Talk:Hugo Chávez

Sexual Orientation

It does seem odd to include the fact that he's a heterosexual. It's like indicating he has 5 fingers on each hand -- if he only had 3 fingers, you would include it, but it's assumed he has 5. (For the record, I'm not implying that homosexuality is a deformity, only that the overwhelming majority of people are heterosexual, and therefore it's generally assumed unless otherwise indicated.) Is there really a Wiki policy saying this info should be included?JoelWhy (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is such a policy, but I can't for the life of me find it at the moment (it states something like "avoid heteronormativity"). In general, I support the inclusion of the statement that he is heterosexual. Otherwise it could also be implied that he is bisexual but favours relationships with women (and has married two of them). About 80% of the world's population might be predominantly heterosexual, but that still leaves about 20% who are bisexual or predominantly homosexual. 20% is a hell of a lot when you look at the millions upon millions of humans in this world. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC))

And when we talk about Chavez, his sexual orientation is noteworthy because... ? Cambalachero (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you came up with that 20% figure, but it's way off. "The 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual." The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force estimates three to eight percent of both sexes." http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

As I said above, we may as well include that he has two nipples, lest anyone infer that he has a third nipple hidden away somewhere. But, if there's a Wiki policy saying otherwise, then it should stay (but, I sure would like to be pointed to that policy, because I've certainly never seen it.)JoelWhy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

There is no such a policy. I searched for "heterosexual" in wikipedia namespace, and only found articles for deletion or similar stuff. And, in any case, it's redundant: it was said next to the paragraph detailing that he was married. On the level of general ideas, we may consider that a man (Chavez or anyone else) may be married and still be homosexual for some reason, but on the level of the real world, if someone has an heterosexual marriage then he's heterosexual, period, and it's up to the conspiracy theorist to try to prove otherwise. Cambalachero (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Such a policy exists. I saw it with my own eyes. True I can no longer find it, and suspect it may have been deleted in the last month or so, but it did exist, and as I previously remarked, referred to something along the lines of "avoid heteronormativity". There are editors on Wikipedia who have, in the past, been very hostile to those who argued that we must avoid heteronormativity on Wikipedia, and I suspect that one of them might have deleted it. And Cambalachero, with all due respect to yourself, your argument just doesn't work. I could compile a long list of homosexual men who were married to women... for a start Oscar Wilde ? How about Paul O'Grady ? I could go on. Now I'm not arguing that Chavez is homosexual (as there is every indication that he is hetero), but still, being married to a woman is by no means an indication of heterosexuality.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC))

Let's put it this way: I do not believe there is such a policy, now could I find it, so I challenge it's existence. Unless you can point "the policy is here", I will not follow a non-existent policy I have never seen or find. Until then, I wll consider Chavez's sexual orientation an issue of his own privacy, which has no significance for his public life, so saying this is both a privacy breach and redundant information. As for your list, size alone means nothing: consider both the size of the list of homosexual men married to women, and the list of heterosexual men married to women, and consider if there's really a reasonable doubt to justify an explicit clarification. Cambalachero (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.JoelWhy (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I came to this page after reading the inexplicable non sequitur that Chavez has had three significant heterosexual relationships in his life. After reading through these paragraphs, it's obvious that Midnightblueowl has a large gay chip on his shoulder. If he cannot separate his duty of neutrality from his personal desire to re-make the world in his own image, he shouldn't be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.165.68.225 (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole issue is redundant as no-one has put forth any reliable source that Chavez is indeed a heterosexual. His marriages to women don't count, they could be lavender marriages as well (not that I find it likely). All that we know for sure is that Chavez has had several marriages to women, anything else is just guessing. JJohannes (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FARC

Should there be a section on Chavez's relationship with the FARC in general?

80.229.165.4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC).

Chavez's (alleged) support for FARC is probably worth a mention (as are many, many things that are not yet encompassed in this article), but it is certainly not of sufficient note to warrant a whole section. After all, it is simply not an integral part of his presidency or his life, but an allegation made to discredit him in the opposition press (with, as far as I am aware, no evidence to support it). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC))

"No evidence to support it"? Don't you read the news (Here and here)? I also recommend taking a look at this. --Lecen (talk) 12:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The source for the FARC connection is a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The IISS also reported that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear weapons program. Note that sources about FARC do not make this claim. See for example FARC's entry in the 2007 Encyclopedia of terrorism (p. 271).[1] TFD (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

See also FARC files. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wonderful to see how desperate you are to invalidate any source that says anything against Chávez. --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many partisan sources making accusations, but we must wait until reliable sources report the accusations as facts before we represent them as factual. You might want to revisit how these types of sources described Saddam hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and links to al Qaeda. I do not find these stories repeated in mainstream writing about either Chavez or FARC. TFD (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that the the IISS is partisan, and the Sun Sentinel is a mainstream news source. But, as always -- stories critical of Chavez = automatic bias. JoelWhy (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

While the Sun-Sentinel is a reliable news source, the link provided was to a column. The fact that you agree with the opinions in the column does not elevate it to rs. If you want the article to say that Chavez supports FARC, find a news or academic journal article that says so. TFD (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Cancer

Chavez has cancer to the prostate, we should include that info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.118.114.29 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic

This is a decidely partisan article. Almost every possible subject of dispute is completely loaded towards Chavez. I'm usually impressed with Wikipedia, but feel let down on articles relating to Venezuela and recent history. Many good people, including many of Chavez's former intimates, no longer support him due to his autocratic ways. But to read wikipedia, one would think only the rich and upper middle classes could possibly oppose the great chavez.

According to this, basically all of Chavez's opposition are upper and middle classes who are upset they don't have power? What about their belief in democracy, and checks and balances, and rule of law? The fear everyone feels in Venezuela with the crime out of control? The rolling blackouts?

As for the 2002 Coup, it makes no mention of the role of Chavez's ordering of Plan Avila (calling out the military to stop//control/crush the demonstrations--a violation of his own constitution)in leading the heads of all the military branches, and the secret police, to abandon him publically and call on his resignation. Instead, they are portrayed here as military leaders in bed with wealthy business interests, according to this article. Funny, considering when Carmona and other businessmen opportunistically grabbed power and showed insufficient respect for democracy the military abandoned them, creating the vacuum that allowed chavez to come back.

And to have no mention of FARC is absurd. I can no longer visit my wife's family in Tachira as the chances of kidnapping would be far too high (even higher than they have become all over Venezuela in the last decade) due to FARC's presence there. A presence which begin under Chavez's rule and with his tacit support, to the dismay and often misery of the local people.

Shameful...I have my own opinions of Chavez, obviously, but I know others who still support him. All I ask, and what readers deserve, is a for non biased article. If I had the time I would attempt it, but for now I must work on smaller articles in order to balance those and see if it is even possible.

205.130.226.102 (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Rory

Yes, it is, and yes, it has-- and what is more pathetic is that POV and other maintenance tags are continuously removed without addressing the issues. Tags restored (again). Archived issues unaddressed restored (again).

Whilst I would disagree that this page is "decidely partisan", I think it fair to say that yes, this page does certainly have a bias that is more pro-Chavez than against him. That is partly because I - who am responsible for much of the article - take a pro-Chavez stance. My bias has crept in, and for that I apologise, and I am working on trying to remove it. On the other hand however, there are editors who have consistently tried to push an anti-Chavez agenda, using western media sources that are decidedly anti-Chavez, whilst all the time they label it as "neutral", something it quite frankly isn't. We're all just going to have to work together on this one, and I welcome your cooperation.

To answer your more specific points about areas of neutrality, yes we must have information on those Venezuelans who have argued that Chavez is undermining representative democratic institutions (and I think that this can already be amply seen in the section on "Origins of the opposition movement"). It would be foolish however to think that there is not a huge race/class issue at play here regarding the opposition movement: academic investigation from both pro-Chavez sources like Wilpert and more neutral sources like Cannon have all established (quite convincingly in my view) that the opposition to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution is dominated by middle and upper class individuals. By trying to dismiss this and say that it isn't worth mentioning in the article (and I'm not accusing you of this, just warning of it), one would be taking a very anti-Chavez stance. As it currently stands (as of today), I think that the "opposition" section does a good job of reflecting both points of view, but I welcome further debate on this issue.

Regarding your information on the 2002 coup, I would agree, and have tagged that section of the article as requiring much needed work, using academic sources as a basis. We should also have mention of FARC, but little more than a few sentences are really warranted: there simply is no good evidence of a connection between the two as of yet. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

Yes, certainly upper and middle class are part of the opposition...however they are not the only ones of course. I'm glad you agree about the need for serious work on the 2002 Coup article. Starting next week I plan on doing a little work on the Miraflores violence part of it to even it out and then go from there (depending on how my edits and/or suggestions are received). Right now there is no Plan Avila, no National Gaurd, and the police are portrayed as opposition auxilaries when without them and their teargas the Chavistas would have been overrun.

One problem I see with this article is of analysis, courtesy of Gregory Wilpert (who's wife is a high ranking Chavez official and who's work on Venezuelanalysis was done with Venezuelen public funds (ie from Chavez)), is often slipped in after facts or reports to paint them in a decidely pro Chavez light. He is certainly not a neutral source, yet he is used here often to provide analysis after controversial or important events/actions/movements. I realize I am probably not the first to bring up this question of Wilpert and the v.a. website--which is why I was especially surprised he is used as a legitimate source.

The intro here is very well done, for starters though.

173.66.128.156 (talk)Rory —Preceding undated comment added 18:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC).

Lead

This is oddly par for the course for this page. Someone (me) makes an effort to improve the page, no long-term contributors say peep about it for a while or contribute anything relevant, but the minute the relevant problem tag is removed on the basis that it's no longer need, the tag is slapped back on. Besides which "Lead hasn't been improved at all. It remains heavily biased and far too long." is rudely dismissive as well as inaccurate and unhelpful. The lead is not "far too long" - there's a lot of ground to cover, it could be marginally shorter but it's fine. As for "heavily biased"? Well if it's that bad, don't you think you should fix it or explain the problem? Rd232 ^talk 18:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no dicsussion of any of these issues on this discussion page. Unless reasons are provided for the tags, they should be removed.

Before replacing them the editor should explain why issues need to be addressed. TFD (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No, before arbitrarily removing the tags, the editor should obtain a consensus. That wasn't done (and there is no consensus.)

I haven't bothered working to fix it because I'm tired of wasting my time trying to bring some neutrality to this article only to have it transformed into more pro-Chavez propaganda. (This is not directed at you, just at the general statement regarding this article.) I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section only to have gutted to become a fantasy piece. Like I said in the past, if this page is to remain dedicated to praising Chavez, then the tags have to remain warning anyone reading it, lest they be tricked into thinking this article meets Wiki guidelines.

If you want specifics, start with this sentence: "Detractors within the Organization of American States, European Union, United Nations, U.S. State Department, and others, criticize Chávez for alleged human rights violations, while supporters point to improvements in constitutional and legal rights, poverty reduction, health care, women's rights, and the treatment of indigenous peoples under his presidency." This really captures the tone of the entire article -- diminishing criticisms and emphasizing supposed achievements.JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems neutral to me, because he explains how supporters and detractors describe him. Can you propose a more neutral phrasing of the sentence? I can post it to the NPOV noticeboard for broader input. TFD (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

" arbitrarily removing" tags - more dismissiveness, which I don't appreciate. I already explained that I revised and improved the lead a while ago, and then waited some time to see if anyone would respond. No-one did, so I eventually removed the relevant tag. Furthermore, since the tag was applied to a substantially different version of the lead, it doesn't need consensus to remove, since tag justification should apply to the current article, not a substantially different previous version. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The bias starts from word-one: "Detractors". A more appropriate term would be "critic". Then you have "alleged" human rights violations, while the laundry list of supposed improvements are presented as if they are fact rather than opinion. Some of it is fact. But, "improvements...in legal rights", for example, is definitely in dispute considering that many of the supposed "improvements" only appear on paper (as detailed by Human Rights Watch and other organizations.) Also, it appears as if the only criticism of Chavez has been his human rights record, yet he has achieved a long list of improvements.JoelWhy (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It would seem to me that since the sentence is unsourced, it would be best to remove it. I think the intention was to show that Chavez is controversial, he faces strong opposition from some quarters but has strong support from others, not that anyone was trying to give greater weight to one side. TFD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The sentence puts the human rights issues high up in the lead, naming a number of important institutions raising concerns about them, whilst the improvements are merely attributed to "supporters". The topic of the sentence can certainly be handled better, but it's fairly even-handed in its current imperfection. Rd232 ^talk 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the length of the lead, it's supposed to be short no matter how much the article needs to cover. Just keep leaving out detail until it's short enough. Warren Dew (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"short" is relative. See Wikipedia:LEAD#Length (though the meaning of "number of paragraphs" obviously interacts with their length; a number here are quite short). Rd232 ^talk 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The paragraphs in the current lead are of average to long length. For an article of this length, Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says there should be 2-3 paragraphs. There are currently 5 paragraphs. That means the lead is about twice as long as it should be. That justifies keeping the tag there until it's fixed.Warren Dew (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the first 3 paragraphs are of normal length for a large lead, and the last 2 relatively short. Rd232 ^talk 09:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the article is fairly long and the lead reflects that. Also, I would argue its length is based upon its detail which all happens to be notable. But I wouldn't say it is too long; and anyhow, length is not a big issue right now. More importantly, I think the content is fine, it represents sources present in the article, is well written and clear and addresses the concerns of critics by stating them clearly and without any judgement. ValenShephard (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is tediously too long (11,000 words from about 6,000 a few months ago), goes into detail that doesn't belong here (belongs in sub-articles) while neglecting detail that does belong here (Foreign policy, domestic policy, crime, corruption, democracy, etc), and the lead is most certainly much too long (I haven't begun to document the article POV yet, only discussing length here).

Most readers will not care about the level of detail given in the lead on some Venezuelan issues, but will want to know some info that we've conveniently left out-- like how his popularity is declining in Venezuela as a sample (I don't care, but something has to be there that reflects what most people hear and know about Chavez, and right now we have obscure details of Venezuelan politics that only we know and care about). The purpose of the lead is to provide a broad overview that will entice the reader to read more, but short and simple-- it's not to convey a POV about the subject. Methinks that the article is so bad that the lead is trying to be the article here.

And talk about POV, why the detail about the caracazo in the lead of Chavez's article (that was eons ago), mentioning those deaths but not deaths attributed to Chavez in his various debacles, coups, fiascos? And why do we care what he promised when elected in 1998? That was 13 years ago!! Excess detail and POV lead in a too-long POV article that now relies heavily on one source.

Please revert to an earlier version; the article has seriously deteriorated in the last six months.

Joelwhy, I removed the tag about the lead being too long because the entire article is too long and it's very poorly written, while the significant POV and outdatedness is much more important now. I hope that's OK, but if we use the Multiple issues template, there are about a dozen of them now, and the fact that the article is POV will get lost among the other problems, and I think it doesn't serve our readers to know that the lead is too long, while it does serve them to know the article is out of date and POV. (I read this section of the talk page last, so just noticed you had placed the tag and the lead was discussed.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Length of the lead (and article in general) isn't an important issue compared to POV. I'm out of town for the rest of the week with spotty internet connection, but I'll check back in next week.JoelWhy (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Context

The article currently has zero text that I can find discussing how Chavez came to have the power he has in Venezuela today, and how that led to his consolidation of power, rule by decree, excessive use of cadenas, and excessive use of enabling acts. Until that is provided here-- and it is covered by every reliable source, take your pick-- the average reader will have no understanding of Venezuela and Chavez today. The Venezuelan people chose to abstain from voting en masse and handed him that power-- he is not a dictator, the abstention by voters allowed him to consolidate power. The failure to discuss this is part of the most glaring POV in this article, and is the incidentally the question I most often hear from the average gringo who doesn't understand what happened in Venezuela. All reliable sources cover that issue; Wiki leaves it out. This article cannot be neutral without a discussion of consolidation of power in the executive and deterioration in the democracy, and control of the judiciary. Take your pick of reliable sources-- they all cover it, as I documented long ago in my list of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article I linked to has the political and historical context surrounding the granting of this enabling law and that is all it promised. ValenShephard (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Article has become private property

Recent edits have once more revealed that the article is owned by staunch Chávez's supporters. Not even mention of the Venezuelan Parliament having granted enough power to Chávez rule by decree can be added. And please don't come tell me that because it was written "absolute power". If a word was the problem, you would have simply changed the sentence a bit, not erased it completely.

The reasons given to them vary in nature but can be summed in a simple sentence: "We will not allow any kind of edit to the article that we consider an offense to Chávez."

Is that ridiculous? Certainly. But is has gone too far. If the purpose of this article is to simply be used as a propaganda tool, shouldnt' we simply add one huge link to the official Chavez's website? --Lecen (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Some editors just have a problem accepting that Hugo Chavez is not the only Venezuela article on Wikipedia (look at the way some insist on using its talk page - as if WP:VEN didn't exist!), and that WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE still applies to WP:BLP subjects you really, really don't like. Rd232 ^talk 08:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a far bigger problem is that this article is largely based not upon books that study Chavez (i.e. those of Bart Jones etc), but upon internet articles pulled from all over the place. I'm gradually attempting to rectify this, and I ask that we all try and keep this article as neutral as possible.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

Better (more academic/comprehensive) sources will be an improvement, but in doing that watch that this article doesn't get out of sync with the related/daughter articles (Military career of Hugo Chavez etc) - it's best to update both, and probably best to update/improve the daughter articles first, before updating the summary here. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been primarily updating this article first, but if I get time I will go and add to the more in-depth articles afterward.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC))

And that approach was wrong, and what caused this article to grow too long and become more POV: see Bart Jones reviews below, and Jones is by no means a scholarly source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As there doesn't appear to have been any particular explanation of what it is that is non-neutral in this article, I shall remove the tag.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

Absolutely, positively not. This article is, if anything, more POV than before, and there has not at all been a consensus reached to remove this tag. As stated in Tag is to remain on this article until the extreme bias is removed.JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it best if we start a new conversation on the nature of POV in this article then. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

I think it best if you read archives before removing tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have digital access to pretty much all English language journals (dozens mention Chavez, looking a quick search) so if I have some time during the next few months I will engage again (after a very busy period away from wiki) and try to add some of the information here. I hope it doesn't disappoint some editors here that these journals concur with and expand upon statements already sourced here. Hope that helps. ValenShephard (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia

I think I've been pretty clear on my position that this article is heavily POV. However, since I don't think we're making any headway on that issue, perhaps we can tackle some of the less-controversial content in this article.

There is far too much trivial information in this article. For example, as I've mentioned several times in the past, the paragraph about Chavez' Twitter account should either be completely deleted, or, at most, reduced to a single sentence listing how many followers he has.

Also, throughout the article, there is far too much trivial descriptions of people, locations, etc. For example: "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home." Do we really need to know the name of his high school, let alone the significance of the person who the school was named after? (For the record, much of this added content is very well written, and I appreciate the work that went into it, but it's the type of trivia you expect to find in a person's full biography, not an encyclopedic entry.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Being the individual responsible for the recent added content, I thank you for your kind comments. I can certainly appreciate why you highlight what can seem to be superfluous information inserted in the text. Whilst I agree that it is not entirely necessary, I feel that it does make the article more generally readable, after all is not "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home" more readable than simply "He went to high school in Barinas" ? I believe that it also helps to show more of a context from which Chavez came (his high school was named after a revolutionary, possible influence on him methinks). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC))

Where someone went to high school, their twitter accounts, etc., is important for biographies. TFD (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the twitter accounts, however where a person went to high school is an extremely important part of a biographical article. Secondary schooling can be a very useful indicator in determining a person's social class, amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrtayloriv (talk • contribs)

I agree, especially when what he did in his early life compliments or links in with his later life, it makes it notable. Twitter is an odd issue. It seems to have some notability, for me anyway, because from Chavez's own rhetoric it seems to make up part of his political strategy which is notable if only for its uniqueness. ValenShephard (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is too much outdated or no longer relevant info, too much quote farming, and too little use of summary style; an article that has this much to say must rely on summary style and be a broad overview, focusing on the most relevant issues. As of now, it doesn't even discuss most relevant issues, while going into excess detail on older parts of the story that belong in sub-articles. A 6,000 to 7,000-word article that covers all relevant issues might be something to aim for: now we have 11,000 words, without a discussion of current domestic and foreign policy issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets sort this POV situation out

Hello there everyone. There seems to have been quite a bit of argument as to the POV nature of this article over the last few weeks. One the one hand, Johnywalk85 (03 December 2010) believed that this article was inherently biased AGAINST Chavez, whilst several other editors, such as Lecen, appear to believe that this article is inherently biased IN FAVOUR of Chavez. What a sticky situation. As many of you will likely have noticed, I have recently been updating and *I hope* improving it, with plenty of information brought in from Bart Jones’s biography of Chavez (2007) and Gregory Wilpert’s analysis of the Chavez regime and those who oppose it (2007). I will continue doing so over the next few weeks, as I further study these texts, as well as others, such as Brewer-Carrias’ anti-Chavez polemic (2010). Therefore, with these constant additions and clean up that I am undertaking, please remember that this is a page that will likely be under a state of flux.

So is this page POV ? I myself, do not believe so, but I welcome reasoned argument from those who believe that it is on either side (i.e. those thinking it anti- or pro- Chavez). If there is substance to these arguments, then alterations will have to be made. What I do fear however (and this is based upon what I have already seen on this talk page) is that vehemently anti-Chavez figures will not rest till their criticisms of Chavez play a heavy and dominating part on the article, despite the fact that many other world political figures such as George Bush and Barack Obama (both of whom, on a world rather than US-centric stage, are far, far more controversial than Chavez I might add), do not see the same level of criticism on their pages. The same could be true of Chavez supporters, who could insist on flooding this page with pro-Chavez information and counter-criticisms. So please, reasoned argument only, and use specific examples where you feel there is bias within the text…. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Midnight, we tried this numerous times in the past and got nowhere fast. You can certainly go through the archive and find some of the previous discussions, but I will post some of my many, many criticisms of this page.

First off, you do realize that many of the books you are relying upon are written by not-so-subtle supporters of Chavez, do you not? Yes, Jones is a reporter, but he's hardly objective. Of course, being pro-Chavez doesn't mean the information provided is inaccurate. But, just because a work that is "scholarly", doesn't mean it's free of bias. (And, then there's the reliance by other editors on venezuelanalysis.com, which may as well be written by Chavez.)

Some general examples of the bias in this article (and, I find it preposterous that anyone can seriously argue this article is biased AGAINST Chavez): The Crime section. I started the section because there were a plethora of articles pointing out how murders and kidnappings had skyrocketed since Chavez took office. This was quickly changed to make crime-fighting seem like one of Chavez's big victories.

Another example is the Human Rights Watch report. This is a 200 page report entitled "A decade under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela." You don't have to read past the title to recognize that this report is slamming Chavez for his human rights record. Yet, it appears from the Wiki article that the report is a mixed bag of failures and great successes under Chavez. Yes, it does technically include what is mentioned in the Wiki section, but it's a gross mischaracterization of the article (and, yes, I've read the entire 200-page article.)

The part about the closing of the TV station is a complete farce.

I previously added a section which included a list of the various conspiracy theories that Chavez has propagated (my favorite being the accusation that the U.S. used the HARRP program to create an earthquake machine, which was tested on Haiti during last year's quake.) This was summarily removed by the pro-Chavez crowd as being "trivia" (as opposed to more substantive issues such as how many people follow him on Twitter...)

For the record, these are just a few examples. Ultimately, I gave up trying to fix this article and have said repeatedly that the only thing I am going to do for the time being is ensure that the POV/neutrality tag remains. This article is far from neutral, and people visiting this page at the very least have to be informed that they are not getting a fair representation.

Moreover, not to sound overly cynical, but I don't see how this article will possibly be improved until more editors get involved. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I am highly skeptical of this happening. There are a very small number of editors working on this page, and most of them have shown (IMO) a substantial bias in favor of Chavez. I don't mean this as a personal attack -- people are free to believe whatever they wish. But, unless dramatic changes are made, this article simply fails to meet Wiki guidelines through-and-through.JoelWhy (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing these issues to attention. I am well aware that the two main books I am using are generally pro-Chavez, but I still believe them to be perhaps the best books on Chavez available, as long as one is able to remove the writers' opinion from the facts. As a general supporter of Chavez (I make no secret of this), my personal opinion is inclined to be pro-Chavez, but at the same time I try and commit to being nuetral for the sake of the article. I'd be more than happy in working with you to achieve nuetrality JoelWhy, and I think that from what you say, it is clear that most of the POV problems come from the latter part of the article, that which deals with Chavez's policies, no? Then it is here that we must focus out attentions. Do you see any POV problems with the biography section? (that which I have been primarily focused on recently). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC))

Neutrality "requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". In order to do that we require academic sources that explain how Chavez is perceived, but no one has presented any. Also, it says in reliable sources, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the books that I have been using to flesh out this article have largely fitted in with this description, no? Before, it relied almost purely on various internet articles.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

TFD, the problem is these "scholarly works" are written by people with clear biases. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but we are not going to be able to move forward if we pretend these are somehow objective pieces of work.

I do not have time right now to go through all your recent change, Midnight. Some of them are fine, but some of them read like a story being told about Chavez the Hero of the poor. I am fairly certain it reads this way because it is exactly how those books describe his upbringing.JoelWhy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Facts (e.g., when Chavez was born) are the same in all reliable sources. The benefit of high quality rs is not the opinions that they present but their explanation of how the subject is perceived. They will say for example, "most analysts believe that Chavez is moving the country towards dictatorship/has lost control of the country/has improved living standards, etc. That all writers will have their own personal opinions on should not matter. Good academic sources will explain how the subject is perceived and do so in a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to add that one of the most significant differences between news periodicals like the Economist and academic sources is that academic sources provide you with citations where you can actually check their facts for yourself. With the Economist, you have to just take their word for everything (which is probably not a good idea, considering their frequent publication of gross misinformation). Everyone is biased, sure, but at least with academic sources, you have an improved (albeit not without its own issues) of checking the factual accuracy of what they are saying. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that people here are looking for academic sources, and as I wrote somewhere else I have access to these online. I may be able to post links to standalone PDF files, which you guys might be able to access and work from, so we can spread the load. I will be able to find out in a few days if this actually works. If it doesn't, if you need some special access or need to be on a special network, then I guess I will have to do the work myself, with you guys' help. ValenShephard (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DUE and WP:V; academic sources are not widely available for a contemporary political bio, and mainstream news sources are reliable for this purpose; looking for more journal articles that express the opinions of the few writers who have taken the topic on will not create a balanced article that gives due weight to all mainstream, reliable views as required by Wiki policy, and unless that is done, the article will not advance out of its POV state. Please do find the journal sources if they exist, but that doesn't mean that mainstream reliable sources and viewpoints can be excluded, and particularly not to the extent that we have now, where one author's account (Jones) dominates the article, with some very dubious statements and opinions that all need to be tagged to alert our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

News sources are good for news, but not so good for analysis. If we cannot find good analysis, then it is better to just have bare facts. TFD (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow

I wish I hadn't peeked. I thought it impossible for this article to get much worse, but it has. The lead is outrageously way too long, and the POV has dramatically increased (and there is a curious unencyclopedic informal tone to the writing, as well). Major portions of Chavez' presidency-- long discussed on this page-- have vanished, and rather blatant one-sided versions have replaced them, including some very curious cherry-picking of quotes, which don't even try to accord to due weight. Well, it looks like business as usual here, bickering on talk, accusations, but no apparent desire to NPOV the article yet. I will continue to check in to see if the tone has changed or if any new editors have shown up and are willing to work towards neutrality and due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And, the article as well as the lead has become burdened by length (11,000 words of prose); it appears that the POV increase is due to the over-reliance on two sources, to the exclusion of other sources. Those issues and sources are well documented in archives here, no need for me to repeat them as they won't be read, but some of the POV introduced here is beyond over the top. I suggest whomever has added so much of Jones and Wilpert might want to read some other sources to neutralize the article; overrelying on one source for a bio of this nature is bound to introduce that author's POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I am the one who has been making the additions with Jones and Wilpert. Agreed, they are somewhat pro-Chavez sources, but at the same time they contain a lot of useful factual information in them. I welcome other users to introduce information from anti-Chavez sources, but I don't happen to have any of them. Thos that do, please introduce them, to help make this a more nuetral article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't think writing a balanced article is about creating a balance between pro and anti sources on the subject. We should just expand to other sources. ValenShephard (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is already much too long (and yet incomplete), doesn't use summary style appropriately, and we don't attain neutral articles by using battling sources, one to overcome the POV of the other. We attain neutrality by using sources correctly to begin with; that hasn't been done here, so adding to it will be unproductive. And if you don't have any sources that present more balanced views, that would help explain why your writing has introduced so much POV. To write an article correctly involves not only "writing for the enemy", but "reading for the enemy" first, so you know what to write and where and how your sources are biased (see our WP:NPOV page on "writing for the enemy"-- when you add POV text, we don't later fix it by adding more POV text to balance it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When you write 5,000 words in an article, drawn from partisan sources, it's not likely fixable, and having a battle of competing POVs and sources is not how we write articles (please read WP:NPOV and WP:V). Suggestion: when you know your sources are partisan (and you acknowledged that on this talk page), consider whether your additions are neutral and balanced, and go read other sources to determine if you're giving undue weight to one view. If you write from sources that present all views (like The New York Times, the BBC, and others), then include all sides of the story when adding text, and avoid cherrypicking parts of the article that support only one POV. If you aren't familiar with all mainstream POVs, and willing to read all sides, consider not editing the article at all, and only entering commentary on talk. Many months of unnecessary work and has gone into creating a poorly written and even more POV article here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on POV

The POV here has taken on an alarmingly unapologetic and blatant tone, and is everywhere I look; listing it all would be a major undertaking. Listing the factual issues due to overreliance on one source would be huge, so for starters, let's just look at how we treat and discuss the various sources (and the article seriously overrelies on one source, Jones, we don't use Wiki to tell one person's version of a controversial story, we give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources):

For one source, we quote something not entirely useful to this already-too-long article, adding to its length, in glowing terms:

• As Chávez's biographer, Brian Jones, noted, "Chávez's appearence was a bombshell. The gallant young officer in the dashing red beret instantaneously captivated millions of people who had never heard of him and were wondering who'd led the stunning rebellion.

We don't qualify this "biographer" in any way (positive or negative), and why do we need that quote in an overly article, btw? Yet for another source, we qualify the writer in POV terms (where on Wiki do we disqualify our sources like that, including the word to avoid claim? Either a source is reliable or it's not):

• Venezuelan lawyer and academic Allan R. Brewer-Carías, a professed opponent of Chávez, has made the claim that under his regime the country has "suffered a tragic setback regarding democratic standards, suffering a continuous, persistent and deliberate process of demolishing institutions and destroying democracy, which has never before been experienced in the constitutional history of the country."[160]

It looks like any version of the history other than Jones-Wilpert gets a qualifier, and Word to avoid, claim. This is but one of many samples of POV at its finest; similar is found throughout the article at an alarming level, and gives us an idea of the writer's bias (in a neutral article, you shouldn't be able to tell-- clearly, POV is in play here).

But an even bigger problem is content that has been blatantly omitted, to tell one side of the story (by weight of sources, the Jones, Wilpert version), to the exclusion of a multitude of other reliable sources that have been omitted. We've discussed all of this many times, and it's documented in archives; that new editors come along doesn't mean that it all hs to be documented again, when nothing has changed-- mainstream reliable sources are not represented, and we now have a worse version of one side of the issues being included.

And that's not accounting for the POV introduced by how outdated the article is; a good portion of what is here now is nothing but an expansion of a few points of view from a selective few writers, undue weight to a few sources, adding to the length of the article, while failing to update it and accord due weight to all sources.

The article makes no pretense of telling an accurate, up-to-date, neutral, balanced story-- the one you can read on a multitude of other sources. It's a full-on fluff piece now (it was bad before, but not this bad). One only needs to look at the top 10 contributors to the article, by time, to see that I gave up in 2006 (other than MOS cleanup, etc), and see the nine editors who have contributed most since. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, we need academic sources to explain how Chavez is generally perceived and no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, WP:NPOV tells us to give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources; we can't cherry pick journal articles, which aren't the preferred source for a contemporary bio anyway, to present only one POV. We don't expect academic sources-- except those likely to have a bias-- to cover current events. And we don't exclude other mainstream reliable sources to tell the story as one journal author sees it; we balance sources, according to due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:V#Reliable sources and neutrality
• WP:UNDUE
• Wikipedia:RS#Some types of sources (clearly, this is a contemporary topic, a BLP, and not an academic topic-- mainstream news sources are reliable, and books and journal articles are likely to either have a bias or be outdated ... in this article, we are promoting a few authors' bias as fact, unbalanced by a multitude of other sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Length

The article is so long now (at 11,000 words, without expansion of sections that are critical) that it is hard to load and edit. I'm switching the tag I just installed on the article, since it doesn't help our readers to know that the article needs copyediting, length reduced, and lead reduced; our readers need to know that the article is out of date and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Bart Jones reviews

Please revert this article and rewrite it neutrally without an overreliance on one partisan source:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/161hugo-the-hugo-chavez-story-by-bart-jones-841036.html
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/bart-jones A reporter for Newsday? Great ...
• http://www.mclemee.com/id203.html Clear bias
• http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2586 more clear bias
• http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0604/p09s01-coop.html more, indicating his clear editorial stance
• http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=22722 More, his editorial stance is clear, and he is a Chavez advocate
• http://www.mitfamericas.org/Hugo.htm But organizes of the Venezuela Solidarity Network endorse his work, not surprising
• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/30/AR2007083001583_2.html Pretty clear.
• http://weeksnotice.blogspot.com/2007/11/bart-jones-hugo-hugo-chvez-story-from.html Another, consensus seems clear, nice thriller, but not the quality of book we should be using to write this entire article.

I could go on; we should not be overrelying here on such a shoddy, partisan source. His account is partisan at best, inaccurate at worst, and needs balancing with other sources; overrelying on this one book has made this article even more POV, and yet he gets quoted with no "disclaimers" or words to avoid, as are attached to other authors. Attempting to balance this article with "Jones says x" but "y says z" will only make the article worse; reverting it and rewriting it neutrally from a variety of sources will be more effective. At a minimum, I suggest reverting to this version (December 3, 5,000 words, apparently the article size doubled when Jones was added, and much of that content belongs in daughter articles even if it were sourced to more neutral sources) before Jones was introduced, and before Saravask's well written work was obliterated, then use Jones only for any parts that may be warranted based on reviews of his work (if there are any that belong in this article)-- a further revert may be helpful, I haven't looked that far back yet. It is troubling that so many editors watched the prose and POV worsen here and did nothing for over a month, while a partisan source was introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objections to that. Notice that Hugo was written by a journalist and published by Random House. I have not conducted my own investigation to see how reliable it is, but if we stick to academic sources we will not have the same neutrality issues. I do not see how we could determine that this book is any more or less accurate than the opinions of other journalists or other writings in the popular media. TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The current problem is that we apply one standard to Jones, and a different standard to other sources that are argued here as being "partisan"-- we need to apply the same standard to all, and use sources appropriately, without undue expansion of the text that overrelies on one source. That would include a discussion of sources, without a double standard. It appears, for example, that the Brewer-Carias book is so new that there are few reviews (at least, I can't find them). At least it was published by a serious and respected academic press, his bias notwithstanding, so I'd expect reviews to be more favorable, but can't find any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A cursory examination of all of the approximately 5,000 words of text added since Dec 3 reveals that virtually all of it was sourced to Jones (some to Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis, all sources that share the same bias, with no attempt to balance the text with a broader use of sources); this is an inappropriate use of a partisan source that introduced POV, expanded the text unnecessarily while ignoring summary style, and obliterated some of Saravask's well written work that did rely on a more appropriate use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

We should apply the same standard and if we keep it high, we could avoid neutrality disputes. Because Brewer-Carias' writing is recent, it may be some time before we know what acceptance his opinions receive. TFD (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that whilst we should certainly include information from the liked of Brewer-Carias, we should not do so by deleting everything by Jones and Wilpert that I have spent many hours into adding in order to improve what was a poorly empty and unreferenced page. So, for this reason, please do not just revert, I am more than happy to work with you on improving the article, but this cannot be achieved by simply reverting the page to what was undoubtedly a worse edit.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I agree. The work you did was good. I was away from the article for like 3 months and came back to see a great deal of well written detail added. I don't think reverts and deletes would help. It is a bit wordy in places, but we can fix this. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The article is not in a state that can be improved, it is too long while not even covering the basics, and it is phenomenally POV. That you spent many hours trying to improve it, well, I suggest the editors who watched this "improvement" and did nothing to ask you to write neutrally, broaden your sources, or address the serious prose deficiencies should answer why that was allowed to happen. I wasn't here, and JoelWhy and Lecen tried; it is those who didn't speak up that should answer why you were allowed to misspend your time here. And no, we don't just randomly include other sources like Brewer-Carias to balance your POV; we start by evaluating sources before we use them, and then using sources correctly. Jones is not an adequate source for the amount of text that now relies on him, most of which belongs in daughter articles, even if better sourced and better written. (But please don't go do the same thing to the sub-article at Military career of Hugo Chavez, which is a featured article and will end up at WP:FAR if it sees the kind of deterioration this article has seen.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I would disagree with your claim that the article has deteriorated with my additions. If you can call the messy, mostly unreferenced, unformatted state of affairs that I set out to improve better then, well, I just can't agree. I have brought a level of order and detail to the work - yes, using mostly pro-Chavez sources BUT I believe myself to be justified in using these. There simply are no unbiased sources, and to use the most prominent biography of Chavez (i.e. Jones) is, I feel, justified. Agreed, the work might be too long. I'm willing to work on that. Agreed, there might be some POV in my use of language, and once again I am willing to work on that. By mass deleting my hard work (which is, effectively, what a revert is) however, simply to replace it with what went before would be downright annoying to those users who have worked hard on it.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Please address your annoyance at those who allowed it to happen, as well as the serious issues I have documented above; the article is not fixable as it stands, and the previous version affords a better starting place (and was not unsourced as you claim). If you want to salvage some of your text, you can put it in a sandbox and massage it there, and later propose it for addition to sub-articles. Trying to salvage POV text isn't worth the effort; using sources correctly to begin with would have avoided this problem. If you would like, I will put your text in a sandbox for you, and we can see what you're able to do with it, but it shouldn't be in this article until it is balanced, better sourced, and copy-edited. And finally, it is simply incorrect to say there are no unbiased sources; perhaps you just haven't read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, please put it in the sandbox. Rather than debating this for days and days on end, with many people chipping in, let's just get started on improving this article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Will do now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for being so cordial in this conversation. It can be so easy for some users to become right b**tards on discussion pages, doing nothing but ranting and hurling personal attacks. Shall we archive this user page so that we can start afresh with working together on this new article? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Here you go: User:Midnightblueowl/ChavezSandbox. I've left off the interwikis, cats, etc at the bottom of the article, as that will cause your userpage to be incorrectly added to cats, etc. Please be aware that if text is moved from sandbox back to an article after being changed, it has to done correctly per attribution purposes of Wiki licensing (I don't know the link to that page offhand, but please ask for assistance if you intend to move text back and don't know how). And thank you, too-- the tone on this talk page has long been unconducive to collaborative work, and in case anyone finds my tone harsh, it's because I'm used to working at WP:FAC, where editors submit their work, knowing it will be subjected to harsh criticism and intense scrutiny. No, I don't think we should archive this page, because it documents the many outstanding issues. I still suggest we revert for now, subject to the idea that you can bring text back from sandbox as it is massaged and discussed, and consensus is gained about sourcing, undue weight, whether to put text in sub- or main articles, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd personally like to alter the page as it is, I recognize that I'm biased because of the work and effort I've already put in, so I'll agree that it's probably best if you revert the page, and then we start working through the article, area by area. Thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

That's a most collegial approach! But I'll wait for further feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't support reverting the page. Supporting the revert would mean supporting the idea that the article has gotten worse or is a mess, and I simply don't agree. There are a few simple examples of POV wording like the word "oligarchy" (it is legitmately used in sources not the prejudice of the editors) and this can easily be fixed. I simply do not see fundamental issues and a piece of trash, I won't accept that. ValenShephard (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, I also think that reverting is a bad idea, I think it's better to fix present version and move some material to daughter articles. JRSP (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It is quite saddening to see Midnightblueowl appear to become dissolusioned with his own edits, that is unfortunate. His edits need a little copy editing; a few uses of POV language (because it is present in the sources) have crept in but this is minor and was unfortunately missed by others. His additions are both useful, well sourced and generally very well written (yes there are a few wordy bits) no need to trash his good work, and the article is definitely not a POV mess. It could do with expansion in certain areas however, but this has been overshadowed by exactly these disputes. ValenShephard (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@JRSP, there is no baby here, only bathwater. The portions of the article most edited were in good shape before, now they're poorly written, POV and too long. @Valen, it seems to me that Midnight is handling it just fine. Please don't persist with the claim that the new text is either well written or well-sourced in the face of the evidence above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call anyone's opinion evidence. My opinion is that the article has overall improved, with a few small issues introduced (which I mentioned) which can be fixed. ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, although I am willing to accept a revert and work from there, I would certainly prefer it if the page stays as it is (rather than suffering a revert to what I believe was most clearly an inferior page, lacking references for certain areas, being visually a mess and what not), and that we work on improving it from here. Either way, I will work with whatever the concensus is.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

I would just like to point out that I have begun editing down the article as it currently stands, in accordance with some of the criticisms that it is excessively wordy. I would ask that those who wish to revert the page at least give me and others time to improve this article as it stands.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Looks pretty good so far but I would reinsert the statements about him reading Marx etc in his youth and the statement about the Allende government. The first especially seems important to understand Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's still information on him reading Marx, Lenin etc whilst stationed in Barinas, when he actually began to convert to the leftist cause, so I think the deletion was acceptable in this particular case.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

Alrighty, keep up the good work and keep an eye here for any thoughts we have on your cuts. ValenShephard (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking in, I see no progress here on the issues I raised. The article is still too long, still doesn't cover issues according to due weight, still overrelies on one partisan source, and there are still serious prose issues such as I pointed out earlier. I haven't followed individual edits, but I see no attempt to correct the serious issues reflected in the actual content of the article. Specifically, the Early life and Military career sections have significantly deteriorated from the version written by Saravask long ago, and now contain not only overreliance on a partisan source, but an expansion of content not appropriate for an overview article, significant prose deterioration, and a proliferation of MOS errors not in earlier versions. Those sections were one part of this article that was in good shape before recent editing. I continue to suggest restoring earlier versions of those sections, and working in the sub-articles, but I hope those articles won't be damaged as well, since at least one of them is a Featured article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I ask that you give us more time on this issue. I have obtained a copy of Christina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka's Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography, the less detailed, but also more neutral biography of Chavez, and plan to use this work to add to the sections which are so-far dominated by references from Bart Jones. As far as I am aware, these are the ONLY two English language biographies of Chavez, and it is therefore only fair that we use them in this article, rather than relying on a few internet articles from the media (which, it could certainly be argued, were just as non-partisan in one way or another as Jones's).

I also strongly contest, as seemingly do several other editors here, that the biographical sections on Chavez were in some way better before I began my additions: I would firmly argue that they were far too short and uninformative (the Wikipedia pages on other important political figures have greater information on earlier parts of their figures' lives). I'd also like to note that I have kept many of the references that were already existing then rather than deleting them.

I also contest, once again seemingly as others do, that the quality of prose has deteriorated. Fair enough, it might need some tweaking here and there, but I'd request that you help with this, rather than simply reverting this article to a state where the page was simply insufficient. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

I generally agree with Midnight. My college library, one of the most well stocked in the country, only features the two biographies which Midnight has mentioned. According to my tutor, they are both widely read and respected, especially the one by Bart Jones, which she called the most significant analysis of Chavez the individual currently available. Apart from that, the prose has improved and to say it hasn't simply isn't supported by looking at the material or other editors. Reverting is counter productive as in most cases, unless the article has been totally rubbished (which hasn't happened here). The article is a little too long, and this can be remedied by cutting down the sections which are much more appropriate elsewhere. ValenShephard (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime section

"I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section" User:JoelWhy why are you doing that on an article about a democratically elected president?

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, sports-related, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

put that info in the article about venezuelan crime statistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.85.62 (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must agree that I am unsure why a crime section is required in this page, after all, the British tabloid press made a huge deal over crime rates and "anti-social behaviour" under the Tony Blair regime but that doesn't mean that there is a section on crime in the UK there. It's simply not directly related to the president or his policies themselves.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

I can't tell who wrote what above, or decipher the meaning or the grammar, but as long as a multitude of reliable sources do associate rampant crime and corruption with Chavez, our article should as well. To leave it out violates undue; Midnight, there are plenty of sources that explain the relevance-- rampant crime and corruption are central issues to Chavez's governance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe crime is an issue to the Chavez presidency, or Venezuela generally (long standing problems that fluctuate) not Chavez himself as an individual. It is difficult and dubious to associate such a wideranging and long term social issue with a single leader, I've never seen it done before. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The sources say that crime was a continuing problem in Venezuela and Chavez was initially unable to address it, because law enforcement came under local control. But centralization of policing has reduced the problem. TFD (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This should be mentioned more briefly in the sections on the Chavez presidency at best, not its own section. It would also be useful to get more historical perspective, it is too easy to appear to simply be laying the blame at Chavez himself for the high/increasing crime levels in some areas. ValenShephard (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In my personal opinion (and I am confident that somewhere there will be published sources that back me up here), right-wing and/or centrist reactionary media tend to trump up accusations of rising crime levels whenever left wing or “progressive” regimes to get into any sort of political control. The fact that the opposition to Chavez makes a big deal out of crime rates under him makes me very suspicious that this is true in this case as well. As such I suggest we be very cautious in our choice of sources for this section, although I still do not fully understand the need for it at all. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

You are probably correct in your analysis but that is not the most important thing, what is crucial is not to over play the issue of crime which is an issue of a whole nation (since before Chavez was born) and has fluctuated across a range of regimes of multiple ideologies throughout the modern history of Venezuela. It is very odd to have a crime section in the biography of an individual leader (we could also expand this analysis to the human rights section too, which is also better suited elsewhere). It can be mentioned briefly in his presidency section here, but it more suited in a sister article like Venezuela itself. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The stats are fine and sources have been found to explain them. Polemical writing however blames the crime rate on Chavez, yet never explains what supposed Chavez policy led to the increases. No one has found a serious paper that explains this relationship. TFD (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been dozens of reports regarding the sky rocketting crime rates in Venezuela since Chavez took office. Dismissing this as 'right wing propaganda' really encapsulates the POV issues with this article -- everything that reflects poorly on Chavez's presidency is part of some corporate oligarchy agenda. If you have evidence to support your claim that these are trumped up charges, please present said evidence. Otherwise, the issue should be properly addressed in this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

As TFD said, if there is no reliable source to pin the blame on policies invented by Chavez himself (let alone his government) then how can we include it here in its current form? ValenShephard (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The crime section never stated "Chavez is to blame for the increase in crime." It presented objective facts (and still manages to keep a few, despite being thoroughly gutted to fall more in line with the pro-Chavez talking points.) But, thank you for reminding me why I stopped trying to fix this article and have remained content with simply maintaining the POV tag.JoelWhy (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The text reads, "During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled; the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007. Kidnappings have also become increasingly common. Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate." TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is all entirely correct.JoelWhy (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That sentence which TFD quoted is probably all that is needed in the article, with maybe a few words to explain that it is a deep rooted Venezuelan (or even South American) problem. It is very odd to pin crime (or even human rights) issues to the leader of a country. There are thousand of others involved carrying out these abuses, who might have no connection to Chavez, his party or the leadership. ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

There's an article on Hugo Chávez, the individual, and on Hugo Chávez' administration. By definition, any topic that is related with his administration as a whole but not specifically with the individual should be dealt with at the second article. In that article, there would be little discussion on whenever the section should be included, security is one of the core topics about an administration that should be mentioned, even if there were no great changes from one administration to the other. MBelgrano (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree there. I still think these issues should be briefly mentioned here (crime, human rights, foreign affairs) but would indeed be more suited to the administration article in present (or greater) detail. ValenShephard (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

We may compare this article with another one that gets the attention from more editors: Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. As you can see, the later includes many sections and information that are left outside from the former, gun control and cybersecurity among them MBelgrano (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That is true. This is the only article I have come across where these domestic issues have been given prominence here (and as such implying it is the work of the individual). Some else mentioned Tony Blair further above, where crime (which was/is a huge issue in the UK) is not attributed in his article, and I suspect it would be removed if it was. I think we should get on this task soon. Maybe copy paste the current crime, human rights, media and foreign affairs sections into the presidency of Chavez article, and keep a brief, informative summary here in the presidency sections. There have been many mentions of the article being too long, so here is also a solution to this pretty agreed upon issue. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime and human rights have been major issues for Chavez and his administration. If the homicide rate had quadrupled under Obama, you would see a Crime section in Obama's article. I am really growing tired of having this conversation over and over again.JoelWhy (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You said it yourself, his presidency is where it is needed. To give you an example, unemployment (one of the biggest issues of the US political sphere, as crime is in Ven.) is given a couple of sentences, noting that it increased past 10%. This is all this information deserves in the article of an individual. It is taken for granted that a leader is not wholly responsible for domestic (economic or crime issues included) issues, especially when no sources point towards that, as in this case. Some media refering to "crime increasing under Chavez" is not a strong enough link to Chavez as an individual, even if some would like that. Information of such detail on crime, foreign affairs, etc. deserve to be in the neglected sister articles of Chavez and Venezuela, where they logically fit; with a concise summary here (as in the Obama article). And I could be wrong, but you appeared to be supporting a cutting down of the length of this article. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the crime discussion belongs in the presidency article. But we are going to summarize that article here. Crime will probably warrant a sentence or so in that summary. All of the major topics in the presidency article (human rights, economy, etc.) will need to be included in this article, only more briefly (because we are also going to be covering Chavez' early life, military career, etc. here). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re, one sentence, wrong. Due weight to reliable sources. Crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration, and until due weight is given to reliable sources here, the article will remain POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We do in fact have a crime section and it does in fact say that the homicide rate doubled under Chavez. TFD (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Jrtayloriv, this is exactly what I meant. A summary of these sections in this article, and their full detail in the more appropriate sister articles. ValenShephard (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

So, can someone get on this task, as I am very busy for the next month at least? :) ValenShephard (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Overthrow through elections

The last sentence in the lead section states: "His opponents have attempted to overthrow him on various occasions, both through elections and through military coups, each time unsuccessfully".

How can one be overthrown through elections? Isn't the election the legal way of changing government? For example was George Bush overthrown by Barack Obama in 2008 elections?

And as a side-note: the article suffers from some serio-us POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.3.11 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Various people have commented on this article having a bias, both pro and anti-Chavez. It is something that editors are addressing, slowly but (I hope) surely. As for the specific usage of the term "overthrow", I think that you're right on this point. "Remove from power" might be a better term to use.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))

"Remove from power" would then sound like downplaying/legitimizing the coup. Split the phrase, they dont belong lumped together since its apples and oranges. A coup attempt and and opposiing via elections shouldn't be in the same breath. -86.157.81.232 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was a poor election of words ("overthrow" imply the use of force), but the idea is correct. The lead is a summary, and it states that his opponents want to remove him, both by legal and illegal ways. The ways are different, but the goal is the same, they are not "apples and oranges". Simply add a little more clarification on the difference between both things. MBelgrano (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.38.9 (talk)

Other bios and ongoing POV

I see no improvement in the POV here, but an unrelated discussion about bio sources elsewhere prompted me to go searching for examples. Hopefully editors working here will read and note the substantial differences between these bios and the Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting they necessarily be used as sources, in fact some of them would not be reliable sources-- just noting that they don't attempt to whitewash, and manage to stay focused on important issues with a manageable length, while mentioning the "good" and the "bad" (the latter being eliminated from Wikipedia):

• http://www.notablebiographies.com/news/Ca-Ge/Ch-vez-Hugo.html
• http://www.biography.com/articles/Hugo-Ch%C3%A1vez-193225
• http://www.lcsc.edu/elmartin/historybehindthenews/mccoy/bio.html
• http://latinamericanhistory.about.com/od/presidentsofsouthamerica/p/09HChavez.htm

Regardless of reliability of these sources, they provide indicators to easily sourced information missing in this article, and ideas of ways to introduce balance and brevity to this article. Some of the commentary here about the Marcano book relative to Jones is interesting, although not reliable. Foreign Affairs also reviewed the Marcano book here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

More missing information-- easily accessible via a multitide of sources-- here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Sandy, they should be of some help in the work I and others are doing on this page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

The biographical articles are all tertiary sources, but provide an example of how the article could be written. The International Crisis Group article could be a good source for analysis in the article. TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Policy" section

So far, a large section of this article deals not with biographical information about Chávez (which this article should by its very nature be primarily concerned with) and instead deals with policies instituted under his governance. This latter information, which is contained within the lengthy "Policy" section (with its sub-sections dealing with the economy, human rights, media, crime rates and foreign policy) should all properly belong to the page at Presidency of Hugo Chávez, which is designed to deal more with his and his government's rule. I propose that these sections be moved to that page, where they would be better suited. That is not to say that elements of them should not be included in the biographical sections about Hugo's presidential life (because of course they should), but as whole sections in themselves, I really feel that they do not have a place here. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

Disagree, not only are his policies relevant to his bio, in his case even more so than for other leaders that info is relevant because of the consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions and the judiciary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that his goivernment's policies were not relevant to his biography, but that these can perhaps be dealt with better in the above biographical sections about his life as president. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))

I don't understand your argument, Sandy. First of all "consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions" is an opinion advanced by some sources but we cannot say there is a consensus about that. Further, even if this were true, the point is that this article should be more about Chávez the individual, there is a lot of details that could be moved to the Presidency article. JRSP (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this article doesn't need to go into extensive details, but you can't separate the man from his policies. So, for example, the foreign policy section shouldn't go into as much detail as a separate page devoted to his foreign policy, but this article should still provide a summary.JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)