Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 29

Food Policy

Unidentified editor added info on Chavez food policy ("Relevant, notable, NPOV, well sourced info which has been covered in hundreds of articles in mainstream reliable sources continuously over the past 8 years should not be removed from the article.") His comments and the additions to the article were removed. I think he spent too much time on it, but the section certainly seems relevant. Is there a reason it was removed?JoelWhy (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was one of many sockpuppets of a banned editor (User:Grundle2600) - see Talk:Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. Rd232 ^talk 14:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that almost all the information he is trying to add is already in Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government, but presented in a more neutral format. He was trying to include it multiple times in the article, and place it above much more significant items. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see where it's in the article. However, straight off the bat I'm seeing things that are far from neutral. For starters: The Venezuelan government has set price controls on around 400 basic foods in an effort according to the Washington Post, to "counter inflation and protect the poor." But, if you read the Washington Post article, the very next paragraph says "Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela." As I've pointed out repeatedly, non-POV articles are routinely used in this article -- and then perverted to provide a pro-Chavez tint. JoelWhy (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not neutral (I love how they said "soared to an accumulated 78 percent"). I'd love to include something about increased food prices due to inflation, but without using figures that are presented in a way designed to shock (i.e. let's use the normal measure for inflation, "average annual"), and as long as we balance it out with one of the numerous articles that point out that inflation has gone way down since Chavez has been in office, and that food intake is up, and malnutrition is down (I feel that this is repetitive, because of the stats mentioned later, but I don't want to deliberately mislead people into thinking food is harder to get in Venezuela, which is what the Post is trying to do). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing misleading about it -- many staple foods ARE harder to get in Venezuela. You frequently cannot find everyday items such as milk in the grocery store (something that did not occur in years past.) (That's not to say this has necessarily led to people starving in the street.) Also, I understand that you distrust the mainstream media. That's certainly your prerogative. But, sources like the Washington Post are, under Wiki policy (and pretty much the rest of the world), considered highly reliable. You cannot supplant policy based on personal beliefs about what is or is not neutral. I'm fine with leaving out well-poisoning words like "soaring". But, I'm not fine with ignoring these sources (especially given the reliance in this article on a number of highly suspect sources.)JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that I wanted to ignore the Washington post as a source, in general. I just said that I'd like to present the information in their article in a neutral manner, and give context to it, both of which they failed to do. And I realize that, at times, there are shortages of certain foods in Venezuela. What I don't feel comfortable with is saying that, and not mentioning that as a whole food is easier to get and that less people are dying of malnutrition and that caloric intake is up overall. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On the inflation issue, if anyone cares about historical context rather than hyperbole, see the nice graph here. I've added textual summary at Economy_of_Venezuela#1960s_-_1990s. Rd232 ^talk 16:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And I have created a template for such a graph at {{Inflation in Venezuela}} -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article in the Washington Post which was written by Natalie Obiko Pearson, the oil and business correspondent in Caracas, Venezuela, for The Associated Press.[1] What are the guidelines for this type of article: should they be treated as news reporting or as op-eds? The seem to meet verifiability but not neutrality. The other issue is that the article is old. The article begins, "Meat cuts vanished from Venezuelan supermarkets this week". Do we report in the article that there were no meat cuts available in Venezuelan supermarkets in the first week of February, 2007? We really need to use better sources. TFD (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- the quality of corporate journalism on this topic is, for the most part, deplorable. Pearson's work is clearly an op-ed (and a dishonest one, at that), regardless of whether the AP "forgot" to label it as such. Besides the misleading presentation of statistics, there are also problems with inclusion of false information. For instance, they included a "shopper" who claims that the government "says that there are no shortages", which is manifestly untrue. The government says that there are shortages, and that they are because of food speculators hoarding food to increase profits -- claiming that they say that there are no shortages is simply a lie. Even though they used a "shopper" to say it for them, it's still a lie, and they shouldn't have included it. This type of piece should be tossed, in favor of articles that present all of the facts, make at least a superficial attempt to present them neutrally, present sources to back their claims, and don't blatantly lie to their readers -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

How do we treat the Washington Post article? We treat it as news reporting because it IS news reporting. This is outrageous that you're going to come to an agreement that a newspaper article is OpEd, and that somehow makes it true. As for the information being dated, I agree -- except that recent articles have found the same food shortages. I'll update the article later when I have time, but I've found various articles from newspapers in 2010 confirming continued food shortages. (Not to mention first hand accounts from people I know who live in Venezuela, not that such anecdotal accounts would be appropriate for Wiki.)JoelWhy (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. This type of article which combines facts and analysis does present a problem in that while the facts are reliable the analysis may not be. For example, this signed article ("Mets’ Closer to Be Arraigned in Assault") in today's New York Times says, "Mr. Rodriguez has shown a hot-tempered side.... He has been something of a high-wire act on the mound, often getting himself into trouble and then bailing himself out." I would think that statement should be treated as the opinion of the authors, but cannot find any policy or guidelines on this. TFD (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as policy on not presenting opinions as facts, see WP:ASSERT. But that's only for notable opinions, and the opinion of this ranting and dishonest journalist from the Associated Press, is definitely not considered notable. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy -- Whether you want to consider it quality journalism is not my concern. You ignored the primary focus of my post, which was that they were dishonest, misleading, and extremely one-sided. They not only chose to word their "statistics" in an inflammatory way, but outright lied. I don't think that a journalist that is not only clearly one-sided, but is also demonstrably lying, should be used as a source, when there are plenty of other, more reliable sources out there that are discussing the same things, with more factual support, more context, less venom, and no lies. And again, nobody is claiming that food shortages shouldn't be mentioned -- if you'd take a moment to look at the article Economic policy of the Hugo Chavez government, you'll see that it is in there -- we just chose not to lie or use inflammatory rheotoric about it as Pearson did, and put it into context. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One thing jumps out at me as a lovely example of demonstrable bias in a supposedly neutral newswire "news piece": "inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years". The only possible reason for expressing inflation in this bizarre way is to mask that inflation fell year on year from 2003 (31.1%) to 2006 (13%.7%) (cf Template:Inflation in Venezuela). Never mind historical comparison, that alone is jawdroppingly dishonest, and should lead to conclusions about the author's suitability as a "reliable" source. (NB the IMF data in the Inflation template sums to 82.5%, but she may just be using a slightly different measure [which would still show a similar pattern].) Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it appears to me that you're just looking for a bias that isn't there. Read the statement in context:

"Chavez began regulating prices for 400 basic products as a way to counter inflation and protect the poor.Yet inflation has soared to an accumulated 78 percent in the last four years in an economy awash in petrodollars, and food prices have increased particularly swiftly, creating a widening discrepancy between official prices and the true cost of getting goods to market in Venezuela."

In other words, Chavez implemented a policy intended to produce result X. Instead, we have result Y, and this in spite of substantial profits from oil (at the time.) Now, you can certainly argue that this is an oversimplification of what happened, and add statements from sources making such a point. But, to dismiss the article, leaping to the conclusion that the writer is biased, lying, presenting an opinion, etc is not supported by the evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think you read what I wrote. The intention of the policy was to keep inflation in check. Inflation did fall. The article states the opposite, using a rarely-seen measure of "cumulative inflation over the last four years" to mask the fall. This measure is too bizarre and unusual not to have been used deliberately for the express effect of masking the inflation fall, which must have been calculated from the annual inflation rates. QED - jawdropping dishonesty. Rd232 ^talk 21:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I read what you wrote, but I don't at all understand your point. What's so bizarre about the four-year measurement? She's referring to a policy that began 4 years prior to writing this article. Are you saying she should have written that inflation dropped at first and then sky rocketed the last year?JoelWhy (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let me spell it out in more detail. Sure, she's going back four years because that's when the policy started, that's fine. But (a) "cumulative inflation over a four year period" is not a normal way of reporting inflation. You give annual statistics for inflation. You summarise variation over a period. You don't cumulate - this is just not done in news sources. (b) She's writing in February 2007, so the relevant figures she would have had for the previous four years would be (Template:Inflation in Venezuela): 2003: 31.1; 2004: 21.7; 2005; 16.; 2006, 13.7. Each year inflation is less than the next. Even without knowing historical context or global factors, calling this "soaring inflation" is blatantly dishonest, and using a bizarre cumulative measure to make the statement possible makes it crystal clear that the dishonesty is deliberate (if you wanna call a spade a spade, it's propaganda). Clear now? Rd232 ^talk 00:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, just as a general point on the inflation front: 1999 - 2008: 10 year average=20.63%; 1989 - 1998 (probably the highest 10-year average in Ve history, happening to be the ten years before Chavez): 53.54%; 1980 - 1988: 14.61%. Rd232 ^talk 14:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does not say whether the price controls were in effect throughout the period and the inflation figure is for the CPI rather than the 400 basic products under price control. It fails to mention that world "commodities prices had their highest rates of increase for the post-war period with the price index of all commodities increasing at a rate of 23 percent per year during 2003–07" [an accumulated 129 percent].[2] Another writer might conclude that the price controls were effective. That is why when we include opinions in articles we should use peer-reviewed sources so that we can determine the weight that should be provide to the various views. TFD (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW I would like to see a reasoned neoliberal analysis in the article, but no one has provided one. TFD (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would too, as long as it is not (a) a bunch of non-notable opinions stated as fact, (b) given undue weight, (c) a bunch of statements of "fact" that are simply asserted as true without any evidence or (d) taken out-of-context, (e) blatant and clearly demonstrable lies (as in the case of the Washington Post/AP article mentioned above, the Boston Globe article I removed earlier, or the "Empty Revolution" article in Foreign Affairs).

But again, that doesn't mean that I am giving my support to turning this into a ranting neoliberal screed against Chavez. I think that the opinions should make up a very small portion of the article. I would prefer that instead of it being a bunch of for/against opinion statements, that we stick to the most relevant facts, which can easily fill up a lengthy article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Twitter

Another example of cherrypicking quotes from sources, and not presenting all sides of what is presented in the very sources used:

Chávez has a Twitter account with more than 720,000 followers as of August 2010, with about 2000 joining every day. Chávez's Twitter account has been described as a way for people to bypass bureaucracy and contact the president directly. There is a team of 200 people to sort through suggestions and comments sent via Twitter. Chávez has said Twitter is "another mechanism for contact with the public, to evaluate many things and to help many people."

If so much space (in a grossly deficient article) is to be given to the Twitter account, then by all means, please present what the source says, for example, about the alleged team of 200 people, and his previous attacks on Twitter. This is typical of the issues that occur in this article, resulting in unbalance and undue. And why on earth spend so much time on Twitter, when so much else is lacking from the article, without establishing the context of his use of Twitter? Didn't someone recently delete text about Chavez's speaking style, and yet this very source speaks to that ? When using reliable sources, pls don't cherrypick from them to present one side only. Why does unbalanced text like this, which does not fully reflect what the sources say, stay in the article unchallenged, while anything else is endlessly nitpicked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think his twitter account is worthy of inclusion at all in this article, and even in an article about media in Venezuela, I would say that it only warrants a sentence or two. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it *is* worthy of inclusion, when placed in the context of his views about using the internet to further his "revolution"-- there is context for his use of media and the internet, and multiple reliable sources speak to that, but here we have multiple sentences devoted to making him look good, without mentioning all sides of the issues. Context! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, or having it removed completely. I mean, should we add how many Facebook friends he has? Unless it's a record for a world leader or something, it's pure trivia. But, if it's presented in context to his view on the Internet, etc, then it may make sense.

Personally, I don't think using Twitter to "further his revolution" and promote social change makes him "look bad" -- most major news organizations also use social networking sites to promote their ideology. Whatever you think of him, he would be a fool not to communicate about what is happening in Venezuela using any means available. So if anything, using the internet to communicate makes him look reasonable. Nor do I think that everything was presented to "make him look good" -- what made you feel this way? Please assume good faith on the part of editors -- not everyone who doesn't include everything you would have included is some one-sided propagandist who is just out to "take things out of context" and "make Chavez look good". Maybe they were just trying to improve the article. But, anyhow, if you feel like it's worthy of inclusion, and as long as we stick to facts, I won't argue. But I do think it should be short, and I don't feel that editors should get to selectively remove anything that they feel is there to make him "look good", while "balancing it out" by replacing it with negative opinions from the corporate press. By the way, note how much space the White House has gotten discussing it's Facebook page, for instance (a single external link, which is about what I think this warrants) ... why is Chavez's twitter page so significant that it warrants a whole paragraph? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I want to again point out that the Media section is a daughter section to the Human Rights section. It needs to be moved elsewhere if it's not going to be solely about HR-related press issues.JoelWhy (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think twitter or the new movie studio belong in this section. Just like we have a "Foreign Policy", "Economics", and "Human rights" section, perhaps it would be better to move this sort of think to a "Culture" section, and describe music, film, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If placed in context, the Twitter account is not trivia. He has made numerous statements about using the internet to further his "revolution", while simultaneously trying to shut down or criticize others who do same (see the very sources given in that passage, as well as numerous others), and his use of/control of the media and the internet is an oft-mentioned in reliable sources part of his strategy-- this needs to be placed in the context, and the content added re: Twitter clearly cherrypicked from that source for the most favorable presentation. On the other hand, I have NO idea why the movie house was added-- that is pure trivia, as far as relates to other reliable sources and due weight. Why so much focus here on trivia, when no one bothers to make any attempt to balance foreign policy, human rights, economic policy, the lead, and so forth? Priorities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means remove anything with a pro-Chavez bias. But do not use its presense to balance it with anti-Chavez bias. Bias does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When *one* source (as in this example) presents both sides, the balance is already given in the source. In this case, quotes were cherrypicked to present only one side, and context has not been given. Chavez's use of/control of the media is context given in multiple reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"cherrypicking" implies dishonesty; please remember to assume good faith. People with different views will always see different things as important, and especially in haste may end up highlighting quite different things from any given source. That is precisely why the Wikipedia process of people with different views collaborating is supposed to be a good thing - it's a sort of constant peer review process. But just as in academic peer review you're not supposed to say (or imply) "ha! you cherrypicking bastard...", so we're better off assuming good faith here. (That doesn't make criticism impossible, it just means avoiding implications of intentional bias.) Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So we should say something like "Chavez uses Twitter to communicate with people and imposes strict censorship on all media"? BTW, were you aware of the TV station Globovision? I looked at their website and it appears that the censors have so far missed them. TFD (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, a recent study reported that Venezuela was ranked 3rd according to twitter penetration and mentioned Chávez account as a possible factor for this high rank.[3] JRSP (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that it was already unusually high before Chavez' account. Rd232 ^talk 08:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Style

WARNING: I have just begun a complete overhaul of ALL references. I am scrapping the citation templates and using the style employed at Why Socialism?. The new style looks like the first five citations in the references list. I know that some of you will be upset and say I should have gone to the talk page. Tough. I already put up a section at WT: VEN but not many responded. Per WP:BOLD I am taking bold action to force editors to reformat ALL citations. Thanks and have a great day!--Schwindtd (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as a computer programmer, I prefer the citation templates, because they can be easily parsed by automated tools. I think you should have waited and discussed this change before forcing it on everyone. I do appreciate your willingness to do tedious work like that, to improve the article -- I just think you should have talked about it first. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I did try and discuss it. I invited several active editors (including yourself) on the Hugo Chavez page to the discussion at WT:VEN. Only two responded, and as such I felt that a bold edit would force everybody to look at the issue. Hopefully I have succeeded in pushing others to discuss, just as you were pushed to respond to my edits. I regret nothing. Now we can discuss while I postpone the changes indefinitely. If you want to make your views heard please see WT:VEN. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have reminded people that there was a conversation going on, and waited until more people had responded. There has been fairly constant battling here for quite some time now, and I totally forgot about the citation discussion that you mentioned earlier. I didn't feel that there was really any rush to fixate on a certain citation style while the article was still developing. But, I don't really care about it, I suppose. I just don't see any rationale for using anything other than citation templates (The only argument I've heard against them is that they're "complicated", but if people can include a link or section headings, then citation templates aren't any more difficult than those -- and it's much more difficult to learn how to write/format/punctuate a citation manually than having an automated computer tool do it for you), and there are plenty of benefits to the templates (automated parsing, reformatting automatically rather than having to manually format each citation individually, prevents users from having to learn how to do punctuation/etc. within citations, etc. etc.). Anyhow, looks like the decision has already been made, and I won't be making any effort to go through and change them ... so be it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your anger and probably the frustration you feel (I'm just guessing here from your tone.) but I would like to say that I DID invite you. I thought that no one responded either because they were uninterested or because they just agreed with whatever. To suggest that I, without any knowledge, should have known that you had forgotten and not just been ambivalent or unconcerned is kind of a stretch. Besides, I got your attention, didn't I? I can gladly change the cite style back (I don't mind changing the cites) if you and the others decide that templates are the word. I admit that I should have reminded you and the others, for that I apologize. But from my action perhaps a discussion can emerge, so it is hard for me to regret my unilateral action. I do wish you to pardom me, though. I hope you aren't too cross. I will re-extend my invitation to the debate at WT:VEN to all the active editors. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated, very, very, slightly. Angry, not at all. I understand that you invited me, and I already responded to this above. I'm not asking you to regret anything, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. And not only have you done nothing to beg my pardon, but I am in no position to be pardoning anyone in the first place. I'm not cross -- there are much more serious concerns that I've got with the page right now. This is extremely minor in comparison. Again, I was just making a suggestion to wait, and explaining my reasons for preferring templates. I am not upset with you -- as I said above, I appreciate what you are doing. I was just asking that you slow down, and perhaps try one more time to stimulate discussion on it. But if you feel that you want to go ahead and convert them all, go ahead -- I really am not that attached to the issue one way or the other (although I'm personally going to continue to use templates so I don't have to constantly refer to the guidelines to remind myself how to do punctuation and formatting). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry for the noobishness, but what are the choices we can choose from? ValenShephard (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and, more generally WP:CITE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also wondering why we would pick one over the other? Are there pros and cons? ValenShephard (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No to citation templates, please. They are not simpler to use; you need to know the fieldnames, plus the result is much harder to scan and looks offputtingly like programming source code. They make wikitext much harder to read, especially if there are a lot - check out this old version of Taner Akcam - try editing the second section!! You'll see why it took me two hours to convert to list-defined references which at least hides the hard-to-read mess at the end of the article. The "you don't need to learn the rules" argument doesn't hold water - it's easy enough to follow existing styles, within the article or without; whilst you do need to learn the fieldnames! They also create a harmful sense of "this must be stylistically exactly right" which puts potential editors off. Consistency of style is vastly over-rated anyway (as long as the info is there, who cares?). We have much more important problems than consistency of style, notably keeping articles up-to-date: and citation templates make articles less likely to be updated because they undoubtedly put casual editors off editing because after clicking on Edit the wikitext is that much scarier and harder to read. In sum, I think citation templates are actively harmful and should be discouraged wherever possible. Rd232 ^talk 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are much bigger issues here than citation consistency; citation consistency matters when an article approaches the WP:GA or WP:FA level, which this article is very far from and not likely to approach in the current WP:BATTLEGROUND. I dislike citation templates generally (for the same reasons as Rd), but my concern is that establishing a citation style across all Ven/Chavez articles would make it easier on new editors, to transport citations across articles, and the cite templates are the most common. I support the use of citation templates in this series of articles only because we need a common standard. But I don't feel strongly one way or another, as GAs and FAs are unlikely in the Ven articles, and agree that these articles are a long ways from high-quality assessments, that require citation consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Schwindt, my other concern is that if you are going to work on upgrading the citations here (most welcome work!), it should be done correctly, or it's not worth the effort; regardless of style used, newspapers, periodicals and journals should be in WP:ITALICS, [4] and plural page ranges should use pp. and an WP:ENDASH. [5] I'm glad you're willing to do this work, but if you're doing it, it should be consistent and correct, or not worth the effort you're putting in to it! The last diff represents your changing a correctly formatted citation template, to an incorrectly formatted manual citation, and that goes against WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain why did this? Quotations in sources to back up text are standard, while chunking up text with quotes isn't always desirable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should not remove citation templates in the absence of consensus, per WP:CITE. Unfortunately, until we get some sort of consensus here, you can improve citations, but not change the style. Several of your improvements are good, but until we get consensus on this, we're stuck with mixed citation styles, since I believe the style originally used in this article is outdated (but I will go back and check that, soon). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree with this edit, that es icons are better placed at the beginning? I support that because they allow a reader to easily scan the article for non-English sources, and to make sure they've all been identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but with a space between the es template and the ref. Incidentally, I tend to use {{es}}, which is much the same. Actually, {{es}} redirects to {{es icon}} so it's exactly the same - minus a slightly confounding reference to a non-existent icon. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed a whole batch of new errors; curly quotes, incorrect italics, quotationns, uppercase, and more. This is why I support the use of citation templates here-- at least they get it right, and we have too many editors adding citations who don't know guidelines. Rd, are you aware that there is a script that allows you to read text minus the templates? I'm not sure where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a script and it actually works well (there are various WYSIWIG tools I've tried and not made friends with), that would be great to see. But such tools are obviously not installed by casual editors or anonymous editors. I hope one day the references will be stored entirely separately... Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would debate (especially you Sandy) on WT:VEN. I put that page up just for this debate (on your suggestion Sandy) and posting there would allow everyone to get on the same page, literally. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But we have citation errors being introduced here that are independent of the ultimate decision style, and would be errors in any style. It might be wise to hold off on citation cleanup until you thoroughly understand citation guidelines-- at least, don't remove accurate citation templates to replace them with incorrectly formatted citations-- I left all the examples here where they are occurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Slow down. First, I am just saying to move discussion to WT:VEN for reasons I have already delivered on your talk page. Second, I have read WP:CITE, I understand the guidelines and the principles. Third, what errors are you talking about? (errors I have committed or errors in sources being added or what?). Fourth, I offered you guys to discuss first (remember?) but since very few replied I decided that a unilateral edit was necessary to force editors to face the issue. You seem to hide behind WP:CON and WP:CITE. My actions were necessary, regardless of building consensus, to force you to action because inviting editors to discuss clearly did not get very far. --Schwindtd (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is The Guardian a hard-print source (I'm unaware)? Is Green Left Weekly a published hard-print periodical or journal? Unsure. Bloomberg is not, so shouldn't be in italics. Italics are used for books and hard-print journals, periodicals, and newspapers, so I'm not sure if you're getting it right yet.[6] There are lots of errors-- italics, curly quotes, are we using p. pp. or page, etc. I'm unsure if those errors were yours-- I just corrected what I found. Are you able to step back through my diffs and see the corrections I made? Additionally, I've linked the original style used here, and we shouldn't change it without consensus, and gaining consensus with few editors participating isn't going to be easy, so we should only cleanup, not change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that WP:CITE merely states "typically includes." By no means is any one form required. Hence, italics formatting should be consistent. You could italicize every publisher whether it be online or in print. Or change WHAT is italicized. Any style can be used. You could make your own style (as I have)! That being said, I did make errors when formatting some of them. But the errors were not disastrous, in general the changes I made made the section look more uniform and neat, whereas before (even with templates) it looked like a yard overgrown with weeds. --Schwindtd (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I only edited up to cite 28 (I think) even then I did not touch some of the cites. I'm fine with a "clean up" (what that means when different styles are being used, beats me). I just don't want to edit content b/c that is such a bombshell! I do appreciate your help. --Schwindtd (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original style

I've now checked the citation style originally used in the FA version. CITEREF is no longer used, but I think the closest thing to replicating the style used there is harvnb. We can change the style if we build consensus (see WP:CITE), but in the meantime, citation cleanup is actually introducing errors, and changing style without consensus. The first question is, do we want to stick with the style used originally here, or change it? If we want to stick with that style, we merely need to decide what tool to use for doing so, since CITEREF is no longer used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelan opposition

ValenShephard has removed the photo of the opposition march twice now, and I've re-added it each time. I think that it is a very important and historically significant photo that clearly applies to the topic at hand. It should absolutely remain in the article.

However, I do understand his concerns. Having it as the most prominent photo of the "Presidency" section is a bit slanted. I would by no means say that this is any more representative of his presidency than, say, a photo of doctors giving people free medical treatment or a photo of a community planning meeting. There would be no end to cries of "pro-Chavez" propaganda if such an image were included there, yet people feel comfortable with a photo of an opposition march being the first and most prominent photo in that section.

I think that a good way to remedy this would be to have a section on the Venezuelan opposition. It is significant enough, and has received enough press that I think it is a major sub-topic in it's own right. We could discuss the major organizations (like Sumate, for instance) and their platforms, their allegations of persecution, their most notable actions, and their most common/notable complaints about Chavez. And we could discuss the millions of dollars in U.S. funding to these organizations, their alleged ties to Miami terrorist organizations, etc. The image of the march could go in this section, and something more balanced. Maybe just a photo of Chavez at an ALBA meeting or something, could go in the presidency section. When we write a section on social programs, we could include things like photos of Barrio Adentro, etc.

That way, opposition photos would be in the opposition section, photos of social programs would be in the "Social programs" section, and something we could all agree on as neutral could be the first photo in the presidency section.

Does this seem at all reasonable? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm about to be off Wiki for a few days, so if I don't respond, that's why) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove that image; if balancing images are desired, one can search Flickr for Commons licensed images that can be uploaded to Commons. (I don't do images-- Wiki's image policy scares me, so I leave it to the experts!) But we don't delete a correctly licensed important and historical image because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, Jrtayloriv and ValenShephard are editwarring over this image (I'm glad Jr brought it to talk), and once again, it doesn't appear that ValenShephard reviewed the article history and edit summaries-- please do so before editwarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained myself in edit summaries, it was a clearly being removed for nothing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and was an extremely informative and important historical photograph. I don't think that my actions violate the spirit of WP:Edit warring at all. Anyhow, I've really got to step out now for a bit, but Sandy -- I was really wondering if you, especially, had any ideas for an opposition section, how it might be structured, where it might be placed, it's content, etc. I'm sure you've got plenty to contribute in this area. I'd like to keep this on topic, and not focus as much on the removal/readdition of the image, but more on generating ideas for a new "Opposition" section (or reasons why such a section shouldn't exist). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your idea, because there is much that has not been said about the opposition (in particular, how ineffective they have been, and how they contributed to the decline in democracy in Venezuela with particularly stupid actions-- these are covered in reliable sources). However, creating a separate section for that could lead to the same problems that occur when Criticism or Controversy sections are created-- they are inherently POV. It might be better to structure the article differently and work opposition content in across the board -- but I'm still thinking about this. Thanks for asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I definitely don't want this to devolve into a "Criticism and controversy" section. I meant something focusing on opposition organizations and organizing and organizers -- not a generic "reasons to oppose Chavez" section. Anyhow, I'm really going to step out now :) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hugo_Ch.C3.A1vez_again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RCTV and media imbalance

No mention whatsoever of issues mentioned by multiple reliable sources that led to the private media opposition to Chavez: abuse of the Enabling Act, abuse of cadenas, and meddling with PDVSA, among others. These issues are in multiple reliable sources-- many listed in my sources page-- the section is POV (and not the only one, but perhaps we can work on one thing at a time). This is in addition to the section above, discussing missing info about Chavez's use of and control of the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this in Media representation of Hugo Chavez -- this section is not the place to go over the media's opinions on Chavez. If you have reliable sources discussing their justifications for all of this, go ahead and include them there, but make sure not to give them undue weight and present them in a neutral manner, not stating their opinions as fact. This article does not present these things as fact -- it merely says that this is what the government claimed when they rejected the renewal of its license, so there is no reason to include an off-topic, POV rant about why this claim is incorrect -- there is already ample discussion of the oppositions stance on the shutdown, anyway. We are already giving too much weight in this article to RCTV as it is. We don't need to turn it into a "Revocation of RCTV license, and why the media hates Chavez so much" section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why are we editing daughter articles by proxy? Media representation of Hugo Chávez has just a one-line intro. if we make a neutral summary intro there that should be usable here - and any such summary will have space within the body to go into more detail. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the daughter articles should be nuetralized as well, but when this (the main article) presents only one side of an issue, the problem is here and needs to be fixed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Daughter articles first is clearly a less stressful and more productive approach in the circumstances. But I seem to be alone in seeing that. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And now, back on topic. The article presents one side only already, so taking it to another article won't address that. I've provided numerous sources already-- have you read any of them? The issue of Chavez and the media is more important, and accords more due weight, than just the RCTV issue, and that is missing. The private media turned against him for well-documented reasons, and if you mention one side, we need to cover it all. Jr, improving your tone would help advance the article; work on the issues, not talk page diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This I've got to take issue with: "The private media turned against him for well-documented reasons..." The private media was a hair short of calling him the Anti-Christ before he was even elected, and turned even more virulently against him before he'd really done anything apart from the 1999 Constitution. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on topic, please be civil. This article does not "present one side only" -- there are two paragraphs containing criticism. Please take a look at the article before making accustations about bias, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you have trouble finding the criticism I'm talking about -- I know it's a really long section:

Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[120] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[121] While protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[122] Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses. Though the opposition cites this incident as "the end of pluralism", Chavez has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[123] ... The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations.[108][127][128][129]

Now could you please explain to me how this is "one-sided" pro-Chavez propaganda? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jr, I'm developing the impression that you don't read what is written to you-- please try to take some time to contemplate posts and try to work in a collaborative and consensual mode, rather than launching into diatribes without (possibly) really taking time to understand the issue. Our aim isn't to balance, only, the amount of "praise" and "criticism"-- it is to explain issues neutrally and with due weight. We have said the private media was against him, but we haven't given both sides of the story or explained why, in spite of numerous mentions and due weight in reliable sources. We aren't only talking about RCTV-- we're talking about media and press issues in general in this section (but I've already said that, haven't I? :) If you will consider the issues more clearly, and read what is written, we can perhaps make some progress on this article, which is still quite POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jr, I'm developing the impression that you don't read what is written to you-- please try to take some time to contemplate posts and try to work in a collaborative and consensual mode, rather than launching into diatribes without (possibly) really taking time to understand the issue. -- Again, please stop attempting to derail the conversation by making personal attacks and making claims that I am not staying on topic or reading your posts (I don't even know why you'd lie about this, when people can see what I'm responding to right above). I responded to everything you said, so I obviously read your posts. On the other hand, you've responded to almost nothing that I've said. And considering that you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years, I find it interesting that you would ask me to work in a "collaborative and consensual mode" ...
• Our aim isn't to balance, only, the amount of "praise" and "criticism"-- it is to explain issues neutrally and with due weight. -- Which we have, and which you have given no evidence of yet, other than repeatedly claiming that it is unbalanced.
• We have said the private media was against him -- Where?
• but we haven't given both sides of the story or explained why, in spite of numerous mentions and due weight in reliable sources. -- Please see my post above, where I already responded to this.
• We aren't only talking about RCTV-- we're talking about media and press issues in general in this section -- Actually, we are only supposed to be talking about RCTV, since that's what the section is about. We should not be including a bunch of off-topic opinion about why the media is opposed to Chavez. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is "RCTV and Media imbalance". I think that's a pretty good argument against us "only supposed to be talking about RCTV."

In any case, the RCTV section is one of the most glaring examples of POV. There is good reason to believe (and substantial evidence to support the conclusion) that Chavez had this station shut down because he did not like the editorial content. Period. You can come to the opposite conclusion and include sources to support this belief. However, as it is currently presented, no objective reader could possibly reach this conclusion. The only logical conclusion is that Chavez failed to renew the TV station's expiring license because it was actively working to overthrow the government. That's a nice narrative. But, it's far from objective.JoelWhy (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The section is called "Revocation of RCTV license" -- I meant the section we are discussing, not the section on the talk page that we are having the discussion in. And as I said, if you feel that something is left out of the current section about the shutdown, and have reliable sources, please include it, giving care not to present opinions as fact or to give undue weight to these opinions. I was just opposed to SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we launch into an off-topic discussion of why the Venezuelan media is opposed to Chavez, in general. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stated this numerous times, but I think it needs repeating. The issue is as much about what is included as it is about what is missing. Simply adding 'the other side of the story' to what already exists isn't sufficient. What exists now needs to be edited to provide a neutral, objective history.JoelWhy (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And you can state it many more times, if you wish, but it won't make any difference until you provide specifics about what is missing, and reliable sources to back it up. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what the heck is going on with this RCTV stuff. I just got back from two days away and this section :Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[120] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[121] While protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[122] Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses. Though the opposition cites this incident as "the end of pluralism", Chavez has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[123] ... The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations.[108][127][128][129] is completely altered so that the last two thirds are gone! I want to know why because that paragraph balanced viewpoints and had credible sources. WHile I know that I wrote most of that paragraph I feel that the information was important and that rather than eviscerate it, it should have been modified to people's liking. I will not reinsert the info, but I DO want to know why it was removed. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No answer, I see. Could you identify the diffs that altered the text? I'm having a hard time tracking all the POV editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The current rendering breaks up that paragraph into two slices. Someone must have moved a sentence to break it up. This is how it looks:

Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[121] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[122] Protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[123]

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.[124][125][126] The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations, many of whom have claimed that the closure was politically motivated, and was intended to silence government critics.[109][127][128][129] and others have cited this incident as "the end of pluralism". However, Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses, and has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[130]

I have bolded the sentences as they were originally written. Notice there is a sentence that breaks them up, rendering the second half almost redundant while leaving two broken clauses (the ones bolded). Its just sloppy stuff. I don't know why anyone changed it! It seems the cure might have been more harmful than the disease! --Schwindtd (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this sentence to the list of things that ought to be changed in this section: "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.[115]"
There are two things wrong with this. First, it is basically a hypothetical posed by FAIR. Does that make it fact? Are all hypothetical musings factual? Second, regardless of yoru political viewpoint this sentence clearly has another motive. For one, it implies criticism of the US and other nations, not a relevant topic on this page unless it comes from Chavez. The impetus behind such criticism is to push a POV. The purpose of the sentence then is to refute claims, thereby establishing the supremacy of its POV, not impart information.
That being said, I do not call for its deletion. Deletion ought to be a last resort. when editing we should answer two questions. First, Does this sentence add relevant and insightful information about Hugo Chavez? If the answer is no it should be deleted or revised so that the answers becomes yes. If yes go to question 2. Second, How can this sentence be rewritten to make it NPOV?If we pose those questions while we edit, then perhaps the Hugo Chavez page will be sorted out, removing bias from the left and the right.--Schwindtd (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

with increasing majorities and voter turnouts.

1998:56.2% with 54.0 turnout; 2000: 59.76%/56.31% turnout; 2006: 62.84% with 74.69% turnout.

Folks, this text is the definition of original research, which has no place in the article, much less the lead. If we want to add similar text somewhere in the article, it needs to be cited to a reliable source and placed into the context of multiple reliable sources that mention his declining popularity and his recent defeat on other items-- that is, this statement also implies his popularity in increasing, when it's not, and is unbalanced because it doesn't mention other defeats. Reliable sources will and do discuss these issues and place them in context, which is why we should not be adding original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that his popularity is increasing. How did you come to that conclusion? What it implies to me is that voter turnout and percentage of vote received is increasing (because that's what it says...). By the way, my first Google search turned up secondary sources that were applicable, such as [7]. Anyhow, I'll find more and add them to the article. I think ValenShephard's addition should remain in the lead, and that we should elaborate on voter turnout, etc. more in the Presidency section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source; whatever you do add, please remember to add context of high voter absention (when Venezuelans shot themselves in the foot by refusing to even go to the polls, which altered the data), and his declining popularity, in order to end up with neutral balanced text. In particular, the lead is growing too long, while not yet mentioning key points, and if this is added to the lead, it needs to be balanced by his declining popularity so as not to mislead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a complete mess - it's not even proper paragraphs. As part of an unmessing, a short but clear description of his popularity trajectory might find space to mention the majority/turnout thing (in the 3 presidential elections to 2006, though I think the 04 referendum fits the pattern too). If not, it could probably be part of a slightly longer body text description. It is a notable part of the story, but only part; it needs more context about contemporary politics (eg 02 coup and strike; legislative and regional elections; PSUV creation) and continuing trajectory past 2006. Also an overemphasis on elections isn't really appropriate in the context of the intended new participatory democracy, which is an attempt to go beyond representative democracy's conception of democracy as occasional trips to the ballot box. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added that information because I think, although its not ideal in the lead, information about the turnouts and vote majorities is conspicuously missing. Its a pretty interesting and informative statistic. On that note, I think we should expand secitons dealing with Chavez's election wins and further information on the 1999 constitution which was central to Chavez's policy in his first term and he spoke of it as central to his political philosophy. ValenShephard (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That information, which I think Jrtayloriv added at the start of this talk, should be included in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with rd232 that we shouldnt overemphasise the elections, as like he says, the most interesting part of Chavez's democratic policy are councils and the rest. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is a complete mess, loaded up with unbalanced trivia, missing key items, and poorly structured. It would be helpful if some here would read WP:LEAD. However, the text added-- regardless of where it is eventually placed-- is lopsided and unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain how? Or we will just make constant and unexplained accusations? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Already explained above (also still original research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to this tag removal, please read the page WP:OR, specifically:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

and the rest of the page. It is important that you understand policy before removing tage. Unless a WP:RS has drawn those conclusions, we cannot string together primary source data to draw our own conclusions-- this is the essense of original research. Almost every reliable source that discusses his election results will also discuss his declining popularity and election defeats, so the text is also unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate tag removal (again)

These two edits removed well justified tags, with an invalid reason.

On the second, the entire thing was a WP:BLP violation, so I've removed the text.

On the first, the text mentions that OAS observors didn't even come to Venezuela, with no mention of reasons why (Chavez refused them access [8])-- clearly unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you change it then instead? TFD (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did,[9] but this is one example only-- there are scores of same, and I can't do it all. If tags are removed when issues aren't corrected, trying to work on this article is pointless. It is not up to the editor placing a tag to resolve it; it is up to an editor removing a well-justified tag to do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like the way you proliferate tags everywhere (instead of fixing/discussing). In this particular case, the last sentence of that para says "Venezuela has said it will not accept an IACHR/OAS visit as long as Santiago Cantón remains its Executive Secretary, unless the IACHR apologizes for what he describes as its support of the 2002 coup." So it's already said there, at worst it needs copyediting, not willy-nilly tagging. And asking for 1RR - overkill much? Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR would be overkill at all-- as things stand now, the article is changing so fast that it's difficult to stop the bleeding. Cited text is being removed faster than one can keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then ask for protection (maybe 2 weeks), and have everyone work on a collective sub-page draft of the article to redevelop it properly, one section/issue/problem at a time. The status quo clearly isn't working, but 1RR isn't the answer. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate viewpoint-- protection stops work for even productive editors, while 1RR targets the disruptive editors only, which is better IMO. Two-week protection won't do it, either-- until a collaborative environment develops here, we won't make any progress in sandbox, and all I can do until such time is check in periodically to flag obvious errors and POV edits. Working on the article isn't going to happen until all recognize that the article has to be balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Working on the article isn't going to happen until all recognize that the article has to be balanced." - where do you come up with this stuff? Everyone wants the article balanced, they just (a) disagree with what a final balanced version might look like (b) have different priorities in terms of what to focus on. When was the last time a sandbox draft was tried? Let's AGF and have a bit of hope that it might move things forwards. What's the worst that can happen? You can still make stylistic and other improvements in the sandbox for later reincorporation. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One cannot simply say an article is POV to justify a tag and not explain what text is POV and why. Other editors would have no way of knowing what corrections were necessary. TFD (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

POV was well justified in February, and hasn't been corrected since. Resolving a tag means locating the sources and citing them correctly (which in this case, was broken, and I fixed); tags call attention to our readers that items need fixing, and it's unreasonable to expect me to be the one to do all the research, format all the citations, and correct all the issues here. I tag 'em as I see 'em, work on them as I have time. Point is, removing them is improper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm growing very tired of seeing this statement again and again: "one cannot simply say an article is POV to justify a tag and not explain what text is POV". After all the times we've pointed to specific examples, the POV tag is indisputably warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. I agree with TFD. I am becoming frustrated by the fact that tags, which as you can clearly see are very controversial and there is wide disagreement, are being added without discussion. There is maybe one or two editors, mostly SandyGeorgia who has taken up this single minded mission without discussion or support from even the majority of editors, let alone consensus. It is clear that SandyGeorgia only attacks and tries to tag sources he/she doesn't agree with, for their reliability. This has to change. Make the article better, dont just try to damage and discredit as much of it as you can. Unbelievably disruptive and dishonest behaviour. ValenShephard (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Sandy is trying to bring the article up to Wiki standards. Right now, it's not even close. This has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the sources -- it's about relying on reputable, unbiased sources. The only "single minded mission" Sandy has demonstrated is to try to either fix this article or, at the very least, add the POV tag to warn readers that what is currently presented should not be relied upon.JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When examples of bias have been mentioned they have been addressed. Please state what is left. TFD (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Second TFD. We are wasting our time here. We discuss in theory what is wrong with the article, very rarely specifics. ValenShephard (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Human rights, again..

The human rights section has become bloated and overly detailed again. The only reason I can think of why this detail has been missed out on the approproate article and stuffed into the Chavez article is an attempt to damage Chavez. This needs to be rectified. The detail, like there was basically consensus on a few weeks ago, should be moved to the appropriate article and a short, concise summary presented here. Undue weight, people (SandyGeorgia). ValenShephard (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Per due weight, human rights are a big issue wrt Chavez, and the article should reflect that. But I do agree the section needs a lot of work-- many issues are entirely missing, while others (Afiuni) take up too much space. All in all, the section probably needs to grow to cover missing issues, but some pieces of it that are there now need to be trimmed. Also, please avoid personalizing issues on talk. Have you read WP:AGF? It is taken very seriously by WP:ARBCOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge you were one of the most active editors in expanding those sections. Anyway, in a previous discussion 2-3 other editors agreed with me that those sections needed summarising, and they carried it out, only for it to be reverted vehemently later without consensus. I want to see what other editors have to say. ValenShephard (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your memory is quite different than mine; diffs would be helpful when you point fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Even so, this wasn't my main point. Do you dispute that 2-3 other editors agreed to cut down this section before it was bloated again? ValenShephard (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And you've got at least 2 editors who disagree with your assessment.JoelWhy (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper has been censored in Venezuela.

A newspaper in Venezuela has been censored. In my country (Brazil) that is called "dictatorship". I believe Chavez-lovers around here will say that that is nothing. Although the article is in Portuguese, you don't need it to understand the issue. Click the link and see the picture. It will be enough (In here: [10]) --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thats creepy! Banning violent, gory imagery from front pages for 4 weeks is not exactly the work of Stalin. According to an article I read about this in the Guardian, there are arguments over whether this constitutes censorship. And dictatorship is something different from censoring the media. Unless you want to start the old "Chavez is a dictator" rambling. And please do not make personal attacks by describing some of the editors here as "Chavez-lovers". I am thinking of refering this to an admin. ValenShephard (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, this sort of post isn't helpful and furthers the negative environment on talk. Perhaps you can refactor or rephrase? And honestly-- Chavez's censorship of gory images is the least of the problems we should concern ourselves with on this article :) If the goal is to improve the article, this sort of post is not the way to go about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Second SandyGeorgia, this is definately something we don't need at this time, Lecen. ValenShephard (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this was a tribunal order, not a Chávez decree JRSP (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, JRSP, that helps to get some perspective. ValenShephard (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, separation of powers and all that, but this is a sideshow, IMO, to the more major issues discussed in reliable sources about press freedom, so I don't see a place for this topic in this article. It does go, at least, in El Nacional, since "The editorial aim of the photo was to shock people so that in some way they react to the situation, since the government does nothing," and probably in the Media articles about Chavez and the media, and to that extent, it is related to the Chavez administration, but not enough for inclusion here, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"International press watchdog Reporters Without Borders said the morgue photograph was shocking and that its use raised questions about the newspaper's "sense of responsibility," even if it was not a publication aimed at young people." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67H5ZN20100818

Just an interesting note, but its right that this is a sideshow. ValenShephard (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The source I gave also shows how this was ordered by the tribunal, not by Chavez personally. So the link between this policy and him is weak again. ValenShephard (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it still should be noted that there is limited, if any, separation of power in Venezuela; until/unless reliable sources link this to Chavez, it has no place here, and even when/if they do, it's still a minor issue in comparison to other press freedom issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

but it still should be noted that there is limited, if any, separation of power in Venezuela That's a strong assertion. Do you think that Chávez controls all judges in Venezuela? JRSP (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think has no place here; a multitude of reliable sources discuss the lack of separation of powers and deteriorating democratic institutions under the Chavez administration. We may see this issue (increasing censorship of the press) crop up in a reliable source, linked to Chavez-- I still think it's a minor sideshow for this article, but does have a place in the media articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is an article in the state TV website discussing the censorship of the picture.[11] In dictatorships, the state media generally do not question censorship by the government. TFD (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The only 'evidence' I have seen for Chavez 'controlling' the judiciary is firing one judge on corruption charges, which is actually within the law. How has he taken control of the judiciary? I have looked at some of SandyGeorgia's sources on that and all they do is talk about there being no independant judiciary, not how they came to that conclusion. If I made an assertion like that here, without explaining how I came to that conclusion (through sources) then it would be quickly and rightly deleted. ValenShephard (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Controversial tags

I have been told by several admins when I first joined up that making any controversial changes, and their example was tagging, must be discussed and consensus reached first before they are implemented. Why is this not happening? The people who are adding tags, don't you realise that because they are being removed, there must be some disagreement so you cannot add them whenever you feel the need? Discuss. This is simply wasting time when we could be adding to the article or improving it. Your tags don't breed discussion, you yourself don't discuss, and the only thing which gets discussed are these silly taggings! ValenShephard (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding well justified tags is not "controversial"; I don't know who told you that, but perhaps you misunderstood or took it out of context. Tags alert our editors to problems that need to be fixed, and alert our readers where problems exist. On the other hand, repeatedly removing tags is disruptive editing and could get you blocked; see {{uw-tdel4}} (you are already at the fourth warning level). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is insane. Don't you realise (either that or you are not being honest deliberatly) that "well justified" is subjective and not agreed upon? Your argument is useless. How can we know what to do when we see a tag, when it hasnt been explained and discussed? It may seem obvious to your POV, but not guaranteed to others. Stop throwing threats around also, its not very becoming. ValenShephard (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Original_research, and please read the warning and recognize that you should resolve (or at least understand) an issue before removing a tag. You might also peruse WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am not "throwing threats around"; I am pointing out Wiki procedures and policies to you so that you won't get blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is pointing to a piece of information which is sourced. I am going to look for more sources for it now. And by the way, so I can add any tag I want as long as I claim its "justifiable" without really explaining. That discussion didnt explain why, it just said. ValenShephard (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Valen, you will help yourself (and the article) if you will understand policy and not personalize discussions. Original research is explained very well, and you seem to be the only one so far who doesn't understand-- no one else disputes that it is original research. There is a difference between drawing our own conclusions about primary source data, and reporting what secondary sources say about that data. This is all explained at WP:OR. No, you can't place any tag you want if you don't understand policy; that would be disruptive, and they'd likely be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Valen, you seem to be still misunderstanding the problem. With this edit, you are not sourcing the text, which is

Chávez won both elections with increasing majorities, with voter turnout increasing in both elections

A record turnout does not source that he has increasing majorities; we need a reliable source that says that, or the text should be adjusted accordingly. Further, it doesn't belong in the lead. Further, it is unbalanced as long as it doesn't mention his subsequent defeats and declining popularity. We can't just source primary data and then draw our own conclusions from the data-- the conclusion being drawn here is that Chavez has increasing majorities over three elections-- that leaves out other issues, and you need a reliable source that draws this conclusion. The problem has not been corrected, and the source does not cite the text. There's also a matter of missing context, because of voter abstention in the first election, so the text is misleading-- of course turnout increase-- voters refused to go to the polls before ! That is why you need a reliable source to put the numbers in context and draw the conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was sourcing the statement that turnouts have increased. ValenShephard (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't yet understood the original research problem; this doesn't source the text either. If you want to say there was a historic turnout at X election, that source would cite it. The bigger problem is that, until you understand Wiki policy, you shouldn't remove tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you're being quite aggressive with a relatively inexperienced editor. You're also wrong - the turnout/majority thing surely falls under Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations and is fine as far as it goes - which as I said above, is not far enough, it needs contextualising. In the time spent arguing about it, you could easily have slapped in some context. PS Valen may be inexperienced but has been around long enough that you ought to apply WP:DTTR and provide a personalised message. Rd232 ^talk 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He's already been (recently) blocked for edit warring, and returned immediately to same, and he doesn't seem to be reading the article talk page or edit summaries, or digesting Wiki policies and guidelines. It's unclear how to get through to him; I did supply a very personalized message, but also linked the standard template, in the hopes he will digest). But kudos for doing the right thing, and a note about how messy changing citation style can get, which is another concern we're working on here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it was only 1 block and it was for violating 1RR on an unrelated topic. And the previous message from you that I see was not exactly worded in a friendly way (which is the point of using a personal message instead of a template); perhaps you just don't see it, and I'm certainly not saying it's intentional, but it can look like bullying and I wish you'd try harder to make everyone feel that you are assuming good faith, because not doing so sufficiently contributes to an uncollaborative, polarised atmosphere in which everybody says things and thereby reinforces the others' feelings that AGF is unwarranted. Basically, "can't we all just get along"? Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the 1RR, so perhaps he will heed the message that he needs to slow down and read before editing and removing tags (which is the common theme with the 1RR block-- there was a notice in place). I not only justified those tags on talk-- I linked to them in the edit summary, in the hopes he would see/read the section before removing tags again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags was not the reason for my block. ValenShephard (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on

The lead needs rewriting and the article updating; I think we can agree on that. There are also enough NPOV issues from various points of view that we might as well have that tagged too. For instance, the human rights section is disproportionately large (or the others disproportionately small), particularly with some specific issues over-detailed. Major issues like the new participatory democracy (Venezuelan Communal Councils, worker participation) hardly get a look in. So can we just forget the tag disputes and try and move on, and come back in a month or whatever to revisit whether it's still necessary (sooner if massive progress is made). Rd232 ^talk 07:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Another example of a problem (which we could call an NPOV problem if we're so minded): Chavez' political trajectory, of only embracing "Socialism of the 21st century" in 2005, isn't explained at all (Socialism of the 21st century isn't even linked from here, by the by). I've added a quote, but the whole section needs rewriting. Rd232 ^talk 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I don't know where Socialism of the 21st century came from. I have seen him use it in some speeches, but thats about all. Also thanks for some good third party perspective to mine and SandyGeorgia's silly discussions. What do you think would be better to discuss as his "political trajectory"?ValenShephard (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Political career of Hugo Chávez

I think it's clear, if you look at the set of articles around Chavez, that there's a missing article - Political career of Hugo Chávez. There is "early life of", "military career of" and "presidency of", but nothing covering his political trajectory. The two major weaknesses from this gap are not covering the 1994-1998 period properly (I just corrected a glaring chronological error in Hugo Chavez); and not covering the political aspects of the presidency properly (cf the Political Development section in this article). A comparable article might be Political career of Silvio Berlusconi. However in view of the need to incorporate a lot of material about political development / political philosophy, there might be a better alternative name for the article, if anyone has any suggestions. Rd232 ^talk 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an important addition, but where would you start it? When did his political career "begin"? Would you include the political motivations behind the 1992 coup attempt as part of it? (I would)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as the coup attempt was an attempt to seize political power for political reasons - yes, it should be included! As should the MBR history, since it had political objectives from the beginning. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the coup attempt and MBR had political objectives, but I just was wondering if you also would include them in the term "career", or if you would only include things where he was a full-time politician (after his release from prison). Anyhow, I agree with you that the coup/MBR should be included. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence the naming issue I identified. I think "career" will do at a stretch, if we can't find anything better. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What about something more general, along the lines of Politics of Hugo Chávez? This could include his political career, with a discussion of how his political philosophy has evolved along the way. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. ValenShephard (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree on the article scope, but I'm not sure about "Politics of..." Articles of this type are mostly "Politics of Place X". I can't find a better alternative; there are a couple of "X's political views" (eg Noam Chomsky's political views), but that's a pretty awful ahistorical format which is particularly inappropriate in this case. In the end it's not that important, but I'd vote for "political career" over "Politics of". Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one, honestly. I think that titles of other similar articles make for good guidelines, but I don't think they force us to follow suit if it's not appropriate in a particular case. However, I'm not dead set on either one, and if you create the article, I'll work on it, whatever it's called. If there are ever conflicts over the scope of the article, we can deal with them as they come up. I'd be fine with Political career of Hugo Chávez for now.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be renamed later. I do feel it would make a better starting point at least, suggesting a better structure within the article, treating actions and views as an organic, historical whole. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But Burlesconi had a notable career outside politics, while Chavez, like most politicians, did not. There is an article, the Military career of Hugo Chávez but it is not as if the main article devotes a lot of attention to that part of his career. (See: Hugo Chávez#Military career). TFD (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. But you agree there's a gap in covering his political development up to the presidency (1982 - 1998) and subsequently? There is a naming issue here, as already said. Got a suggestion? Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez' activities prior to his presidency might not have been notable 20 years ago, but are notable now, as far as being extensively discussed in reliable sources, which is all that matters as far as WP:Notability is concerned. His political career has some overlap with his military career, but there is also a significant disjoint portion. And even those portions which overlap would receive a heavier focus on politics in the "Political career" article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to start this? Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note on new sources presented

All editors should be mindful of the sources used for this article. While newspapers are certainly valid sources for facts, they are not valid sources for opinions. We really need to use academic journals and books, rather than news flashes to get a neutral article that properly balances the various informed views on the subject. TFD (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The sources provided are partisan opinion pieces paraded as analysis or serious, neutral and fair journalism. Yes the papers and editorials are respected, but that doesn't mean their content is immeditaly suitable for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I would agree that where scholarly sources are available, we should generally use those in preference to news sources and non-academic books. However, since much of this topic is centered around "current events", it is going to be impossible to find scholarly work on a large and important segment of it. For these, I think that high-quality news sources and books are appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It should not be based on current events for someone who has been a president for over a decade. There should not be any late-breaking opinions on Chavez either. TFD (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we risk recentism. And I've been told its alwaus better till predictions and 'rumours' are proven or disproven. What about the fact that many of these articles are subscription only? I saw some editors somewhere saying they are not strictly off limit, but what is the official policy on this? I don't like trusting a source which can only be verified by a few people, for example the person interpreting it. ValenShephard (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as policy on subscription-only sources, see WP:PAYWALL. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that for the most part, things of importance from 10 or more years ago will often be adequately covered in the scholarly literature and high-quality books. But the same cannot be said for things that occured within the past few years. We can't just leave everything that has not yet been covered in the scholarly literature out of the article any more than we could for say, Barack Obama. I'm not saying that we should include factually inaccurate op-eds, or that we should give sensationalist news stories an immense amount of weight. I'm just saying that this is an enormous topic (a person's entire life and the political and economic situation of an entire nation) -- there simply aren't enough Venezuela scholars to cover it all. That doesn't mean we should only cover those parts that they've had time to get to (although what they have chosen to give priority to could provide guidance on what experts consider to be of importance). There is nothing in WP:RS that says that academic sources are the only sources we can use. Only that they are generally consider more reliable than non-scholarly sources. If we don't have scholarly sources, we fall back on high-quality non-scholarly sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it seems all the new sources provided are the type of non-scholarly sources which you say are not really acceptable. So we haven't progressed. ValenShephard (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that non-scholarly sources are not acceptable. I said they are acceptable. What I said was that we should generally give preference to scholarly sources over these sources. Where scholarly sources don't exist, we should rely on non-scholarly sources written by experts (for example, Venezuela scholars writing in a newspaper or a book from a non-academic publisher). Where these don't exist, we can carefully include information published in reliable news sources, if the subject is important. On the other hand, I think we should very rarely use op-eds or articles which are deliberately manipulating statistics to mislead readers, such as Pearson's Washington Post article discussed earlier. That is, if we do use a news source to back an assertion, it should be an informative piece rather than a purely polemical piece, it should be backed by factual data which can be verified, and it should provide context to the reader rather than leaving things out to mislead them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. What I meant to say is that the sources that were recently provided are not the kind which, like you say, are backed up by factual data and can be verified. I guess we will have to sidestep their faults and try to extract something balanced and useful from inside them? ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that many of the sources provided have been of very low quality. But if a news article, written by a non-academic journalist is simply polemical (i.e. doesn't back its claims with data), is deliberately misleading (e.g. Pearson), and/or includes false information (e.g. "poverty has increased"), I don't think it should be included at all. I don't think we should try to "pick the good parts out of it". I think we should toss it altogether and find a better source that is informative and doesn't mislead or lie to the reader. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Alot of those need to be tossed then. What is your opinion on what we should do with them? How will we agree on which ones are acceptable to use? ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should deal with each source individually and discuss them here. I don't think any generalized statements can be made. For instance, it's clearly the case that we shouldn't use Pearson's Washington Post article. But we obviously can't make the blanket statement that no Washington Post articles should be included. We decide whether a source is reliable within a certain context, not in general. I agree that a lot of news sources will ultimately need to be tossed as we find higher-quality academic sources and books. But we need to deal with each of these as a separate case, not all at once. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't a good idea, but I wrote some statements underneath some of the sources. Would that be a possible route to go down, for deciding which to use etc.? ValenShephard (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant that we should go through the article, and for each assertion (1) determine whether the information is relevant and worthy of inclusion and then (2) look at the sources used to back that assertion and see if there are higher quality sources, and if so replace the lower-quality source with the higher-quality source. I did not mean that we should, generally, look at sources here and determine whether they are reliable (although in cases like Pearson's article, we should). In most cases, we determine the reliability of a source for a particular assertion in a particular context. For some assertions, a source might be reliable, and for others it's not. And then there are sources that aren't reliable at all, anywhere (such as blogs from non-notable individuals). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make sense, thanks for the explanations. ValenShephard (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the article give a terse account of Chavez's life rather than rely on biased sources. If one considers the readers they want to know key information - where and when he was born, the date he came to power, the name of his political party etc. If people want to know what the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or venezuelanalysis have to say then they can use Google or go to their favorite websites. TFD (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are basically right. I wouldn't totally discount the input of venezuelaanalysis however. But true, we should deal more with his life than with just his government and its performance. ValenShephard (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD -- The opinions of the Wall Street Journal or of Venezuelanalysis probably aren't worthy of inclusion here in most cases. However, factual information from either of them is useful and satisfies WP:RS. Academic sources are preferable, but where they don't exist, we can use news media sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cannon's Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age, Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7772-2, is excellent. I have used this book for economic statistics, and, as far as I know, it is one of the few academic works written about the Chávez administration.Lucky to be me (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good source - published by a university press this year.[12] TFD (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I too think this clearly qualifies as a reliable source and would be preferable to news sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cannon's writing show a rather clear bias, at odds with numerous other accounts. We don't choose biased sources over others, rather according to WP:NPOV, we represent all mainstream views-- Cannon should not be used to the exclusion of other sources that disagree with his bias. I'm seeing some misstatements above avout how we achieve NPOV:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". ... Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

We don't achieve a neutral article by ignoring mainstream views, published by scores of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL you are funny sometimes Sandy. On the basis of Cannon positively reviewing Eva Golinger's book about her FOIA-derived evidence for US support for the Venezuelan opposition, you want to declare that his writing shows "a rather clear bias", and in particular damn his own book about Venezuela? Er, no. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that really all the source has on Cannon? I assumed there would be more than that. It seems a very tenuous connection to make a big assumption about his bias from. ValenShephard (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The source Sandy gave is the Book Review section of Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 284–323, 2009. Cannon's name appears in it once, as the author of the review I mentioned. Rd232 ^talk 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can pretty much disregard it then. It doesnt show anything clearly, let alone a bias. ValenShephard (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All books about Chavez will express a point of view. But academic books will be fact-checked and will explain the prevalence of different views about the subject. As I mentioned about, I would not object to any reliable sources based on the viewpoint of the writers. What I do object to is polemical writing published outside the academic mainstream. So far SandyGeorgia has not presented any academic sources. TFD (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, Wiki neutrality requires that we represent all mainstream reliably sourced views according to due weight. There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years. And academic sources I have supplied have been scrubbed in the past; when that stops, I'll be glad to do the work again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources you presented were academic, they were op-eds. Neutrality by the way is presenting "proportionately... all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If you believe those sources are biased then that is your hard luck, you will have to wait until academic consensus changes. TFD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Won't fact checked academic sources be much more useful for the article? ValenShephard (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitively yes. WP:NPOV must not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with WP:V and WP:RS so high quality academic sources are not to be "balanced" with op-eds. JRSP (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that I consider opeds as reliable sources is approaching the territory of casting of aspersions "to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations". Please cease and desist, so collaborative editing can begin here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of misbehavior, the point in discussion is quality of sources; criticizing the sources you have presented is not criticizing you and does not imply any assumption of bad faith. JRSP (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the point in discussion is the repeated assertion that I consider opeds reliable sources. Once again, I encourage a post to WP:RSN for those who consider the sources I have presented as examples of the lack of due weight attention to all points of view to be unreliable, or undue. Short of that, the attacks on my character and mischaracterizations of my editing should cease and desist, so the article can advance and we can avoid time-consuming dispute resolution. Wiki articles present all mainstream reliable points of view, according to due weight-- not just those chosen to represent one point of view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thats the case. I don't think you consider opeds as your primary go to source, or as very reliable, and JRSP is also saying that that wasn't his meaning. ValenShephard (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's focus on the point of quality of sources. If there is any concern about editors' behavior it can be discussed in other places. What I am trying to say is that a high quality academic source possible bias should be balanced with sources of similar quality. JRSP (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right of course, I just wanted to point out that not all editors are making accusations against Sandy. ValenShephard (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There actually are anti-Chavez articles and books that could be used, such as The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela (JHU Press, 2006).[13] But as serious writing they do not portray Chavez in the same black and white terms as many op-eds do. Although they believe Chavez's reforms will prove ineffective, they also find fault in previous Venezuelan governments, the elites and U.S. TFD (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just start working on the article and examine sources as they come in? ValenShephard (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This whole discussion is a waste of time. WP:RS is clear about what is generally a reliable source, but ultimate determinations of reliability depend on context (what assertion the source is backing, in which article, quality of other sources, disagreement w/ other sources, etc.). There is no sense in trying to make generalized blanket decisions on reliability here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to do that myself until you explained it to me, now I agree with you. We should try to add to the article, if something isn't appropriate then we will deal with it as it happens. ValenShephard (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus in academic literature that the government before Chavez was elitist, corrupt, undemocratic, and ineffective and failed to improve living standards, and that they were encouraged by U.S. foreign policy. Also that the elites attempted to overthrow Chavez in 2002, and Chavez reacted by consolidating power in the executive, weakening relations with the U.S. and attempting to build a coalition of anti-U.S. forces. There is agreement that Venezuela poses no serious risk to the security of any other other nation or to U.S. business interests, and that reforms are necessary in order to improve living standards and economic development. Since that is all noncontentious, it could be put into the article. The main liberal criticism of Chavez is that his reforms are unsustainable, that they have had limited effect on the lives of ordinary people and that he has not addressed the issues of corruption and human rights, which existed before his presidency began, and that his anti-U.S. stance has harmed his country and its relations with other S. American countries. Those criticisms should be in the article along with reliable sources that defend his record. TFD (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty fair analysis. I think that should indeed be included. When Chavez is criticised in this article, we rarely get any background for these issues, and its too easy for the reader to assume that these are unique to his administration. We need to give the background, when dealing with things like crime, corruption and human rights (as TFD points out) that these were in a dire state before Chavez was elected. ValenShephard (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Crime

I re-wrote the section on crime, based on neutral reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you did a pretty good job. Giving some background and context is always much better than just throwing out some big shot statements. Without the context, it's hard for the reader to grasp the causes and the factors that went into whatever thing is happening. Are we still not going to hear from the Bolivarian Police's director? ValenShephard (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty well cleansed of all reliably sourced criticism to me. POV continues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What "criticism" was removed exactly? I recall (haven't the diff open now, got to go) removal of various excessive details; besides the crime rate issue I mentioned below, what is your concern? PS POV does indeed continue on one level. The Bolivarian Missions get ... wait for it... wait for it.... 1 sentence. Crime gets 3 paragraphs, the revocation of the RCTV licence fully 5 paragraphs! The whole page needs radical WP:WEIGHT surgery. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, relevant diff here. I think overall it's better (shorter, clearer), but crime rates would be better than absolute numbers for comparability. It could also be clearer about being a media issue, both nationally and internationally - which rests substantially on comparisons. Finally, some of what was removed as excessive detail here (eg Colombian paramilitaries' contribution to Venezuela crime rates in western states) would be relevant for a Crime in Venezuela article. Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked/fixed/improved it, but have to go now. There are more details in National Commission on Police Reform and also List of countries by homicide rate has rate data. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Party information in lead

Sandy, I sense frustration. Information about the party of a president (outside of maybe a US president where their parties are so well known) is a very important piece of information. Having the largest political bloc in a country is a very notable thing, which can definitely stay in the lead. I am going to move it back soon. ValenShephard (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you still need to find a place for the information that the party numbers are being pumped up by gov't pressure, which you removed (take care with deleting well sourced text, please), instead of moving. If you insist that info belongs in the lead, you need to balance the lead-- which is why it may be better explored within the text. Please stop editing via revert and delete, rather than correcting issues according to policy-- deleting well-sourced text for no good reason is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitive party numbers, the very notable statement that the party is the largest political bloc, is much more notable than a statement from a partisan source (which you are against including elsewhere) that there might be some pressuring, is not notable enough, or a strong enough statement, to be included alongside. I did not delete anything (please try to stay on top of what happens), I moved it. ValenShephard (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

really? Apply the same logic you're using at Villa del Cine; if it's so notable, how many reliable sources mention it? Right now you've got nothing but a brief mention in a left-wing publication, so how does that make it worthy of inclusion in the lead? I suggest you find stronger sources for info you want to include in the lead, to avoid trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case you have no argument. That information is very useful and very important, trvia it is not. Having the largest political bloc in a country with so many very competative parties, is a very critically important thing. The source is reliable. Even if it is left wing, which I am not convinced of, that doesn't stop you using right wing and virulent sources. ValenShephard (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:UNDUE. You can find reported PSUV party numbers in multiple reliable independent sources while ILO opinion is less reported; in any case, balancing fact with opinion is not a good thing. Additionally, it smells like WP:SYN. Perhaps, noting that votes for PSUV-backed proposition in 2007 referendum were less than party members and votes in 2009 were not many more than PSUV members would be better for balance. JRSP (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to use the ILO report for this article any more that I see the need to add the U.S. section (which lists truly horrific abuses) into the article on recent U.S. presidents. TFD (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Crime wave

If we want to talk about increases in crime then we need reliable sources that explain how it relates to the Chavez administration. If we just mention the fact then there is an implied synthesis that he is responsible. We may as well state that the average temperature and the price of oil have increased under his administration. Could SandyGeorgia please provide a source that connects him to the rate of crime. I notice that the two model neoliberal states in South American, Columbia and Mexico, have higher crime rates. TFD (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a well-sourced Crime in Venezuela article to deal with this topic adequately here (i.e. to be able to craft a brief neutral context-respecting summary which points to that article for more details). In the mean time there is Law enforcement in Venezuela and Law of Venezuela. At least now there is the new Bolivarian National Police which seems actually to be a model that works, but is taking time to rollout nationally. Rd232 ^talk 07:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232; TFD, please read the sources I've already supplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime fighting has several steps: 1. Prevention/repression 2. Investigation. 3. Accusation 4. Judgment 5. Prison. Only steps 1 and 5 depend on the executive, 2 and 3 depend on the General Attorney and 4 is judicial power. Also high crimes rates predate Chávez presidency by at least 10 years. JRSP (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Consolidation of power in Venezuela, and lack of independence in the judiciary (see reliable sources), 2) Caracas was not the murder capital of the world pre-Chavez, and 3) meddling with the police. These items are mentioned in reliable sources, so we don't need to do original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So provide us with a serious source that explains this. Pretend you are writing an academic paper or an article for an encyclopedia and think about types of sources should be used. TFD (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will reply to Schwindtd's comments on crime here. Neoconservatism describes the opinions that you believe are required to make the article neutral. They have a manichean view of the world where the U.S. is good and any alternative approach is evil. Because of this irrational view, their analyses have always been wrong, from Gorbachev to Saddam Hussein. All of SG's sources have expressed neoconservative opinions and are therefore probably wrong. Nonetheless if you can find anything that they have submitted to academic scrutiny then I would be happy to include it.

I mentioned neoliberalism not to show that it causes crime but to show that one should not draw connections without sources that specifically make the connection. I find it interesting however that you would blame crime in Venezuela on their government, but not in Colombia. And why are you bringing up Naomi Klein? I have not suggested that her opinions be included, in fact I am suggesting that the article needs a higher level of sources than you do.

When it comes to newspapers, the facts expressed in them are considered to be reliable but the opinions expressed are not and in fact are usually not even notable. I am sure I can cherry pick my way through them and find pro-Chavez articles. I choose not to however because the purpose of WP articles is not to praise or criticize but to explain what reasoned opinion has to say about the subject. Please read and follow WP:NPOV.

TFD (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@ TFD. First, I do not support neoconservatism, just as I don't support socialism. My comment does not mean that I hold such views. My critique is of your use of the word neocon. While you're understanding of neocon philosophy (at least basically) is correct, your application is not. The new york times is NOT neoconservative. Does it advocate the use of US resources to spread democracy and neo-liberalism aggressively? (if you looked at Neoconservatism you would see that that is their basic policy- a derivative of old cold war mentality/ philosophies.) Criticism of chavez is NOT only a neocon trait. Is Amnesty International neoconservative? No. By using charged words you expose your failure to understand that lumping criticism of Chavez under the umbrella of neocon is inaccurate. I don't wish to provoke a fight. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you have a POV that, though you do not intend to push, seeps through nevertheless.

Second, I do not blame the Venezuelan gov't for crime (as of yet I have not looked up evidence). But if crime IS rising, then the gov't has not been doing a very good job, has it? But that all depends on evidence and as I do not have that I have given no claims on either side. Third, you consistently attack the newspapers for their bias, but let me warn you that criticism of chavez is real, just as praise is also real. I fear that just as you blanket all critics with the exhausted term neocon, you also blanket sources under terms like biased. Beware of generalizations. You will never find a "disinterested" or omniscient voice in the academic world when it comes to Chavez. He is controversial. On the left you have academics like Weisbrot who are in academia and whose papers are no doubt reviewed by the community, but he also is biased. On the right those academics also have bias. Just where, I would like to know, are you going to find these "reasoned" opinions? (you seem to contradict yourself- you say facts are good, opinions expressed aren't, but then you talk about "reasoned" opinions?) Are they from academic angels who have no bias? Did god send them unto us mortals to endow us with the wisdom of Yahweh? How will we mere mortals determine these "reasoned opinions"? Editors here can't even agree on cite style, something so trivial and inconsequential! I suspect that even your sources under close inspection would not hold nearly as much water as you believe. I trust your academic journals and my newspapers as much as I trust the criminally insane! Also, "please look and follow WP:NPOV?!" My good sir, I have made more edits on the talk page than on the actual page! And most of those were just cite changes! I don't really care what the content is, actually. I know that eventually it will all sort itself out. I would say that I am more "disinterested" and "reasoned" than most of the sources in the article! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the Chavez administration, although I have doubts about neoconservative analysis. Gorbachev was not re-starting the cold war, Saddam Hussein was not able to attack the US with WMDs with 30 minutes lead time. If you want their theories to be presented in the article please provide peer-reviewed articles they have written defending their views. I have never questioned the facts presented in U. S, newspapers, merely the opinions that they present. If you want opinions to be presented in the article please provide reliable sources for them and I will support their inclusion. Incidentally what does socialism have to do with this? Many of the opponents of Chavez are socialist and so was Uribe. BTW we use academic sources rather than op-eds because there are requirements for how the opinions are presented and we can see the degree of acceptance they have received. Please provide reliable sources that present the POV you wish to see in the article. TFD (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I am not a neocon! Those aren't my views! I was commenting on your use of the word neocon, NOT defending neocons. The socialism thing was just a rhetorical device used to demonstrate that I support neither right nor left. Also, I wasn't talking about op-eds. I was talking about news articles, very different. I don't want to insert opinions or anything. Not a bit. I actually don't intend on being very active when it comes to content. My responses have only been to discourage throwing labels like neocon around. That's all. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While news sources are reliable for news they are not good sources for opinions. I did not say you were a neoconservative, merely that you are arguing for the inclusion of neoconservative views on Hugo Chavez. While I have no objections to including these views, they should be taken from serious articles, not op-eds or cherry picked from newspapers. Please provide a journal article defending the views you wish to see presented. TFD (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok, this is the final time I will say this: I do not want to include any opinions, at all. I don't want any neocon opinions or socialist opinions or anything opinions! I am only trying to "discourage throwing labels around!" That is all I have to say. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is basically how the article is now. However, if we want to include commentary on the perceived failure or success of the Chavez government, then we would be including opinions. And we would need to follow neutrality in including them. TFD (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything else, but I've just seen this excellent analysis of exactly this issue and it's worth mentioning here. Sandy will disapprove of the source of course, but the article is chock full of useful links, and the analysis is spot on. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The causes of crime anywhere is a complex and controversial issue and for us to state, or worse merely imply, that Chavez's policies have caused the increased crime rates would be pure bias. Scholars are still arguing about why American crime rates peaked in the early 90s before going into decline. If anyone can point to a study about crime and the Chavez government however it might be helpful. TFD (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So what do editors wanting to include crime want to be written? Should we just say that crime is very high and rising? Maybe that would appear that it is rising because of Chavez, as a simple presumption, seeing as its in the Chavez article. But it would be unacceptable to try to link crime to Chavez himself or his administration. I have still to see a source which explains how this link can be made. ValenShephard (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And, I'm assuming you are also advocating for us to edit the section on the country's economy, because it would be unacceptable to try to link improvements in the economy to the Chavez himself or his administration. Right?JoelWhy (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this is off topic I will answer it. It is Chavez and his parties' policy which is responsible for alot of the economic gain (unlike with crime). For example they are the ones who decided to increase spending on social issues etc. ValenShephard (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can not seriously be arguing that Chavez is responsible for the economy, but blameless for the crime rate. Well, maybe you are arguing that, but it's a silly argument.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, its not as black and white as your simple perception of the issues. Chavez and his ministers have direct control over spending their budget, but they do not have direct control over people doing crime. ValenShephard (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears you have no conception of the nature of a Latin American police force. (Think of the worst, most corrupt police force in the US, and multiply by mystery factor X.) Hence the need for the new Policía Nacional Bolivariana - to start from scratch with a new structure, new personnel and new institutional culture. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the police force have to do with this? Breaking endemic corruption in a police force is not an easy task for any party or individual. All I was saying is that Chavez has more direct control over economics than crime. He can rule over a corrupt police force and maybe try to solve it, but it is not himself and his ministers directly who guide the actions of these police officers. They dont control their consciousness and free will, but in a state economy they have direct control over spending, investment etc in some industries. Emphasis is on direct. His government guides the actions of the police, but they are not as direct and responsive as a choice on spending or investment.ValenShephard (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because it sounds like you're trying to disagree and not succeeding. :) Rd232 ^talk 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And more importantly, this is devolving into a forum, with original research and personal opinion being cited, instead of reliable sources. Rd232 is the only person who has provided a reliable source to back up what he has said ...-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, noted. ValenShephard (talk)

Just wondering: Where is all this crime stuff going? What section? Will it get its own section? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could move this entire section to Talk:Crime in Venezuela. Bold move when the article doesn't exist yet, but it might motivate someone to act! Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What crime stuff? There is no agreement on what to add, if anything, yet. ValenShephard (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The analysis which Rd232 linked to is very good, like he says. It explains how there is selective reporting on crime rate for political purposes, like in the case of Venezuela, but not in the case of Colombia (which ironically enough has more crime generally, than Vene.), a western backed regime (or it was). Very convincing argument, and not partisan at all, which should dispel alot of the issues here. ValenShephard (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really compare the crime rates, can you? Colombia and Venezuela have different histories. Colombia has a high crime rate b/c of the drug trade which is used by the FARC. In fact, crime in colombia has decreased over the past decade. i suggest that we look at the overarching trend toward crime. it doesn't matter what happens in colombia, its about Venezuela. Also, which country is selectively reporting its crime rate? Venezuela or colombia? im afraid i don't understand. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A section on crime is very simple. We list the facts (i.e. Crime rate spiking over the past 11 years.) We state what Chavez has said about crime. We list what 3rd parties have to say about crime, and Chavez's action (or inaction). End of story. Trying to bury the statistics because you don't like them is simply not going to fly.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate: We need a well-sourced Crime in Venezuela article to deal with this topic adequately here (i.e. to be able to craft a brief neutral context-respecting summary which points to that article for more details). And by the by, comparisons with Colombia are irrelevant on fact (different circumstances, as you say) but relevant on media coverage (because dead Colombians are no less dead than dead Venezuelans, regardless of circumstances). Also crime has been rising throughout Latin America for several decades; I believe PAHO has statistics. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was arguing about the coverage of crime, not the circumstances or historical factors. I agree with Rd232, we can't make a useful summary without an article dealing with crime in Venezuela first. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From a March 2010 article in Reuters: "Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez's 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization." From a Dec. 2009 article in TIME "Venezuela, which now has the western hemisphere's highest kidnapping rate to add to its exploding violent-crime epidemic. (Caracas suffers some 40 murders each weekend.) There are as many as five abductions each day in the capital alone — and an estimated 4 out of 10 kidnapping cases across the country are never reported because, as in so many other Latin American countries, locals fear their corrupt police forces themselves are often involved in the crimes. Sources inside Venezuela's federal crime-investigation agency, known as the CICPC, concede that police have been involved in kidnappings, adding that even two officers from the CICPC's anti-extortion and -kidnapping unit are under investigation." There are plenty of more articles all reaching the same conclusion -- crime has spiked dramatically since Chavez became President.

That being said, I am not implying we should say "Chavez is the reason crime has skyrocketed." The wiki article should point out the numbers and indicate his response to crime (i.e. he continues to blame the previous administration for the crime wave -- not even Chavez says that the President isn't ultimately responsible for crime levels in the country.) and his actions (e.g. creating centralized police force.) And, we should indicate some 3rd party perspectives.JoelWhy (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If we say that crime has gone up under Chavez then the implication is that it is a result of his actions. We need a source that explains why crime has gone up. TFD (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Several sources (including, I believe, the ones I mentioned above, but I will have to double check to verify) say that Chavez largely ignored the crime problem up until the past couple of years. It would be disingenuous to say Chavez did little about crime and this caused crime to spike. However, what should be added is something along the lines of 'Violent crime has risen considerably since Chavez took power. Chavez was criticized by X, Y, and Z for not doing more to combat crime. In 2008 (or whenever) Chavez created a centralized police force...' (This is obviously just off the top of my head, but the general sentiment is supported by the numerous articles I found on the topic.)JoelWhy (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While the sources show some opinions that crime has risen because Chavez has politicized the police force, reducing its professionalness and therefore effectiveness (which is a plausible explanation), we have no sources that he has in fact done this or any notable opinions that points to this cause. It is equally plausible that demographic change and increased prosperity are causes. But this is an encyclopedia, not a place for speculation, and we really need good sources. TFD (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in my post. I am not at all saying we should state here that Chavez has caused violent crime to spike. That would be completely inappropriate and unsupported by the evidence (AFAIK). What we should include are the facts; under Chavez, violent crime has spiked. Chavez was largely silent on crime (including in his weekly TV addresses, etc) until the past couple of years. He has been criticized by X, Y, and Z for this (or whatever.) Chavez blames the previous administration's economic policies for the increase in crime. Chavez has instituted X, Y, and Z policies to combat crime.

We should also include something about police corruption -- Not because Chavez caused the corruption (which existed prior to his taking office) but because he has implemented policies to reduce police corruption. (Police corruption could be a separate issue altogether, but it seems to me that it would make sense to include it w/ a section on crime.)

In any case, what we can't do is simply ignore the significant increase in crime simply because there's not a study that says "Chavez caused the spike in crime because of such and such."JoelWhy (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I second Rd232's call for an independent article on crime in venezuela, lets create one and then once that is done we can put a summary of the section here. I think that would kill two birds with one stone. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that too. Independant article, then summary here with Chavez's personal role in it. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And User: SandyGeorgia says we can't agree on anything! Well I think we have matured quite a bit, kudos to all! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy do you not think that it would be helpful to provide sources that explore the topic in a serious way? This article is after all about Chavez, not Venezuela, and all the information in it should somehow relate to the subject. Following your logic, what do we write: the rate of crime continued to rise under Chavez, crime rates in Venezuela are similar to those of other Latin American countries, crime is high by Latin American standards, but lower than Colombia and Puerto Rico? Sources say all these things and they are all true but provide a different spin. We need a source to interpret this. If you wish to contribute, it would be helpful if you could find a paper. I have looked but found nothing specific to Venezuela. TFD (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll provide more sources when I have time. But, for now, here's the Reuter's article, which starts with "Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez's 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization.": http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A44A20100311 JoelWhy (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So does anyone have the time and inclination to start Crime in Venezuela? I will back that effort up, help with adding sources etc. ValenShephard (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have both of those, but I will have to do research. At this moment I am not quite prepared. Perhaps you could start it off? I promise to join you and any others in creating it. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I might give it a try if someone doesn't before me, I'll link you guys to it. I am a little disheartened though with the criticism and tagging the article Villa del Cine which I started got, that has kind of put me off. ValenShephard (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to try. Don't let such things get you down. Its just an article. I know you feel like its your baby, but sometimes you have to let go. You must lift your spirits. You will have support!--Schwindtd (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the crime section. One of the news sources (Colombia Reports) isn't necessarily a great source, but since I only used it for direct quotes from Chavez in a national speech, I don't think it's too big a problem. However, if necessary, I'm sure we can find the same quote from some other source. Please post thoughts, etc here.JoelWhy (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, enough is enough. Suddenly The Guardian isn't a reliable source? PC magazine has pretty much the exact same information. And Joystiq. And Gamepolitics. And more if you're interested. I went with The Guardian because it IS a reputable source, per Wiki policy.JoelWhy (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is a great and supremely reliable source, but not its Blogs, which are written on the side by editors. Editors who write fact checked articles also write opinion pieces in the form of Blogs. That is the format of the Guardian. It allows readers to get the writers opinion outside of his serious writing on the issue. That's what I said, that the blog is unreliable, not the Guardian per se. Those sources again, would not be very reliable for an article on a political leader. ValenShephard (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the MSNBC source, and please provide some evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, we abide by Wiki policy, not your personal opinion. Also, the article was just used for direct quotes from Chavez, not any type of analysis.JoelWhy (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, this source is the reason for the new edit war. There is nothing in that blog that can't be located in other reliable sources, so why are we even having this discussion? The text can be sourced to other sources-- that doesn't mean the text needs to be removed or reverted, because Chavez quotes are not a BLP vio. You can tag the source as "verify credibility" as JRSP did, and request that it be replaced by a better source. These never-ending wars over trivia are exhausting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise the information could be found elsewhere. But even so, the user has added another source which cannot really be disputed. You are right that this was trivial. ValenShephard (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, What is "Crime" doing in the "Foreign policy" section? JRSP (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Crime rates in Venezuela are greater than in Iraq.

More than 16,000 were murdered in 2009 in Venezuela. In the same year, 4,644 were murdered in Iraq. The source given is the Brazilian Veja magazine but the original source is the American The New York Times. Since I know my source will be dismissed, either because is Brazilian or American or because.. i don't know, because the editors in here do not want any information that might harm Chavez' reputation, I only brought this to here to keep my conscience clean. --Lecen (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(a) please don't multiply sections unnecessarily - this talk page is quite large enough. (b) your conscience doesn't obviate WP:NOTFORUM. Crime in Venezuela does not yet exist - what's stopping you? Rd232 ^talk 12:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that the New York Times printed information that is considered incorrect by several orders of magnitude by the WHO and Lancet. [14]. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Ow... of course. As usual, any source presented here that the hardcore chavistas do not like are dismissed as "not good enough". Obviously, a website like "venezuelaanalysis" which is clearly directed to make political propaganda in favor of Chavez is considered "neutral" and "reliable". --Lecen (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Lancet and WHO are considered reliable sources; and we have no reason to doubt that they are wrong, while this journalist from the New York Times is right. This is just another case of the corporate media blatantly lying to their readers and doctoring figures. Its not a matter of not "liking" it. It's simply that other, much more reliable sources (which also don't have a history of lying about this issue), contradict it. And again, whatever you think about Venezuelanalysis, it's written by Venezuela experts, has high-quality editorial control, has a better record for fact-checking on Venezuela issues than the corporate papers, and easily meets every other criteria in WP:RS (check out the WP:RSN discussions for it.). If you find something they say that's blatantly incorrect, like the information in this Times article, we won't include it. But I don't see any policy-based reasons for not using it as a source; all I see is WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a section on crime rates to add to this article. If someone wants to create a new page specifically dealing with crime in Venezuela, that's fine. But, what I am working on deals specifically with crime rates under the Chavez administration and the actions he has taken. I suspect certain editors will have problems with the topic because crime rates have soared under Chavez, so the issue is not exactly flattering to him. However, I am making a concerted effort to ensure what I add will stick only to the facts supported by reputable sources, including the work Chavez has done to increase reduce police corruption, etc. I'll see if I can finish my draft tomorrow to post, but no promises...JoelWhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Why are we comparing crime rates in Venezuela with crime rates in Iraq, rather than Colombia, which is right next door or Puerto Rico, which is a Latin American "possession" of the U.S. or for that matter Jamaica or Mexico? TFD (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not...or, at least, I'm not. Having a higher rate of crime than Iraq is irrelevant to the Chavez article. (I meant to post my previous comment in the general crime section, not the section discussing the NY Times article.)JoelWhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC).

Venezuela's neighbours would be more appropriate. But you know why they use that comparison TFD, because it kills two birds with one stone. Makes the Iraq war look 'not that bad' and at the same time damages Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ramírez Miranda, Deivis (25 August 2010). "Caracas has become the deadliest city in the world". El Universal.
• James, Ian (28 August 2010). "Venezuelans protest rampant violence, some liken bloodshed to 'undeclared war'". Associated Press. SunSentinel.com.
• Bowman, Michael (24 August 2010). "Venezuelans Despair Over Rampant, Deadly Violence". Voice of America. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
• Romero, Simon (22 August 2010). "Venezuela, More Deadly Than Iraq, Wonders Why". The New York Times.

(And these don't go into the numerous sources covering the politicization of the police under the Chavez regime, but they are a start.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We might rather use the Human Rights Watch Report which explains crime better. Venezuela had high crime rates before Chavez and he was unable to centralize policing and therefore it was outside his control. However crime has increased under his administration and HRW praised him for recently setting up overview procedures. (210-215)[15] What these op-eds call "politicization of police" could be seen as attempt to bring police under central control in order to improve effectiveness. TFD (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good, I would support that. I would particularly like it to be mentioned, what you said about the inability to centralise and coordinate policing, but his recent efforts have been applauded. The new "bolivarian" police seem to have actually shown some results. And this is mentioned in more than just ostensibly 'pro' chavez sources. ValenShephard (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I included the fact that crime was high before Chavez took power -- the issue is it skyrocketed after he took power. Had it remained stagnant, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I would be interested in seeing reports absolving him of responsibility prior to this new initiative. His party has controlled the government since he was elected, hasn't it? How is it possible that he "was unable to centralize policing"? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking for evidence supporting this.

As for results, you have the government saying they have succeeded. That should be included, but it's hardly the same thing as having an independent 3rd party noting success. Valen is correct -- having 'too much info' was not a valid reason for editing the section. But, it still should be heavily edited. If we're going to pile up information showing how rosy everything is, I can go back and pile on complaints from experts in the field criticizing Chavez. I did not do that because it makes for a lousy article. But, if you insist on keeping a barrage of quotes from the head of the police I will do so for balance.

Also, I don't think crime should be a separate section; it should be under domestic policy, I believe. It's a domestic issue, so it seems to fit best there, does it not? (I'm fine with keeping it separate, but I don't think it makes any sense.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason I want the quote included from the director of the new police force, is because he is one of the most notable and important people who should comment on crime within a country. He is given due weight. I don't think it has anything to do with making things look "rosy", the police director used statistics to back himself up, and even if he didn't, it would have been taken by the reader as his opinion, with all the understandings and caveats that come with that. You removed something you had put in yourself, a western source talking about the exact same crime drop in that district of Caracas. Can you bring that back? I added the directors agreement with that, to show another perspective. I think you might have deleted it by mistake, it would be good to bring back, for reasons you youself just mentioned. ValenShephard (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't an accident. My statement stated that the PNB claims homicide rates were cut in half in one town. Then, you added a quote saying homicide rates were cut in half in that town . And then another list of statistics which say that homicide rates were cut in half in that town (and other areas nearby.) (all claims made by the PNB.) It's redundant. And, I'm not disputing that the police chief shouldn't be quoted. But, it's far too much. That section is now as large as the rest of the section combined.JoelWhy (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should read the section in the link. The reason for high crime in Venezuela is corrupt and inefficient local police, which were outside presidential control. The opposition stopped Chavez from centralizing control of police. When Chavez was able to centralize control, the opposition attacked him, and these op-eds incorrectly blame high crime on recent efforts to improve police effectiveness. TFD (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I would like you to try to add it to the article. I would support you in doing that. If the things you say are true, which in good faith I trust they are (I have good faith that you can provide sources) would be critical to getting a full understanding of why crime has increased in Chavez's 11 years. ValenShephard (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is the Human Rights Watch report pp. 210-215 here Could you please both read it. I will look at the crime section tomorrow. JoelWhy, the article says that the legislation to bring local police under central control stalled in Congress. See the 1999 constitution, Article 164, "Is of the States exclusive competence: (6) Organization of the police and determination of the branches of this service to be assigned to municipal jurisdiction, in accordance with applicable national legislation."[16] TFD (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, I am confident that you can summarise the report well enough yourself. I might check it out but I don't really have time. ValenShephard (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are referring to -- but, it does not really support the assertion you made earlier. It does not say police are responsible for the high crime rate. It (along with many other sources) say that it was ONE reason. It does not say anything about the opposition being the reason for the delay in passing the law. It certainly doesn't provide any explanation as to why Chavez didn't make any effort to reduce crime prior to this. It wasn't until 2006 until the commission they praise was formed. It further criticizes Chavez for ignoring some of the recommendations and possibly politicizing the police force. (And, I believe the people who were, and remain critical of the centralized police force continue to raise these concerns, but I will have to go back and dig up those sources.)

There certainly is some praise for Chavez in this report -- but, in the context of the report, it's more along the lines of "here's the laundry list of human rights violations he is committing, but here's an example of one thing that has some positive aspects." Nevertheless, the positive aspects should be included. But, given how distorted the summary of this report is in the Human Rights section of this article, I don't intend to let that happen yet again in the Crime section.JoelWhy (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically, what it says is that the Chavez government has started a new trend of listening to foreign NGOs criticism, taking it into account, and involving civil groups in police reform. It says crime has inceased, which we all know, but says that efforts were made (it took till 2006 because of a notorious incident involving foreign nationals) to reform the police from top to bottom, which involved over 60,000 citizens. They also praised the use of communal councils as oversight to police activites, where they can ask for investigations into the police and offer criticism and opinions. The report is generally positive and describes these new trends very favourably. ValenShephard (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A new trend?!? The opening paragraph of that section says "In contrast to the government's harassment of prison reform advocates and other human rights activists..." Yes, it is praising this approach over the alternative (which, according to the report, is the norm for Chavez's government -- this was the exception to the norm.) The incident you are referring to was the just the straw that broke the camel's back. Homicide rates had exploded by 2003/2004.

In any case, I agree that the report praises much of the process, with some notable exceptions to its actual implementation. But, as I pointed out above, it does not support the assertions made earlier.JoelWhy (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That quote shows nothing. The definition of a new trend is a new direction. The government has taken a new direction, which is supported by HRW saying what they used to do. Sheesh.ValenShephard (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Except, it doesn't say they used to do anything -- it's criticizing him for his continued practices. For crying out loud, just read the title of the report!JoelWhy (talk) 23:30, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you have misread. It criticises a few on going things, but mostly talks about a new change in practise, a very notable change because Chavez previously ignored or criticised NGOs, but now takes into account what they say and does something about it. As the report says, this is a totally new direction (for the better). ValenShephard (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're acting in good faith and simply haven't read through the report. It most certainly does NOT say he's now taking NGOs into account. It says he did in this one instance and encourages him to do so in the future. But, if there's any doubt about the thrust of this section (and EVERY section in the report), go read the Recommendations section. It's a laundry list of human rights violations they want his administration to STOP doing. (i.e. Chavez committed these violations in the past, he continues to commit them, and we are urging him to stop.)JoelWhy (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The report says: "...rather than attack and question human rights groups with experience in public security issues, the government has harnessed their knowledge to draft and pass legislation to overhaul the police and improve police accountability" WOW. That looks alot like the government is listening to NGOs and making serious changes. Shame I didn't read the report though! ValenShephard (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking quotes is not good faith.JoelWhy (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusations are not a substitute for arguments, logic and reason. To prove your assessment inaccurate I used that quote, and it seems to have worked.ValenShephard (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The opening section of the chapter reads: "During the Chavez presidency, rights advocates have faced prosecutorial harassment, unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work, and efforts to exclude them from international forums and restrict their access to international funding." It goes on to say "...rather than engage constructively with NGOs that document abuses and advocate reform to the prison system, the authorities have harassed, intimidated, and marginalized them from policy discussions."

"In ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION the government incorporated civil society experts in a commission set up to analyze and make proposals to reform Venezuela's police...For the first time...the government identified and prioritized accountability for police abuse as a major issue, though it did not ultimately adopt all of the commissions recommendations. UNFORTUNATELY, THE COMMISSION ON POLICE REFORM IS THE EXCEPTION THAT PROVES THE RULE. The government most often has sought to discredit and sideline human rights advocates and organizations."

Context is everything. And, if there is any question about whether what I have posted is in context, I urge you to go back and read the entire section. (The parts I quoted are from pages 198-199 of the report.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about human rights here or the police? The section TFD showed to us deals with the police, and it is the most appropriate part for this discussion because we are not discussing how Chavez took the advice of NGOs on human rights issues, but how he took the advice of NGOs on police issues. Which he did. ValenShephard (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The complete distortion of the crime section just further sinks this article into the mire of POV problems. This page was bad and is now worse. The POV tags will stay on this article in perpetuity.JoelWhy (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? What would you change, and why? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Changing the crime section to reflect notable opinions rather than opinions expressed by journalists is a first step to achieving neutrality. TFD (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made my suggestions. I've provided sources. I've provided specifics. And, you have succeeded in removing EVERYTHING that I added. I take no personal offense about whether I wrote it or someone else did. I do take offense that this entire section has been completely sanitized. Why remove the fact that Chavez claims violent crimes have not increased? Or, his blaming previous administrations for the crime? Or exclusively using the lowest homicide rate estimate? Everything about the current section screams POV.

I'm tired of this constant battle. For now, I'm content with ensuring that the POV tag remains so that readers don't get the impression that there is anything neutral about this article. Eventually, more editors will come along. Until then, I don't have any expectations that the article will be allowed to be improved.JoelWhy (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you constantly assume bad faith? You talk as if editors here are doing something malicious on purpose. Thats a pretty heavy claim. I am not against having a quote from Chavez blaiming previous administrations, but that is basically already written: that crime was on the up before Chavez got elected. ValenShephard (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me why there's a section about crime in Venezuela in an article about Huge Chavez? Exactly how is this relevant? Wims (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a section about crime for the same reason there's a section about the economy. The section is not intended to be about crime in general -- it is intended to cover how crime has increased under Chavez and what he has done/not done to address the issue. (Unfortunately, the section has been completely distorted, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article.)JoelWhy (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

CONAREPOL

• Comment: editors in this discussion appear to be unaware of the content of CONAREPOL and Law of Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sourced almost exclusively to Venezuelanalysis.com. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

??? would you care to take another look at the articles in question ???? ! Rd232 ^talk 19:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Altering crime data: [17]
• Ineffective plan: [18]
• Criticism: [19]
• Recommendations not followed: [20]
• Subscription only, haven't read: [21]
• General crime info: [22]
• Politicization: [23]
• General: [24]

POV, unbalanced, incomplete (for example, a blanket statement about crime rates falling with no mention of how reporting is altered. All sectors participated, but not all recommendations adopted. Crime rates continue to spiral. Police is politicized (Chavez). And so on.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that you would provide "Opening the black box"[25] as a source. It seems to be a criticism of the type of policing long in force in Venezuela and their politicization is basically right-wing. TFD (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that he is a president for life?

I mean he si not even included in that article (66.43.238.115 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

Because it's not true. Next presidential election is December 2012. The only difference is that following the Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009 Chavez is allowed to run again. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 66, perhaps your query would be better phrased as "shouldn't it be more prominent that consolidation of power in the executive, erosion of democratic institutions, and government by presidential decree" are significant issues under Chavez's administration? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consolidation" and "erosion" are matters of opinion but what do you mean by "government by decree"?

cf Enabling Act#In Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Both enabling acts had a limited scope in matter and time. Last one expired more than two years ago. JRSP (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor has tagged this article for lack of neutrality but has provided no reason for placing the template. Please provide clear reasons for the tag. In the meantime, I will remove it. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One just needs to read the talk page to see the reasons of the lack of neutrality. You were involved with removing the criticism section and now removed the tag?--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged into other articles. NPOV tags need to be clearly explained such that an attempt may be made to address the problem. Rd232 ^talk 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged out of existence: content disappeared from the Wiki. That this article is blatantly POV needs little justification, but one example would be to compare it to the BBC profile of Chavez, and attempt to introduce some balance to this article. Alternately, dozens of examples of the POV in this article could be provided, but I doubt that is helpful or necessary. Working towards a more balanced account like the BBC profile would be a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page disappeared, the substantive content did not: that's what "merged" means. If you want to see the deleted page to check if stuff was missed, any admin should userfy it for you temporarily on request. As for the BBC profile (which is not an encyclopedia article and not to be taken as a model): as far as I can see none of the points in it are omitted from the much longer Wikipedia article; it's not clear what you mean by "balance". And by the by it refers to Chavez "making a huge territorial claim on Guyana"; AFAIK that Venezuelan territorial claim goes back to at least the 60s (Betancourt?) and the claim isn't just on Guyanan territory. Rd232 ^talk 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, for the neutrality tag to remain it needs to be justified properly: either by there being clearly disputed content (eg two different versions), or by clearly explaining specific issues in sufficient detail that the problem may be addressed. Without that, the tag should be removed. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to see the deleted page; I was tricked into moving most of it out of this article, where it was originally, to that article, so it could disappear. I know its content very well. You can go back and find the version of this article before I collaborated in good faith by first moving out criticism, at which time, further changes to this article were shut down. I was a novice editor then; I fell for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you should also know that the content, insofar as it had any actual encyclopedic merit rather than being merely opinion, was moved to subject articles like Economy of Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Only some parts that hadn't already disappeared when I stopped following these articles. But that brings up another point: another reason this article is POV is that it relies on daughter articles which are all, also, POV (except the Early life and Military career daughter articles, which I think are OK, but I haven't dug into sources to check yet). And where did the crime, human rights, and other criticism go? Gone, as far as I've been able to tell so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The crime bits were, AFAIR, misleading junk. But creation of Crime in Venezuela and Judiciary of Venezuela has been recommended repeatedly recently, always falling on curiously deaf ears given the interest in those topics. It's almost like a neutral attempt to discuss those issues in a standalone article doesn't fit some contributors' motivation of Chavez-bashing! (Perish the thought.) Rd232 ^talk 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In order to challenge the neutrality of this article, reasons must be provided explaining specifically why this standard has not been met. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Um, I don't write "misleading junk", Rd232 :) And I don't think that has fallen on deaf ears, rather all Venezuela/Chavez articles are straining under WP:BITE and WP:OWN, there's too much to do, and editors give up. Fact is, as a novice editor, I fell for it, created a POV fork, and the end result is that mainstream, well-sourced material that is critical of Chavez is now gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces, you've aready got one concrete example (the BBC profile); we can fill up the page with dozens more, but again, I doubt that would be a productive use of our time, since there are plenty of editors here who will simply remove the POV tag no matter how much evidence is given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) the content is largely not gone (merged), and any not merged that you want to retrieve you can. (b) the BBC profile is only an example if you explain exactly how it relates to your claim that an NPOV tag is required. Otherwise, it's just a link. Rd232 ^talk 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) SandyGeorgia, could you tell us what is in the BBC profile that is missing from this article causing it to be POV? Unless you provide reasons for your opinion about this article, how do you expect anyone to guess what you want done? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Dueces, I'm sure you can read; I've typed it above several times already. There is not a single critical statement in the Wiki lead; contrast that to the BBC profile. But, we have the usual pattern here, of the familiar cast of characters owning the article and removing a POV tag, which is why few will take the time to substantiate it, knowing it will be removed no matter how much discussion or evidence is provided.

• 14:22, February 6, 2010 Rd232 (undo - produce just 1 (one) change towards what you think is NPOV which is disputed; or 1 (one) concrete example of POV, in sufficient detail that it may be addressed. That's all the tag requires!)
• 12:57, February 6, 2010 Student7 (Reverted 1 edit by Rd232; About half a dozen of us think it is pov, It is definitely on the talk page. You may not agree, but it is documented. Not allowing anything npovl is outrageous. (TW))
• 18:45, February 5, 2010 Rd232 (undo - clear reasons NOT provided, please do not re-add until provided (leaving tag in without clear reasons gives the wrong incentive to clarify sufficiently to enable fixing))
• 18:40, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (reasons for tag provided on talk, you might not like them, but they're there, stop removing POV tag, pls)
• 18:33, February 5, 2010 The Four Deuces (Undid revision 342131491 by SandyGeorgia (talk) No reasons provided for tag - see talk page)
• 17:45, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Restore POV tag, as it most clearly is, see talk)
• 00:15, February 4, 2010 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (Undid revision 341782676 by Drsmoo (talk) Please discuss on talk page)
• 23:43, February 3, 2010 Drsmoo (There are significant and persistent challenges to the even handedness of this article on the talkpage. NPOV dispute added)

The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Amended to add latest reverts of POV tag, although clearly numerous editors find this article POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The article lead says this:

Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.

The beginning of the BBC article says this:

Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, and has inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad ever since. Venezuelans are split on their president: a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic.

The WP article appears to be harsher on Chavez than the BBC profile.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting analysis, confined to one sentence of the BBC profile. At any rate, this article is owned, I have many other duties on Wiki, and little time for tendentious debates with editors who have reverted POV tags on this article for years. Perhaps other editors will take the time that is required to neutralize this article; I'm not particularly concerned, since Chavez is doing enough harm to himself anyway, and I doubt that anyone who knows anything about anything will take this article seriously anyway, since it's so clearly biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis, you think you should get your way by voicing your opinion loudly enough and frequently enough, and accusing any who disagree of all manner of bad faith. Actually producing evidence to support your arguments is too much like hard work, is it? Rd232 ^talk 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch your AGF there, Rd; who's done most of the article work on Venezuelan articles in the last week? I'm only one person :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got to watch AGF? The bloody cheek! You barely miss an opportunity to accuse me of bad faith, implicitly or explicitly. (Also my statement didn't actually accuse you of bad faith.) In the amount of time/effort you've put into this thread and said nothing concrete you should easily have been able to say something substantive about what the BBC source is supposed to show. Rd232 ^talk 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you research articles and article issues that quickly: I don't. When I work on an article, I build it as completely and correctly as possible, including researching all sources and cleaning up MoS and citations. And I don't see the point in trying to tag this article POV for the gazillionth time, knowing how fast it will be removed by the article owners. Nor do I see the utility in quoting the BBC profile back to you; you can read as well as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The utility in quoting parts of it would lie in identifying the bits you think significant! You're playing games here - this is like trying to extract information from a recalcitrant teenager. If you don't have time to explain now - fine, though giving some indication would seem at least a courtesy for the amount of time wasted on this issue so far. Come back when you feel you have time and inclination to properly explain your concerns in sufficient detail such that they may actually be understood and potentially addressed. Rd232 ^talk 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have scoured the comments by SandyGeorgia (Talk but have failed to find any substance warranting a POV tag or any change to the article. -- 98.108.202.144 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a group of editors who have complained about POV here. If you would like to open that can of worms then be my guest. Be warned. Schwindtd (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for censorship

It has occurred to me that the reasoning for censorship is that Chavez plays the strutting popinjay for his Latin low class followers. A drunk might say that he is friends with Carlos, and admires Idi Amin. but hardly a sober person. His followers evidently find that amusing. This probably does not play as well to upper class Latins and plays very poorly to an Anglophone audience who got strutting popinjays out of their system so long ago that they can't remember when it was. Even Huey Long did not talk like that and certainly not Robert LaFollette. Joseph McCarthy may have come close occasionally, but he was an genuine alcoholic.

Therefore it gets censored, not because it isn't true or reportable, but because it shows him poorly to a literate (and Anglophone) audience. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How necessary is this comment? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again: an NPOV tag is not a "bah, I don't like it" statement. It is to flag specific problems, which must be clear enough that someone can actually attempt to address them. Instead of edit warring about a tag without explaining, explain. Or better yet, try fixing, and see what happens. A dispute being sufficiently clear is a prerequisite for solving it, eg via WP:RFC or other WP:DR. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Student7, please read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK; comments and discussion such as your post (and your post of an op-ed above, when scores of reliable sources say the same thing) do nothing to advance this article, and are offensive (not all of Chavez's "followers" are "Latin low class" and that's an offensive characterization even if it were true). Commentary on article talk pages should focus on improving article content using reliable sources, not polemics and hyperbole. There is plenty of work to be done on these articles, and I'm not interested in doing all the work myself. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela; there's lots of work there that needs to be done. Or you could get busy answering Rd232's query about why this article is POV, so I don't have to do everything. Or you could get busy cleaning up Economy of Venezuela, which needs a week's work just to make it readable, much less accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BBC profile of Chavez as one of many examples of this article's POV

I have presented the BBC profile of Chavez as but one of many examples of how biased this article is; it is merely a sample-- there are scores of reliable sources that are similar, and analyzing all of them would merely fill up this talk page with redundancy. Although the discrepancies between due weight of reliable sources and this article are abundant and easily apparent, the POV tag has (yet again) been edit warred away.

The current lead of this article contains not one single critical commentary of Chavez, although every mainstream reliable source one can read about Chavez contains pro, con and neutral commentary. It is unabashed and biased hagiography. All this lead says is:

Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.

In other words, a whitewash under the vague term "controversy", as if the "vehement criticism" is in the same proportion as the "enthusiastic support" (ignoring the preponderance of reliable sources) and an implication that only the Bush administration has found fault with Chavez's administration (ignoring other fallouts with world leaders, e.g. "In November 2007 Mr Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago."). Focusing for now on the lead, which should (bold emphasis mine):

serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, ...

The current lead makes no attempt to give due weight to Chavez according to reliable sources.

Next, examining the BBC profile, we find balanced statements throughout that examine both sides, examples:

• ... inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad
• ... a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic (majority is no longer true, this is outdated, Chavez's popularity is at all time lows, both in Venezuela and abroad, but at least the BBC profile presents both)
• At the time, Mr Chavez said the proposed changes would return power to the people, but critics accused him of a power grab.
• Mr Chavez's government has implemented a number of "missions" or social programmes, including education and health services for all. But chronic poverty and unemployment are still widespread, despite the country's oil wealth. (Wiki has no mention whatsoever of his failed economic policies, or rampant crime and corruption-- those issues were well documented in the Criticism article, which disappeared.)

Next, we find very notable items completely missing from our lead:

• The former army paratrooper first came to prominence as a leader of a failed coup in 1992. (In articles that spend so much time on the "coup" against Chavez, one would expect to find mention that he himself led a coup attempt, and his followers led a second attempt while he was imprisoned).
• His time in office has proved equally dramatic. (ALL reliable sources discuss the rampant crime, corruption, and assault on democratic institutions and human rights; our lead doesn't.)
• ... he is eyeing staying in office beyond the end of his current term in 2012. The referendum win means he can run for office an unlimited number of times. Mr Chavez has said he needs another 10 years for what he calls Venezuela's socialist revolution to take root. (Wiki makes no mention of his frequent "President for life" aspirations, something that has been neglected according to due weight of reliable sources.)
• Church attacked, no mention in our article.

Further problems:

This statement is completely outdated (see the op-ed posted above by Student7, which contains commentary backed by numerous reliable sources:

Many other governments sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.

and this commentary is misleading:

In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.

Time magazine's reasons for maing him influential weren't exactly ... ummmm ... positive; they were related to his "deep pocket" in spreading socialism, which has now been shown to have failed, and the amount of controversy he evokes-- that is missing from our lead.

And completely missing from our lead is any mention of the deterioration in human rights, control of the judiciary, consolidation of power, and numerous other issues well documented and sourced in daughter and other articles, and which should be included and expanded in this article, along with an analysis of the failed economic policies and rampant corruption and crime. Please don't pretend not to know where to find those sources; those who have admin tools can access the old Criticism article, whose content vanished, and I've added sources to many other articles which need not be repeated here.

That's one article only: same could be done with scores of others. That's the LEAD only. This article is POV, and does not give due weight to reliable sources. Please stop edit warring away the POV tag on a clearly POV article. And will the article owners please at least fix the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the introduction to this article and the BBC article is that both provide an equally balanced view. If anything, the BBC article's beginning is more favorable to Chavez. However, if you think there could be more balance in the lead, you should write a suggested lead and place it here so we can understand what you are talking about. In the meantime you are placing a POV tag on the article without explaining what specifically can be done to make it NPOV. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that is your reading; now, let's deal with the preponderance of reliable sources and the plain fact that I have documented this article's POV, and numerous other editors also see it. And don't misrepresent: I have explained-- that you reject and edit war away a tag is a separate issue. And I'm not investing time in working on an article that is owned, and where my work will merely "disappear" as the Criticism article did. I suggest that some actual Wiki collaboration to neutralize this article would be more helpful and stop reverting a clearly justified POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"Of course that is your reading" -- what does that mean? One could just as well, in fact far better, say the same of you. -- 98.108.202.144 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Balance? I'm sure both article and lead can be improved, but most of the concrete points made are wrong. It surely can't be seriously argued that a single minor diplomatic incident (Spain) should have equal space in the lead with US-Venezuela relations. And whilst the lead doesn't mention the 92 coup, the article has 3 paragraphs on it - double the text of Foreign Policy and Economic Policy! There is no Domestic Policy section, which is where I suppose crime/justice would fall, but without Crime in Venezuela / Judiciary of Venezuela there's no daughter articles to link to, and surely no-one's suggesting that these subjects merit only a paragraph or two in the biography of the current President? In general, how about complaining less (and seeing bad faith everywhere) and making constructive suggestions/proposals more. Stop trying to prosecute fellow editors, and take WP:AGF as more than a mere acronym to quote when it suits. Rd232 ^talk 17:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am completely certain that you do not have a reading comprehension problem, Rd232; please stop obfuscating. Our article implies that his only differences are with Bush; that is not the case (hello, Columbia and Spain and others). I am not suggesting we add the King incident to the lead; I am pointing out that our article is biased and incomplete, and the King (and Uribe) are but a few examples among many. Um, there was a daughter article on crime-- it's gone. You have admin tools; you can resurrect that content before most of it was edited away. I am not going to invest time in building correctly an article that is owned, so that content can again disappear to where only admins can see it. Show us your neutrality; do some content work yourself-- I've already done plenty in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the absence of content that was here once and disappeared, or the absence of daughter articles, is not an excuse for this article's bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"there was a daughter article on crime"? What was that? I'm presuming you don't mean the Criticism article. Rd232 ^talk 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The top section is perfectly neutral at the present time. The lead of Tony Blair and George W. Bush contains not a single line of critical commentary despite voluminous criticism at home and abroad, plus declining approval ratings, but all three articles do make clear that these individuals have received a large amount of criticism and serious controversies are described in the main body and elsewhere. One need only use the scroll function and left mouse button to learn more. Wikispan (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is not a valid argument). Are you suggesting Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? And Wiki is not a reliable source; neither Bush nor Blair are featured articles, and Blair has a POV tag :) I suggest instead that you view John McCain, which is a featured article and has been vetted for neutrality. Please confine your discussion to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay Other stuff exists has no bearing on whether this lead is neutral or not (which I happen to believe it is). Do I dare suggest that Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? The answer is an emphatic "Yes." Chavez has not launched an unprovoked invasion resulting in the excess deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, plus the displacement of millions more. Chavez is certainly a controversial figure and has made plenty of errors and stupid decisions. These criticisms are described on this article and in various daughter articles. Wikispan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Bush and Blair were more controversial than Chavez and in fact received far more extensive international news coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic and unrelated. If you want to make an "other stuff exists" argument, see John McCain, a featured article which has been vetted for neutrality and which does include controversy in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how when you asked the question "Are you suggesting Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez?", and didn't get you answer you wanted, you declared it as offtopic and unrelated. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Further examples

From my local library (albeit a year outdated, Hugo Chavez, Source: Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 1. Gale Group, 2002. Updated: 08/12/2009),

The charismatic Hugo Chávez, elected president of Venezuela in 1998, is sometimes described by political pundits as Latin America's most controversial leader after Fidel Castro. Chávez has set this mineral- and resource-rich South American nation on a course of political, economic, and social reform he describes as a "Third Way" between a socialist and a free-market economy. In 2002, Chávez faced growing national discontent as his promised economic betterments were not forthcoming. His popularity was re-affirmed by the people of Venezuela in the recall election of August 2004, wherein he took 58 percent of the vote. However, in 2007, voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments that would have given him sweeping powers.

Note, we make no mention of "economic betterments" that weren't forthcoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From LexisNexis:

EuroNews - English, February 18, 2009, Wednesday Hugo: Profile of a political survivor

Hugo Chavez has waited a long time for this result. After failing in a first referendum in 2007, he has finally got what he wants - the possibility of staying in office indefinitely. ... Social programmes have been developed for the underprivileged. But the country's growth and economy are dependent on its oil wealth. And, as oil prices collapse under the global economic crisis, crippling Venezuela's finances, the leftist leader faces a slowing economy. His opponents condemn rampant corruption. Alongside violence and inflation, it is a regular target of anti-Chavez anger that has so far failed to sway loyalists of this political survivor.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, we make no mention of his power grab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Either provide an alternative lead or stop wasting our time. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing, documented dispute about this article's neutrality, and resistance to neutralizing the article. Please stop removing the clearly justified tag, and engage in neutral editing. Removing a tag when there is a long-standing dispute about this article's neutrality is disruptive and tendentious (and such issues usually end up at WP:ANI). The person placing the tag is not obligated to do the re-write. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The person placing the tag should provide reasons why the tag is justified, which you have not done. Do you think that the lead is biased because it omits to mention that the (non-democratically-elected) King of Spain told Chavez to "shut up" after he called the former Falangist José María Aznar a fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that question (above),[26] and I've clearly provided reasons and examples. Stop removing the tag, which documents that there is a POV dispute. Engage the content instead: I've given you plenty to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be specific. I have no idea what changes you desire. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to document that there is a POV dispute, which I have done with specificity. Please read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fourth removal of the POV tag at WP:ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I listed in edit summary additional issues, [27] [28] [29] but those (and dead links and reliable source tags) were reverted by User:The Four Deuces before I even had time to discuss those issues here. And THAT is why working on article content here can't progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss these issues here first. By the way, i would be agreeable to content dispute resolution for this article, but have no idea what changes you want made. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Those issues were discussed, and have been many times; that you reverted a well documented POV tag without allowing ten minutes to further explore them is a problem. And if you still "have no idea what changes" need to be made, after all the input above, then you further have no reason to remove a POV tag, when the POV dispute is documented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding pov tag

I have re-added the POV tag while I review this discussion. after a brief skim it seems as though the justification for removing the tag is that critical material was moved to other articles, which sounds very much like an unpleasant form of wp:POV fork, which would be unacceptable. please leave the tags on while I go through the arguments more carefully. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs, the fork was only one of many problems. I created that fork when I was a novice editor, as a good faith effort to reduce the size of this article so we could begin working on it. Lo and behold, after I in good faith removed criticism first-- as a novice editor not understanding the implications-- as soon as I got the bulk of criticism out, other editors prevented further changes to the article, saying it was short enough. Later, that article was deleted, and the content was not merged, and prevailing mainstream viewpoints are no longer anywhere to be found on Wiki. However, that is only *one* of the problems with this article, as I detail above. It also fails to reflect mainstream reliable sources and accord them due weight, significant portions have not been updated, and crucial events and mainstream viewpoints are simply missing (not only here, but also in daughter articles). Further, the article has a cadre of protective editors that revert all attempts and assure that no amount of discussion can result in improving or neutralizing the article. In defense of the pro-Chavez editors, others frequently use this talk page as a soapbox rather than relying on Wiki policy and reliable sources to improve the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact SandyGerorgia has provided no mainstream sources and no explanation of why this article should be considered POV. Almost none of the critical information removed from the article was reliably sourced - it was mostly from op-eds in the Murdoch press and most of it was trivial, dated or turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that Pat Robertson wanted Chavez killed was part of the "Criticism of Chavez"! In what way does that make the article neutral? A man who writes a book saying the world is controlled by the "New World Order" and that God was behind 911 and the Haiti earthquake becomes a reliable source on Hugo Chavez? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If those sorts of edits occurred on the Criticism article, it was after I was chased off of these articles; it was very well sourced when I worked on it, and your characterization of the sources is completely inaccurate. At any rate, that work is now outdated; the content should be updated and included here, as I summarized in my unbalanced edit summaries which you removed (and would you remind restoring the dead link tag, please?). Reviewing the old Criticism article might not be helpful at this point because it's outdated, yet all of the criticism remains valid and needs to be reflected with newer sources. There is no mention of reliably sourced issues like escalating crime, the economic failures, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive and Chavez's control of the judiciary, press freedom and human rights concerns, etc. The end result here has been that all content reflecting mainstream reliable sources has been removed to daughter articles, from whence it then disappears and is rewritten to radical leftist sources, to the exclusion of mainstream souces (exhibits: Human rights in Venezuela, Media in Venezuela and Media representation of Hugo Chavez, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Economy of Venezuela, Globovision and RCTV). Crime and corruption seems to have gone missing entirely. I cleaned up Manuel Rosales from the dismal BLP vio that is was, and made a dent in Raul Baduel, but the tendentious editing and overreliance on radical left sources here needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@ FourDeuces: You may be right; I need to look over the material. however, the POV tags do no harm to the article and serve as a notice that there is a debate over the content. they should remain in place until the issue is resolved.

@ Sandy: it would help if you could go through the article histories on the daughter articles and provide some diffs of the specific criticisms and sources you want to re-include. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I've got to promote FAC, and that often takes six to eight hours. At any rate, I'm not an admin, so can't access the deleted article, and I don't think going through edit histories will be helpful, because none of that content has been maintained or updated by the prevailing editors here. Better will be for me to list new sources as soon as I have time; the BBC profile above was only the first example of things that aren't even mentioned, or are glossed over, in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia states that there are valid sources for re-adding criticism. My view is that they should provide them. Rather than presenting their own view of Chavez, it would be more constructive to provide views from reliable sources. Whether or not the BBC profile is a good article, we should really use articles from academic journals. The peer-review process will help us in determining the weight to be given to various praise and criticism. My fear is that this article will begin to appear like a story from Glenn Beck's website. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Ludwigs2. Just to give you something to start on while I'm busy, if you go all the way back to Aug 2006, you can see some of the criticism that used to be in the (very poorly written even then) article, which had just lost featured status. The economic, crime, corruption, consolidation of power issues remain valid, and can be cited to updated reliable sources. Back to June 2006, more content, and May 2006. Admittedly, the article was as poorly written and cited then as it is now, but the substance of the missing content on crime, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy debacles, economic issues, etc. remains valid, and can be sourced and updated. And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic, and that while editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis, they reject maintream reliable sources as "US" or "corporate" bias. Peer review, as suggested by The4D, is unlikely to be helpful; like all other Wiki processes, it is backlogged, sustained by a few core editors, and there are very few editors on Wiki who know Venezuela, its politics, and history and also speak Spanish and are willing to engage a controversial POV article. I was chased off of these articles years ago by the ownership and tendentious editing (it always amounts to three-against-one), as have most other editors who have tried to engage; the article is at last shorter, but all balance is gone. Further, because of its length, this article attempts to use summary style, but relies on poorly maintained and biased daughter articles, and doesn't summarize their content even at that (which has meant that in order to work on this article, I've needed to take boatloads of time to analyze the bias in the daughter articles first). This is not a chore that can be done by one editor, or quickly. IMO, the POV tag should remain until these editors engage in collaborative editing and writing a neutral article, reflecting mainstream sources, even if that means addressing the bias in the daughter articles or re-adding and updating content here. Reverting anything not pro-Chavez has been the preferred editing method here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent: just thought I'd post this depressing upcoming Signpost article, to confirm the problems at Peer review, where three editors are doing all the work: Wikipedia:FCDW/Reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives 15,100 hits for "Hugo Chavez".[30] Questia has 106 books and 131 journal articles.[31] So much for "And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic". The claim that "editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis.com" is unfounded, unless Sandy is referring to the BBC. Just look at the footnotes in the article. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, it would be helpful to provide specific examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; now get those journal articles and stop relying on the biased Venezuelanalysis in all these articles. Several of the daughter articles rely heavily on them. At any rate, the problems remain; critical content is absent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't find anything recent in your Questia search, and Chavez is now far more controversial than he was, say, five years ago, and there is far more evidence of his failed policies. Do you know how to sort the Questia results by date? 2001, 2004 and before publications aren't going to be entirely relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And your google scholar search wasn't well delimited (maybe you need to add a Venezuela keyword), so that number is invalid. The first return is a dental article written by an H Chavez, "Assessment of oral implant mobility", and the second return is Exhibit I in my case, the Shifter article in Foreign Affairs that used to be cited but is no longer as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) These are the two statements in the article that are sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com:

"Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." — Hugo Chávez, at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop [52]

After the coup, local cable channels, including RCTV, were also obliged to carry government programming, including Chavez's marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours. RCTV could broadcast via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010 [65] (also sourced to the New York Times.

In no sense can this be seen as "biased". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write :) This article attempts to use Summary Style (but doesn't even do that), and several of the daughter articles that it relies on, and where issues have disappeared, are heavily sourced to Venezuelanalysis. And we still find an absence of Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs scholarly sources here, for starters. Do you know how to sort the Questia data by date, so we can identify relevant, recent articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Although not all of the hits refer to President Hugo Chavez, the first ten hits include the following:

• 2. the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks to Marta Harnecker
• 3. In Search of Hugo Chávez
• 4. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution
• 5. From bullets to ballots: The emergence of popular support for Hugo Chávez
• 6. Economic policy and the rise of Hugo Chavez
• 7. Empty Revolution-The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chavez
• 9. Names and faces in the newspsu.edu
• 10. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez: Savior or Threat to Democracy

It may well be that many of the 15,100 hits do not provide relevant sources, but it does show that there are numerous sources available contrary to your statement about a "paucity of sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reading what you write but you speak in vague generalities and all your claims have proved to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no they haven't. One of my first complaints is the removal of Shifter, which you identify (In Search of Hugo Chavez, #3). #2 is self. Do you have dates on the others? And do you know how to sort the Questia data so we can determine if any of those articles are still relevant? Otherwise, those hits could turn out to be useful in writing a neutral article, including the missing issues, and reducing the overreliance in daughter articles on Venezuelanalysis, then summarizing neutral content back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Michael Shifter's article in Foreign Affairs is of much higher value than the various editorials from the the Washington Times and Fox News, the magazine is not peer-reviewed and is devoted to American foreign policy. Do you know if Shifter has published anything about Chavez in academic publications? Here is a link to his article.[32] You can do advanced searches to get more helpful results on Google scholar. Certainly among all of them there must be something that can be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You pulled him up on Google scholar, and as I expected, you object because of the alleged "US bias". So what good is it going to do for me to put up sources here, when you reject anything on that basis, and yet we have daughter articles relying on a biased website, connected to Chavez, no journalist credentials, and no peer review whatsoever? The point is the same; whichever sources are provided are rejected, but content is still missing. (My area of editing is medical articles; I know how to evaluate academic and journal sources, and I also know cherrypicking.) Thanks for the link: I have his article, and many others, long buried in a file drawer when I gave up on these articles. I'm finished reading FAC, and will dig into this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

fourdeuces - reliable sources do not need to be academic or scholarly sources. Journalistic sources with a good track record are perfectly acceptable, and sometimes preferred, depending on the topic. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and in this case (because events are still evolving) we don't have a lot of good scholarly sources, we have editors who object to some of them as "US biased", we have editors making unsubstantiated claims about so-and-so being a top-notch scholar when he's publishing under a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial, and at any rate, we should be considering a preponderance of reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and whether we have covered the issues, from whatever sources are most reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers."[33] But of course we do not need Shifter's article for facts because they can be reliably sourced anyway. And I would object to opinions expressed in the article being presented as fact. What do we balance these opinions with? Far better to use an academic source that explains the various opinions and the degree of their acceptance, and whose facts can be directly reported. Back to the major issue, however, what is there in Shifter's article that is required to make this article NPOV? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the straw man; no one is proposing to use an op-ed to source anything. Second, you will reject Shifter out-of-hand because you'll claim "US foreign policy bias", which forces us back to journalistic accounts. You want academic sources; there are few, yet you reject google scholar sources and US-based newspapers. This is why editors give up here; circles, chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, your comment "a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial" doesn't sound like the more adecuate expression for an editor asking for neutrality. JRSP (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I could have phrased it better for the benefit of those who don't know Venezuelan law and the problems with the judiciary (since these articles don't discuss them, that text is all gone, and articles discussing the judiciary in Venezuela haven't been written :) See the numerous human rights reports, well sourced on other articles (and expand my thought to include exile or being charged with a crime for political persecution). And for those not in the know here, unlike in the US, you can stay in jail in Venezuela (for a very long time) while you wait to be exonerated in a trial, if that occurs, since the judiciary is controlled and judges who let you out of jail are tried. See Trial of Eligio Cedeno, Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni, Manuel Rosales, Leopoldo Lopez, Antonio Ledezma, Henrique Capriles Radonski, Raul Baduel, Enrique Mendoza and scores more that I've surely missed or whose articles aren't yet written. But yes, I should have phrased it more politely, as well-educated Venezuelans are wont to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the articles in Questia appear to come from Latin American Politics and Society, which is published by the "Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami".[34] Does anyone object to using articles from this journal? (Incidentally the US also holds people in prison without trial (see: Guantanamo Bay detention camp ). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth or sixth time, I'll ask you for dates. Much of the thinking, writing and awareness of Chavez and Venezuela has changed since about 2007, and for that reason, journalistic accounts are sometimes the best we can do. Yes, if you pull up old journal reports that don't reflect current reality and the preponderance of current sources, reasonable editors would object. Ten years ago, plenty of people hoped Chavez's socialism would work; now the results are in. And we still have missing content, regardless of sources used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, should I understand that the article has been tagged as not NPOV because it does not say that Chávez leads a regime that throws opponents in jail, controls the judiciary and his socialism is not working because the results are in? JRSP (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again, JRSP :) That is the kind of logic, tail chasing and obfuscation that has resulted in article ownership here, and I'm not biting. The bottom line is that I'm going to expend an entire day providing sources that you all are going to reject, no matter how reliable they are, at the same time this article depends on daughter articles sourced to a partisan website that is funded by Chavez. Again, I think until/unless y'all decide to collaborate, the article should remain tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not biting you either, everyone has their bias but if we want to have a productive discussion on neutrality, personal bias must be kept on check. JRSP (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have acknowledged that my original post was poorly phrased and not very helpful. Chapter closed I hope (except that uninvolved editors might not know the laws and judiciary in Venezuela, so it did need to be explained, and the comparison with Guantanamo is ... well, all discussions end up at Hitler, right ?). Long day here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

(out) Here are some recent journal articles available on Questia:

• "The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez" Journal article by José Pedro Zúquete; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 50, 2008. (Chavez leadership style)
• "Iran & Venezuela: the "axis of Annoyance"" Journal article by Kavon "hak" Hakimzadeh; Military Review, Vol. 89, 2009. (Relationship between Iran and Venezuela)
• "Barrio Women and Popular Politics in Chávez's Venezuela" Journal article by Sujatha Fernandes; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 49, 2007. (Role of poor women in the new Venezuela)

I am sure that more articles can be found by going to a library. Speaking of Hitler, Shifter's article compares Chavez to Juan Peron, which is fine if you are trying to explain Chavez to a US foreign policy audience, but is an oversimplification.

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info; I'm very tired and will digest and prepare more tomorrow. (Curiously, the reason I first chose the BBC to show content that was missing was because I know you all consider US sources biased.) I don't think we'll be using Shifter to compare Chavez to Peron (I've also lived in Argentina :) I will be preparing in sandbox sources that cite specifically the issues I've raised that are missing here (crime, economic deterioration, corruption, consolidation of power, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy). I'll review the old text that was removed and whatever sources were there before, although I suspect that's going to be a waste of my time, as newer sources are available. At first glance, the journal articles you've posted look good, but they also seem to be confined to very narrow topics, so we might not find them ultimately very useful for an overview article, although they could help build daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, I've also queried User:Jbmurray ("I am an assistant professor in Latin American Studies at the University of British Columbia. Previously, I worked in the UK (where I am from), and I have a Ph.D from Duke University.") here (I know his work from multiple featured articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is very similar to the one above on Hugo Chavez and terrorism and Carlos the Jackal. Facts are shown, valid sources are cited, compliance with wikipedia policies is proved and what we get is a vehement opposition to adding the content by the same people that are doing the pro-chavez comments on this same post. I dont see why this quote made it to the main page "Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." and this other quote by Hugo Chavez pertaining his opinion on FARC can not make it:"I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason to include the FARC comment is to paint Chavez as a terrorist, which is how neoconservatives see the world: you are either pro-American or pro-terrorist. It is much better to get reliable sources that explain the relationship between the Venezuelan government and FARC which is probably more nuanced. Can you refer us to any good studies on this subject? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

wow - that's a bit extreme, isn't it? if Chavez overtly supports FARC and ELN, then the article should note that he overtly supports FARC and ELN - if that is a direct quote from Chavez present in a reliable source, there aren't many grounds for excluding it. Please don't judge edits on the intentions of the editors; judge edits on their quality and pertinence to the subject at hand. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what goes on here. Three editors gang up against one to keep out any mention of FARC (and anything unfavorable to Chavez), although numerous mainstream reliable sources mention the fallout between Colombia and Venezuela (long sister republics) as a significant part of Chavez's foreign policy failures. Every one knows it, but the burden is on me to gather sources that anyone can find, and then those sources are rejected as "US foreign policy bias". Ludwigs, I appreciate your waiting due to my busy-ness elsewhere on FAC, but I haven't yet been able to work on gathering sources today. I could slop a few up here, but I'd rather do it right. Do we have enough here to leave the POV tag in place 'til tomorrow, when I can do more work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Information should be presented in a neutral point of view. Consider what is written in the FARC article:

Other governments, including the Venezuelan government, are less hostile towards the FARC-EP. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian and other governments to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts, and respect the Geneva Conventions.

You may believe that stating in the article that Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism is neutral, but it seems one-sided to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the FARC article; we're talking about this article and Chavez' foreign policy, of which his falling out with Colombia (among others) over FARC and related issues is quite notable and worthy of exploration. Who has proposed adding "Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism"? Stay on topic, without the strawmen, please. We have no discussion of his foreign policy alliances and failings. I realize this article is frequently hit with wacky unsourced IP edits from both sides, so that you all are accustomed to simply reverting, but I notice a predilection for quickly reverting only one side, and a failure to take into account that many additions could be sourced if editors here weren't so busy reverting away anything not pro-Chavez. In other words, biting IPs and owning the article, which chases off potential contributors rather than teaching them correct sourcing to issues that are clearly noteworthy and sourcable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) 4D: Unlike you, I do not believe that Chavez' rejection of the 'terrorist' label implies that he is "an insane dictator who supports terrorism." As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and Chavez is perfectly entitled to assert that he believes FARC to be a proper military force. where are you getting this 'insane dictator' thing, anyway? that's nowhere in the source you've quoted.

wp:NPOV relies on a balance of perspectives; by trying to exclude perspectives that you think make Chavez look bad (rather than trying to include and balance them in the article), you may be the one violating the principles of NPOV. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

{{Chatterbox}}

I do not know why Sandy says "both sides". The only side I see is trying to make the article sound like something one would find on a neoconservative website. Between total belief in that view and what Chavez says is a whole range of viewpoints. We don't make the article fair and balanced by quoting "both sides" but by presenting the opinions of reasonable unbiased sources. The "insane dictator" comes from the original reasons for this discussion above: Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness? and He is a dictator. Incidentally it is not that I wish to exclude the neoconservative perspective, just that I believe it should give greater weight to mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

please read wp:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, which explicitly contradicts what you'e said here. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It says: "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." It does not say that we should give undue emphasis to fringe views. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though, all of the daughter articles, upon which this article relies for summary style do exactly that-- give undue weight to the fringe, Chavez-funded, operated out of non-journalists homes, known to be pro-Chavez, website Venezuelanalysis.com. And, all content critical of Chavez was deleted, with the claim that it was poorly sourced, now documented untrue. I'm glad you understand our articles shouldn't overrely on a partisan, biased website that is associated with Chavez, because there is much cleanup to be done here. This article also fails to reflect mainstream sources or to contain any critical commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am less than a third of the way through the work of building a comprehensive list of sources; User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources is a work in progress, but it is unlikely I will be able to do more for at least a week. So far, I've only reconstructed the older deleted content, some of it outdated but all criticism still relevant today, and much worse; shown that The Four Deuces claim about poor sourcing in the deleted article was patently false; noted that Corruption in Venezuela did not see a full merge of content and went orphaned; and have only had time so far to search The Economist for sources. I still need to add many more mainstream reliable sources like the New York Times, BBC, LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, and others. At any rate, the work I've done so far exhibits the extent to which all of these articles have been cleansed to a pro-Chavez hagiography with opposing viewpoints disappearing, and the number of reliable sources that have been ignored. I believe there is enough to justify the POV tag until I'm able to continue work here (or until editors here begin to work towards NPOV); I hope to find some progress the next time I look in here. Not only is the POV in this article-- it's in almost every single Venezuela article I've looked at-- and since this article relies on summary style, the cleanup of this and daughter will be difficult and time-consuming. I am dismayed that so much POV can overtake Wiki when one editor turns away for a few years and articles become owned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay on your user page explains American conservative and State Department explanations of various problems in Venezuela but does not provide explanations from independent sources or the Venezuelan government. Note that even though your opinion of Chavez may be the correct one, neurality requires us to present all significant views. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unhelpful, Four Deuces. It's not an essay, my "opinions" are expressed nowhere; it's merely the beginning of a collection of mainstream reliable sources, and very well sourced text that was summarily excised from all Venezuelan articles, as examples of missing content needed to present "all significant views". This article will be POV until some balance is presented. Doesn't mean all the old content needs to be resurrected, but those points do need to be addressed here and in daughter articles. Working collaboratively will lower talk page volume and speed up progress. Unhelpful commentary about "essays" doesn't advance anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that there is a difference between facts and analysis. While the facts in your collection are reliably sourced, the analysis presents a single point of view (even if it may be the correct one). The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point; read the disclaimer I put at the top of it. It's only intended to show the relibly sourced issues missing in our coverage of Chavez. Of course balance is needed (and I'm only about a third finished in gathering sources). Now, we have no balance in any Wiki Chavez-related articles; we have an article that is exclusively favorable to Chavez with no critical content. And we have reliably sourced content that simply ... disappeared and never got merged, and some was orphaned. All of that content may not be necessary, but some mention and summary of the issues are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, the points she mentions need to be addressed to present a more neutral view on the current content available. The current Hugo Chavez's page presents a single point of view, mainly the point of view of pro-Chavez followers who seem to want to own the content of the page and dont allow for a constructive dialogue on how to incorporate these issues to the article.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

POV tags restored

POV tags were removed without discussion, in spite of a multitude of examples, and even more since. Restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

And it means nothing that they were added without discussion? Until there is consensus in a new talk, you cannot add such controversial additions. I dont have to worry much, other fair editors will come and remove them in several hours or days when they come online.ValenShephard 23:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

They were not added without discussion; please read. The passage of time without article improvements (in fact, with article deterioration in the direction of POV) does not address the issues raised, nor justify the removal of tags. Yes, it is well known here that any number of editors will appear to try to remove the tags; advertising that is not in your best interest, and Wiki has procedures for dealing with WP:TEND. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Saying that other editors will wish to remove the unagreed upon tags is bias? You dont have to even care about this article to know that tags should be discussed first with consensus reached. Any honest editor would find this dubious.ValenShephard 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Further POV issue: crime and corruption

How is that crime and corruption-- hallmarks of the Chavez administration-- have gone entirely missing from this article? Plenty of sources are at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources; updated ones are easily found (the situation has not changed since those sources were written). The article continues to be POV, and moves further that direction each day-- a good start would be to re-add some mention of the rampant crime and corruption back to the article, as it seems to have been cleansed, along with all other reliably sourced unfavorable-to-Chavez information. The domestic policy from older versins was balanced-- now it's cleansed. I've provided more than ample sources in the link above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "hallmarks"? Did high crime rates and corruption suddenly appear with Chávez administration? JRSP (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Its simply POV wording. I asked the user the same question, which he/she refused to answer on their talk page. I looked at the sources provided by the user to link crime to Chavez and their links were very tenative. The sources, though they make big claims, do not explain where (for example the US state department, not a very neutral source..) they got their information from. None of the sources also pin point what policy of Chavez is responsible for the crime. ValenShephard (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From what sources I have read, corruption and crime was a problem in Venezuela before Chavez arrived on the scene. Its an endemic problem common to nearly all Latin American countries, with much deeper and complex causes than a single president. ValenShephard (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(Please sign your posts) No, corruption did not suddenly appear with Chavez. It is merely a statistic that the corporate press has taken out of historical context (similar to how they take poverty and inflation figures out of context, when dishonestly trying to paint the picture that they've gotten worse, when the opposite is true), in order to make the uninformed reader believe that it is somehow the Chavez administration's fault, or has worsened under Chavez. It's a "hallmark" only because the media have chosen to make it into one. In fact, Venezuela ranks very well in studies which measure the perception of Venezuelans (as opposed to the studies the corporate press focuses on, which mostly measure the perceptions of foreigners, who get their information about Venezuela from ... the corporate press ;)). The rankings have not changed significantly since Chavez got into office (which is neither good nor bad, but they certainly haven't gotten significantly worse). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As I half joked with the original poster, was it the building of health clinics or doubling of social spending that caused this supposed increase in crime? :P He simply could not pin point the causes of crime under Chavez, even less to find a link between Chavez personally and these out of context stats. ValenShephard (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So once again, I provide reliable sources, you all fill up the talk page with opinion and anecdote, and the article remains POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well to be precise, you point once again to your user subpage as if it was authoritative, leaving it an exercise for other editors to establish just how partial and out of date the sources therein are (for which there is no single or definitive answer, but I do observe the sources are mostly media, not academic). If you spent half as much time actually doing editing or making specific edit proposals as complaining about others and declaring that you've already done all the work, you'd be more likely to get somewhere. Rd232 ^talk 01:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a collaborative exerise to write a neutral article, and it's not up to me to do all the work when edits will simply be reverted. Domestic policy discussion is lacking here-- including not only the failure to discuss rampant and increasing crime and corruption, but a number of other issues as well. I've supplied sources-- that editors don't want to use them doesn't make the article any less POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are poor, badly researched and from partisan positions like the corportate media and US state department. ValenShephard (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV regarding representation of all mainstream views; we don't get to exclude what you call "corporate media", particularly when the article is being loaded up with sources that have a known bias (including a likely BLP violation in the Afiuni text, which requires the highest quality, non-partisan sources). Perhaps you'd like to make a post to WP:RSN inquiring whether The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, The Economist, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, the BBC, and others, are high quality reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ramírez Miranda, Deivis (25 August 2010). "Caracas has become the deadliest city in the world". El Universal.
• James, Ian (28 August 2010). "Venezuelans protest rampant violence, some liken bloodshed to 'undeclared war'". Associated Press. SunSentinel.com.
• Bowman, Michael (24 August 2010). "Venezuelans Despair Over Rampant, Deadly Violence". Voice of America. Retrieved 28 August 2010.
• Romero, Simon (22 August 2010). "Venezuela, More Deadly Than Iraq, Wonders Why". The New York Times.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Six months after first POV consensus, still POV

Sources and issues not given due weight (all of these sample sources-- and there are hundreds more-- are less than two years old)

General

• "Get tough on Hugo Chávez, GOP senators tell Hillary Clinton". Christian Science Monitor. 21 July 2010.

Christian Science Monitor? Oh dear. ValenShephard (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime and corruption are serious issues, not given due weight,

in fact, not even mentioned.

• "Hugo Chávez revolution mired by claims of corruption". Guardian. 18 April 2010.
• "State Ruled by Crime and Chávez Family". The New York Times. 20 July 2009.
• "Hugo Chavez softens tone for 2008". Reuters. 2 Jan 2008.
• "Chavez tested in Venezuelan polls". BBC. 23 November 2008.
• Dozens of articles at The Economist (subscription only)
• More at:
  • User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez_sources#Corruption
  • User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez_sources#Crime

Consolidation of power in the executive, erosion of democracy, and political persecution of opposition

Political persecution of numerous opposition members, as well as former allies, not mentioned; consolidation of power and erosion of democracy barely glossed over with one sentence in human rights section. Not given due weight.

In addition to every human rights report, news agencies:

• FACTBOX-Venezuelan political figures who fell out with Chavez. Reuters, 24 February 2010
• Carroll, Rory (2009-10-12). "Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez accused of turning tyrant". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-02-08.
• Forero, Juan (4 October 2008). "Chávez Ally-Turned-Critic Is Detained by Venezuelan Military". The Washington Post.
• Brice, Arthur (8 December 2009). "Venezuelan protesters end hunger strike over prisoners". CNN. Retrieved 31 January 2010.
• "Venezuela recalls envoy in Peru". BBC News. 2009-04-28. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
• "Interpol seeks Chavez foe arrest". BBC. 2009-04-24. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
• Jones, Rachel (2008-10-26). "Chavez threatens to imprison opposition governor". USA Today. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
• "Profile: Manuel Rosales". BBC. 2009-04-22. Retrieved 2010-02-01.
• ABC News
• Purging Loyalists, Chávez Tightens His Inner Circle, New York Times, Feb 16 2010
• Venezuela's drift to authoritarianism: Wolf sheds fleece, The Economist, 2010-01-28.

• It was the latest in a series of recent moves that have placed Mr Chávez’s elected regime within a hair’s breadth of dictatorship.
• Now, opinion polls are showing unprecedented levels of discontent over crime, inflation, and power and water shortages. There were big anti-government protests in Caracas, the capital, after RCTV was shut off, which were countered by the government’s more modest rally.

These protests are covered in the article. Protests were mostly because popular soap operas were cancelled.

• In one recent poll 66% said they did not want him to continue in office when his present term ends in three years.
• If the September elections were run according to the constitution, which mandates proportional representation, Mr Chávez would surely lose his strong parliamentary majority. But a new electoral law allows the largest single group to sweep the board. The government-dominated electoral authority redrew constituency boundaries this month, with the effect of minimising potential opposition gains.
• He no longer pays lip-service to the separation of powers, which in practice disappeared some time ago. The head of the Supreme Court, Luisa Estella Morales, said last month that such niceties merely “weaken the state”.
• He told Parliament to change the law on expropriations and seized a French-controlled supermarket chain to add to the government’s new retail conglomerate, Comerso.
• ... there are signs of tension within the regime itself. On January 25th the vice-president, Ramón Carrizález, resigned, along with his wife, the environment minister. He cited personal reasons, but that a close ally, the minister of public banking, also quit (over unexplained “health problems”) set tongues wagging.

Set tongues wagging did it? I am sure rumour and guesswork are examples of serious journalism which should be included in this article. ValenShephard (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Romero, Simon. Chávez Seizes Assets of Oil Contractors, The New York Times, 2009-05-08 "The move points to a greater concentration of power by Mr. Chávez, who is busily exerting sway over important industries and political institutions during the economic crisis. In recent weeks, his government has also hounded top rivals, stripping the mayor of Caracas of financing for the city budget while forcing the mayor of Maracaibo to seek asylum in Peru after he was confronted with corruption charges. ... Zulia is also a bastion of opposition to Mr. Chávez. Resentment has been festering against the president there since corruption charges were brought against Manuel Rosales, a leading opposition figure who ran against Mr. Chávez for president in 2006 and was elected mayor of Maracaibo last year. Mr. Rosales fled to Peru last month rather than submit to an order for his arrest to face corruption charges."

• Romero, Simon. Chávez Tells His Navy to Take Over Key Seaports, The New York Times, 2009-03-15 "President Hugo Chávez ordered the navy on Sunday to seize seaports in states with major petroleum-exporting installations, part of his effort to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under the dominion of political opponents in regional elections last year. The move points to a spreading radicalization by Mr. Chávez, as he responds to a slowing economy and the gains made by his opponents. Economic growth slowed in the last quarter to its most sluggish pace in five years, 3.2 percent, weighed down by low oil prices."

• Carroll, Rory (2009-10-12). "Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez accused of turning tyrant". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-02-08.

Foreign policy completely underdeveloped

USA, Colombia, Middle East, deteriorating relations in Latin America, Russia, China, etc. Seriously out of date, as is domestic section.

• Latin America's New Cold War? Venezuela's and Colombia's ambassadors to the United States tell their sides of an increasingly tense story. Foreign Policy, 2009-12-08
• Romero, Simon Venezuela Still Aids Colombia Rebels, New Material Shows, The New York Times, 2009-08-02 "Despite repeated denials by President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan officials have continued to assist commanders of Colombia’s largest rebel group, helping them arrange weapons deals in Venezuela and even obtain identity cards to move with ease on Venezuelan soil, ... Intelligence of this kind has been a source of tension between Colombia and Venezuela, with the government here claiming the information is false and used to further political ends. Colombian officials, by contrast, argue that the intelligence proves that the FARC survives in part on its ability to operate from Venezuela’s frontier regions."
• Venezuela's foreign policy, (Retitled to "Dreams of a different world: Arms and the tyrant"). The Economist, 2009-09-17 "AFTER a two-week tour that included stops in Libya, Algeria, Syria, Iran, Turkmenistan, Belarus and Russia, where he placed orders for tanks and missiles, Hugo Chávez this week got what he seemed to be seeking all along: the attention of the United States. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, worried that Venezuela’s weapons’ purchases might trigger an “arms race” in Latin America, and her spokesman described Mr Chávez’s actions as a “serious challenge to stability”.… "

The opinions that buying these tanks and assault rifles will trigger an arms race is a purely political, not realistic statement, and is not taken seriously in the sources I have seen.

• Nowadays Mr Chavez's foreign policy gives top priority--outside Latin America--to forging an anti-American political alliance with Iran, Syria, Belarus and Russia.

There is no actual evidence that this is the goal of his trade and treaties with these countries. Those countries are seen as 'enemies' or threats by the US, that is about all.

• Bank accounts in Andorra, supposedly belonging to people close to Mr Chavez, have been frozen at the request of the United States Treasury, reportedly because of suspicions of links to terrorism.

Supposedly doesn't really fit into an encyclopedia. If new, stronger sources on this issue arise, then it can be taken seriously. ValenShephard (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• But the more immediately worrying development may be Venezuela's arms build-up.

Same as above: apparently, judging by the size of the army against how much new stuff has been bought, there is a correlation, not a stockpiling or arms build up. I will look for those sources if required. To put it simply, there are not more guns or tanks than there are soldiers to use them, this is perfectly acceptable. ValenShephard (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Bolivarian Revolution" unbalanced

• ... currently includes no opposing reliable viewpoints, see mentions in several of the sources above, in addition to others at The Economist (I have full articles)
  • Venezuela's president wants to marshal the forces of anti-imperialism, The Economist 2009-09-15 "THE mountains and jungles of South America are not ideal terrain for tank warfare. So it is hard to envisage what role Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez, has in mind for the dozens of Russian tanks on his latest military shopping list.…"
  • Venezuela's dubious education reforms, The Economist 2009-08-20 "THE first time Hugo Chávez made a serious attempt to reshape the Venezuelan education system, the resulting political battle contributed to the coup that in 2002 briefly ousted him from the presidency. A new education law, shoved through parliament on the night of August 13th after minimal debate, already has the opposition talking of civil disobedience.…"
  • Curbing Venezuela's trade unions, The Economist, 2009-05-07 "HIS government espouses “21st-century socialism” and claims to stand for the working class. Yet Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, has never been a fan of his country’s trade unions.… "

All these quotes sound like gossip, not serious journalism. These are respected editorials, but there are less partisan varieties. ValenShephard (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

More to come

Particularly biased are the media and RCTV sections, which give scant attention to Chavez's attacks on freedom of the press. Strikingly missing is the deterioration in the economy, but this is enough sources for now-- one chunk at a time, those can come later.

Also, please read WP:LEAD; not only is it unbalanced, and fails to mention key issues according to due weight, it is just an incoherent mess that doesn't summarize the article. I suggest it would be helpful if editors stopped chunking new text into the lead, when the article needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, you are cherry-picking sources that support a neoconservative view of the Chavez administration. This recent paper for example, which was presented at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, in July 2007, does not single out any country in Latin America. In fact, it says crime is high in all Latin American countries and due to inequality, degree of repression, effectiveness of the government, and age composition of the population. Colombia, which is governed under neoliberal lines, in fact has a higher crime rate than Venezuela. You really need to present serious studies. TFD (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I really hate that word: "neo-conservative." I don't think you guys really know what it means. Do you really think the New York Times, The Economist, The USA Today, or the Washpost are neo-conservative? (The answer of course is no). Criticism of Chavez is not an exclusive neo-con trait. I suggest you look up neo-con on wikipedia Neoconservatism. By throwing charged words around you basically erode their original meaning until they become so overused that they are ridiculous (see Nazi, communist, and socialist as charged words in American politics.) BTW the study from 2007 is old. Stuff changes in three years. Don't cite it. Also, unless you can show me a connection b/w neo-liberal economic thought and higher crime rate I suggest you revise your statement about colombia to make the meaning more clear. Colombia does NOT have a high crime rate b/c of neoliberlism (unless you're Naomi Klein- who knows nothing) It has a high crime rate b/c of the drug trade which is used by the FARC. In fact, crime in colombia has decreased over the past decade. i suggest that we look at the overarching trend toward crime. it doesn't matter what happens in colombia, its about Venezuela. If crime is going up in Venezuela, regardless of its relation to colombian crime, then that is bad news. I suggest that YOU present serious studies backed up by proper analysis instead of throwing fecal words like "neo-con". Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the Washington Post, Guardian, and New York Times are not "sources that support a neoconservative view." I've posted a fair number of complaints about the article, but Sandy has provided a lengthy list of legitimate problems with the article. You don't get to just ignore them because you think the newspapers are all out to get Chavez.JoelWhy (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've barely started :) But we're not going to make any progress here until all participants understand WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and stop throwing out unhelpful rhetoric. Again, if these sources are considered to hold extreme views, please lodge an inquiry at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Economy, crime, corruption, inflation, declining popularity: [35] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Variations on that "Chavez is going to lose" theme have been going for a decade. It has to be right sooner or later, but it's a bit "boy crying wolf" territory. And given Datanalisis' poll predicting 124/165 seats for PSUV [36], I do hope there isn't any pre-spinning going on for claims of election fraud. Rd232 ^talk 22:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I still think this page is neutral enough; it's the welfare of the ordinary people that matters, not whether the political system corresponds to our American ideals. You could insert all your criticism regarding the state of democracy and human rights to Saudi Arabia - but I see you're not doing this. I wonder why? Typical neocon view of the world. Lesswealth (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)