Talk:Hugo Chávez

OAS and European Parliament on human rights in Venezuela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cannon sourcing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Secondly, you ask for academic reviews:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Young

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

FAIR

Why is this here?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrest of Judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Washington Post article mentions (Judge) Juan Carlos Apitz who was removed from the judiciary, but no cases of arrests.[1] TFD (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Chavez Profile Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, there is a WP:copyvio problem as the image appeared on a Venezuelan government site on 13 September 2008[2] and the processed image [3] was uploaded on 4 March 2009 without attribution to the original author. JRSP (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I don't think it'd be a good idea in the interest of avoiding bias - putting him in military uniform would make him look (at first glance) like a military dictator.

Bolivarianism

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

The article refers to the followers of Bolivar as bolivarians and their beliefs as bolivarianism.[4] But I do not think he and his followers called their belief system bolivarianism. TFD (talk) 19:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Recent revert

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

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

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

Primary sources in Early Life

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Chiaracompostellausa, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

Edit request from Chiaracompostellausa, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

Edit request from Chiaracompostellausa, 29 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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