. Follow the steps at WP:dispute resolution#Resolving_disputes instead. JRSP (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Members from family in government

This text does not belong in early life, some material may be useful but there are some WP:SYN problems; for instance, being the mayor of a tiny town like Sabaneta brings very little "power and wealth":

During chavez presidency, Chavez's family members have managed to increase their personal power and wealth, Chávez's father was (from 1998 to 2008) governor of Barinas, Adán Chávez has held posts as Venezuela's ambassador to Cuba and education minister Anibal Chavez, was mayor of Sabaneta ,Argenis chavez was secretary of state in Barinas.Narciso chavez, was headed a health and sports programme and Adelis chvez was vice-president of a bank with close government links.

JRSP (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:SYN :Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources'

• please read source exactly :

NPR:During his eight years in office, Chavez's family members have managed to increase their personal power and wealth....Anibal Chavez, one of the president's six brothers, is mayor of Sabaneta.

spiegel:Since Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper who later staged a military coup and is now the leader of the Latin American Left, was elected president in 1998, his once-humble mestizo family has become a wealthy clan.....Anibal is the mayor of Chavez's hometown of Sabaneta

and see:Wikipedia:Verifiability :The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.Alsoam (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, some of the material may be useful. However, there are some things that must be addressed. The word 'threshold' in WP:V refers to a minimal necessary condition for inclusion, it does not imply that everything that has been published deserves to be included in the article, so first of all we have to consider if the information is relevant or not. Second, we have to think where the information should be added; in this particular case, the "early life" section doesn't seem to be the appropriate place. In general, you should consider adding new information to daughter articles. most relevant information can be included in the main article eventually. It is also important how we write new material, this is particularly important when adding information about living persons, explicitly attributing the information is advisable sometimes. Finally, you should be careful about orthography; although this is a wiki, you should not rely on other editors to fix those mistakes. JRSP (talk) 12:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

about: we have to think where the information should be added; in this particular case, the "early life" section doesn't seem to be the appropriate place ,

• Ok:i create new sub-section in article:family section and move Personal life to last section.link to Early life of Hugo Chávez find in Early life (1954–1992) section :[15] Alsoam (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Personal life" could be a better place but I don't think however that we shoul break the section into three one-paragraph subsections. Even more important, we must be extremely careful when adding information about living persons. When dealing with living persons it is a good idea to cross check the information with other sources. Regarding this particular case, some sources like Spiegel are constrasting present-day alleged wealth with the family humble origins, somewhat implying that they suddenly became rich after Chávez presidency. However, it is easy to check that before that, several of the brothers had managed to get a college education and lift their social/economical status: Adán graduated in physics and has a master degree in superior education[16], he was a professor at Universidad de los Andes; Hugo graduated from the Venezuelan Military Academy; Argenis is an electrical engineer,[17] and Aníbal has a degree in History[18] (and being the mayor of a 3000 inhabitant town doesn't give you much power, anyway). I also noted that NPR claims that Argenis Chávez position was "created for him". In fact he was secretario de la gobernación (of Barinas State)[19], all states in Venezuela have a similar position ( see, for instance,[20]), as a matter of fact I could find a reference to that post in a book from 1936.[21]. JRSP (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I change text:some newspapers and political opposition claim that During chavez presidency, Chavez's family members have managed to increase their personal powerand wealth...Alsoam (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Curiously, this controversy did not originate from traditional opposition but from former PSUV members. It all relates to the internal struggle within PSUV for the candidacy to the Barinas State government in the Venezuelan regional elections, 2008. It started as a struggle between Argenis Chávez (who was suspected to be a likely pre-candidate) and the former mayor of the city of Barinas. Later, the pre-candidate turned to be Adán who won the PSUV primary election. The mayor of Barinas retired from PSUV and presented himself as an independent candidate for governor. Eventually, Adán Chávez beat him. All these attacks against the Chávez family ceased after the election so I think those claims are electoral hype, not notable enough for inclusion in the article. JRSP (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

please read exactly:(spiegel claim) and not ( PSUV members claim):Since Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper who later staged a military coup and is now the leader of the Latin American Left, was elected president in 1998, his once-humble mestizo family has become a wealthy clan.Alsoam (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

.

If you read carefully the whole article you will notice that it was written just before the regional elections. During election campaigns, allegations amongst different parties are common place but those things are usually not notable in the long term. You may notice that the article explicitly mentions that Adan Chavez is running neck-and-neck with the city's mayor, a former Chavez supporter . I think that the Der Spiegel article is very biased, I counted 4 direct quotations from Chávez opposition, 1 quotation from a supporter and 1 quotation that can be considered neutral, there is not a single quotation from Chávez family members. It also contains statements that can easily be checked to contradict facts, in particular, they claim that The president and his family are not even popular among the residents of Sabaneta, however, a few days after the article was written Aníbal Chávez was elected mayor by a very wide margin[22]. JRSP (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

your say:"During election campaigns, allegations amongst different parties are common place",

• repeat:(spiegel claim) and not ( PSUV members claim), and npr article:Venezuelan President's Power Extends to His Family Alsoam (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I must remind you that cherry-picking information is not the best way to achieve a neutral point of view. As I told before, this is basically an electoral campaign stunt without long-term notability. If we included this information in the article, we would also have to include replies from the other side, giving undue weight to a lot of allegations and counter-allegations that belong in a local election campaign. JRSP (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

An electoral campaign?! npr article aboute chavez family is not an electoral campaign:Venezuelan President's Power Extends to His Family and also time article

• About:replies from the other side , ok i agree, i add to text :
• This claim rejected by Aníbal Chávez,he said in an interview "I'm here because the people put me here".Alsoam (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Notice that all articles are from 2007 and 2008. As I told you before, this news came not only within the context of the regional election but of the primary election in PSUV some time before. I'm glad to see you've started to acknowledge the importance of balance and presenting all relevant parties allegations in controversial issues. In general we have to gather information from multiple reliable independent sources; notice that independence is important here as sources often repeat each other. You must also check the authors, notice that the articles from NPR[23] and Time[24] are not independent, both were written by the same person. I really do not consider this material to be notable to the Hugo Chávez article, this is mostly Barinas local news. Perhaps, if appropriately balanced it could be interesting for the Adán Chávez article. JRSP (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Third opinion thanks for discussion

3PO

If there is a question about a specific member of the family, a RS is needed to claim anything about any one person. This is a SYN problem as well as a wp:BLP issue. Any statement about any individual should be removed if there is no RS directly backing this up. The NPR article is independent from the Time article because they have different editorial oversight boards and procedures. If there is a question about the validity of some information (and you'll need something to back up such a question), then wp:SUBSTANTIATE allows us to say something like "In 2007, an article in Time magazine reported that blah blah." NJGW (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

re: reference to English speaking

I'm going to be brief: LeUrsidae has asked MedCab how to approach the issue about adding reference to Chavez's English. However, I do not see any discussion on this talk page about the matter, so I'm going to assume that LeUrsidae doesn't know that discussion is the best approach; otherwise, there's nothing to mediate. This is an invitation for him to discuss the matter, and hopefully for us to clear up a few things. I begin the discussion this way as I imagine that folks are getting frustrated about this... please bear in mind that he's a new editor :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

He speaks English?

I'll be brief; Hugo Chavez speaks 'bad English',according to a BBC news report entitled 'Chavez's colourful quotations ',according to Chavez himself. Link is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7090600.stm LeUrsidae96 (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an indiscriminate collection of information; basically, we summarize information from sources. Taking a detail, briefly mentioned in the BBC article and making a big deal of it is not summarizing. Is this information the main subject of the article? When other sources report the event, is the stress on "bad English" or "bad relations with GW Bush" ? JRSP (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ursidae, is there a source that discusses how his English-speaking skill is relevant to his biography? That would solve the problem. I can speak a bit of Spanish, but I ain't no diplomat ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Xavexgoem,please do not go out of the topic.This topic is talking about him,not about wikipedia's policies. You can talk to me on my talk page,but not here. LeUrsidae96 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. You requested mediation to have the English bit included, no? (request page) Xavexgoem (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Also: talk pages aren't forums! ;-)

"Democratic socialism" in the lead

I think "democratic socialism" is not as accurate as just "socialism," since Venezuela's government doesn't seem all that democratic to me. Also, the Wiki of the PSUV party of which Chávez is a member says the doctrine is "socialism", not "democratic socialism". Can someone change it to just "socialism"? --BlackMath77 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

How is Venezuela not democratic? Chavez was elected in a fair election. That's how democracy works. Naur (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors' personal opinions don't count and what another wiki article says (or doesn't say) doesn't count either. If the article says "Chávez promotes democratic socialism" it clearly refers to his own discourse, so if Venezuela is actually democratic or socialist is irrelevant. JRSP (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree that the political situation is irrelevant. See democratic socialism. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the sentence says "promotes", there is no point in discussing what the WP article says about democratic socialism. What counts here is what he says. If he is actually a democrat or a socialist or a democratic socialist according to WP definitions or any other definition is not relevant. JRSP (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe then "espouses" is a better word than "promotes", promoting seems to infer action of some sort as well as words. Espousing a thing can be in words only. 4.255.51.87 (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela is a mixed economy though, it's not socialist. Even if you believe the country to not be democratic enough, you still might use the term social democracy to allude to its mixed economy. KenFehling (talk) 10:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Chávez, as any other politician, promotes his political thought. He usually refers to it as Bolivarianism or 21st century socialism, as the main body of the article says. Now, for the lead, we have to use a term that is meaningful to readers that want a general view about the subject. "Democratic socialism" is a term that has been used by secondary sources and is suitable as a first approach for describing the ideas that HC promotes. Of course, you will find some people that consider he is not democratic as well as people that consider that he is not a socialist but we can leave that to the article body and keep the lead simple. I just added a secondary source describing the Venezuelan process as "democratic socialism", I hope it helps. JRSP (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "democratic socialism" should be avoided because it is not generally used by Chavez or his opponents to describe his policies. It is confusing too because his major opposition in Venezuala comes from democratic socialist parties. The use of the term in an article in the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper is not an adequate source. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why you consider SF Bay View source is not adequate. This other source reports Chávez saying that "socialismo democrático es el rumbo" (democratic socialism is the way) [25]. In the PSUV website, I could find several pages with references to socialismo democrático including one signed by Chávez himself[26]. And, in any case, leaving just "socialism" would be even more confusing. JRSP (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anyone except Chavez supporters and well-wishers that refer to his policy as democratic socialism, and no indication that he used the term before last year. When Ramon Martinez, PODEMOS governor of Sucre, said in 2007 that he was in favour of "democratic socialism", Chávez said "I am a socialist and he is a social-democrat", and "I am in favour of revolutionary socialism". (http://www.marxist.com/chavez-transitional-programme-6.htm). The other main opposition party, the Movement for Socialism (Venezuela) also claims to be democratic socialists. So Chavez's opposition have always considered themselves to be democratic socialists and are recognized as such, while Chavez now calls himself a democratic socialist, although this claim is not generally accepted.

The Bay View is not an adequate source because the fact that they accept Chavez's claims to be a democratic socialist does not validate his claim and does not prove that the claim has widespread acceptance.

I am not disputing that Chavez is pursuing a socialism that is democratic, merely that his use of the term "democratic socialist" is not generally recognized and should therefore not be presented as factual.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But social democracy is not necessarily the same that democratic socialism. Perhaps there is something lost in translation but opposition parties like Acción Democrática, Un Nuevo Tiempo and PODEMOS usually identify themseves as social-demócratas not as socialistas democráticos. And he used the term long ago, it's not a last-year thing, let me look for some sources but he has been using "democratic socialism" since he started identifying himself as socialist. JRSP (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The distinction between the two terms is not clear. They are often used interchangeably, although the term "social democrat" seems to be preferred today. But if you look at the bibliography section in Democratic socialism, it shows that the British Labour Party and US Socialist Party are considered "democratic socialist" and the 2000 book by Busky calls Democratic Action "democratic socialist" (p191) while Chavez is merely "leftist" (p.192). Also, the term democratic socialism was usually meant to distinguish it from communism, whereas Fidel Castro says that Chavez's democratic socialism is a response to Bush's "democratic capitalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact, in the first years of his presidency (that is when Busky's book was published), Chávez identified himself with Tony Blair and the Third Way, later however he took a distance but even today he's in touch with the left wing of the Labour Party, most notably with Ken Livingston. In the references of the article on "democratic socialism", I can see that many authors use a definition that is broader than the definition of "social democracy"; according to this we may say that all social democrats are democratic socialists but the converse is not necessarily true.

Fidel Castro's article is very interesting but the way he presents Chávez democratic socialism in contrast to "democratic capitalism" instead of communism must be understood under the light that Castro is a communist and doesn't want to present Chávez ideas as something contrasting his own ones. But the fact is that the Communist Party of Venezuela which are closer to Castro's thought, refused to merge with PSUV for ideological reasons (though they remain Chávez allies).

Therefore, I consider that "democratic socialism" is better for the lead as it aproximates better Chávez political ideology than just "socialist" or "leftist"; a more detailed discussion of the precise meaning of Chávez's "democratic socialism" would be O.K. for the article body.

By the way, what would you suggest to replace "democratic socialism"? JRSP (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the sentence could be changed from "As the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Chávez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism and Latin American integration" to "Chavez promotes Bolivarian socialism, a combination of popular democracy, socialism and South American and Caribbean cooperation".

Here are references to Bolivarian socialism: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1342 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/3512640/Hugo-Chavez-declares-Venezuela-polls-a-victory-for-Bolivarian-socialism.html

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Your proposition is interesting but The Telegraph just mentions "Bolivarian socialism" without defining what it is so I don't think it will help us. Venezuelanalysis.com supports better your prose though I would suggest participatory democracy (as source does) instead of popular democracy. However, be aware that the use of venezuelanalysis as a source can be polemical (though I don't have any objections), please check Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Sources above. I also agree with you about adding "Caribbean integration" but disagree with just "South American", I suggest "Latin American and Caribbean cooperation" as HC has also advocated for cooperation with Central America. JRSP (talk) 02:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

How's this: "As the leader of the Bolivarian Revolution, Chávez promotes a political doctrine of participatory democracy, socialism and Latin American and Caribbean cooperation"? The Four Deuces (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of the porque no te callas incident, nor of that entire summit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.88.210 (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. JRSP (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made the change. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the current lead is favorable POV. How about changing it: Chavez claims to promote a participatory democracy because that is more accurate.Tannim1 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)