Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Is this article neutral?

See also: Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 21 § Neutrality

There is a dispute about whether or not this article which is a biography of a living person is neutral. Comments would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• This article is POV and one-sided, as are all the daughter articles it relies upon. See my work in progress at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, which so far is only an analysis of previously deleted text that was very well sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Wow, thats a big project you got going on there Sandy, articles about people like chavez are always like this, messy opinionated pov-ish really, the best thing to do is just to start at the top and work through it section by section, rewrite bits and take bits out, it is a bit long in my opinion, I tried to read it all and had to stop half way, I don't mind being the piggy in the middle. Thats what I would do, remove all the rubbish and weakly cited stuff and give the rest a small npov rewrite and then look at it again to see what is missing and can be added. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with that, but FourDeuces is being a bit of a mule about changes. I'd start doing revisions myself but (frankly) Latin American politics bores me silly, and I'm resisting wading into it. If someone else wants to start, I'll help out with the balancing in what minor ways I can stomach. --Ludwigs2 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  It is a bit boring, this RFC is already days old? Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  There has been more than one "mule about changes"; the article has been owned and protected by three or four editors for several years, and no changes have been possible. Hence, I started a page where I will compile a complete list of sources, since they are also needed across all daughter articles. I'll continue work on that once I return home, but in the past, editing this article for neutrality hasn't been possible because of WP:BITE and WP:OWN. (Glad to see the mysteriously disappearing POV tags are back.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is unfair. I set up the RfC in order to attract wider interest, hardly what a biter or owner would do. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, um, you set up the RFC at a time you knew and we were discussing that I was working to gather sources that will be needed to neutralize all of the Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lead is not neutral. It addresses all kinds of things about his political positions that should be in their own section. WP:lead addresses this. I think the lead of the article should have just a couple sentences and all of that other stuff should be in it's own section. That would be the best way to avoid a conflict.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the lead doesn't conform with WP:LEAD at all, but it's kind of hard to write a neutral lead summarizing a biased, POV, incomplete article, which is why it's usually best to leave the lead for last. The lead is merely a whitewash, while the article is glaringly incomplete and biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you think the lead and the article are biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think -- all the more so since US criticism was removed from the lead a few days ago -- the article does not do an adequate job of representing the international reception of Chavez. The United States are mentioned several times in the article, but always from Chavez' perspective. The widespread claim that Chavez is a dictator is not covered. Regardless of the truth of these allegations, they are notable and need to be presented. --JN466 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for more? I did that probably too lightly, it was a kind of shallow edit, sorry about it, my intention was simply to remove anything anyone disputed, as I said a bit of a simple solution that would likely create more issues than it resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It is just given the size and spread of this particular controversy we have to say something about it. --JN466 16:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I am not going to edit this article as there are multiple editors more informed and more skilled in the work it needs than me, best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time the Criticism article was deleted there was talk of doing something around Public image of Hugo Chavez, a slightly broader topic than Media representation of Hugo Chavez (rename, perhaps). Anyway my point is that there should be more distinction between how different people see him and specific events (like RCTV license issue) which are used as evidence on and off-wiki to justify particular views. Rd232 ^talk 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We could add a "Reception" section after the biography proper. --JN466 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" sounds to me suitable for events, rather than people. We already have a "Chávez and the media" section which is perhaps disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article; perhaps this can be reworked into a "Public image" section more clearly focussed on that. My concern would be the potential for WP:COATRACKery - X once said this; Y once said that, Z once said the other. It needs to be much higher-level summary than that in order to be properly encyclopedic. Quoting is often used on Wikipedia as a substitute for the hard work of appropriately summarising appropriately-focussed sources; over-use of media sources encourages that, since they're (almost always) intrinsically focussed on the immediate present of the day. (There ought to be an essay on this issue; perhaps there is.) Rd232 ^talk 08:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all y'all have tried to do here, but trying to fix a lead when the rest of the article is out of whack is very difficult. Working top down is hard, and it's usually better to do the lead last when it can be a proper summary per WP:LEAD, but fixing the lead temporarily is important because it's often the only thing readers read. I suggest we can live with this limited lead for now; it's not balanced yet, but at least it's no longer egregiously biased. I will try to catch up on other queries here later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, though, I would suggest one alteration to the lead: moving the Time magazine mention to the body of the article. That information is now outdated (Chavez no longer enjoys broad support even in Latin America), and the reasons he was named aren't exactly "positive" for Chavez; we may be leaving an incorrect impression, that could be better explored in the body of the article (or a Reception section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it for now. It may be a few years old, but it is quite significant in terms of showing "world status" at the time - being one of the "100 most influential people." I don't think it necessarily leaves a wrong impression, "influential" is not saying the influence is positive or negative. A broader rewrite might eventually find it unnecessary with the addition of other content elaborating the point, but I'd leave it for now. It's a sort of short-hand for a point that needs making. Previous Venezuelan presidents have not been noted for being well-known. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the context for the Time bit again; it's a little bit suggestive with its placement after talking about the Missions. What did Time actually cite him as influential for? The missions may have featured, possibly, but I bet it was more about oil/international politics. It would be better placed after a sentence about that, eg revitalising OPEC. Rd232 ^talk 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Time's rationale is here: [1]. Chavez' oil-based influence in the region, his unusually high geopolitical profile for a South American leader, his anti-US stance, his flamboyance and the potential that he might turn into another Fidel Castro seem to have been the main points. --JN466 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that should be made clear, either explicitly ("Time named him because"), or implicitly by placing it after text talking about those things. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We could say something like, His political influence in South America, his adversarial relationship with the United States and Venezuela's oil wealth have given him a comparatively high geopolitical profile, leading Time magazine to include him among their list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005 and 2006. By the way, this is the article that accompanied the 2006 inclusion. --JN466 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that "Venezuela's oil wealth" hasn't changed under Chavez. What's changed is Venezuela's role in strengthening OPEC, and its internal and external use of oil revenues. But... it's a start. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. We could try it like this: His political influence in South America – partly due to his use of Venezuela's oil wealth – and his adversarial relationship with the United States have given him a comparatively high geopolitical profile, leading Time magazine to include him among their list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005 and 2006. --JN466 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better ... I'll catch up on rest later. (PS, aside, and doesn't affect this text, but Venezuela's oil wealth has changed dramatically under Chavez, and their production potential was substantially damaged when he fired so many executives from what was formerly considered as the best state-run oil company in the world ... I used to work in the US petroleum industry ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay!  Done [2] --JN466 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where this RfC stands but it's my view that this article is highly biased and the NPOV tag is justified. I won't repeat all the issues, but the lead reads like a hagiography, even after recent changes. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• New:
  • For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate, but also incomplete representations here on human rights, crime, corruption, economy, foreign policy, and many others. (JN, if you e-mail me, I will return to you more complete snips of the "Coup" article, but I have to avoid copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs sources

I still haven't had time to catch up, but these sources just came through my inbox:

• Hugo Chávez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President; Venezuela: Hugo Chávez's Revolution; Hugo Chávez: A Test for Foreign Policy
• The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela
• (We also need to add the Shifter article and the Rodriguez article from Foreign Affairs.)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Several books have been written about Chavez, but none of them appear to have the neutrality that sources should have. I would rather rely on academic journal articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which there are precious few, many outdated now, many written from the left. There is no valid reason to exclude Foreign Affairs and other mainstream reliable non-partisan sources from this article, when most of what is in print about Chavez is more recent than either books or journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Book sources

I am currently doing a survey of available literature on Chavez using WorldCat. WorldCat contains data on how many libraries hold a given book, giving some indication of these books' standing out there in the real world. Books are listed in descending order; so books that are held by most libraries are listed nearest the top. I would suggest we focus on these books first.

I need to revise this list; the WorldCat data currently shown are incomplete and very misleading in some cases
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hugo Chávez by Cristina Marcano( Book ) 10 editions published between 2004 and 2007 in Spanish and English and held by 1,003 libraries worldwide Hugo Chávez : oil, politics and the challenge to the United States by Nikolas Kozloff( Book ) 5 editions published between 2006 and 2007 in English and held by 898 libraries worldwide Hugo! : the Hugo Chávez story from mud hut to perpetual revolution by Bart Jones( Book ) 6 editions published between 2007 and 2008 in English and held by 747 libraries worldwide Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution by Richard Gott( Book ) 6 editions published between 2000 and 2006 in English and Spanish and held by 527 libraries worldwide Venezuelan politics in the Chávez era : class, polarization, and conflict by Steve Ellner, Daniel Hellinger ( Book ) 4 editions published between 2002 and 2004 in English and held by 503 libraries worldwide The Chavez code : cracking U.S. intervention in Venezuela by Eva Golinger( Book ) 12 editions published between 2005 and 2007 in Spanish and English and held by 419 libraries worldwide Chávez, Venezuela and the new Latin America : an interview with Hugo Chávez by Hugo Chávez Frías and Aleida Guevara( Book ) 7 editions published between 2005 and 2007 in 3 languages and held by 358 libraries worldwide (Interview of Hugo Chávez Frías, b. 1954, President of Venezuela.) Venezuela : Hugo Chávez and the decline of an "exceptional democracy" by Steve Ellner, Miguel Tinker Salas ( Book ) 3 editions published between 2006 and 2007 in English and held by 340 libraries worldwide Bush versus Chávez : Washington's war on Venezuela by Eva Golinger( Book ) 2 editions published in 2008 in English and held by 221 libraries worldwide Bush vs. Chávez : la guerra de Washington contra Venezuela by Eva Golinger( Book ) 1 edition published in 2006 in Spanish and held by 32 libraries worldwide Hugo Chavez : leader of Venezuela by Jeff C Young( Book ) 1 edition published in 2007 in English and held by 138 libraries worldwide A decade under Chavez : political intolerance and lost opportunities for advancing human rights in Venezuela by Human Rights Watch (Organization)( Book ) 1 edition published in 2008 in English and held by 44 libraries worldwide Threat closer to home : Hugo Chavez and the war against America by Douglas E Schoen( Book ) 1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 11 libraries worldwide The silence and the scorpion : the coup against Chávez and the making of modern Venezuela by Brian A Nelson( Book ) 1 edition published in 2009 in English and held by 3 libraries worldwide

Looking at the present sourcing of the article, it is noteworthy that the three most widely held books (Marcano, Kozloff and Jones at the time of writing) are currently not cited at all. --JN466 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that looking at how widely held they are is only one part of the picture; several of them are too old to be useful, and we should really be looking at newer reliable sources for some info (at least 2008 and beyond). Also, most publications on Chavez are leftist (particularly the older ones, when he was viewed as the darling of the revolution that hasn't worked). We also should be questioning why reliable mainstream scholarly sources like Foreign Affairs are not used here at all; there are many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For a broader answer on the general question of WorldCat, see this response from DGG, an experienced Wiki editor and a librarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I am wondering this article has no mention of Chavez's alleged antisemitism. There are plenty of references avaliable. Is it possible to start a subsection titled "Allegations of antisemitism" in the Political philosophy or Presidency (1999–present) section? I am not sure if this will violate BLP policies, this is why asking for other editors' opinion. We have this kind of information in other BLPs, for example see the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it has a section titled Allegations of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. --Defender of torch (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have.

1. Michael Rowan and Douglas E. Schoen, Hugo Chavez And Anti-Semitism, Forbes.com
2. Revolutionary Anti-Semitism Wall Street Journal
3. Abraham H. Foxman, Chávez's Anti-Semitism, The Washington Post
4. The Chavez Regime: Fostering Anti-Semitism and Supporting Radical Islam Anti-Defamation League
5. FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Venezuela's Jews Fear More Attacks As Chavez' Anti-Israel Campaign Intensifies The Huffington Post
6. Ed Lasky, Democrats and the anti-Semitism of Hugo Chavez The American Thinker
7. Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez, United By Hate: The uses of anti-Semitism in Chávez’s Venezuela Boston Review
8. DANIEL S. MARIASCHIN, A plague of anti-Semitism The Miami Herald
9. Sara Miller Llana, Latin American Jews contend with spike in anti-Semitism The Christian Science Monitor
10. Patrick Goodenough, Jewish Groups Say Hugo Chavez Is Creating A Climate for Attacks CNSNews.com
11. Irving Louis Horowitz, Cuba, Castro and Anti-Semitism, Current Psychology, "Israel is viewed as a nation without proper authority and one whose very right to exist is in grave question. It also accords with the strong adaptation of anti-Semitism as the official policy of Hugo Chavez and the oil-producing giant, Venezuela."
12. Anti-Semitism on Rise in Venezuela; Chavez Government "Fosters Hate" Toward Jews and Israel Anti-Defamation League

More references can be found if a little more time is invested. --Defender of torch (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is simplistic to speak of "Chavez' anti-semitism". From the Huffington Post article above: "Chavez has personally taken care not to criticize Israelis or Jews while accusing Israel's government of genocide against the Palestinians. He vehemently denies inciting religious intolerance, let alone violence. But Venezuela's Jewish leaders, the Organization of American States and the U.S. State Department say Chavez's harsh criticism has inspired a growing list of hate crimes, including a Jan. 30 invasion of Caracas' largest synagogue." You don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticise the policies of Israel's government.

Having said that, his stance on Israel and his links to Iran deserve mention. --JN466 10:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying to describe Chavez as an antisemite, I am saying to mention that some people accuse Chavez of antisemitism. --Defender of torch (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be opinion pieces, which generally would not be considered reliable sources for facts. When opinions are reported in WP articles they must be clearly mentioned as the opinions of the authors in the text. Whether they should be included depends on the notablity of the writers. The best sources are articles in peer-reviewed journals. If the claims are valid then there should be peer-reviewed articles about it. The Ahmadinejad article is different - there is no doubt he held the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust which obviously received widespread comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be all right with a wording that follows the model of the Huffington Post article, as quoted in my earlier reply above, to address this in the article? --JN466 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not when it is a reliable source? --Defender of torch (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces published in notable mainstream publications are notable enough to warrant inclusion, of course with proper attribution. There is a very significant person and expert on antisemitism who labels Chavez as antisemitic; he is Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ref 3). His view, which is published in a third party reliable mainstream source, definitely merits inclusion. There is a peer-reviewed journal article by academic (a sociologist) Irving Louis Horowitz, which says anti-Semitism is the official policy of Hugo Chavez (ref 11). I think there are enough reliable sources to include a paragraph titled "Allegations of antisemitism". --Defender of torch (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How about writing a paragraph on his stance towards Islam and Israel? Tthe sources above consider these related to each other. --JN466 11:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let's review Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government#Iran and Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government#Israel. This material would be best placed in the foreign policy section of this article, which is supposed to be a summary of Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government. --JN466 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of the ADL are notable, but Current Psychology is not peer-reviewed. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It used to be peer-reviewed. Note that your list still says it is published by Transaction Publishers but it is now owned by Springer.[3] If you review their website it is clear that articles are not peer-reviewed. (In fact, it is obvious from reading the article that it was not peer-reviewed.) The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is a peer-reviewed journal. "Founded and originally published by Transaction Periodicals Consortium at Rutgers -- The State University. Now published by Springer and in its twenty-eighth year. Quarterly, international and peer-reviewed." --Defender of torch (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A latest reference to confirm it is peer-reviewed. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) I am aware of Transaction Publishers which is no longer associated with Rutgers and many of its publications have abandoned their peer-reviewed status. Please read the WP article about peer-review and compare it with Current Psychology's website (note there is no claim that it is peer-reviewed):

Current Psychology is an international forum for rapid dissemination of information at the cutting edge of psychology.

Manuscripts, in English, should be submitted to the Executive Editor by e-mail attachment:Dr. Jeffrey A. SchalerDepartment of Justice, Law and Society School of Public AffairsAmerican University4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20016-8043 U.S.A.e-mail: schaler@american.eduManuscripts should be checked for content and style (correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar; accuracy and consistency in the citation of figures, tables, and references; stylistic uniformity of entries in the References section; etc.), as the typesetter is instructed to follow (accepted) manuscripts as presented.

Notice that the Horowitz article has no footnotes, makes no reference to any other studies and provides the "Cuba press and broadcasts" as the only source. The WP article describes the peer-review process:

In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article. These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

Essentially the article is an opinion piece by a highly controversial writer. It is interesting that the editor of the journal holds highly controversal views on psychology (same as Scientologists). The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you have resorted to your personal opinion when you don't like a source. None of you claim provide reliable source. I have provided a RS which says it is peer-reviewed. When reliable sources are saying it is peer-reviewed, then who are you to dismiss it? Anyway, I think the best place to discuss it is RSN. --Defender of torch (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If we want to start or rewrite a section, my proposal would be to begin with mainstream, middle-of-the-road, "boring" sources that stay away from either extreme – mainstream scholars and media sources like Time Magazine, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. If we start with biased or opinionated sources like Golinger or Horowitz, we will spend more time on discussing sources than writing articles. Sources like Golinger and Horowitz should be the cherry on top, not the bread and butter of the article. --JN466 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've just realised I hadn't read the above carefully enough and came away thinking of the wrong Horowitz. Nevertheless, I think the idea is sound that we should not start with the most controversial statement we could introduce, but had better start with the middle ground. --JN466 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They are both controversial. Perhaps we could have a section about media coverage of Chavez - there should be reliable sources for that. His international image is important. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In absolute agreement with you here. There should be a reception section, covering both the praise and criticism he has received from other statesmen and -women, and media reporting. --JN466 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would try to distinguish such things as antisemitism (inciting ethnic hatred), anti-Israel (anti-state), and Anti-Zionism (anti-religion), but all such things are commonly described as simply "antisemitic", and the amount of sources above seems to justify describing Chaves as an antisemit.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All this discussion of one issue is disconcerting, when massive work is needed on the basics of the article. Why not roll the anti-semitism charges into the more general hate-inspired and racially-charged climate Chavez's rhetoric has inspired in Venezuela, for example, with the Bolivarian circles, class issues, and crime? (Yes, there are reliable sources for that, but I'm not going to dig them up if we're going to spin our wheels on one issue ... and some of them may already be in my list at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, because it used to be in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What is going on ins this article?

I can't understand what is the objetice in this article. Here in Brazil Hugo Chavez is widely perceived as a president who is building up a dictatorship and almost every day there are news about human rights violations in Venezuela in here. Not only that, Chavez's actions throughout Latin America and beyond are also source of news in here: his steadfast advocacy of authoritarian regimes such as the ones in Cuba and Iran; his threats of war against Colombia; his involviment in internal affairs in Argentina (by giving money to Christina Kirshner's campaign), Honduras (supporting former president Zelaya's illegal moves to perpetuate himself in power); financing and supporting with weapons the Farc and others. Anyone who reads this article will believe that Chavez is not only just another president around the globe but also someone who fights for the poor. It is a romantic and unreal portrait of a man who is almost a quasi-dictator. --Lecen (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is: we're working on it. The long answer is: WP:SOAP and it will take a long time and much effort to clean up this, and other Ven, articles. We need to gather reliable sources to begin a complete rewrite. I have started gathering sources at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, but it's far from complete. If you have high-quality reliable sources to add, that would be helpful. You can leave sources here or at the talk page of that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. I think this article has an anti-Chávez bias. If "we're working on it" means the anti-Chávez bias will be even more evident, then this is truly a sad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky to be me (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is anti-Chavez, I fear only imagining what would be one that is "pro-Chavez". Anyway, its is not a matter of being pro or against but only telling what happened. No more no less. But as I mentioned before, there is too less in here. --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Poverty

The edits on poverty by User:Lucky to be me are misplaced here and misleading.[4] The controversy over the changes to the poverty data implemented by the Chavez regime is too much to be explored in an overview bio, and belongs at Economy of Venezuela. Plenty of reliable sources state that poverty has increased, but the definition of poverty by the Chavez gov't changed, and good data is not supplied to external orgs. This info cannot be explored in an overview bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, this statement is uncited, unattributed, and refuted by numerous reliable sources. See User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The stats come from the UN not the Venezuelan government. However there could be other reasons for the decrease in poverty, e.g., increased oil prices, or it could be argued that decreases in poverty are undesirable. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The UN can no longer gather valid data in Venezuela; as I said, the controversy is too much to explore in an overview bio, and needs to be explored in a daughter article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you document that, or is it just your word for it? Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this will require a lot of reading on your part, but I already have. And more.User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you have already done it, then fine. Someone is tagging these articles and is saying only use User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. That must be you. So if you are in charge, then have at it. Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These are official UN reports. You're saying there's no "valid data" in Venezuela, well there obviously was in this case. Otherwise the UN would have put a serious disclaimer in their report. Given no such disclaimer exists, we will simply have to read the report as fact. The United Nations is, after all, much more reliable than some article in the New York Times. Lucky to be me (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would read what numerous reliable sources have to say about poverty data under the Chavez regime, and poverty in Venezuela. I know people like to think that the poor are being helped (we all would), but that is not the case. At any rate, this is a bio; Economy of Venezuela and Bolivarian Missions have daughter articles. This article should summarize them (accurately). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, none of your sources say that the UN can no longer collect valid data in Venezuela and in fact you provide the UN's statistics on gunfire as reliable. Your sources also say, "Poverty in Venezuela declined from 54% at the height of the national strike in 2003 to 27.5% in the first half of 2007". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you think a comparison to the "height of the national strike" is a valid one for an overview bio article? And do you think an outdated statement about the status of poverty in Venezuela belongs in this article? And that data was most likely edit warred into the older versions I excerpted also ... fact is, poverty is not improving now in Venezuela, gathering the data is impeded by the Chavez regime, and the discussion belongs in a rewritten and corrected Economy of Venezuela, summarized to here. The economy is hurting; we mislead by adding any data to an overview bio that says otherwise. I'll finish excerpting some of the Economist articles tonight, if I get time, which may be unlikely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? "However there could be other reasons for the decrease in poverty, e.g., increased oil prices, or it could be argued that decreases in poverty are undesirable." I am aware of that. But it would be helpful if you would not not misstate what your sources contain. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, not here: Economy of Venezuela. Over there, before you can state that there has been a decrease in poverty, you need to account for the change in the definition, the difficulty in collecting accurate data under the Chavez regime, and use current data and reliable sources. You might see what VenEconomy says, since their data is less biased than gov't data, but at any rate, that belongs in a daughter article, and there is too much basic work to be done here for these minor distractions of edits that don't belong in an overview bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is the level of abstraction. You will have to Prove that the report published by the United Nations is in fact untrue. You can't just speak in general terms about the "problem" of getting accurate info. in the country. You will have to find a way to discredit the UN and their report on the poverty in Latin America. Again, these reports are golden for articles, as they are very authorative, in contrast to, say, articles written by individual journalists at the Economist. Please find another official UN report that discredits the one I provided, otherwise it will be difficult for you to fight against the official percentages. Lucky to be me (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't golden: quite the opposite. It's a primary source, and the reason Wiki prefers secondary sources is that they have subjected the data to external review. For example, the kind of review that mentions the problems with collecting poverty data in Venezuela. Before you can add that data anywhere, you need to find a secondary reliable review of it. They'll tell the whole story. See WP:V; that (and a readup on the link there to the discussion of primary and secondary sources) might help you understand why Wiki prefers reliable secondary sources like The Economist. The distortion of Venezuela's poverty data is a brilliant example of how Wiki works, and why: primary data needs to be reviewed by independent sources. :) We'd all like to hope the poor are being served in Venezuela: reliable sources say they aren't. You might also do some reading on how long human rights orgs last in Venezuela if they tell the truth :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

However, SandyGeorgia is insisting on primary sources for The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. She is telling y'all to buy the book at Amazon.com (by the guy who did the interviews for the film). Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be most helpful if y'all would stop filling the talk page (read WP:SOAP) with nonsense. Buy the book so you can use it to source the articles, reliably. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you keep contradicting yourself. You want primary sources in situations that suits you, in others you don't. You give the UN credit in the case of weapons, yet you say they are unreliable when it comes to poverty. Will you please stop filling the talk page with nonsense. Do not expect consensus, We will not allow the article to become politicized.Lucky to be me (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Collaborate as you wish; the choice is yours. Wiki has dispute resolution mechanisms for dealing with disruption; the poverty data is a primary source, unbalanced, and the discussion belongs elsewhere (Economy of Venezuela). Please learn to research reliable secondary sources when editing the article. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, trust me, the article will not be any better by pretending that vital facts do not exist. The subjectivity of an individual is one thing, official numbers is an other. Unless we, by pure chance, should start pretending that the United Nations is allied with Chávez, which is - to be absoulutely frank - a little bit too "wild" for our tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky to be me (talk • contribs) 03:24, February 25, 2010 UTC

This isn't a "trust" issue, Lucky; it's a simple matter of you not understanding WP:V, the use of primary and secondary sources, and perhaps you are not fully apprised of the problems with data collection on poverty in Venezuela. See the next section for more info on Poverty. Please confine your commentary to reliable sources and article improvements, so as not to overload the talk page with WP:SOAP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Size

According to Dr pda's prose size counter, the prose size of this version is a very low 3,900 words-- still well under the 5,000 to 10,000 recommended at WP:SIZE and what we would expect for a bio of this magnitude (featured bios routinely surpass 8,000 words). There is plenty of room for expansion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions and corrections

I have made substantial edits to recent additions: my changes are mostly due to:

1. The use of marginal, biased, non-scholarly and VA sources to source a BLP when mainstream sources are available for much of this content (please see the thread at WP:RSN, which found a limited use for biased sources like Venezuelanalysis.com in Wiki articles, but not BLPs).
2. Outdated info (2007 sources are not adequate for sourcing media in Venezuela).
3. Excessive content in this article, Chavez's bio, of issues that should be explored elsewhere or sourced to mainstream, scholary summaries (the Media, the Coup, etc).
4. Inaccurate statements that reflect biased sources and could be explored in depth in other articles.

• This series of edits was basically grammar and other cleanup to conform to guidelines and attribute opinion (we don't puff up Wiki articles by saying "University professor", PhD, etc ... if the person is notable and has an article, that is explored there).
• This series of edits removed info from biased sources, including the use of Venezuelanalysis.com to source a BLP when other, mainstream and scholarly sources are available, and when much of this information is dubious or could be better explored in daughter articles.

In general terms, this article needs to become a bio, with issues like RCTV, the "coup" and media representation explored in those articles, accurately and neutrally, reflecting mainstream and scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, better and more up-to-date sources would be preferable. In specific, your opinion of VA is clear, but the RSN outcome (especially in view of the points about academic use in published work and reading lists) is not at all as clearcut as you make out. In any case, some VA articles are republications; in particular, this one you removed was republished from the Los Angeles Times. Rd232 ^talk 19:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We're not supposed to link to copyvios or to cites that commit copyvios ... and even those supporting the use of VA indicated it shouldn't be used in BLPs (at any rate, most of that text could be neutrally written, better sourced, or belonged in other articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume they didn't have permission to republish. And the idea that VA should not be used in BLPs is more yours than RSN's. Rd232 ^talk 12:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Important information missing

In first place this is supposed to be neurtal. Second the information of the "golpe de estado" from part of Hugo Chavez in 1992 is very complete but in the other hand the other "golpe de estado" that was done to chavez and supported economicly and ideologically by the E.E.U.U it is not even mentioned or the "Caracazo" another topic that's not mentioned at all, then I ask my self ¿Isn't this supposed to be a serious page?.--186.15.44.185 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Gabriel Quesada--186.15.44.185 (talk) 00:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

OAS and European Parliament on human rights in Venezuela

• "Democracy and human rights in Venezuela" (PDF). Organization of American States. 30 December 2009. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • Forero, Juan (24 February 2010). "Venezuela, President Chávez criticized in OAS report". The Washington Post. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • "Venezuela violates human rights, OAS commission reports". CNN. 24 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010.
  • Prado, Paulo (24 February 2010). "OAS Report Chastises Venezuela". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 February 2010. ... issued a scathing report that accuses Venezuela's government of human-rights abuses, political repression, and eroding the separation of powers among government branches in the oil-rich country. In its sternly worded conclusion, it blames the government of President Hugo Chávez—already reeling from a recession and energy shortages that have undermined his popularity in recent months—for "aspects that contribute to the weakening of the rule of law and democracy." ... the government refused to allow the authors, a panel of seven researchers from other member states, to visit the country. Many of the issues highlighted by the report have been disclosed over the years by human-rights groups, academics, and government opponents in Venezuela. The problems include the firing of judges critical of Mr. Chávez, the shuttering of critical media outlets, and the exertion of pressure on public employees, including those of state oil giant Petróleos de Venezuela SA, to support the government at the ballot box. ... Mr. Chávez has been struggling to maintain his popularity at home amid severe economic, infrastructure, and social headaches. In addition to the downturn and ballooning inflation, the government faces mounting criticism and public protests over chronic problems including power blackouts, soaring crime, and a perceived lack of investment in crucial sectors, including roads and the all-important oil industry.
  • OAS Report Critical of Venezuela's Chavez NPR
• "Human rights: Venezuela, Madagascar, Burma" (Press release). European Parliament. 11 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010.

• "European Parliament OKs resolutions". UPI.com. 12 February 2010. Retrieved 24 February 2010. The members expressed concern about the movement toward authoritarianism by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government, the European Union said Thursday in a release. In January 2010, six cable and satellite television channels were ordered off the air after they were criticized for failing to broadcast Chavez's speech on the 52nd anniversary of the overthrow of Perez Jimenez.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you put it in the article, it's a report just as worthy as the UN. In other words, start writing. Lucky to be me (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Knock it off. And then try to notice that, although I provide the original primary sources, I also provide secondary reliable sources that comment on them. That's what we use in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is presenting an American Tea Party view, that any country that defies the U.S. is ipso facto an enemy. This position is strongly defended by the Economist, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Fox News. This is a fringe view. However, the mainstream view of Chavez is not supportive either. While it may be possible that your view or Alexander's view is the correct one, we must rely on how Chavez is seen in mainstream writing. It would be helpful if you provided sources that presented a view that we could use. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:FRINGE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It says "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". That correctly describes viewpoints that are presented in editorials but are not represented in academic literature. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Four Dueces, your understanding of "fringe" is wrong. I've now gotten through a wee bit of the (very long) OAS report, and it does have some positive things to say about poverty and other improvements under Chavez. If we can locate a reliable secondary review of that primary source, we can use some of that in place of primary source UN data that has not been subjected to secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The Four Deuces, just let her write the article since she is going to anyway. Your opinion doesn't matter. Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some "improvement" wording (economic, social and cultural rights) based on the OAS report may be found in one of these:

• Alonso, Juan Francisco (24 February 2010). "IACHR requests the Venezuelan government to guarantee all human rights". El Universal. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
• Contreras Alzamora, Carolina (24 February 2010). "Human rights watchdog: IACHR report shows political discrimination in Venezuela". El Universal. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
• Schimizzi, Carrie (24 February 2010). "Venezuela government violating basic human rights: report". Jurist: Legal news and research. Retrieved 25 February 2010.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a full paragraph on this, using all sources. At a glance, it appears that the article overrelies on one source, and I considered adding another sentence to the effect that many sources and organizations say the same thing, but when my list of citations reached 25, I decided that wouldn't look very good :) So, although the article now appears to over-rely on one source, it's backed by numerous secondary reliable sources, and we have dozens more that all say the same thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Having now read more of (not all of) the 300-plus pages of the OAS report, I am concerned about their allegations of "improvements" in social, economic, etc. areas. ALL of their sources are government sources for that data, and they cite no other sources or studies. Reliable sources have established that Venezuelan government data isn't necessarily accurate nor does it tell the full story. However, reliable sources have repeated those claims of "improvements", so I've left them in, and balanced them with other highly reliable and more rigorous scholarly sources than the popular press, Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy. I suspect that once the OAS report is subjected to deeper analysis, we will see the flaws in the economic and social improvements exposed. Fixing this article requires a massive undertaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Well yes it's a massive undertaking to update and improve it to something resembling the sort of standard it should be. But because so much of it depends on daughter articles with similar problems, we should really start there, cutting the task down into more manageable chunks. PS Neither Foreign Affairs nor Foreign Policy is peer reviewed. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

BCLH 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)We could use this great source, is from the Interamerican development bank, which specifies not only economic conditions but human rights conditions also. I also think we should improve this article as soon as possible.http://www.iadb.org/research/index.cfm?artid=7048&lang=en

Young

I don't think young is correct in this case, diff it seems redundant, if she is older than Chavez and they were both young at the time , adding young only to her seems misleading. Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of Judges

An April 25, 2010 article in the Washington Post said,

Sitting in the tiny jail cell that has been her home for months, Judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni said she knew a ruling she handed down in December might incense Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. But she was astonished when intelligence agents arrested her and the entire courtroom staff 15 minutes after she freed a prisoner the government wanted in jail.

"I never thought -- never -- that the violations would get to this point," said Afiuni, 46, who is being held here in a cellblock filled with women charged with drug trafficking and murder, some of whom she sentenced. The jailing of a tenured judge who angered the president has brought into sharp focus the increasingly tight control Chávez exerts over the judiciary, a situation condemned by legal watchdog groups and constitutional experts across the Americas.

Advocates for an independent judiciary in Venezuela also say the judge's plight, along with the arrests of dozens of government opponents in recent months, demonstrates how far the Chávez administration will go to quell dissent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.238.60.2 (talk • contribs) April 25, 2010

See Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni; if your point on this article is that the human rights issues remain underdeveloped here ... well, yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newpaper and there is a danger in this and other articles that they become merely a sequence of stories of the day. The way stories like this should be shown in the article should be based on informed opinion that has been critically reviewed. While that may exclude the story of the day, Chavez has been in power for 10 years so it should be possible to find reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BCLH 17:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Yes wikipedia is not a newspaper, but we must be aware that to understand certain facts of living persons must be updated everyday, Chavez has been in power for 11 years not 10, but we are reffering to Mrs Afiuni was recently arrested illegally , not 11 years ago but one month ago, according to your way to see things, we could not put that Iceland volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted days ago causing a breakdown in Europe's air traffic, again wikipedia is not a newspaper but sometimes is just common sense to edit and update something. Another example is chavez resigns tomorrow, according to you we could not update this info?.

The arrest of Lourdes Afiuni is not as newsworthy as the Iceland volcano. Apparently Afiuni is suspected of taking a bribe. Whether she is being held on actual evidence or trumped-up charges is something we have no way of knowing. It is not usual however for political prisoners anywhere to be allowed access to the press or to be actually charged with an offense. The article mentions human rights concerns that have been expressed before and there should be serious writing on the topic which could help improve the article. TFD (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly: the arrest of Afiuni is but one small part of a much larger trend (lack of independence in and control of the judiciary, along with violations of human rights) that are mentioned in numerous reliable sources and should be addressed globally in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me a reason about why the imprisonment of Mrs Afiuni is not as important, besides we are not talking about if the news is important or not, we are talking about update articles of living persons, look well in the newspapers before saying that, she was imprisoned because she release a man that according to law must be free and judged in freedom, after 3 years in prison without a trial, I remember you that the public attorney has not made any charge against Mrs Afiuni and your allegation of a bribe is just biased and without any proof. Is not enough for you that Chavez said that he ordered 30 years of jail for her, trespassing separation of powers and referring a judge that must be surrounded with good faith ? and be judged in freedom?. Do you speak spanish? I give you some links to illustrate you about this case.http://www.eluniversal.com/2009/12/20/pol_ava_investigan-presuntas_20A3215817.shtml http://politica.eluniversal.com/2009/12/17/pol_art_onu-alerta-sobre-cli_1699088.shtmlBCLH 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure who you're asking the question of, but yes, I speak Spanish, and I'm well aware of the significance of the Afiuni case (and the absurdity of the bribe charge, but Wiki reports what reliable sources say), but it is still part of a broader issue that should be addressed globally, rather than specifically, in this article. There are numerous sources which discuss the broad issue of a partialized judiciary in Venezuela, breakdown in democratic institutions and deterioration in human rights, with multiple examples, of which Afiuni is merely one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not whether this case is important of not but whether this case is relevant enough for inclusion in *this* article. The "30 years" comment is just an opinion, Chávez has no authority to put anybody in jail, this is a problem concerning the General Attorney and the Judiciary. Of course, Chávez opinion has a lot of influence but this is not direct authority. Venezuelan judiciary slowness is a problem that predates Chávez so this case belongs in a proposed Judiciary of Venezuela article. By the way, the heading says "judges", is there any other case? JRSP (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post article mentions (Judge) Juan Carlos Apitz who was removed from the judiciary, but no cases of arrests.[5] TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannon sourcing

User:Lucky to be me, you've added a lot of sourcing to

• Cannon, Barry. Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age. (Manchester 2010).

Could you please establish Barry Cannon's credentials here, and include some scholarly reviews of his book?

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to general credentials and scholarly reviews of his book, we will need to gain access to this journal article to determine if he is a neutral writer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cannon is an academic at Dublin City University. The book is published by Manchester University Press. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Firstly, Barry Cannon is a post-doctoral fellow at the school of law and government, Dublin City University, Ireland. His book Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age is published by Manchester University Press, an academic publishing company (hence the name). So, 1). The book is written by a professional academic. 2). It is published by an academic publishing house.

Secondly, you ask for academic reviews:

'Amid often polemical and ideological discussion of the person and project of Hugo Chávez, Cannon's book offers a careful and broadranging examination of the context, causes and characteristics and consequences of Chavismo that provides a firm basis for a balanced assessment. Of particular significance is its excellent overview of Latin American populism and its clarification of the various dialogical hues it can adopt, thereby cutting through the dense fog that so often clouds discussion of this enduring political phenomenon. This book is a major contribution to the burgeoning literature on the ‘new left’ in Latin America.’ -- Professor Peadar Kirby, University of Limerick. (From back cover).

You need to find reliable sources if you want to dicredit the content in the book. Removal of these references - without authorative backing - will count as original research, and therefore be inappropriate in relation the Wikipedia guidelines. Lucky to be me (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how it works, Lucky: you're the one adding the source (I only add sources with a known reputation for fact checking or scholarly reviews, and am sure to use them correctly). Information from the book cover doesn't establish anything; please find scholarly reviews or something to establish the author's credentials, and please avoid citing Wiki policy and guideline to me if you don't know them.

Rd, do you know how to fix that link above so we don't get the cookie problem again? I should have a copy of that article by tonight. Hopefully by then, Lucky will have something as well :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Lucky, since you have the book, can you please tell us what sources he used for economic data? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, same for Meade; we need to know what data she's citing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I now have the above-listed paper by Cannon, which makes not even the barest minimum attempt at neutrality or critical analysis of Golinger's book; it's nothing but a fan paper, so we have ourselves a less than neutral source in Cannon. I suggest that someone try to find a scholarly review of his book, before we use it. Lucky, since you're using it to source economic data, please describe to us explicitly what sources he uses to develop economic data. Does he use any independent sources, or is it all Gov't data? Does he make any attempt to attach appropriate disclaimers to the gov't data, or does he just parrot it as he does the claims in Golinger's book? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The book only came out in 2009, so it's probably too early for scholarly reviews (at least, I haven't found any yet). Cannon's book review of an Eva Golinger book is followed in the same journal issue by another hardly any more critical review (of a different book by Golinger) by someone else. In any case, if we take this academic book to WP:RSN nobody's going to care about a book review which doesn't fit your opinion. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to take it to RSN; we just have to know what we're using (as we do in all cases). For instance, we need to know if we're parroting government data, CEPR, Golinger, Weisbrot, etc. It is up to Lucky to be more forthcoming about what is in the book, and what data and sources it uses, so we can attribute it correctly, and decide whether it belongs in this article or elsewhere (daughter articles), according to due weight. It's a matter of using sources correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Cannon, lecturer for Marxism 2009 festival of Socialist Workers Party. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Panellist, not lecturer. And so what? It's an obvious place to promote his book. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Just that it's the only thing I can find (and is an indication of what market the book appeals to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
      • the "market the book appeals to" - please. It appeals to people interested in an academic assessment of Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age. It should hardly surprise you that this includes a bunch of old lefties. NB it's just been issued in paperback. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The fact that this book appeals to Marxists is no more relevant than the fact that the Wall Street Journal appeals primarily to upper-class capitalists, as far as reliability is concerned. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age Barry Cannon (Lecturer DCU) and Sean Mitichell (SWP), It is a Lecturer in a Marxist Festival, he can be a Marxist but I think that eliminates him as a neutral or a reliable source of information. He speak spanish and remember that Venezuela Government has a lobby of its ideas all over the world. And most of the info of Cannon is not updated BCLH (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bolivarianism

In the early life and in the Bolivarianism article they refer to Chavez as the creator of the bolivarianism. Here is a source that proves he is not, in fact Bolivar has been a reference to the Venezuelan culture since 19 century BCLH (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The article refers to the followers of Bolivar as bolivarians and their beliefs as bolivarianism.[6] But I do not think he and his followers called their belief system bolivarianism. TFD (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

They did not talked about bolivarianism but it was bolivarianism at its beginning per se that evolved in the following years but it began on that century not with Chavez BCLH (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent revert

I've reverted some recent additions which gave undue prominence to some points in the lead, and were generally not done well. ALBA may merit a mention in an extended lead, but it needs a clearer description. The description of the Chavez family was misleading, because it didn't make clear that those political positions postdated Chavez' election. The opinion poll is probably not significant enough to report anywhere int this article (probably no opinion poll is), but certainly not in the lead. Also, BCLH, English does not seem to be your first language. Maybe you would be better off proposing changes on the talk page. Rd232 ^talk 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recommendations, this article is not about me is about Chavez, so stick it to the subject, don't shoot the messenger.And this is not the place to give that info this is the Bolivarianism topic, Have a nice day BCLH (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm just trying to be helpful, I'm not shooting the messenger: fact is several of your edits have shown a degree of mangling of English which goes beyond needing a bit of cleanup, and becomes problematically confusing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and proposing non-trivial changes on the talk page first is never a bad idea. Anyway, I've added a header, since the lack of one bothered you. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources in Early Life

We can't use the government website as a reference to some facts about Hugo Chavez early life, this is a primary source with a biased view of how to portrait Chavez's life. --BCLH (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

so american govt websites also cant be used...check...Jalusbrian (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RS: "Self-published... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...." TFD (talk) 18:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that true? because I have seen info deleted of some Living person biographies, quoting that is not allowed to use primary sources or related sources to the character BCLH (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chiaracompostellausa, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Anselmi, Manuel (2008). I Bambini di Chavez. Ideologia, educazione e società in America Latina. Franco Angeli. ISBN 13: 9788846496683. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Chiaracompostellausa (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please specify the edit you would like us to make to the article then place {{editsemiprotected}} back on the talk page. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

FAIR

Why is this here?

However, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation.[92]

Fair is not a notable source. It's also highly agenda seeking. As to it's opinion, it's dubious at best, and downright wrong at worst. The U.S. at least has protected speech by the first amendment, in the event of a coup or not. It's arguable whether or not that would be honored, but I don't see Fair's opinion here as worthy of mention. It doesn't fit with the flow of the article anyway. I suggest that this was added for POV reasons and to shape the reader's opinion. This section should be removed: non-notable, POV, doesn't fit well with the article, and just a dubious assertion to make. Chudogg (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FAIR is a notable source...more so than most media it analyses for bias and fraud. AND any media that engaged in a coup in the US would soon have their executives in jail...You dont like FAIRs comments because they threaten your little fantasy world. Jalusbrian (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It apparently was put in as balance to criticism against the Venezuelan government. It is acceptable to quote FAIR in this case. (Free speech by the way is not a defense to conspiracy or incitement to commit an offense.) This section should be supported by high quality reliable sources and I would be appreciative if you could recommend any. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Free speech by the way is not a defense to conspiracy or incitement to commit an offense." - I disagree. Current Constitutional interpretation established in Brandenburg v. Ohio the threshold for free speech is inciting "imminent lawless action", reversing Schenck v. United States which upheld prohibitions on literature to resist war measures. Further, the strictest measures of speech come in wartime involving a foreign enemy, in the cases of Axis Sally, and even they were very limited in scope. It is arguable, and speculation, whether limits could be applied to intra-national political disputes, even during unconstitutional actions like a coup. The executive may take extra-constitutional action, the Supreme Court might reverse current policy, or any number of speculative options.

In any of event, the issue at hand is whether inclusion of this opinion is worthy of mention in the article. To balance the anti-chavez arguments of suppressing free speech, I feel that the mention of regulation of obscenity, failure to pay fines and taxes, and other measures is good enough inclusion to warrant the actions of the Chavez administration as justifiable. The opinion, that the action of shutting down an independent newspaper as justifiable for political reasons as it would be common in the U.S. or Western countries, I feel is POV pushing to justify the of political suppression. I don't feel it's necessary to balance Fair with a source that may disagree with this opinion. I think this portion should be removed. Chudogg (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed, or why regulation of obscenity is a parallel. The pretty clear suggestion from FAIR is that in a Western context these people would find themselves charged with something if they're lucky (conspiracy to whatever), or else disappeared somewhere like Guantanamo or its outsourced foreign equivalents. In the UK they would certainly be charged with some kind of incitement offence at least; don't be so US-centric in thinking about freedom of speech (but don't be naive about it either, when it come to anything construable as supporting terrorism). Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The best solution is to go to high quality reliable sources (e.g., peer-reviewed academic journals) to see how this is viewed. At present though we cannot have an anti-Chavez opinion without balance. And FAIR is accepted as a good source for opinions. I would not be opposed to removing the entire paragraph. Incidentally, it could be argued that the network promoted "imminent lawless action", but the claim was that the "stations put themselves to service as bulletin boards for the coup—hosting coup leaders, silencing government voices and rallying the opposition to a march on the Presidential Palace that was part of the coup plotters strategy". I suppose they could argue that they were unaware of their role in the coup. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

1) I think an academic journal with peer review making this argument would be more acceptable, and I would more inclined to relent on my suggestion on removing the entire reference. FAIR, simply put, is not reliable. Yes they probably have some very good work they put forth at times. But I don't think every opinion they devise is notable in the sense that they warrant encyclopedic mention.

2)As far as "imminent lawless action", the current SC interpretation wouldn't even speculate on the popular device "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater", suggesting that there could in fact be times where you could yell "fire" in a theater (rushing everyone out as part of the show, etc.). Brandenburg severely limited the Shenck opinion of "Clear and Present Danger", that "imminent" really meant "right now", as in "right right now", as in causing a stampede, violent disruption, getting people to riot, etc. The Shenck opinion closely resembles the Chavez scenario, where independent media was encouraging resisting the war, actions against the government, etc. Brandenberg was a clear nod that those actions were in fact Constitutional. In any case, the event of what U.S. statutory or common law would interpret post-coup is purely speculative. Only the most esteemed Constitutional scholars could probably warrant an encyclopedic mention.

3)I do admit that this is U.S. centric. I am severely not familiar enough with E.U. nation's laws of whether Chavez-type actions would be considered mainstream in the event of a coup. The U.S. position of FAIR is only the one that struck me the most, and the fact that FAIR itself is very U.S. centric, their arguments on the U.S. speculative actions take a bit more merit to analyze.

4)I don't think any media outlets utilizing freedom of speech have "disappeared" or sent to Guantanamo bay. These are opinions that belong on the Conspiracy Theory page. But... on that note: much of the previous Bush administration's actions have in fact been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, asserting more transparency and due process when the executive invokes "unlawful combatant" status on individuals they suspect of terrorism. None of these cases had anything to do with free speech, or even "conspiracy" in that regard, but they do highlight the U.S. system of checks and balances.

5)If we check the source link, we will see that this isn't even a main argument by Fair. Further, it is not attributable to a particular author (which displays volumes as to whether it is notable). It reads as if even Fair acknowledges that this is purely speculative.

I hope I'm not being too confrontational with this argument here. I'm certainly not trying to assert an anti-chavez tone. The point is: there are many more arguments to counter anti-chavez bias. 1.. Obscenity. 2. Taxes, and fees. 3. There are plenty other anti-chaves media organizations that didn't get harassed. This particular one to me seems that it is POV pushing as it relies on the pathos of the reader while, arguably at least, not very accurate and purely speculative. I think other arguments to highlight independent media in Venezuela better depict the rationale of the Chavez administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs) 06:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we should look up for another source, because FAIR is not so fair, if we must not use anti chavez sources, we must not use pro chavez sources. I would recommend data of the Interamerican Bank of Development, The Andean commission, world bank and the interamerican society of press, Revista of Harvard University.BCLH 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

Yes, and this is innacurately being ascribed to FAIR. The source is a simple talking points bulletin with no claim to authorship, which merely quotes a PATRICK McELWEE of an obscure Just Foreign Policy, and appears to have originally been published on the website Counter Punch. We're clearly getting into the realm of "some blogger said", and I'm not discounting the possibility the inclusion of the FAIR source could have been link spam. For reasons that this is inaccurately cited, the layers of sources being pealed back are murky in their notability, and the claim is somewhat spurius to the article anyways, the proper course of action should grounds for removal. Chudogg (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not remarkable that WIKI has attracted so many Chavez hating critics bent on ensuring the publics view of Hugo Chavez is skewed toward a NED representation. Is this what WIKI has come to? Jalusbrian (talk) 13:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if Fair were wrong on this point, which they're not (as per the Fairness Doctrine established here by the FCC), I think it's in the best interest of balance to include an opinion questioning the dominant opinion presented in the rest of the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.28.126 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Chavez Profile Image

BCLH 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC) I think we should use the photo of Chavez with the military uniform, he always reffers to him as the commander in chief. I don't now why somebody tries to put him as a civilian. We should use this photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chavez_nuevo_uniforme.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

US presidents are also Commanders in Chief...shouldnt they too be in uniform? and unlike Chavez, theyve used that status to very noticeable effect Jalusbrian (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The present image is fine; this image is inappropriate for the Chavez infobox because it has a funny highlight thing in it. In any case, Chavez is the Venezuelan President, which is a civilian position. Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

That photo is from the commander in chief uniform,it was took during his presidency. he refers as the president and commander in chief, so he can be as a civilian and as a militaryBCLH 16:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

This particular photo has a highlight in it which makes it unsuitable for an infobox, because it needs an explanatory caption to say what the highlight is trying to point out. Rd232 ^talk 16:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, the focus of the infobox picture should be the subject, not something on his shoulder. JRSP (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We can put this explanation below the image, like other images, for example of eddie vedder or pearl jam explaining where is the photo and the dateBCLH 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

Or we might put this photo Operemm.jpg BCLH 16:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BCLH (talk • contribs)

No, the infobox picture must not be an image processed to highlight a particular detail; it must be a picture highlighting the subject himself. JRSP (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, don't care; worrying about images when the entire article needs to be re-written isn't the best use of time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

BCLH, will you please begin to sign your posts, by adding four tildes (~~~~) after your reply? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, there is a WP:copyvio problem as the image appeared on a Venezuelan government site on 13 September 2008[7] and the processed image [8] was uploaded on 4 March 2009 without attribution to the original author. JRSP (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I propose to use the image File:Operemm.jpg, we have not made a consensus about this image. I think we should use this image because Chavez is called by his followers as the commander in chief and he is a military officer retired or not, he still holds a military status, and is proper to use this image. BCLH (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a convincing argument, and the picture is not better qua picture, for an infobox. Rd232 ^talk 06:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be a good idea in the interest of avoiding bias - putting him in military uniform would make him look (at first glance) like a military dictator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela 2010

The problem with this article is it is just like American reporting, too neutral. This man and his faction have broken down the government from a healthy democracy to a dictatorship. The people are being robbed of their land, homes, and possessions not only by the unchecked banditos but also now by the government. This was once one of the most beautiful countries in the world containing some of the world's greatest rain forests and spectacular waterfalls. In a matter of years, Chavez has turned it into the one of the most dangerous places to live in the world. People cannot flee because few countries will accept them and if people leave they take only $2000 on a government credit card with them, which of course amounts to nothing in a foreign country. Because Chavez was elected in a democratic election he has the same privildges as the American President in the global community.

American media does not care about these matters, nor do they report them with any emphasis compared to a teenage boy accused of attempting to kidnap a child that in reality was simply trying to help her find her mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.176.84 (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• You are totally biased, I am from Venezuela and things are not the way you mention. No family house has ever been seized by Chavez government. Our old "democracy" never was "healthy", and there is no dictatorship in our country, just take a look on tv and radio stations, newspapers, websites. That's hilarious.

Jon Bonachon (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you need a little perspective. Venezuela is no dictatorship, even if the "salami" does appear to be being sliced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jon Bonachon, 20 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, I have a suggestion for the "Revocation of RCTV license" section

My suggestion is to change this: "RCTV was transmitted via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010, when it was closed again by cable companies in response to an order of National Commission of Telecommunications"

to: "RCTV was transmitted via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010, when it was excluded by cable companies in response to an order of National Commission of Telecommunications"

Because that channel was not "closed". RCTV keeps broadcasting internationally via Internet and non-Venezuelan cable/satellite companies.

Thanks

Jon Bonachon (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that's better. I'd like to see the whole section sorted out properly, with good references, etc - but for now, happy to make that change. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

Youth rights

Chavez supports lowering the voting age (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aqg5jOxmM.Vg). So when I add "Category: Youth rights individuals" to his page, please do not erase it this time. Thanks. Sbrianhicks (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Civilian casualties Coup attempt of 1992

There's no mention about civilians killed during the coup. It's notorious the casualties in the the vtv state station. Someone has sources to put on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngativ (talk • contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Chavez had nothing to do with that coup attempt, there's no reason to mention it here. (Venezolana de Televisión says it was the November 1992 one; Chavez' was February - see 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts.) Rd232 ^talk 23:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well having read up on it in more detail, and expanded the 92 coups article, "nothing to do with it" is too strong. But it was organised and directed by others whilst he was in prison, so at best it merits a half-sentence to mention the second coup. Rd232 ^talk 10:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem?

At first glance, the big box saying neutrality is disputed and "article need to be rewritten completely" really hits one on the face. Reading through the article, I did not come across major problems, which leads me into thinking: isn't the box a tad too harsh? I'd like to help fixing the problem, if one exists, so can someone point out where exactly the main problems are. Lesswealth (talk) 01:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If people still believe that this article has those failings then they should explain it. I will now remove all the tags and ask that anyone replacing them please explain them. TFD (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has. The last free television channel in Venezuela has been acquired by the Venezuelan government. Its former owners have gone into exile to flee from Chavez's persecution. None of that is mentioned in this article. Chavez's connection with the Farcs is also not mentioned. Chavez's dictatorship is not mentioned in this article. Anyone who reads it will believe that he is a democratic president just as all the others. --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There are at present six tags on this article stating:

• The neutrality of this article is disputed. (February 2010, inserted twice!)
• This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (February 2010)
• This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2008)
• This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (February 2010)
• This article may need to be updated. (February 2010)

There has been no discussion on any of these issues for over a considerable time and in any case editors need to know what the specific concerns are. For example, is the imbalance in favor of or against the subject? Surely there are adequate sources. in some cases, the issues may relate to specific sections and section rather than article tags are required. Could you please address these issues rather than just re-inserting the tags. I have no objection to tagging providing clear reasons are given. Once these issues are identified they can be resolved.

BTW I added in a reliably sourced section about the government acquisition of shares in Venezuela-Globovisión. Please do not tag an article because an event that happened four days ago is not in the article. Edit the article to include the new information. Please explain what the article is supposed to say about FARC.

TFD (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Tags are supposed to document clearly identified problems, such that attempts can be made to fix them. If it's forgotten why tags have been added (or was never clear enough originally) then removing them is sensible. Hopefully this will stimulate discussion of the problems, or even attempts to fix them, rather than merely edit warring over insufficiently-explained tags. Rd232 ^talk 23:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This entire article reads like a pro-Chavez fluff piece. Just read the "Chávez and the media" section. The entire second paragraph is a quote from a single, hyper-partisan source, Mark Weisbrot (i.e. the guy who co-wrote Oliver Stone's latest movie supporting Chavez.) Weibrot is quoted again in the "Revocation of RCTV license" section, and is identified as an "economist, and expert on South American affairs." That's like taking a quote from Rush Limbaugh and identifying him as an "expert in radio broadcasting", while failing to point out his ultra-right wing partisanship.

There's no excuse for removing the 'bias' tag on this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy with Rush Limbaugh is totally invalid. Rush Limbaugh is not an expert in an academic field, and doesn't provide sources for anything he says (which is how he gets away with lying so easily). It is quite easy to refute most of what Limbaugh says, and plenty of reliable sources have done so. Weisbrot on the other hand is an expert, and I while you can yammer about him being "hyper-partisan", I doubt you'll find any reliable sources refuting what he says (give it a shot -- it will be an educational experience, no doubt). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot is quoted because he is one of the relative few in the western media who offers a non critical line on Chavez and in that sense is needed in the article. To have balance, both viewpoints have to be accessible, and thats how it is now. The article still has many anti-Chavez quotes, viewpoints and paragraphs. I think POV here is clouding judgement. Someone who likes Chavez could argue that the article is too much against him, and someone who doesn't like him would argue opposite. Also, what has been discussed here doesn't actually offer too many specifics as to what needs changing. The only thing specifically mentioned are parts of the media section (which are all sourced). Anyway, I think its actually quite an acceptable article, most things are well cited. Maybe the problem is that all opinions expressed in it are extreme, but thats what happens when you deal with a very polarising figure. I think its ludicrous to be asking for a rewrite of the article. And by the way, Weisbrot is not very partisan, he is a well respected source on South America, go read the article about him and its sources. And yes, he helped write a film where they don't talk as much about the bad sides of Chavez's rule but there is an entire archive of material in any western newspaper which is critical of Chavez. And it was their aim to show the other side of that criticism, but that doesn't mean he is "hyper partisan". Just the same as when someone writes an anti Chavez article, that doesn't guarantee they are a bias or partisan source, its their prerogative as a journalist.--ValenShephard 19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Weisbrot is not quoted because he is "one of a relative few who are not critical of Chavez". He is quoted because he is a notable and reliable expert on the subject matter. There is nothing "extreme" about the things he is saying. They are simply well-supported facts. On the other hand, most of the criticisms of Chavez' media policies were full of outright lies (such as that he has "shut down all the opposition TV stations", when in fact, the large majority of mass media in Venezuela are privately owned and extremely critical of Chavez, etc.). To reiterate -- the reason we are including Weisbrot is that he is an expert stating well-supported, verifiable facts. Not because we need to include "both sides". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reiterating precisely the type of bias that you can find throughout the article. It's one thing to ignore the right-wing propaganda from FOX News. But, you're also ignoring the plethora of human rights reports that have condemned Chavez for his dictator-lite actions. (This is one portion of the article that actually feels balanced.) Sorry, but this article needs a LOT of work to meet the usual high standards of Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it still seems vague. What specifically should be in the article and please provide reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much what should be in the article, it's the way information is presented that I have problems with.

For example, "Disturbed by the Caracazo, rampant government corruption, the domination of politics by the Venezuelan oligarchy, and what he called 'the dictatorship of the IMF' Chávez began making preparations for a military coup d'état". That doesn't sound remotely encyclopedic. You could just as easily write "Craving power and seeing the Caracazo as a viable excuse for conspiring against the sitting government, Chavez planned and executed a military coup d'etat that he hoped would make him President." I'm not saying this statement is more accurate than the former -- I'm saying neither is appropriate. (And, while the former is sourced, the source is a book that is extremely sympathetic to Chavez.)

This is just one example of some of the bias in this article. Many of the facts presented are intertwined with 'fluff'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 23:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I stil think there is too much vague opposition here. The above quote still doesn't seem to me to be POV or unbalanced and there is no real explanation given. Also, just for the record, I thought that Weisbrot being considered a reliable expert on the subject was a given and I didn't consider that his being 'from the other side' to be the only reason that he should be included. Afterall, I added 3 quotes and contributions from his sources, so I must have considered him reliable. And calling Chavez some kind of dictator without any real backing to such claims it also not not an argument. Plus, I'd like to meet a dictator who has been popularly elected 3 times (by majority percentages unheard of in US elections), who was brought back to power after a coup by a mass movement, who won in a recall vote and who has instigated participatory democracy. I wonder what the dictionaries say these days under 'dictator' or maybe its just Fox news?--ValenShephard 00:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Joelwhy, if you want to phrase it differently then you need a reliable source. TFD (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am amazed. Did anyone see the new section called "media freedoms"? I thought it was impossible to this article to portray Chavez in such an absurd and unreal way but I was wrong. God, I was wrong. Any newspaper you open (including here in Brazil) you will see about Chavez's path to dictatorship but not in here. Anyone who read it will believe that Chavez is the most democratic and freedom lover leader even seen. --Lecen (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that this website is pro-Chavez propaganda? TFD (talk) 23:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this?

[T]here is a much more oppositional media in Venezuela than in the United States, and a much greater range of debate in the major media. This can be seen simply by looking at the most important media in both countries ... the vast majority of the media in Venezuela is still controlled by the right-wing opposition.

— Mark Weisbrot, Center for Economic and Policy Research

The large majority of mass media in Venezuela is privately owned. Private corporations control 80% of the cable television channels, 100% of the newspaper companies, and 706 out of 709 radio stations.

As part of a program of media democratization, the Venezuelan government has required that all private television stations dedicate at least 25% of their airtime to programs created by community groups, non-profits, and other independent producers.

On 25 July 2005, Chávez inaugurated TeleSUR, a proposed Pan-American homologue of Al Jazeera that seeks to challenge the present domination of Latin American television news by Univision and the United States-based CNN en Español. Chávez's media policies have contributed to elevated tensions between the United States and Venezuela. --Lecen (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be discussion about media in Venezuela, backed by reliable sources. If you have reliable sources with verifiable information in them, please feel free to add them. I would be careful about your sources, though, because unlike their normal practice of selective presentation to paint a misleading picture, the corporate media seem to be comfortable with outright lying in the case of Chávez (such as claiming that he has "shut down all of the opposition TV stations", etc). In short, whether you like the above statements, or not, they happen to be true, and if you want to add something, make sure you cite it with reliable sources like those backing the above content.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Lying? Just the fact that you accused them of lying means that you have clearly an agenda here. Who are you to say that the press from Brazil, U.S., Canada and Europe is lying? --Lecen (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not me making the claim that is important. What is relevant here is that a wide array of respected scholars and organizations such as FAIR, etc have made such a claim, and are cited as saying such. There is nothing "POV" about me saying that when someone says something that is demonstrably false (i.e. that all opposition TV stations have been shut down, when anyone who is in Venezuela could tell you that this is absolutely not the case), that they are lying. If I said that they were "evil" or something like that, then that would be POV. Me pointing out that they have consistently repeated things that are not true, is just a statement of fact (and, as I said, this isn't MY view -- it's the view of several notable authors and organizations who are sourced in the article).-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just stating my support for Jrtayloriv against Lecen. Reliable sources trump Lecen's and others' arguments against statements in the article. Arguments and issues which are just subjective.ValenShephard 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the POV were well documented and discussed in the last round (restored from archive above), and no attempt has been made to correct them or to balance the article (in fact, it's moving the other direction again). POV tags should not be removed until issues are addressed and consensus is reached, and the absence of discussion or editors is not reason for removing the tags without resolving issues. Wiki articles should reflect a consensus of reliable sources-- not the opinions and cherry picked sources of the editors who happen to predominate on the page. Please read WP:UNDUE; specifically, "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." That a group of editors show up here, declare the article not POV, POV it even further, will not sit well with Wiki policy, should it require review by higher venues on Wiki. I'm also noticing again a deterioration in sourcing, as well as numerous bare URLs appearing in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There's clearly no general consensus here. Arguing that this article is unbiased is laughable. As I previously pointed out, this article needs a tremendous amount of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 02:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, and you continue to ignore or skirt over this problem, is that there was never a consensus to add those tags in the first place. There was a discussion in Feb. which was inconclusive and largely abandoned, there was a discussion recently which agreed to 'remove' the tags. Start a new discussion (but maybe its too early) and see if people want them returned. Until then, please respect the outcome of the last talk, which is more relevent than the talk 5 months before it.

All that is happening now is that one bloc says "the article is bias" and another bloc asks "can you explain that bias?" to which the first bloc replies "the article is bias". We are not getting anywhere. I, and others, have stated on many occasions that you should please explain what is bias, along with reliable sources. Until that happens, I can't see how anything will improve in this articleValenShephard (talk) 02:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That has already been done; that you choose not to read it is another issue, and yes, there was consensus for the POV tags. I also note that this entire "what is the problem" thread occurred after my well announced absence from Wiki due to travel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, old talks which have been superceded by new talks on the same issue, cannot be taken into account. Why doesn't everyone just go through the talk archives, find a discussion on an issue which supports their POV or their aims? That is basically what you are doing. I am sure if you go back into the archives on many articles, you will find conflicting reports. Thats why the latest talk, and the latest decision 'on the same issue' has to be of more importance.ValenShephard (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful if someone found out the actual Wiki policy on this. If 5 month old archived discussions can be used to argue against new discussions on the same issue, what is the point of starting new discussion? When we can just find what suits our POV in the archives apparently.. ValenShephard (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to understand the purpose of POV tags on articles; they document that a POV concern or disagreement exists. That it still exists is undeniable, and the tags should not be removed until consensus is reached; that is clear, and will be upheld. It would be helpful if *you* would read and understand the policy, rather than expecting others to explain it or review archives for you, as that work has already been done more than once, over many years. JRSP, you also removed specific documentation of issues missing in the article; could you please explain? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't start to presume and guess what I want, or what I want people to do for me. I don't like my behaviour being referenced. That doesn't add to the discussion or your own argument in fact.

Why should a tag be put without consensus? What is the logic there? Why don't I write anything I want, then expect you to prove me wrong, and until then it stays. False logic, and double standards. You cant request consensus to remove something without asking for consensus to add it. Thats madness. ValenShephard (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was consensus to add them, months ago, there was recent consensus to remove them. So until then, give us reasons and sources why the tags should be added. If you want to refer to past arguments then start a new talk. ValenShephard (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

News related to Chavez

This section will bedevoted to news related to Chavez and his rule in Venezuela. Everyone will be free to compare with the article itself. --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

If you keep this up, within a few months this section will run into dozens of articles about current events, and if we incorporate them all the article will be excessively long and entirely about recent events. TFD (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above statement by TFD.--ValenShephard 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding information which is not suitable for this article. Most likely your posts here will be unsupported or ignored. Spend your effort (which is surprisingly considerable) on improving and adding to articles, not this.--ValenShephard 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Books on Hugo Chavez

The following books - written in English - deal with Chavez (all of them can be found on Google books):

• Minton, Michael A. Mr. Right Opinion- Unplugged & Unashamed: One Man's Musings During Perilous in America's history. Bloomington: AuthorHouse, 2008, p.178 (calls Chavez a "brutal dictator")
• Schoen, Douglas E. Threat closer to home: Hugo Chavez and the war against America. New York: Free Press, 2009, p.43 (calls Chavez the "democratic dictator")
• Kilgannon, Thomas P. Diplomatic Divorce: Why America Should End Its Love Affair with the United Nations. Macon: Stroud & Hall Publishers, 2006, p.69 (calls Chavez a "dictator")
• Chandler, Robert. Shadow world: resurgent Russia, the global new left, and radical Islam. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2008, p.102 (calls Chavez "dictator-president") --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

These books all present fringe views and are not notable and not reliable. We discussed sources before. We really need high quality sources for the article, but no one has provided any. A collection of blogs by "Mr. Right Opinion", a book with a foreward by Ollie North, and a book that claims the Muslims are trying to take over the world should not be sources for this article. TFD (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with above statements by TFD.ValenShephard (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez is "elected" one of the worst dictators by Foreign Policy magazine

Foreign Policy magazine [9] has "elected" Hugo Chavez one of 24 worst dictators in the world (Here: [10])

This source ignores the facts about his election and Chavez's executive powers.--ValenShephard 17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The source's subheading is "Bad dude dictators and general coconut heads." Apparent jokey racism aside, it doesn't even take itself seriously, so why should we? Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha, good point Rd232.ValenShephard 20:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Racist? Did you read the article? In the very first page of it: "A continent away from Kyrgyzstan, Africans like myself cheered this spring as a coalition of opposition groups ousted the country's dictator, President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. 'One coconut down, 39 more to harvest!' we shouted. There are at least 40 dictators around the world today, and approximately 1.9 billion people live under the grip of the 23 autocrats on this list alone. There are plenty of coconuts to go around."

None of you bothered to read it. It doesn't matter. This article is a classic example of owned one. It has several editors who clearly are trying at all cost to keep their favorite dictator in a positive light. But don't worry, folks. He will fall. All of them sooner or later eventually fall. And you will all be gone too. --Lecen (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is not a list of people "elected" by Foreign Policy, but a list prepared by an economist, George Ayittey, a former fellow at the Heritage Foundation, representing his own opinion. Again, not rs not notable. TFD (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So, does that mean that since it is a writer who writes the list of "People of the Year" on TIME magazine that means that it shouldn't be accounted for? And who are you to say what is and what is not allowed in this article? Do you own it? --Lecen (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we shouldn't include a single individual's opinion. We therefore should remove: "In a column for the British newspaper, The Guardian, Mark Weisbrot stated that: "Venezuela is no dictatorship, and has less inequality than any Latin American country." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies neutrality and verifiability. Please also read biographies of living persons. We do not build articles on editorials, whether they are opponents or supporters of Chavez. We never use opinion pieces for facts and use reliable sources for the facts that are published. If cannot find any positive, negative or neutral criticism in reliable sources then we omit it altogether. If you want to understand how Oliver North or the Heritage Foundation see the world, then you may look at their articles or look at their websites. TFD (talk) 21:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian commentary was probably added to balance something that has itself been removed and is therefore unneccessary. If we want to show whether inequality has increased or decreased under Chavez, and how this compares to other S. American countries, we should use better sources. TFD (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez and suspected terrorist links

Foreign Policy magazine [11] wrote an article on Chavez and his suspected close links to the Farc - a Colombian terrorist organization - (See here: [12])

Chavez claims to be Bolivar reincarnate

According to The Washington Post, Chavez left a "message of this macabre parody was unmistakable: Chávez is not a follower of Bolívar -- Chávez is Bolívar, reincarnated. And anyone who opposes or criticizes him is a traitor not just to Chávez but to history". See here [13]

This is too much. "Chavez claims"? Are you serious? The Washington Post claimed that, as you just wrote! This is getting silly. Very silly.--ValenShephard 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan troops occupy house of Globovisión's shareholder

The National Guard of Venezuela occupied on this sunday the residence of Nelson Mezerhane, shareholder of Globovisión TV and owner of the Federal Bank, which is under government's intervention. The entrepreneur ran away to the United States in June. Little more than one month later, president Hugo Chavez announced that the State also would control 48.5% of the actions of the oposicionist channel.

According to Magaly Vásquez, Mezerhane's attorney, the banker's residence in Caracas was "taken by the National Guard", without its legal representatives being "informed of the motive"." Initially they told me that there would be a verification of Mezerhane's estate, but now there is another situation and the entrance to the house was forbidden, which is occupied by troops”, she said.

Mezerhane, who is owner and president of the Federal Bank, ran away to the United States in 14 June, the day which the financial institution was nationalized under the allegation that it would was under a liquidity crisis. Justice emitted a warrant against the banker on 1st July. Fifteen days later, Chavez asked to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, for the extradiction of Mezerhane whom he called "a robberr who ran away with seven billion bolivars (about U$S 1,6 billion), that it is the ammount of the customers' deposits of his bank”.

The banker is also is shareholding of Globovisión TV, which openly criticizes president Chavez. In 20 July, the government communicated that it "would control 48.5% of the channel's shares - 20%; of one gentleman whose last name was Tenório, who regrettably died, and 28.5% of Nelson Mezerhane, owner of the Federal Bank, who is in the United States”, spoke the caudillo.

The tv's president, Guillermo Zuloaga, which is also a fugitive, is wanted by the Justice for the crimes of "usury" and “racketeeringion”. A farm of his has been occupied by troops, this week. Chavez still promised to intervine in more than 300 companies that belong to Mezerhane to "indemnify" the damage caused by the Federal Bank.

Source: VEJA magazine [14] --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: My underlinings.

Victor Vargas, a leading banker and head of the National Banking Council said he is sorry the takeover of Banco Federal had to occur, but indicated he supported the government action by saying that sometimes interventions are necessary to keep the overall banking system running smoothly. (Source Dow Jones)[15] TFD (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The above response from TFD is a very strong argument. It destroys much of Lecen's argument.--ValenShephard 17:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that Victor Vargas is good buddies with Chavez.JoelWhy (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

He isn't. He knows that. However, it's easier to get random names and put in the article and claim that they are backing Chavez's deeds as neutral by-standers. --Lecen (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Chavez expropriates lands and deposits of Polar company

The president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, ordered yesterday the apprehension of five lots of land of Empresas Polar SA, the greatest company in the food sector in the country. Chavez signed a decree demanding the expropriation of Polar's supplies in the city of Barquisimeto, in the western region, and also warned the president of the company to not question his decision. The government wants the lands, currently occuppied by installations of the company's storage, to be used for the construction of subsidized residences.

Polar, one of biggest companies of the country and owner of popular beer brands, has been a recurrent target of threats of nationalization by president Chavez. Throughout his mandate, the Venezuelan leader already nationalized projects of other companies in the oil, cement and bank sectors. Now, he affirms that Polar "transformed the heart of Barquisimeto into a deposit of beer".

The company promised to question the decision and is presenting the case to the country's Supreme Court. It also offered a different lot of land to the government, in the same city, for the construction of the low cost houses. "Do not provoke me", informed Chavez in the tuesday, in the government's news channel, warning the Polar president, Lorenzo Mendoza, one of the men richest of Venezuela. "Tell your lawyers to be quiet."

Source: VEJA magazine [16]

P.S.: My underlinings. --Lecen (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard of this VEJA magazine. Most of us cannot verify it because it is in Portuguese, no guarantee of its reliability. I don't like taking your word in your translations and analyses of these articles because you have shown a strong POV on previous occasions.ValenShephard 14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, this material is better suited for wikinews. Dumping a lot of news related to Chávez is only cluttering the discussion page. JRSP (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Never heard about Veja magazine? You never heard about the magazine that is the most circulated weekly news magazine in Brazil, fourth most circulated in the world? The news in here is a small proof of how biased this article has become. --Lecen (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of readers and editors of the English Wikipedia, I am sure, do not read Brazilian magazines, which are published in Portuguese. Leaving this point aside, the other editor had a good point, that just shoving a news story in Talk is cluttering it up, and is not suitable for the article.ValenShephard 16:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I just went to the Veja Magazine article and found that the source for it's circulation is actually broken. So I guess your argument on that front is broken too.ValenShephard 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Here [17], here [18], here [19], here [20], here [21] and here [22]. I can go on the entire day. --Lecen (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep going if you want, but that, as I said, is not the main point. As the other editor said, your additions are not suitable for the article anyway.ValenShephard 16:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A piece of what is written in the article: "A 2010 OAS report, written by inspectors who never visited Venezuela, found concerns with freedom of expression, human rights abuses, authoritarianism, press freedom, threats to democracy". Anyone wants something more biased than that? --Lecen (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That is only bias from your own POV. Its well sourced, its a fact: the inspectors did not visit Venezuela. Find a strong source that they did visit Venezuela, and I will be happy to remove it for you.--ValenShephard 17:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This (written by inspectors who never visited Venezuela) is one of the most laughably biased statements on this page, but it seems to now be removed from the article, unless I'm missing it. Does anyone see the irony in mentioning that OAS inspectors didn't visit Venezuela, considering Chavez kicked them out? That is called "unbalanced", and the section is still unbalanced, giving undue weight to Chavez's response, with little attention to the multitude of sources that covered the OAS report and validate it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a source that discusses this in greater depth. Expropriation of land for housing, roads, public transit, etc., and nationalization of private companies is fairly common, even in Western Europe and North America. The issue is whether the company has been treated fairly and if they have legal recourse. Apparently Empresas Polar is taking the government to court. Do we have any information about the value of the land seized and whether compensation was offered? TFD (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Economist on Chavez

The Economist said on Chavez that "After taking over the courts and provoking an opposition boycott of legislative elections, he is now targeting state and municipal governments, currently the last bulwark against his rule among elected officials. By forcing them to compete for resources with pliable “communes”, he may starve them to death" and on and one. Here: [23]

But let me guess?? The Economist is not a reliable source for some unknown or stupid reason the Pro-Chavez-editors around will say. --Lecen (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting

Sources are presented, but ignored. Reiable sources are discarded; marginal sources are added, and content is based on cherry picking. Please read WP:UNDUE; Wiki articles should reflect consensus of reliable sources, not cherry picking of opinion by editors who predominate the page. The article continues to be Wiki's worst example of biased editing, but no amount of examination of sources seems to satisfy. Interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake if I deleted it.ValenShephard (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you examine the sources? Can you substatiate claims of 'cherry picking'? ValenShephard (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I realize the previous discussions are long, but you will save everyone time, and space on talk, if you will actually read them before commenting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which previous discussions? I've read, and contributed to the latest talk on the issue of tags and POV. What else? ValenShephard (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PBS Documentary Series Source

Hey, I know you guys are retooling old Hugo's page here. YOu got your work cut out for you. I know that Frontline has a whole 2 hour documentary (its a year old but still...) on Hugo Chavez and it has a lot of good information on his administration and his style of leadership. It balances points of view pretty well on the whole. The video should be on PBS.com and I'm sure there is a transcript of some of the interviews. Let me know if this helps.

Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hugochavez/view/

Good luck to all of you! --Schwindtd (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)