Talk:Hugo Chávez

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)

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)

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),[1] 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, [2] [3] [4] 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".[5] Questia has 106 books and 131 journal articles.[6] 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.[7] 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."[8] 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".[9] 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)

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)

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.

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.
• 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.

• 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”.… "

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

"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.… "

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)

Is the article biased or not?

This section is not for discussion, only to let clear who thinks the article is biased or who does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen (talk • contribs) 17:49, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "not for discussion" on Wiki; Wiki articles are based on WP:5P, consensus and policy, not opinion, not a vote, not who happens to show up to opine while others are away traveling, and Wiki is not a vote. Those arguing POV need to present sources not represented or given due weight (as I have repeatedly), and those arguing against POV need to document why/how the article presents due balance according to WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, taking into account an examination of reliable sources, as I have done repeatedly. If this discussion should end up before WP:ArbCom, as it should, spurious arguments and ganging up to remove a well-justified POV tag will not bode well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. We are not voting in here. This is a kind of census. I first need to know who believes that the article is biased. Once that is clear, we can create another section discuss what everyone believes it's wrong. --Lecen (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my-- you're doing great there :) Please understand how Wiki works, and avoid telling other editors to "calm down". Your editing will be much more effective if you do so, and your time will be used more productively. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lecen. I don't see any harm in having a small section for people to list which side of the debate they are on. We are clearly discussing the more substantive issues above, so this section removes the clutter, providing a concise (if deeply simplified) view of people's thoughts.JoelWhy (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We aren't "on sides" on Wiki; we discuss and reach consensus. Please understand how Wiki works-- it will make your editing more effective and waste less of everyone else's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not saying to vote whether you are "pro-Chavez" or "anti-Chavez". We're asking people to say whether they feel the article is biased or not. That seems like a fairly simple question.JoelWhy (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is biased (pro-Chavez)

• It is biased. --Lecen (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• It is biased.JoelWhy (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You both need to give specific examples, and specific recommendations for changes, otherwise this entire conversation is irrelevant.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not so, since that is already on this very talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See above: "This section is not for discussion, only to let clear who thinks the article is biased or who does not." JoelWhy (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:5P-- do you really want to set yourself up for a vote, when you're outnumbered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, this is not meant to be a vote. Just to provide a quick rundown on who stands where. I definitely am against "voting" on whether changes stay or not.JoelWhy (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article is POV, and becoming increasingly so, well-documented above in the neutrality section and at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again you dont' give reasons. This 'vote' or discussion or whatever reveals the POV of those who started it because it only includes "the article is bias (pro-chavez)". You didn't even think to include a section of (anti-chavez). Just noting that for the record. The sections are selective. ValenShephard (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article needs improvement

This section seems to be predicated on the idea that what is wrong with the article is that it doesn't fully reflect everything that is or was wrong in Venezuela from 1998 to the present; and that this can be fixed by turning it into a sort of equivalent of The Trial of Henry Kissinger. In the same way as the biographies of Wikipedia-era US presidents (Bush and Obama) attract volumes of everything-bad-is-his-fault-ism, so does Chavez. Somehow articles like Venezuela or History of Venezuela or Economy of Venezuela or other articles on more specific subjects attract much less attention. This is no good at all. Context and detail matters, and most issues not pertaining to Chavez personally should be handled in other articles where they can be presented appropriately, with brief summary here. Entire paragraphs on what the OAS reports on Venezuela in 2010 or what Freedom House thinks of Venezuela have no place in a biography of the country's president: more selectivity is called for here. Don't get me wrong: the issues should be summarised here in a neutral WP:NPOV way, and gone into due detail in appropriate articles linked from here. But summarised is the operative word. I've argued for a very long time that this article will never reach a decent standard until the related and subarticles are brought up to scratch - but that takes time I don't have, and nobody else seems to be bothered. So it mostly degenerates into the same old arguments, repeated ad nauseam. Anyone want to break the cycle? Then start working on a subarticle - updating/improving in whatever way you think necessary. Rd232 ^talk 19:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom House, OAS, etc reports are COMPLETELY relevant. Granted, a report that notes something along the lines of Venezuela having a high crime rate, etc wouldn't be appropriate. But, a report that specifically criticizes the government based on actions taken by the President are 100% relevant to the Chavez page. Some of the reports even specifically point out that many problems existed prior to Chavez becoming President -- and, they specifically single out the actions taken by Chavez since taking power. You cannot separate the man from his policies as President in a bio page.JoelWhy (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

" You cannot separate the man from his policies as President in a bio page" - I didn't suggest anything remotely like that. Nor did I say OAS etc was irrelevant. What I meant was, if you want an WP:NPOV bio which is less than book-length you need to be selective, and summarise appropriately. Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that, because of the well-sourced decline of democratic institutions in Venezuela, policy articles and Chavez bio can't be separated, and reliable sources do attribute the problems there to him-- that can't be overlooked if we are to give due weight to what reliable sources report about Chavez, which is quite distinct from other heads of state. But I do agree that sub-articles are in terrible shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"reliable sources do attribute the problems there to him" - wherever that is specifically and concretely done, it's much more due to mention or discuss it. But most of the time there is no concrete link, it's just Bad Thing X + That Guy Is President Y = Must Be His Fault Z. (a generic problem not at all limited to Chavez, though the way Chavez acts as figurehead in rhetoric rather beyond his actions makes it more complicated than usual.) Rd232 ^talk 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Most of the reports refer to actions taken by Chavez's administration. Again, you can't separate the man from his actions. But, if you think I'm mistaken, please provide specific examples of something that has been added (or subsequently removed) from either the Human Rights or Media section that fits your description.JoelWhy (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"simply untrue" - really? "In 2008, Human Rights Watch issued a 208-page report reviewing human rights issues under Chavez's first ten years in office.[66] The report notes that two of the defining features under Chavez has been discrimination based on political grounds and "an open disregard for the principle of separation of powers," especially for the judiciary." There is no concrete link here between the Bad Thing X and President Y; and there is absolutely no hint of the historical context. A reader relying solely on this article would have no clue as to how this situation compares to the old partyarchy system. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RD232 against other editors. The president of a country cannot be blamed for the whole human rights situation in a country. Afterall, not all decisions are directly his, he has the same power roughly as Obama or the British PM. There are many others with strong powers and a president cannot ever totally control the actions of the police or his party, althrough some would want to. That would take an iron fist. If the police or some sections of society harrass or prosecute the press for example, that is a deeper problem in society, its not just "Chavez's fault". ValenShephard (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Further to my argument that the whole thing needs improvement: "The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) shows that the Venezuelan economy grew on average by 11.85% in the period 2004-2007". All well and good and presumably true, but with no mention of the GDP collapse 2002/3 (due to the oil lockout and attempted general strike) that lacks vital context. And of course the lockout/strike impact is important enough to be mentioned anyway for its own sake. Rd232 ^talk 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes those things should be mentioned somewhere, but the statistics as you know, dealt with the period after that. And I do believe they are reliable. If we will mention the oil strikes, we should also note that they were heavily influenced by the anti-chavez media, and I wouldn't go so far as calling it a general strike, it only affected one sector (albeit a large one). ValenShephard (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This overlooks the point that Weisbrot is clearly biased, and that multiple reliable sources mention the distortion of statistics due to Chavez changing the rules of how data is reported. Please rely on a preponderance of reliable sources, not one individual and biased source. Also, we cannot mention the media impact on these issues while excluding the factors that led to their position, such as Chavez's excessive use of cadenas, his abuse of the Enabling Act, his meddling with PDVSA, which was formerly known as being among the most efficient state-run oil companies in the world, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera-- issues raised by multiple reliable sources. I cannot avoid noticing that it frequently appears that some editors here do not read all sources, and only cherry pick those favorable to one POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I sure hope you include yourself in those editors who favour one POV. Weisbrot is an extremely reliable source on the issue. He publishes in more than 2 major newspapers in Europe and the US, and contributes to several respected publications. He is a great authority on the issue. ValenShephard (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from this discussion that a number of the editors agree this articles is highly biased. Similarly, a number of the editors here feel the article is not biased. By definition, this means the article must include the 'Neutrality is disputed' banner. There is clearly no consensus here.JoelWhy (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And until there is consenus to add a tag, it will remain as it is. There was a talk about tags a few weeks ago and consensus to remove them was reached. Wait a while then bring up the issue to be discussed again. ValenShephard (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to wait a while. And, I don't see any evidence of a consensus being reached. What I see are the same 3 or 4 people who are supporting every pro-Chavez addition (or removal of criticisms of Chavez) insisting the article isn't biased, and then declaring that they've reached a consensus.JoelWhy (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A majority of users supported removal of the tags. Starting a new talk on the same issue, which was generally resolved, is bad practice. You might be ignored, and if you make the plunge to start edits, then meet opposition. That might be a waste of your time. ValenShephard (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"A majority of users" has nothing to do with it (and I'm not certain that's true, anyway); you don't seem to understand WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NPOV. The POV tags exist to document that there is a POV dispute, which there is. If the article isn't corrected soon, they need to be re-added. Starting a new talk on the issue is not bad practice, since some here don't seem to have digested the old one or Wiki policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Joel if a majority of us say that the article is too pro chavez and does not mention his FARC support his human right's violations and his support of the Iranian terror regime that should be put on. Valen why should your vote be the only one that counts. Lets wait a week if the majority agrees with us, lets make the cortrectionsUnicorn76 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may make a suggestion? I have been opposed to adding the tags because I think they lead to stagnation (tags are supposed to be tools for improvement, not banners of complaint, and they have not worked as tools in this article in the past). But since there is a variety of issues which might possibly justify a tag, perhaps we could agree to add the tag specifically for a limited period - probably one month, after which it will be removed, and only re-added if a new consensus after further discussion requires it. That way, everyone will have a month to fix the problems of concern, and a clear incentive to do so (disappearing tag). At the end of the month I doubt all the problems would be solved, I bet there'd be more progress, and maybe even to the point where re-addition of a tag could be based on a clear statement of the limited list of things needing fixing. Rd232 ^talk 06:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with this, assuming someone could provide an initial list of specific things that they feel are not presented in a neutral point of view, so that we can have some idea of why the tag is there, and what types of things need to be fixed before the tag is removed. Note that vague claims like "it's too pro-Chavez" or "it's not like the BBC profile of Chavez" are not specific things that need to be fixed. Can someone present a list of, say, 5-10 things that are somehow in violation of WP:NPOV? If not, I don't really see any justification for tagging the entire article as POV. If they can come up with such a list, I would be willing to accept tagging the article, just to stop wasting time arguing about it (although personally, I'd rather they just fix the parts they disagree with). However, I'd like to agree on some time frame to remove the tag after, so we don't end up with a situation where certain editors with personal reasons for wanting the tag up can say "But there is still one item left on the list, so we can't remove the tag", and just keep it up indefinitely. I liked your idea about taking it down in a month, unless it can be re-justified. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A list would be nice, but it doesn't seem likely to happen at present, partly because there's just too many bits and pieces that need updating/improving (part of the problem I think is quality issues being treated as NPOV problems, but that's another story). Hence my suggestion is to delay creating a specific list, but take a month in which hopefully lots of improvements are made, and then maybe we'll be ready for a (hopefully smallish or at least smaller than at present) list. Of course a list right now would be very helpful in coordinating improvements regardless of tagging, but it needn't be comprehensive (which seems to be part of what puts people off as well). Rd232 ^talk 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted an incomplete list a few days ago. No one responded (understandably so, as this discussion section gets many posts per day.) As I posted earlier, my biggest gripes with POV are: "RCTV is the most notably POV section in the article. Afiuni is a close second. Summary of the Freedom House report is completely misleading." More specifically, RCTV is presenting a single narrative. There are ample credible sources presenting a strikingly different account of what happened, but there has been a concerted effort to undermine every mention of the 'other side of the story.' Same thing with Afiuni. As for the Freedom House report, the description has been completely perverted -- no one can read the original report and say the summary presented reflects its findings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 19:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am fine with setting a time limit -- however, this is with the expectation that substantial improvements will be made between now and then. Otherwise, I'm going to strenuously object to removing the tag based strictly on the artificial time limit. (Although, to be clear, I am very much hoping we can iron out a fair article between now and then.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Human and media rights

I am starting to think that most of these sections are not suitable for this article. I am using the Obama article as a model, as it is rated a good article. Firstly, that article has no mention of human rights, which as we have discussed are a much deeper issue than one president or leader. He is not responsible for all decisions taken by his government, there are dozens of elected officials and millions of party members which Chavez, like most elected leaders has no true control over. The same with Obama, it is too narrow to blame him or to talk about human rights of a whole nation, many of which are deep rooted, long standing issues in the country.

Basically, most of the information not to do 'directly' with decisions taken by Chavez 'himself' should be moved to the appropriate section on Human Rights in Venezuela. At most, there should be a short summary of how human rights have developed under Chavez, one or two paragraphs. ValenShephard (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Using the Obama article as an example is invalid: reliable sources do not have the same thing to say about Obama as they do about Chavez, and see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As long as reliable sources DO attribute these issues to Chavez, and consider them a definining characteristic of his rule, they do belong in the article. I have already listed a multitude of sources that DO attribute these issues to Chavez-- I realize it's a lot to get through, but it would help reduce talk page clutter if you would actually read them. Also, could you please properly thread your responses? It is unclear above it you are responding to me or to Joelwhy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it not valid? ValenShephard (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"reliable sources do not have the same thing to say about Obama as they do about Chavez, and see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As long as reliable sources DO attribute these issues to Chavez, and consider them a definining characteristic of his rule, they do belong in the article." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because they attribute them to Chavez personally, because of their own bias and goals, doesn't mean it is true. Do you blame Obama personally after one of his soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan kills a civilian? After all, he is the commander in chief. Answer me that first. ValenShephard (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:V; your own opinions or biases about the sources aren't relevant here. Do you have a reliable source that holds Obama personally responsible? Have you read the multitude of sources I've already provided on Chavez? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, telling people read wiki rules isn't a way to defeat all arguments. You should instead answer my questions to you. I didn't say Obama was responsible, you missed my whole point. Obama is NOT responsible. The killing of civlians for example is part of a much deeper thing, he doesn't have full control over these things. His generals are in control in the majority of cases, and the actions of soldiers are from orders not given by Obama. I guess it comes from your preconcieved, unmovable idea that Chavez is a dictator so every policy of the government must be his fault. And I can't reason against that, because its simply a strongly held POV. ValenShephard (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Until you read and understand policy, we're going nowhere. And please avoid personalizing issues with unfounded statements of others' beliefs-- the talk page of an article is for discussing article improvements based on reliable sources, not your opinions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see in the Barack Obama article any mention of Human Rights Watch criticism, which is echoed by many neutral observers, that "The United States, with a contradictory history of promoting and disregarding international human rights abroad, has a similarly mixed record at home",[10] let alone a catalog of U. S. human rights abuses. Also missing is partisan criticism of Obama's policies. Is there any reason why this article should be different? Obama of course is personally reponsible for pursuing the wars in Iraq and Iran, the policies pursued by his generals, including targeted assassinations of civilians and arbitrary detentions, and of course the stimulus package and health care reform. TFD (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Repeating myself, we are here to discuss Chavez, not Obama. Have *you* read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And repeating myself, see my response to your faulty "we're not talking about Obama" argument, above. We are talking about Obama, as well as Chavez, for the reasons cited there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD is right. The article of a leader simply isnt the place to make a detailed analysis of human rights in their whole country. All that is needed, I repeat, is a paragraph or two summary of how human rights have progressed under Chavez. The rest can go into Human Rights in Venezuela. Very simple, very fair. ValenShephard (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

When reliable sources attribute those issues to the leader of the country, yes, this is the place to include that info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read the "Controversies, praise, and criticism" part of the FAQ at the top of Talk:Barack Obama, which explains, based on WP:BLP, how criticism and praise should be presented. TFD (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think that, since the primary focus in the mass media is on "human rights" in Venezuela, we should cover it here. This does not mean we have to include unverifiable and/or inaccurate information from corporate news organizations, if there are more reliable (academic, government, etc) sources that include verifiable and accurate information. But I do think we should cover it. SandyGeorgia is correct, in this. On the other hand, I also agree with TFD that we should heed carefully the guidelines in BLP, just like we would for Obama. And by the way, as far as Sandy's claim that we are "not talking about Obama" -- this is not true. We are talking about Obama, because some of us are here to improve the article, and are using other, more highly developed BLP articles of national presidents as guidelines for what we should do here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the notability of Chavez lies in being the main challenger to the neoliberal orthodoxy in Latin America, which has brought him into conflict with the U. S. and Latin American elites. Most of the stories about him would not reach the news were it not for this. But we really need good independent sources that describe him, and no one seems able to find any. TFD (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I too am aware that the reason that Chavez is so focused on by the corporate media is that he is a major threat to their economic interests. But that, of course, is not what the corporate press is going to say. They focus primarily on a carefully selected subset of available information, taken out of context, coupled with a dash of lies, in order to paint the picture of a "human rights catastrophe" (in one of the most democratic nations on the planet), while simultaneously talking about how human rights in Colombia (easily the worst human rights violator on the planet) are "improving". However, since they ignore or misrepresent most significant events that are taking place, and focus almost exclusively on trivial or artificial "human rights" issues, we do need to cover it here. But we need to cover it accurately, and when we have reliable academic sources contradicting the misinformation put out by the corporate press, we should use the accurate, more reliable sources instead. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising business. We don't need to repeat something that is demonstrably false, just because a popular advertising agency/newspaper said it (that should actually be a reason to not rely on that paper, if this happens repeatedly, such as in the case of El Universal or the New York Times, etc). And, we also need to focus on things that are important, such as economic issues, foreign policy, social programs, etc. As far as your statement about getting "independent sources", there is no such thing. However, we've got plenty of reliable sources, such as notable economists, news organizations, and government reports like the OAS report. None of them are "independent" -- everyone is aware that the World Bank and OAS is generally supporting of U.S. corporate interests (since they are run by them), and everyone is aware that Venezuelanalysis generally supports many of Chavez's social and economic policies. What is important is that they are both reliable, and contain accurate, verifiable facts. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Jrtayloriv --Schwindtd (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the Guardian, or the London Times, or even the Financial Times? I'm sure they gotta have something on Hugo. There might even be something on Google scholars. or what about PBS- they had a documentary on him two years ago that had some info. (see above - i posted the link to PBS on this talk page, its just transcripts from interviews, but it might have some useful info even if it is a little old).--Schwindtd (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OOh. or even the BBC, they're not generally biased and they have pretty good content. Maybe its worth looking into. With that kind of a source, it could make the article work. --Schwindtd (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, gee, did someone here offer the BBC profile of Chavez, along with many others, months ago as an example of how POV this article is? Does this article remotely resemble the BBC article?  :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

All you showed with your collection, is that you were able to amass a certain selection of sources, out of a much wider range than is available. You have decreed that your sources are satisfactory, and any that contradict those, or don't have the same focus, are false. This is not how Wikipedia works, as you are aware (since people have told you this already, when you tried to make this faulty argument on the reliable sources noticeboard for Venezuelanalysis). Not all reliable sources are as critical of Venezuela as the New York Times. This doesn't mean that we don't use them, just because you feel corporate news outlets are the most reliable. Let's stick with WP:RS and find high-quality sources that meet those guidelines, such as the OAS, the New York Times, and Venezuelanalysis (as long as what they are saying is not demonstrably false according to more reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jr, please read-- I amassed a sample only of info not included in the article, which demonstrated its POV, and never attempted to do more than that. But you know that, right? *I* don't feel what you call "corporate news sources" are the most reliable-- please read and understand Wiki sourcing policies, and refrain from unfounded missstatements such as those you made above, which don't advance article improvement. The issue is what MOST reliable sources say, over cherrypicking of sources favorable to Chavez like VenAnalysis, when most sources, including the NYT, BBC, Foreign Policy, Economist, LA Times, etc disagree. We accord due weight on Wiki. Please state policy correctly, as well as the views of other editors, to avoid personalizing discussions inaccurately. The BBC example is a good one-- our article looks NOTHING like their profile. Shall we do a word count of support vs. criticism of Chavez in our article and compare to ANY reliable source for a demonstration of the POV here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Human Rights section is a complete mess. It really should be a paragraph or three explaining the actions taken by Chavez that directly relate to human rights, including a general overview of reports related to his actions -- a broad summary, rather than a series of summaries of individual reports, incidents, etc. The problem is, I've seen what happens to the individual accounts. A prime example of this is the back-and-forth related to the Freedom House report. For the time being, forget about the claims of bias in the report, and just look at what's in the report vs. the summary that currently exists. The average reader would see this summary and conclude that it presents a generally favorable view of Chavez's record on human rights, with a few criticisms. The actual report, however, is quite critical of Chavez, but includes some praise. And, this is just one example of many.

If we were to convert this to a more generalized summary (which is what we should be doing), I have little doubt that it will end up equally biased, only on a grander scale. Every controversial issue in this article is an unmitigated mess. The Chavez page, in general, is not going to be up to Wikipedia standards until some serious, objective editors get in here and start repairing all the damage.JoelWhy (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are all news sources and their value is in current events. But imagine using contemporaneous news sources for writing the biographies of Stroessner, Allende, Peron, Ibanez, Somoza and the other notable leaders of the late 20th century, or articles by their supporters and detractors. No, we would use peer-reviewed articles and books published by the academic press to ensure that the articles were accurate and unbiased. But no one seems able to find any for this article, despite the fact Chavez has been a notable figure for a long time. TFD (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are books on Hugo Chavez. Someone even listed them in the section above. Besides, there is some merit to news sources such as the BBC. Like we debate using current event news sources. In fact, often times news sources will quote experts in the field or studies. If you sift through, you can find some real gems or even GOLD. VALUABLE GOLD. Even the CFR and CATO or BROOKINGS should have something on old Hugo. I mean if every little source has to be extensively peer-reviewed and has to be "academic" then we're gonna get nowhere, because that stuff will take a long time. It is hard to evaluate current leaders because you don't have the advantage of hindsight (you nailed that one The Four Deuces- i gotta admit) but there is SOME value, even if its just in a citation in an article, to current news sources. But I agree, that scholar stuff would be awesome. But i'd rather take a little bit of good stuff from less awesome places than a bunch of harpies yelling about POV all day and having an article that has so many content holes I thought Shia Lebouf was gonna appear on this page (let me know if you get the joke). --Schwindtd (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I looked through the literature before and found some high quality papers that were published about Chavez and I will prepare another list. The problem with some of the others listed is that they did represent points of view or were written by people close to the events. These sources are then used by academics to prepare the types of sources we require. The thinktanks are questionable, because some are biased while others (like the CFR) publish a wide range of views but they are not helpful in determining which views are most widely accepted. TFD (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

YOu have tried to argue before that very highly reliable media sources can't be used, because you disagree with them, and that didn't fly before and won't fly now-- nor were most of the sources you presented before necessarily high quality, nor have you ever explained the exclusion of sources like Foreign Policy magazine, New York Times, LA Times, Economist, etc. Lather, rinse, repeat-- these arguments are not policy based. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken and I challenge you to provide an example of a non-RS source I have provided. You on the other hand have only provided opinion pieces and have never provided anything published in the academic press. TFD (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, there is no way that the current quite large para on the Afiuni/Cedeno case (in the Human rights section) is due. And to explain it to everyone's satisfaction (with different sources each making their points) will at least double it in size. Can we have some perspective please? Covering in great detail every cause celebre alleged "political prisoner" or miscarriage of justice SNAFU is bad enough in Human rights in Venezuela, but there is no way in hell a neutral observer would consider it appropriate in the BLP of the country's president. Since nobody seems to be listening to me, I'll say it just one more time: proper use of WP:SUMMARY style requires much more summarising. To give a random example of perspective missing: the word China is currently mentioned only once (a trivial mention in one of the honorary doctorates). Yet under Chavez People's Republic of China – Venezuela relations have changed dramatically, making China Venezuela's second trade partner, and Venezuela China's lead investment destination in Latin America. Those who think the article is biased pro-Chavez might ponder whether adding every instance of alleged human rights violation is at all constructive in terms of developing a neutral biography which covers all the aspects of the subject in due detail, whilst remaining a readable and manageable length. Rd232 ^talk 21:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent changes to the Afiuni/Cedeno case are a joke, and just the latest example of how much of a disaster this page is. The back and forth of this type of editing is getting us nowhere. I'm going to say this once again. THIS PAGE WARRANTS A 'NEUTRALITY IS IN DISPUTE' BANNER. I don't care what type of "consensus" was or was not reached in the past. This page, as-is, is the poster child for not taking a neutral stance on a political figure.

We should absolutely continue to work on improving the page. But, until this page is drastically improved, keeping the 'neutrality' banner off this page is simply unacceptable.JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Afiuni paragraph provides a good argument for having a neutrality tag - a specific case shouldn't really be mentioned at all here. But I'd rather discuss and improve than tag, because that tends to lead to stagnation. "Here Be Unspecified Problems" tends to lead to a sort of status quo of publicly acknowledged unhappiness, which doesn't encourage improvements or discussion. Rd232 ^talk 23:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I've provide numerous examples of bias. It isn't one or two things -- it permeates throughout the article.JoelWhy (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do, then, is go through and find all of the places where you see something that is incorrect, or where you feel that something is missing. For each of those, go and find some reliable sources that contain the information you feel is missing and add the missing information and the sources into the article, while being sure to make sure that you aren't giving undue weight to things that aren't as important. If you feel something, which is backed by reliable sources, is incorrect -- then find a more reliable source (or better, several) which claim that it is incorrect, and then bring it up here (or just go ahead and remove it if it's egregious enough). What you should not do, is go to sensationalist journalism pieces and fill this article with a bunch of opinion statements (as opposed to factual statements), even if they are in reliable sources (although in some cases, the opinions of highly notable scholars, such as Mark Weisbrot, and of groups like the OAS, FAIR, and HRW are worthy of inclusion). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean, better sources than journalism stalwarts like Z Magazine or Venezuelanalysis? Again, this isn't about me going through and fixing this entire article. It's about a group of editors coming together to revise this train wreck -- and, until then, incorporating the 'neutrality' banner to let readers know that THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS MOST CERTAINLY IN DISPUTE!JoelWhy (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• I was not asking you to fix the entire article. I was saying that if you have a problem with something, coming here and bickering about it on the talk page isn't going to get it fixed. You have to either fix it, or wait for someone else to. If you think it's a train wreck, please be specific about how, and get to work fixing it (but please follow WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and other Wiki guidelines as you do so).
• Yes, both Z Magazine and Venezuelanalysis are reliable sources. This is especially true for Venezuelanalysis, which is required reading in many universities, where many articles are written by Venezuela scholars, and is generally very well supported with factual evidence (they don't generally make vague claims like the NY Times or El Universal, without supporting them). I also don't know of a single example of them writing something false (contrast this with the links I provided to Sandy showing several examples of falsifications in the NY Times, et al.) They are even more reliable when the author of the piece is a noted scholar. They are more reliable still when they provide factual evidence for their statements, when other sources don't. Take a look at the latest WP:RSN discussions on them, to see a more detailed rationale for reliability.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• VenAnalysis and Z mag are not reliable sources for a BLP when discussing another BLP and when they differ from the preponderance of neutral sources. Having said that, I agree with Rd232 that the Afiuni issue has been given undue weight here, and the text here should be more of a broad overview of all of the HR issues. I came along and found an inaccurate statement here (about UN, with removal of an accurate statement), and corrected that by adding sources, but I'm wondering why the whole thing was even here to begin with, and not just part of a general summary of the serious HR issues occurring in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Economic section

Hey, the economic section seems to paint an overly optimistic and rosy picture of the Venezuelan economy which has been one of the hardest hit developing countries in this recession. In fact I found no references to the inflation crisis and resulting consequences (high interest rates). Also, I understand that GDP may have grown a lot, but I think we ought to include the GDP per capita figures which more accurately define Venezuelan wealth. In addition some of the economic sources are kind of old. The Weisbrot article (very legitimate, I don't question that) is from February 09! I know that he mentions trends, e.t.c from previous years, but I think we need some more current resources. Let me know what you think. --Schwindtd (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Febuary 2009 is old? Thats very recent. I will try to find something about the inflation, but all I have read says that although it is high, it is within reasonable grounds and is not the only indicator on economic progress. ValenShephard (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, how is 30% inflation "within reasonable grounds". When the US had inflation at 14% in 1979 we were in the midst of stagflation. Have you heard of the misery index which is unemployment + inflation. Inflation makes interest rates go up and basically when you have run- away inflation like this it can seriously crunch up the economy. Inflation ruined Weimar Germany. Zimbabwe has outlandish inflation and is suffering. inflation matters a great deal and ought to be included more, especially because it can illustrate Chavez's role in the economy. --Schwindtd (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela inflation rates are an excellent example of the importance of context. Oil economies generally have high inflation rates, and I seem to recall average inflation under Chavez is about half what it was in the 80s?90s? Anyway it has always been very high by European/US standards. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was pretty stable around the 50-60% region in the 80s, 90s and before. Now it's pretty stable in the teens, with a few dips into the low 30% region. Much improved. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the Misery index (economics) is monetarist bullshit. No serious measurement of the impact on welfare of unemployment and inflation would rate them linearly 1:1. Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the economic section doesn't really mention (at least not explicitly) Chavez's role in economic policy. For example, Chavez has used price controls to curb inflation (they didn't work) and devalued the currency (also didn't help). I'm pretty sure how chavez affects monetary policy should be included. Not just a list of facts that don't really convey Chavez's depth of involvement. in fact, there is no mention of the Missiones (missions) that are basically little manufactures in the old "put-out system" style. These missions have been a huge part of Chavez's "21st century socialism" and yet they aren't given as much info as they should! Like one little section of Economy had a reference to something akin to the missiones, but Chavez is staking his " 21st century socialism" on this so it should be updated. Let me know what you think. --Schwindtd (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Schwindtd -- I agree that we definitely need to find some info on the recession and how the drop in oil prices affected things. I read somewhere that the drop in oil prices caused Venezuelan foreign debt to triple, or some such thing, in just a few years. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Missiones (missions) that are basically little manufactures in the old "put-out system" style. " - I think you're confusing that with the cooperatives, for which it's a harsh but not entirely unfair comparison. Rd232 ^talk 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am worried that if we start going into detail about economics we will have the same problem as the human rights stuff. Namely, how much of it is suitable for the article, how much is to do with Chavez himself, and how much would be better suited to Economic policy in Venezuela article? ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But the same solution applies: work on the subarticle(s) and use WP:SUMMARY style as appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That's basically my whole point. We should include stuff on how Chavez has moved policy and the resulting consequences on the economy. For example the missiones are Chavez's vision (ecnoomic vision) and so including them illustrates how Hugo is affecting the economy. In fact, we can talk about his POLICIES. The current section just lists a bunch of statistics without any causation. That's where we insert chavez's policies. --Schwindtd (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be remembered that a lot of the signature policies were pioneered at local level (eg Mission Barrio Adentro), and then rolled out nationally when they came to Chavez' attention and he thought they were good. Also there's quite an influence from ex-La Causa R people like Aristobulo Isturiz. Nationalization was often driven by workers' demands (eg SIDOR). Credit should be given to Chavez' decisions, but (generally) not for inventing the policies wholesale. Rd232 ^talk 20:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree. We should summarise the economic stats and indicators and include how Chavez's own political "vision" as you say has influenced this. ValenShephard (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, about the inflation, I read from Weisbrot (I'll try to find the source again) that while inflation is high it is as the cusp of what is acceptable. His source gave something between 20-30% (which yes is very high by european standards) but for an oil dependent economy it is quite acceptable, according to him.ValenShephard (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

About unemployment, Weisbrot clearly says that unemployment has halved, backed up by UN sources. And if inflation (although high) is lower than in the 80s, 90s like Jrtayloriv claims, then this would actually be quite good progress (for your 'misery index'), if we take into account your statement about combining unemployment stats with inflation stats.ValenShephard (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If you intend to quote what Weisbrot says on stats, that is a biased and inaccurate source, and you will need to also include both sides of the story-- that is, what others say about Weisbrot's story. Easier would be to stick with neutral sources than to have to debate within the article the problems with Weisbrot's interpretations of gov't stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

While I understand and admire yours and the other editors concerns with POV. I must state that there is no feasible way to obtain neutral sources for an article as controversial as this one. The stats of Weisbrot have been backed up by my research on both Google scholars and on various economic websites. The problem with weisbrot is not the stats necessarily but the conclusions he draws from them. There is a huge difference. Weisbrot's stats are pretty good; his analysis is most likely biased. Our duty is not to question the validity of every little stat, just because it comes from a source we disagree with. Our duty is research the stat first, then remove the stat from the analytical context. I would argue that what this article needs is not necessarily ONLY neutral sources of opinion, but a balancing of sources to demonstrate to the reader that Hugo chavez is neither good nor evil, neither savior nor devil, neither angel nor beast. That is the problem with editing on wikipedia. Every body wants a "neutral source, and they become so obsessed with NPOV they fail to realize that while sources may be biased, an explanation of bias and admission IN THE ARTICLE that viewpoints have strengths and weaknesses makes the article both neutral and more informative of the dramatic political climate Hugo Chavez has embraced. You will not find neutral sources on Hugo for years. You won't. You gotta suck it up, researc, establish credibility, and then include citations of bias and explanations of weakpoints and strengths. Otherwise you guys are gonna sit here for eternity reverting and edit warring over source bias when you can just explain the biases of viewpoints in the article and convey to the reader the vital knowledge that Hugo is controversial and that while these "biased" sources are "biased" they do have something to offer. It is up to us to establish the context of these studies and from there construct an article that admits that Chavez is not necessarily evil, but he is not necessarily good. --Schwindtd (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

High quality reliable sources (e.g., articles in academic journals) typically do express a point of view. However, the facts are checked and clearly distinguishable from the opinions expressed. Usually the author will refer to mainstream opinion on the topic even if they oppose it. Polemical writing otoh mixes facts and opinions and rarely acknowledges other points of view or refers to them in a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"there is no feasible way to obtain neutral sources for an article as controversial as this one." Once again, complete misunderstanding here of Wiki policy-- Wiki policies don't focus on "neutral" sources (other than mention of careful use of those with obvious bias, such as Weisbrot); we look for the highest quality reliable sources, and use them according to due weight, which would place a source like Weisbrot almost on the fringe. It's the due weight and high quality sources that makes our articles neutral, not the absence of POV from individual editors or sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You said "Easier would be to stick with neutral sources." Emphasis on the "neutral sources" part. Besides, weisbrot's stats are confirmable. We just don't need to include his analysis. Besides a lot of Weisbrot's stats aren't even relevant to Chavez's initiatives. For example, the reduction in poverty he cites might have to do with "21st century socialism" or it might have to do with the huge growth in the economy led by the private sector. I think we need to dig deeper (and I completely agree with that whole "due weight stuff"). Its just I am frustrated by everyone's god dang self-righteousness about NPOV. Sometimes you can find a nugget of gold in a dirty stream. YOu just have to wade in and sift through all the crap. That was the whole point of my little rant above. --Schwindtd (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sounsd fine to me. I'll leave you, the smarter editors, to edit it; you guys clearly know way more. I just wanted to foster a sense of urgency into this section. I hope no one was upset by my tone. --Schwindtd (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not protection?

I'm just an anonymous person without an account but have been greatly amused by the discussion on this talk page. I don't think y'all are at the point where it's completely toxic to write in here, but you're coming close to that point. And there does seem to be two strongly different perceptions about the neutrality of this article so a lot of time is being wasted at cross purposes as one person makes a change, another rewords it, the original guy tugs the statement back in a particular direction, and eventually someone reverts. I know this is how entries are made but I'm not seeing any progress being made to bridge the two points of view.

So, if I could offer an outsider's perspective, this article exhibits POV in a rather haphazard way alternating between clearly pro- and anti-Chavez writers, and reading this talk page reveals the strong opinions and almost no voices of truly neutral brokers. I did a count of the last 500 edits, which goes back to Feb 10 to see the contributions of neocons, chavistas, and the neutral Swiss (that's how I'm defining the sides in my head to keep the conversation straight, I don't think either labels are even remotely accurate so AGF here):

Neocons (170 edits): SandyGeorgia(144), JoelWhy(22), Lecen(4)

Chavistas (200 edits): ValenShephard(88), Jrtayloriv(86), Lucky to be me (13), Rd232(9) The Four Deuces (4)

Swiss (32): BCLH(24), JRSP(5), Well, girl, look at you! (3)

Indeterminant (98)

Now, suppose I were a Swiss who was born in Korea, studied South American politics, lived in Caracas for a dozen years and thought I had something to contribute. I would not contribute in these current circumstances. It would be pointless because any change I make would seem odious to somebody. There's a turf war going on and I wouldn't want to waste the energy on something likely to revert, nor would I want to expend the emotion defending what would probably be an objective fact in any other article.

I think protection might be beneficial. This will alleviate the responsibility from each participant that they are the only ones being responsible caretakers.

But if that's not desireable, try to see things from either side's point of view. Take, for example, how frustrating it must seem if you were SandyGeorgia. He has done a lot of work that he feels has been stripped out--that's time he won't get back and now he'll have to go do that work a second time. Instead of helping him to find better sources, it seems like his contributions are just altogether removed or disputed until he goes on vacation at which point a consensus is reached in his absence. He feels that he has to fight for every bit of information he provides. First, he's told that his sources come from biased source. Or this book has a forward by Ollie North. Or they come from a government hostile to Chavez. Or they're written in another language. Or it's not in Google Scholar. Again, I'm an outsider, but if SandyGeorgia has the facts, you should be helping him to find better sources, or a better way to state the facts, not finding any excuse to keep that fact from the wikipedia page. It seems more time is spent on why not to include something rather than on how best to include it.

But that's not to disparage the volume of work contributed from ValenShephard and Jrtayloriv, who are trying to improve the article without this group that seems driven to tear Chavez down at all costs. This is not an article which is only about condemning Chavez. Everyone should state their cases simply and clearly. Be specific. Be patient. Think of the other person as a friend. In the end, this article should be an accomplishment you share. If someone asks, "What do you see is the problem?", don't refer them to a 2000 word talk page where there's a few lines written 5 months ago where you indicated your problem with neutrality. Itemize things and provide links directly to issues you see as unresolved. AGF, most of all. You guys know this, and if an outsider can't appeal to your conscience to AGF, maybe there are other articles that could use your attention. You may surrender this article to neocon chavistas but you'll end up actually being productive and you'll spare your own sanity.

But really, you're almost at the point where protection is the only realistic way to write this page. 138.163.0.43 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is unfair to characterize editors as partisans. What is important is using high quality sources. I would like to see genuine criticism (both positive and negative) in the article, but it must be of a higher quality than the typical U. S. conservative editorial. U. S. conservatives however also write in academic journals, where they are required to be factual and make well-reasoned arguments and where their opinions can be challenged by other scholars. TFD (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he meant it as an insult (although, I am tremendously amused to be referred to as a "neo-con".) I think he is pointing out that there's a clear struggle regarding the content of this page. I'm frankly not interested in only having this article criticize Chavez -- but, I don't think there is any shortage of people interested in exclusively adding content that flatters Chavez. So, I've felt compelled to only add material criticizing him. Ultimately, that leads to a terrible Wiki page (which is what we currently have.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And if IP is going to characterize editors as partisan, it's hilarious to see JRSP mentioned as "Swiss", or me as a Neocon, or even me needing to provide better sources (as one editor who does provide sources). Or me called a he-- you got a lot right there, IP !!! (Not.) Anything to add that is policy based now, rather than incorrect personal characterizations, with no mention of who provides and uses reliable sources? The problem with this page is that the article owners throw around a lot of biased misinterpretation of policy, and each crop of new editors never bother to learn policy and are chased off or believe what is written here mistakenly, then the next batch of new editors appears and come to my talk page asking me to help, and then start shooting themselves in the foot by not learning policy or dispute resolution or finding and insisting on top quality sourcing in the article, while the old editors won't even read the sources and gang up on new editors to own and preserve the article POV. Lather, rinse, repeat. But yes, the article needs protection and adminning, with ArbCom the next stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with TFD. The problem has nothing to do with "partisanship" -- everyone is partisan. What is important is whether or not we have reliable sources, and making sure that these are of the highest possible quality. And it's important that we don't knowingly lie to people -- i.e. if a "reliable" source says something we know to be false ("know" from other more reliable sources), then we don't include it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy, what you are saying is that you have found "pro-Chavez" propaganda in the article and instead of challenging it you are "balancing" it with anti-Chavez propaganda. Please read WP:NPOV. We do not balance biased views with other biased views. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Instead we rely on reliable sources and present them as they are represented. If you find anything in the article to be biased then please remove it, but please do not add biased material. TFD (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, those labels are horrible, divisive, and I certainly reject the one attached to my username (I've never identified as Chavista, which implies an active involvement and somewhat uncritical support - I consider myself an interested critical observer). I sort of see what you're getting at, IP, but I think you're basically very wrong. It is actually surprisingly rare to come across someone who is demonstrably knowingly and deliberately partisan on Wikipedia. Almost all the time, the differences in expressed opinions and editing can be perfectly well accounted for by people pitching up with only slightly different views of what constitutes an NPOV version of an article. The difference between editor X and Y may actually be quite small, but over time you get a polarization effect as X moves the article a bit one way (honestly intending to move towards NPOV) but that makes it worse for Y, so Y moves it the other way (equally honestly towards NPOV), and gradually things get more and more polarised and heated, even though the original difference in views wasn't that big. The difference in opinion is often also magnified by the way the wiki process focusses on areas of disagreement (while various cognitive biases like confirmation bias don't help any in achieving consensus through discussion). It is of course easier to avoid such conflict on articles where the subject is relatively narrow, so plenty of space for everyone to have an adequate say, i.e. present all aspects of different views and issues. From this I've always drawn the conclusion that the focus should be on improving subarticles a paragraph or more at a time, rather than to-and-fro-ing about half a sentence in the broader article (WP:SUMMARY). Eventually when the subarticles are good enough, the main article will follow naturally. Rd232 ^talk 08:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that most of us have agreed that IP's input wasn't terribly helpful, would someone like to archive this section to shorten the talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Original IP here. So, why not protection? Archive it away, but you still have the same dysfunctional mix of positions that isn't producing a quality article.

I don't know any of you so I actually care little for individual motivations, it just made it easier to give everyone voices that I could track in my head: "Oh, here's the person who brought up BLP", "here's the person who focuses on X". From my position, I feel comfortable assuming that everyone has good intentions. Everyone, chavista and neocon alike. ;) But I came here because I wanted to find out something about Hugo Chavez and was wondering why the article suffers from so much <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_personality">DID</a>. If it will unify all of you together to say why I'm wrong, I can live with that; use that as common ground! But the dysfunction is obvious to any outsider. If you're not actively trying to bridge that, then maybe protection can provide a better article. As it stands now, this article on a long-standing, well known, important public figure needs a lot of work and I worry that this particular mix of otherwise well meaning contributors can't find a way to that end without the framework and adjudication that protection provides. Best of luck, I'll check back next year where I hope to be proved wrong.138.163.0.42 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch report

I've completely revised the description of the Human Rights Watch report. The previous description states:

"In 2008, Human Rights Watch issued a report reviewing human rights issues under Chavez's first ten years in office. The report noted that the 1999 constitution "significantly strengthened human rights" while at the same time criticising what it saw as Chavez's influence in the judiciary and political discrimination and the unmet potential for human rights improvement."

You don't have to look any further than the title of the report to realize how misleading this description is: "A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela". This report isn't a mixed-bag of praises and criticisms -- it's 200+ pages, almost all of it critical of the human rights abuses by his administration. (And, again, this report is specifically examining Chavez's human rights record, not Venezuela's record in general.)

For the record, I would still prefer to just have an overall summary of Chavez's human rights record. But, I don't think that is possible under the circumstances. So, at the very least, we can provide ACCURATE summaries of significant reports.JoelWhy (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed, "and the UN officials alleged that the arrest was politically motivated". It does not seem to appear either in the Reuters story cited[11] or in the UN story.[12] That of course may be the inference but we should not go beyond what the sources actually state. TFD (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is the inference, but I'm fine with your changes. (For the record, though, your changes were to a report by UN officials, not the Human Rights Watch report portion I revised today.)JoelWhy (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of you has it quite right-- it is not up to *us* to summarize the report-- we should be summarizing what secondary reliable sources have to say *about* the report (a primary source) and there are plenty of secondary sources which characterize the report. Summarizing it ourselves is original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Close but not quite. We can also say directly what the reports are saying, for certain types of information (statistics, etc.). We just can't interpret them ourselves (saying what we think the statistics mean). If an OAS report says that crime against reporters has increased by x%, then we can state that in the article -- we don't have to wait for the New York Times to choose to print that data. What we can't do is derive our own interpretation of that, and decide to do say "... and therefore Venezuela is one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists" -- unless a reliable secondary source states this as well, and even then, we should be very skeptical of it's accuracy, if there is no documentation of where this information came from (which is generally why scholarly work is preferable to unsourced corporate "journalism"). On the other hand, we also can't use things that are demonstrably false, just because a reliable source states them as truth -- we need to use common sense ... -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, the original source did not say "and the UN officials alleged that the arrest was politically motivated" and therefore it is unlikely that any real news organization would say this. It might be that Fox News or the Unification Church Washington Times may mistakenly say this, but we should not hope for mistakes so that we may improve articles to represent the views that people should hold. TFD (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It is curious that so many of you advocate your view of "truth" over "reliabiity" or "verifiability" (see WP:V), while simultaneously arguing that Weisbrot or gov't econ stats should be used, when multiple reliable sources have discussed the problems with Ven. gov't data, and Weisbrot is partisan. No, we can't blindly report primary source data, for the very reasons discussed by reliable sources about the problems with that data-- this is precisely why primary sources should be used with great care, Jrtayloriv. Also, unless you don't read all sources, you know that many sources argue the arrest was politically motivated, so a better improvement to the article-- instead of removing the statement-- would be to attribute it correctly (like this, an example of selective deletion of easily sourcable text). Of course, that takes work, and I'm not going to do it all, but I have left some samples of how to improve one sentence, that took me about ten edits (which should help inflate my edit count for IP's analysis of me as a "NeoCon").[13] Will editors here PLEASE begin to format citations? Bare URLs are taking over the article sourcing. And for TFD's pointy statement about FOX news, they generally run the same Reuters reports run by most news agencies (which often go dead); please use durable sources whenever possible, since most of what is written about Chavez is written in multiple easily accessible reliable sources-- most certainly not only orgs like FOX news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy -- As I've said above, you are advocating your view, and your selection of sources and claiming that anything you haven't selected or given your approval is invalid. I don't personally care whether you actually believe that the OAS is not biased, while the Venezuelan government is. I don't care if your sources claim that the IMF and World Bank are completely honest, and have no political motivation. If that's what the corporate news sources and U.S.-controlled international institutions you prefer as sources want to tell their readers, then great. However, there are other scholars that easily meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:Notability, who are claiming that the Venezuelan statistics, and those of notable NGOs are valid and that they are more representative of reality. And they claim furthermore (and demonstrate with evidence, unlike your sources) that the sources you are using have a long history of lying and misleading about this issue.(See for example: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], or [23]) The fact is, that you don't get to decide that certain notable and reliable scholars, newspapers, etc. are "biased", and that others aren't. Of course, you are free to declare that certain scholars are "biased" and that your newspaper articles are correct. But your declaration doesn't matter, as far as WP:RS is concerned.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jr, your misstatements are coming very close to the line on personal attacks-- please try to read and understand WP:DUE and WP:RS. We don't pick and choose sources according to our liking-- we follow policy. You don't get to disallow sources you disagree with; I do get to point out when reliable sources disclaim gov't statistics. Please stop personalizing issues here, as this article is very likely headed to ArbCom or at minimum independent adminning, unless a collaborative spirit based on policy takes hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy -- As you know, I've already read and understood WP:DUE and WP:RS. I also understand we don't get to pick and choose sources according to our liking. And you know I know this, because you just responded to me saying it to you. Show me an example of me "picking and choosing sources". All I want is for you to stop claiming that scholars such as Weisbrot (who is an expert on Venezuela, who is notable and clearly meets WP:RS), are somehow less valid that your mass media sources. I am not personalizing issues any more than you or the other editors are. Me pointing out something that you've done that violates Wikipedia policy (namely, declaring that certain experts such as Weisbrot or Golinger are "biased" and therefore unusable) is not "personalizing the issue". What it is, is me trying to stop you from impeding people from adding information that does not fit your point of view. I am aware that you give greater weight to the New York Times,the Economist, and the IMF, than you do to Latin American scholars and non-profit organizations. That's fine. You are welcome to read and believe whatever you want in your own free time. But what you like or consider biased has no bearing on what qualifies as a WP:RS -- the guidelines there are pretty clear. You don't get to declare which sources that meet WP:RS can't be used.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting repetitious here, but once again, it is not I who have characterized Weisbrot or Golinger, but reliable sources. That is how Wiki works, which you don't seem to understand, and please stop attributing statements or sourcing to me which didn't come from me and which I haven't said. Yes, you are personalizing-- please try to focus on what *sources* say about opinions like Weisbrot's or Golinger's. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it is just you who has characterized them, so far. And regardless, their bias is irrelevant, even if reliable sources claim they are biased. Noam Chomsky claims that the New York Times and Economist are biased in favor of corporate and U.S. interests. That doesn't mean that we get to say that nobody can use them. Even assuming you did present some reliable source claiming that Weisbrot or Golinger were biased, that would be irrelevant. They are still notable scholars, who easily meet the requirements of WP:RS. You don't get to declare that some reliable sources can't be used because they have been called biased by a reliable source, while other reliable sources can be used in spite of them being declared biased by a reliable source. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do read WP:BLP 'policy and the requirement for the highest quality sources in BLPs-- no, we don't get to use marginal sources in BLPs just because they agree with your opinions, particularly when higher quality sources disclaim or disagree with them, or they present a fringe view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read it. That's why myself and TFD have mentioned it to you several times now, trying to explain to you why if the NY Times makes a claim without factual support, and then a noted Latin American scholar (whatever your opinion of them) makes a claim (with supporting evidence) that contradicts it, that by WP:BLP, we should go with the scholar who has factual evidence backing their claims. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing

This is the sort of editing that needs to stop, or this article needs to go to ArbCom. Are you serious? Take your pick of the multitude of sources that mention press freedom issues in Venezuela; multiple older sources are included here, and there are numerous new sources very easily accessible and very well known. Selective deletion of tags based on well known and easily sourced issues is tendentious. Please restore the lopsided tag, as it is clearly biased to imply that there are not press freedom issues in Venezuela, which ALL reliable sources report. Keeping up with the tendentious editing here is a chore, so rather than try to improve the article, perhaps just documenting when it occurs will be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• "This is the sort of editing that needs to stop, or this article needs to go to ArbCom" -- Nothing was tenditious about it. I removed an invalid tag, because you gave no solid reason for including it. And I did as you suggested, and added the dates.
• "it is clearly biased to imply that there are not press freedom issues in Venezuela, which ALL reliable sources report." -- Interesting that you can claim that all reliable sources report that, when the reliable sources that are backing the claims there don't report that. How does that work?
• "Take your pick of the multitude of sources" -- Sandy, please read both my comment to you in the above section, and your restatement of it (and my response to your restatement of my statement...). You just said we don't get to cherrypick sources, and ignore other ones. So stop suggesting we do it when it is convenient for you.
• " Please restore the lopsided tag" -- Please find a reliable source that claims that the statistics there are not true, and shows statistics about media ownership in Venezuela that contradict these. Note that somebody just saying "Chavez controls all the media" does not hold as much weight as a scholar providing factual evidence of the actual state of affairs. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The reasoning was quite solid, logic and sources were provided, but once again, trying to neutralize this article doesn't appear to be possible, because even valid tags are removed without discussion-- keeping a record of the times that occurs may be more effective here in the meantime, for future dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Documenting further removal of legitimate tags without balancing the text per preponderance of reliable sources, and use of marginal or partisan sources in one BLP, discussing yet another living person, contravening BLP policy.[24][25] User:SandyGeorgia 01:48, August 7, 2010

Comment: there is an increasing amount of (a) unnecessary rancour and borderline personal attack and (b) vague generalisations about what other people think, particularly about sourcing. How about giving both of those a miss, and focus on specifics: pick an issue with the article you want fixed (perhaps the most egregious, or the easiest to fix, or one where inline tagging is an issue), and either fix it or propose a fix (maybe with draft text here). Expect a constructive response, and you might even get one. Rd232 ^talk 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "increasing" rancor, just more of the same that has always occured here (a failure to focus on due weight according to highly reliable sources as required for a BLP), and although a kidney stone ranks in the two most painful events in my life, I'm sure you know that when I get back in the saddle and have enough time, the POV will be documented (again, even though that's not necessary, because it's already been done a gazillion times, and the tags shouldn't be removed until the issues are corrected) and the tags will be restored if the issues aren't addressed before then, and the partisan editing doesn't cease. In the meantime, I've only time and fortitude to document the tendentious editing, and would much rather see it stop before I'm well again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Increasing or not, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. And constantly complaining about POV and tendentiousness contributes to the continuation of the current level of rancour. You've been here long enough: do you want to try a bit harder to show others how to both be constructive and AGFy and encourage it in others? Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, it hasn't been possible, since the tag for every issue I have correctly identified has been summarily removed before it can be fixed. Second, I don't have time or fortitude yet, due to two weeks of travel followed by a very painful condition, but I'm sure you know that I *will* get to it-- but would still like to see the partisanship stop first, as that will make everything easier on everyone. So far, I only have time to document how every issue is summarily dismissed and tags are removed while issues are not addressed. Agree with you on China and other issues, and overfocus on individual issues, which are a massive waste of time-- something I sure don't have right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Specific things that need to be fixed

I'm kicking off a list of specific things that need to be fixed with the article. Ideally, changes will be (where necessary) backed up by sources already present in the relevant daughter article, but failing that, then by new ones. For editors wishing to continue generalised griping and ad hoc moaning at each other, there are plenty of other sections on this page to do so. Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction-- no, not "already present in the daughter article"-- this article has to be sourced. We don't rely on sources in daughter articles for claims made here, unless the summary is extremely broad-- each article needs to be independently sourced, especially in this case because this article would rely on unbalanced or incomplete daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is, where sources are necessary (may not be eg for discussion of existing material on policy grounds), it would be better if they are sources already in use. And obviously for actual edits the sources should be copied (with appropriate attribution). Rd232 ^talk 02:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, agree-- many sources are already available in daughter articles, and I hoped by bringing a few of them forward, correctly formatted, some of the newer editors would follow suit. But Afiuni is taking on too much space here-- you are correct-- that case is just part of a broader problem that should be summarized here, but I disagree that it should be entirely removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Afiuni/Cedeno paragraph: inclusion of this clearly violates WP:UNDUE, and it should be removed entirely. The failings of the Venezuelan justice system are many and long-term (cf Human rights in Venezuela), and this case is amply documented elsewhere on Wikipedia. It is not important enough to warrant specific mention in the human rights section, which should summarise those issues. Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Foreign policy section should mention People's Republic of China – Venezuela relations. (In fact, the entire foreign policy section is at time of writing just 8 words longer than the Afiuni/Cedeno paragraph. Huh.)
3. The Revocation of RCTV licence section is too long. It is 433 words at present, against Foreign policy's 196. It merits a mention in the media section, but it ought to be much shorter - ideally just a sentence or three. The detail is (should be) all elsewhere and linked so it's a click away for those who want it. Rd232 ^talk 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree that better and more aggressive use of summary style should be used, but unfortunately, most of the daughter articles are incomplete or POV, and both RCTV and Afiuni are significant enough to warrant some mention in this article, which if properly summarized, shouldn't take more than a couple or three sentences each. For example, we might start by listing *all* of the notable human rights cases listed in a multitude of reliable secondary sources examples of political persecution in one general sentence, rather than overfocusing on Afiuni. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In no particular order, here are just some of the major problems with this article: RCTV is the most notably POV section in the article. Afiuni is a close second. Summary of the Freedom House report is completely misleading. Media and the Press section is listed under Human Rights -- that's because it used to be a section about HR violations related to freedom of the press, but now is much more general. It either has to be moved or we have to make it exclusively about human rights related issues. There is no mention of Chavez's icy relationship with Colombia (not taking sides here, just pointing out it's been significant under his regime.) Under the Presidency section, the strike is described as having been "organized by management at the national oil company". I suspect that's misleading, and I can find nothing in the article cited to support this assertion. (And, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find additional examples of cited works not supporting what's in the article.) This is not even close to a complete list, but it's all I have time for at the moment.JoelWhy (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's but one example (there are quite a few) of the over-reliance on partisan quotes to prop up the article POV with content at a level of detail that doesn't even belong in this article, and should be moved to a daughter article, if used at all. Why does one person's opinion get a full paragraph in this article, to the exclusion of the preponderance of reliable sources discussing the seriousness of the press freedom issues in Venezuela?

Economist Mark Weisbrot said: "In Washington DC, if I try to broadcast on an FM radio frequency without a legal broadcast licence, I will be shut down. When this happens in Venezuela, it is reported as censorship. No one here will bother to look at the legalities or the details, least of all the pundits and editorial writers, or even many of the reporters."

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid partisan non-academic sources. While Weisbrot is an academic, we should only use articles that he has published in peer-reviewed journals, not opinion pieces. TFD (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Curiously, another editor just deleted that he writes opinion pieces for newspapers from his (Weisbrot's) article, showing the level of misunderstanding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Another editor" here -- He doesn't just write opinion pieces, he also writes well-researched analyses of the economic and political situation in Venezuela. If it were changed to "socio-economic analyses and commentary", I would be fine (because then it would be accurate, rather than a misleading half-truth). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The context previously mentioned in *that* article correctly referred to opinion pieces that he does write for newspapers, but I won't try to re-add it, since it will just be reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And I totally agree -- the quote should go from this article. It should be included in the RCTV article, but definitely not here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll let someone else do the honors of removing it, since neither does it belong in the RCTV article and I doubt it can be justified anywhere, and I don't approve of the edit warring style of editing that predominates this article. It doesn't belong on Wiki-- it's partisan opinion, and one on which a multitude of reliable sources disagree with Weisbrot. Perhaps it could find a place in his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly remove it, but it absolutely does belong in the RCTV article. You would be hard pressed to find as notable and reliable of a source as Weisbrot. Find me a journalist for the NY Times that has as many peer-reviewed articles, testimonies before the Senate, and publications in reliable sources as Weisbrot does. I think that his opinion as one of the foremost academic experts on Venezuela is surely notable enough to warrant inclusion in the RCTV article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I highlighted in edit summary a couple more quotes that don't belong here-- I believe there are quite a few. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the random communal council character needs to go -- I was actually trying to post that, and ran into an edit conflict with you. Kill it with fire. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should start considering creating an article Communal councils (Venezuela) though, if something like this doesn't already exist. I've already seen these mentioned quite a bit in the academic literature, and in several books, so they are definitely notable enough for their own article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I second User:Jrtayloriv on the Communal Council stuff. But I also want to add something to the Things that need to be fixed category. Since User:Jrtayloriv pointed out to me yesterday WP:CITE I have noticed other references that are not in line with such formatting. I am going to work on systematically fixing those citations. If anyone wants to join me just respond and let me know which ones you are fixing. Thanks. --Schwindtd (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could hold off Schwindtd, until you understand the guideline better-- you are formatting the citations, but doing so inconsistently. Citation style should be consistent-- even better for it to be consistent across all Venezuela articles for transportability, and we should use consistent international date formatting per MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The inconsistency must be because I am using MLA style which discriminates between different kinds of sources (i.e. books v. online newspaper). I will, of course, hold off as you request. Though I think you will find that the fixed citations are better than what was there before (it was just links). Now the refs have author, title, and publication history. But of course I defer to you and will stop, revisit WP:CITE, and make sure I am in line with the styles already used. Thanks. --Schwindtd (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW could you tell me what style the first reference is in because I can make them all like the first ref (thereby creating uniformity)? because I have not seen that citation format before (i only use MLA). In addition, there are a lot of different citation formats already on the page. Which format do you think would be easiest to use? --Schwindtd (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There is such a mess on this page (and across all Ven articles), that I'm not sure which we should be using. There is a huge number of problems with citation formatting across all Ven articles, and it would be nice if we used one, consistent style for transportability. For starters, Venezuela uses international style dates, so they should all be formatted as day month year. Also, it's preferable to put the {{es icon}} before the citation IMO, since that gives a better indication on quick glance on the non-English sourcing. Beyond that, I've never figured out how we should best sort this mess, other than just using the citation templates, which are standardized and widely used. I don't think the original citation style used here applies any longer, since the article was written so long ago, before cite.php was widely used on Wiki. I'm not a fan of the cite templates per se, but because so many new and different editors work on this article, I am in favor of using them here, since that will help maintain consistency across all Ven. articles, and are easier for new editors to follow without changing the style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should just use the citation templates. i think that will make it easier.--Schwindtd (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate citation templates with a fiery passion. I've never found them making anything easier - quite the contrary, you sometimes end up having to look up how the template works instead of just being able to put in the information you have, following the existing style using the most basic wiki markup for styling. It makes editing harder (especially for newbies, that's unnecessarily offputting), since you in edit mode you get the internal structure of the template reference clogging things up and generally being less readable. Consistency of citation is in any case over-rated - what matters is whether the info is there, and I've never seen a convincing argument that should be a positive causal relationship between use of them in an article and better provision of info (rather, it should be negative, because of putting people off improving bad cites). (There is of course a correlation because those bothering to use templates are far more likely to cite properly.) No thank you. Rd232 ^talk 19:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspected you would say this (I'm not a fan of the templates myself for many of the same reasons, and others), but in this case (Venezuela), I do think that if we will adapt one style across all Ven articles, citation will improve. I've not known how to resolve this dilemma, but in the meantime, citation suffers in Ven articles. Should we take this to WT:VEN to hash it out (I don't really have time), and what should we do in the meantime? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a unified standard would be ok, but if you really hate templates and think they will discourage new editors then perhaps we should just agree on a universal style of citation such as MLA, APA, e.t.c. Personally, I recommend using only MLA style. Citing will be really easy because you can go to Son of Citation machine and plug in the info and then copy and paste the citation. It makes it go by real fast and provides a universal standard. Let me know if this fulfills User: Rd232's desires and User: SandyGeorgia's concerns. I encourage every editor on this page to weigh in (I know it is kind of trivial, but it might be something we can all agree upon, you know building common ground!) Thanks. --Schwindtd (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If we're all going to weigh in, the discussion really belongs at WT:VEN. Also, where is this Son of Citation machine you mention? I personally hate the templates, but on the articles I'm the main contributor to, I'm usually working alone and don't have to worry about coordinating with other editors. For the Ven articles, I do see the value in using the most common citation method on Wiki. But let's discuss elsewhere, since this isn't a Chavez issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already put a new section up on WT:VEN. Check it out and comment, debate, go wild ... about citations, of course. --Schwindtd (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please explain the distinction between Communal councils and Bolivarian Circles, and address whether that content can be merged to one article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bolivarian Circles were essentially a Chavista political instrument which basically died out. Venezuelan Communal Councils are still going, and many have been set up in middle class areas by decidedly non-Chavistas. Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

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.[26] 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].[27] 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.[28] 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)

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)

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)

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 [29]. 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)

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, [30] and plural page ranges should use pp. and an WP:ENDASH. [31] 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.[32] 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)

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 [33])-- 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,[34] 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)

ANI

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hugo_Ch.C3.A1vez_again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 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: [35]) --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.[36] In dictatorships, the state media generally do not question censorship by the government. TFD (talk) 06:31, 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)

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)

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)