Talk:Hugo Chávez

"Repatriate" Oil Funds?

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

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

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

"Democratic socialism" in the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please explain why you consider SF Bay View source is not adequate. This other source reports Chávez saying that "socialismo democrático es el rumbo" (democratic socialism is the way) [1]. In the PSUV website, I could find several pages with references to socialismo democrático including one signed by Chávez himself[2]. And, in any case, leaving just "socialism" would be even more confusing. JRSP (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

How come there's no mention here to Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC? Rd232? JRSP? Or will we pretend it never happened?Alekboyd (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:WTA#Words_that_label, using terms as "narcoterrorist" is not NPOV. Said that, the US government concerns about Chávez-FARC relations are already mentioned in the "criticism" section. JRSP (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC is considered as a terrorist organization by all European countries, Canada and the USA.Alekboyd (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And? Is there a problem with that? Didn't Bush negotiate with Osama Bin Ladden? Isn't Obama and the actual US, killing people in Irak, Afganistan and Palestine? Obilivion (Sith Holocron) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

The issue here is Hugo Chavez relationship with FARC. Whatever Bush did with Bin Laden has got nothing to do with the fact that Chavez has a relationship with a narcoterrorist organization. As per NPOV JRSP, a visit to your contribution page shows how hollow your mentions to NPOV are.Alekboyd (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right on the need to discuss the FARC. It is quite incredible that the foreign policy section says notion about his relationship to the FARC. Recall that Interpol judged the files captured from Reyes to be genuine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504153.html (Cerberus (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

They should be a heading on main page of Hugo's support of terrorism and his human rights violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles should match the source

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, it's all very entertainingly POV for an editorial to yell "5000% increase in Venezuela emigration"; but maybe actual statistics would be more useful. [3] shows net emigration declining 2000-2006, a kick to 1.28% in 2007 and then 0.84% in 2008. It's placed 112 out of 171 countries in 2008 (171st has highest emigration right, 1st highest immigration) [4]. The editorial mentions 10,000 people per year to the US; Venezuela's population is 26m. No NPOV issues waving a 5000% figure, no. Disembrangler (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Chávez and coca

my edit deleted by user Dynablaster,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evo Morales article mentions coca because he's a leader of the cocalero movement, so it is a relevant aspect to that article. Coca leaves are legal and widely available in Peru, but Alan García's article does not mention the word "coca". The queen of Spain had a cup of mate de coca when visiting Bolivia in 1992[5] and her article does not mention that. It's a question of relevance. JRSP (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not important?!

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

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

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

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

I'd already read them. If you've read them too you may have noticed that although the headline of the first link says "Venezuelan opposition" the article's body says one politician from a small party. The other link is not related to the quote you want to add[6] JRSP (talk) 08:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

please read reuters report [7] :The anti-U.S. leader has repeatedly defended the use of coca leaves despite accusations by the United States that he is turning Venezuela into a "haven" for drugs from Colombia.

please read The New York Times:Hugo Chávez, a teetotaler:[8] Alsoam (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Members from family in government

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

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

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

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

• please read source exactly :

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

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

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

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

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

• Ok:i create new sub-section in article:family section and move Personal life to last section.link to Early life of Hugo Chávez find in Early life (1954–1992) section :[9] Alsoam (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

"Personal life" could be a better place but I don't think however that we shoul break the section into three one-paragraph subsections. Even more important, we must be extremely careful when adding information about living persons. When dealing with living persons it is a good idea to cross check the information with other sources. Regarding this particular case, some sources like Spiegel are constrasting present-day alleged wealth with the family humble origins, somewhat implying that they suddenly became rich after Chávez presidency. However, it is easy to check that before that, several of the brothers had managed to get a college education and lift their social/economical status: Adán graduated in physics and has a master degree in superior education[10], he was a professor at Universidad de los Andes; Hugo graduated from the Venezuelan Military Academy; Argenis is an electrical engineer,[11] and Aníbal has a degree in History[12] (and being the mayor of a 3000 inhabitant town doesn't give you much power, anyway). I also noted that NPR claims that Argenis Chávez position was "created for him". In fact he was secretario de la gobernación (of Barinas State)[13], all states in Venezuela have a similar position ( see, for instance,[14]), as a matter of fact I could find a reference to that post in a book from 1936.[15]. JRSP (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

.

If you read carefully the whole article you will notice that it was written just before the regional elections. During election campaigns, allegations amongst different parties are common place but those things are usually not notable in the long term. You may notice that the article explicitly mentions that Adan Chavez is running neck-and-neck with the city's mayor, a former Chavez supporter . I think that the Der Spiegel article is very biased, I counted 4 direct quotations from Chávez opposition, 1 quotation from a supporter and 1 quotation that can be considered neutral, there is not a single quotation from Chávez family members. It also contains statements that can easily be checked to contradict facts, in particular, they claim that The president and his family are not even popular among the residents of Sabaneta, however, a few days after the article was written Aníbal Chávez was elected mayor by a very wide margin[16]. JRSP (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Notice that all articles are from 2007 and 2008. As I told you before, this news came not only within the context of the regional election but of the primary election in PSUV some time before. I'm glad to see you've started to acknowledge the importance of balance and presenting all relevant parties allegations in controversial issues. In general we have to gather information from multiple reliable independent sources; notice that independence is important here as sources often repeat each other. You must also check the authors, notice that the articles from NPR[17] and Time[18] are not independent, both were written by the same person. I really do not consider this material to be notable to the Hugo Chávez article, this is mostly Barinas local news. Perhaps, if appropriately balanced it could be interesting for the Adán Chávez article. JRSP (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

please see Wikipedia:Third opinion thanks for discussion

3PO

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

Where is the 'criticism of Hugo Chávez' section?

The original page suffered an overhaul and an entire section devoted to criticism of Hugo Chávez policies and approaches was apparently deleted. I couldn't find it anywhere. Is Wikipedia going to close its eyes to the verifiable, sizeable portion of people who do not support him or his policies, and should have their accounts published for the world to see? Or is it, a work of pseudo-intelectuals, left-wing sympatizers who'd rather delete this material instead of keeping a really objective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabreu (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

^ THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.8.122 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Where is that section?--Andrewire (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked waybackmachine for the old material that was deleted. There isn't anything listed for this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_chavez. Unless someone can provide the old url for Hugo Chavez, the best course would be to re-create the section. I must assume the URL was changed causing the waybackmachine not to find the page? There is so much negative material on Chavez but the whole article hardly mentions that he has almost completed making himself dictator for life of Venezuela. --Ftsmallwood (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly add that material, now :-) Be careful, though - it would be "critics claim" or some similar wording for the "dictator for life" thingie (I assume you're referring to that referendum a couple of years back). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A separate section for criticism (and/or praise) is not the best idea, see WP:STRUCTURE. Please keep in mind the WP:BLP policy, particularly WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Well sourced, relevant and properly attributed criticism/praise should better be added in the relevant section (or daughter article): presidency, foreign policy, economical policy, etc. JRSP (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section including arresting political opponents, closing down media and inteferings in several nations internal affairs.Tannim1 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

re: reference to English speaking

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

He speaks English?

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

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

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

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

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

his religion is ambiguous

in the main box at the start of the page his religion is called roman catholic but later in the article about his personal life he comes across as thinking of himself as "christian". i vote that the roman catholic be change to christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peppermintschnapps (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal life section says he was "raised a Roman Catholic" so I think we should keep the specific denomination instead of changing to a generic "Christian" JRSP (talk) 02:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Media Suppression

I suggest a thread on Chavez persecuting all non goverment controlled media such as Glbovision.http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/06/05/venezuela.tvstation.owner/index.html.Tannim1 (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)