Talk:Hugo Chávez

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16
Archive 17	Archive 18

Chavez and September 11th Claims

The section on foreign policy has several sentences regarding Chavez and statements he made regarding September 11th. This section has several problems. The link for the citation 140 does not work. I was able to find on other sites the article cited, but it does not say anything about a 2006 letter to congress from Chavez. The article itself includes the first quotation used, but attributes it to the Venezuela National Assembly, not Hugo Chavez. Also, the wording that Chavez has expressed suspicions about the attacks is misleading. It is entirely different to say that theories about September 11th are "not absurd" and should be investigated, and to say that he has suspicions that the attacks were planned by the US administration. Also the use of "several times" is not backed up by the one article citing one time Chavez said this. Reading this section leaves a person believing Hugo Chavez definitively believes the September 11th attacks were committed by the US, but without any citations that would prove this claim, it seems this part of the article should be removed or completely reworked. RMLibrarian 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Vehement criticism and adulation

I think the lead is presenting the controversy on Chávez as a dichotomy. Perhaps something like "ranging from vehement criticism to adulation" would stress these are not the only opinions but extremes in a continuum. JRSP 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno I personally find that the extremism on both sides is just passionate rethoric, not really needed to be present in an encyclopedia. Flanker 04:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the introduction is intentionally dichotomous in order to give the reader an idea of the intense controversy Chavez has created. I'm sure that most readers understand that the introduction describes the extremes and not the whole spectrum. -- WGee 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

My personal view is that this reflects more the situation in 2002 not the present situation. I agree extremism sells but I think the article should stress there are moderate opinions too (the majority IMO). JRSP 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

I see that venanalysis was removed on numerous places, Leaving only 4 refs: 2 critical, and another archiving a Panorama article, but the same standard should apply to the economist. Flanker 04:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm specially concerned about US DoS sourcing a controversial statement in the 2002 coup subsection JRSP 10:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The US gov:Economist::Venezuelan govt:Venezuelzanalysis IMHO. Flanker 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree. How do others feel? (Edit: I disagree with SuperFlanker, not JRSP.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? the ecnomist is quite biased, but still indipendant of any government, hopefully you can agree. Flanker 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends... controversial or unbelievable statements need better sources, or even better, multiple reliable independent sources. JRSP 01:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reference being discussed? I thought this was a general statement. Of course in the abstract I rather agree that controversial or unusual statements need excellent sourcing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you please be more specific, Flanker? What particular part(s) do you object? JRSP 02:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mostly NPOV, if a source is discarded to a minimum (2 of them being critical to a degree) then an equally biased source should follow the same path. The Economist is referenced 10+ times, all negative. Flanker 02:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the references in this article for a while. Is your claim (1) that the Economist in general is biased, or that (2) references are being cherry-picked? (1) is hard for me to swallow in the case of the Economist: though I'm no subscriber, I've found its coverage fairly good. (2) seems more likely, though I can't comment without specific knowledge. I will note that your editing patterns, SuperFlanker, do show a strong bias toward Chavez, so even assuming your good faith (and I do) it may be possible that you read as bias fairly accepted statements. Similarly, I believe I have been accused of anti-Chavez POV in the past (actually I've been accused of both pro- and anti- Chavez POV), so if you feel I should recuse myself I won't feel bad. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have the same account on Venanalysis, at least it is used in criticism unlike the economist. So why was one removed to a minimum (2 of them being critical) whereas the economist is given full exposure? For the record I am in favor of BOTH, they are both quality sources that do paint a decently accurate picture (facts and data is generally correct) just slanted to their side (the economist concentrates on reporting the negative, wheras Venanalysis concentrates on the positive). However WP:NPOV states that neutrality is policy. As for characterizations I really don't care what editors think of other editors, I just want the best article possible.Flanker 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

All sources are biased to some degree. The Economist has long been a prominent exporter of the neo-liberal economic reforms implemented in Latin America and elsewhere over the past two decades. The very same policies that created the groundswell of anti-capitalist/anti-Washington consensus sentiment that swept Chavez and other left wingers throughout the region into power. This happened when the Economist's touted policies were perceived to have dramatically failed (see Argentine economic crisis (1999-2002) etc). The Economist is traditionally a free market, anti-statist and anti-socialist organ, owned by members of the business elite, and various British aristocratic figures, who naturally support the philosophy of private enterprise over public ownership. One isn't likely to read the dissenting opinions of Bolivian coca growers in the Economist any time soon, nor the theories of those majority voters who have come out in support of so many leftist leaders across the Americas. Chavez very much represents the antithesis of the Economists's editorials and governing philosophy and thus he is a likely target for criticism.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 04:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There are also too many weasel words: "industry analysts", "social scientists", "critics". "So-called" is a word to avoid.

--JRSP 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist editorial stance Though nowhere close to authoritive it is at least midly comical that their opposition stance was one of the first noted in this article's history. Flanker 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This article doesn't cite Economist editorials; it cited Economist articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Venanalysis articles are also news articles and the opinion section was not touched as a ref. it is all about equivalence and therefore neutrality, a gov newspaper is the same as a D of state website, and the Economist (independent but editorially agreessive) is the same as Venanalysis (independant but editorially in favor). Again I stress that I am for the economist, just that it should be handled in a NPOV manner. Flanker 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Some confusion in evidence here about WP:ATT. Venezuelanalysis is clearly an unreliable source of the highest possible bias, essentially an instrument of the Chavez administration and not subject to any sort of peer review or editorial oversight or fact checking as required of reliable sources, while the Economist most clearly meets every demand placed by Wiki on reliability of sources per WP:ATT. Venezuealanalysis should have been removed long ago, in particular, because some articles linked from it also violate copyright, and Wiki articles should never link to copyright violations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) PS: the last time Flanker raised this notion, a member of the WP:ARBCOM gave a very clear and direct response, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Venanalysis is an independant source and in no way financially linked to the government, if I wanted to find a govt owned news site I could have linked to Abn for example. They state they do review their articles and they are cited by major newspapers like the Guardian as a Ven newspaper, lastly I have not seen any real errors or scandals about their reporting. Flanker 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The Economist

Below are the sentences that cite The Economist as a source:

1. Industry analysts say Venezuela wants lower quotas because, under Chávez's administration, the output of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA), Venezuela's state-owned oil company, has been reduced by 25% and Venezuela cannot meet its current quota.

2. During Chávez's presidency from 1999 to 2004, per-capita GDP dropped 1–2%

3. GDP growth rates were 18% in 2004.

4. Some social scientists and economists claim that the government's reported poverty figures have not fallen in proportion to the country's vast oil revenues in the last two years

5. They [critics] also cite a failing infrastructure and public hospitals.

6. Chávez has refocused Venezuelan foreign policy on Latin American economic and social integration by enacting bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements, including his so-called "oil diplomacy".

7. With respect to domestic policies, critics report that both corruption and crime are rampant

JRSP 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a major bias here (Sandy? Zleitzen?), but there are some things that could use cleanup.

Number 1 strikes me as a suitable thing for the Economist to write on, and not a particularly revelatory piece (everyone's having trouble making targets except S.A. these days). #2 and #3 are dry facts, with other groups reporting similar figures. #4 is also factual, though with a bit of normative analysis; #6 is similar in that respect. (4 is slanted slightly negative and 6 slightly positive.)

Numbers 5 and 7, by contrast, are worded poorly. A basic sweep of wording would replace "critics" with a particular group, but I'd prefer to go a step further and get hard numbers for #7 and something—I'm not sure what—for #5. Transparency International may be a good source for 7, along with some sort of crime stats. Any thoughts on bettering #5?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

US DoS

I think these statements need a better source:

• Domestic and international observers criticised the Government for excessive abuse of its right to call national broadcasts requiring all broadcast media to cease scheduled programming and transmit the broadcasts in their entirety. Between April 9 and 11, the government required, according to the US Department of State, all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting the signals of the stations who refused.

--JRSP 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that really does require different sourcing. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Source it to something else if you want, not because it requires different sourcing, since it is entirely accurate, well-sourced, albeit could be sourced to a multitude of other references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular source you'd prefer, Sandy? I don't like to use obviously biased* sources (VenAnalysis, the US DoS) when possible, even when they only state well-known things. If they're well-known it shouldn't be hard to replace them, right?

For what it's worth I agree with you that it appears accurate; still, where replacements exist, let's use them.

* When I say "obviously biased", I mean as regards this article. There are many articles for which I would consider the State Dept. a reliable source, but in this case there's a conflict of interest I'd rather avoid.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A career "evil" military officer?

Is this a joke? He's an "evil" military officer? That's retarded. I'm removing it. Andy 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain America (talk • contribs) 07:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Recent questionalble add

In 1972, he came to the USA to formally endorse George McGovern for President. [1]

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Condensed?

I'm sorry, because I'm posting this after only skimming the article, but is there absolutely no way to condense this huge article down? Surely some of the information is... superfluous? Can't it be summarized? It's just a little overwhelming on first look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.151.167 (talk • contribs) 00:02, March 22, 2007 (UTC)

Sadly it is too controversial to condense. Flanker 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is too long, it has long been too long, and it should use summary style more effectively, to come into prose guidelines at WP:LENGTH. The reason it doesn't is that some editors seem quite happy with the volumes of pro-Chavez POV it has long reflected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There have been a few editors on both sides of the argument, who agree that the manual of style for length should not be enforced. Flanker 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

vandelizm

I got rid of some vandleizm....(speeling bad) 71.217.80.153 00:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Thug?

Isn't this guy considered a political thug? That's the impression I always got - I mean, his country DID try to coup the guy, why don't you guys write a more balanced article?Labaneh 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez and Corporate America

Can you guess which country is Venezuela greatest commercial partner since 2003? When people will learn to differentiate demagogues from true politicians?