Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 29

Freedom House reliable?

I am having doubts about the reliability of freedom house after doing some reading on it. Apparently its funded by dubious private sources, often involved with strong right wing sources. It has been criticised for its endorsement of the extreme right (see its article) and has a history of being very strongly opposed to many leftist movements. Its a controversial source, thats for sure. Apparently it recieves funding from the US state and has been accused in a few strong sources that it works to advance US foreign policy. If these accusations exist, it can hardly be a reliable source on a country which opposes, and is opposed, by the US government. Please discuss.ValenShephard (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should at least include some of the well sourced allegations of Freedom House's partisanship. I would prefer the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, to be honest with you. They are generally more respected and well written in their reporting, and they have many less accusations of partisanship or connections to vested interests like FH.ValenShephard (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So... you're saying that the article right now is a little bit "anti-Chavez" and you think it should be better to... let's see... make it more... neutral? In other words, you are planing to let this unbelievably biased article even more biased? --Lecen (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you said is not productive to this discussion. I didn't say the article is anti-Chavez, I simply want to get people's views about the reliability of Freedom House, which is a respectable request.ValenShephard (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are trying to make this article even more pro-Chavez than it already is. Freedom House is a reliable source, under Wiki guidelines. Period. If you have problems with their supposed biases, add it to the Freedom House site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 02:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to deny that HRW, AI and the UN are preferable to Freedom House. Having said that, balance is clearly important here. I wouldn't support a blanket removal of all references to or from FH without appropriately replacing their claims with those from better sources...particularly the ones that are, in fact, critical of the Venezuelan government. Someone else has to address at least some of the same points and if they are able to do so with less bias or political suspicions (an issue that cuts both ways, I would argue), then go for it. Juancarlos2004 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't want to remove Freedom House wholesale. Maybe add a little sourced information (which is readly available) on some of the partisanship of Freedom House, to inform the reader that they have been accused of bias and serving vested interests. Or like the above editor says, a replacement dealing with the same issues, but from more widely agreed upon sources could be better. ValenShephard (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That material would be off-topic here, but Freedom House can be wikilinked, and that info can be added on its article. Awickert (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Wikipedia policy that says that we cannot use Freedom House as a source -- it clearly meets the guidelines for a reliable source. However, I do think that we should ensure that the information we take from their work is verifiable, due to the fact that it is clearly a right-wing organization, which is taking information out of context and selectively presenting information. If we find sources that demonstrate that their vague claims (vague in the sense of rarely, if ever mentioning specific examples, not taken out of context) are false, then they should be removed. This goes for other reliable sources, such as the New York Times, which routinely presents selective and/or false information on Venezuela. Also, we need to be careful not to give them undue weight -- I don't know that they warrant such a long paragraph. I would shorten it to a sentence or two. On the other hand, the OAS report and HRW reports do warrant paragraphs of this length, since they are much more notable criticisms of Chavez (Albeit selective and biased as well). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Which info would be off topic? I am interested in your suggestion, can you explain it a bit more? ValenShephard (talk) 03:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussing the fact that Freedom House is a right-wing propaganda front would be off topic in an article on Hugo Chavez. It would be on topic in an article about Freedom House. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree with you. But what about Freedom House's reliability? Should we replace the FH statements with something more acceptable to all, like the UN or HRW, as another editor mentioned? ValenShephard (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't believe that Freedom House is as notable as HRW, OAS, UN, etc. criticisms. The latter three all need to be discussed here. Freedom House, if it even warrants discussion, should be given short shrift -- a sentence or two at most, due to it's low relative notability compared to other sources here, combined with it's lack of factual data to back up it's vague claims (which are just repetitions of more notable criticisms anyway). --Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So we should start looking for sources on human rights in Vene. from those more reliable sources? Until then what would you think of us writing something (very very roughly) like "Freedom House in a recent report criticised supposed attacks on opposition journalists and noted the increase in indiginous and women's rights." What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right actually on something else too, Jrtayloriv. Unlike most other human rights organs, Freedom House doesn't offer any sources for its information. Which is also very generalised. That is critical in discussing their reliability. ValenShephard (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: in general, we don't want to spend time discussing the reliability of a source within an article. Sometimes this is justifiable, particularly if it's the only source or a key issue or an article with a very narrow focus; otherwise, either include and wikilink the source, or exclude (especially if something better is available). As to Freedom House specifically, it seems a lot of space to give to one quite partisan source. And the paragraph suffers from the typical US-opposition lack-of-context problem: dumping a description of all Venezuela's problems (most of which have a long history) into the biography of the current President does tend to attribute all those problems to him personally, if you're not careful. Anyway, if there is an upswing of interest in the "human rights" section, for these reasons it should wikilink to Human rights in Venezuela and have just a short summary here. Rd232 ^talk 07:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom House is a highly prominent, generally respected organization. You don't have to look any further than the Wiki page to read "The findings are widely used by governments, international organizations, academics, and the news media in many countries." If you want to keep playing this game of trying to find fault with every criticism of Chavez, then we can start slashing the numerous references by to notably biased sources such as The Guardian.JoelWhy (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy -- I wasn't saying that Freedom House was not a reliable source, in general. But in this case, since they didn't back up anything they said with verifiable facts, and are simply repeating common criticisms found in more reliable sources, we should just directly use the more reliable sources (OAS, HRW, etc) that they are parroting from. As far as "finding fault with every criticism of Chavez" -- that's not what anyone was suggesting. They are just suggesting that we include criticism from only the most reliable sources (since there are so many thousands of newspapers, NGOs, and governments that criticize Chavez, and they all repeat the same lines anyway). And from those, only include information that, is verifiable -- in the sense that due to the large number of demonstrably false or biased claims that are made about this topic, we should not include information that we know to be false or misleading ("know" that is, based on information contained in other reliable sources that do back up their claims with verifiable facts). Reliability is important, but so is accuracy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course no one is outright suggesting that you should remove criticisms of Chavez -- actually stating it would make the bias here all the more obvious. The fact is these reports are relied upon by numerous governments. There have been no substantiated claims of bias. This is just a further attempt to soften the criticisms of Chavez. Who do you people think you're fooling? A number of the sources on this page of highly suspect, but the one that is focused upon just happens to be the one that provides the most comprehensive criticisms? The fact that they don't source all of their points is irrelevant. They are not an encyclopedia. They issue a report and provide a general list of sources.JoelWhy (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above statement. Very fair, and its good to mention that Freedom House's accuracy is disputable. ValenShephard (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, so according to what has been said here, I will shorten the freedom house paragraph to include a summary of their findings, a couple of sentences. I will then start trawling for less partisan sources like we have discussed. ValenShephard (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Freedom House is used by governments, the ones it supports and lobbies for... The Guardian is a strongly respectable source, they have a history of being one of the less bias major papers in the UK. ValenShephard (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right when you say that there should only be a short summary of these issues we are discussing here. This is after all only the Chavez article. Many of the issues such as human rights are issues with Venezuela, not with Chavez's policies. Very deep rooted problems in a poor country with a long history of corruption and high crime. Its like writing on the Obama article blaming him for issues in America, which have existed since before he was born. At least Chavez is the first in the country's history to implement laws defending gay, women's and indiginous rights. I don't know how much you can blame him personally for supposed attacks on "human rights defenders" which is an extremely dubious wording. I suspect a human rights defender can be anyone Freedom House wants it to be. And I haven't actually seen any evidence for attacks on journalists or the media ordered by Chavez or carried out by his party. It probably does happen, south america has a history of this (Several journalists were killed in Colombia recently) but I've seen little evidence for this in my sources, The Guardian and BBC news, and 'no evidence' from Freedom House, who like you said, selectively use information, pin long term problems on the current administration and definately have a right-wing agenda. ValenShephard (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how Freedom House qualifies as a reliable source, especially for a biography article. TFD (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you generally, TFD, but can you be specific? So we can form an argument against it. ValenShephard (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, I appreciate your shortening of the freedom house statements as per this talk. I believe it is a fair summary of the information which was there. ValenShephard (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom House is neither "Scholarship" or a "News organization", two of the main types of sources listed at WP:RS. Since this is an academic topic, "it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources" where possible. For editorials, it says that they "may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution". But WP:BLP discourages their use for facts. So we could consider FH a reliable source for its opinions but not for facts.

The next issue is notability. The views of FH, etc. are notable, but need to be fairly presented according to neutrality. If we want to introduce opinions into the article then we must determine how Chavez is perceived in mainstream academic writing. So far no one has done that, merely found pro- and anti-Chavez opinion pieces. Neutrality "requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material".

TFD (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think that we should stick with work of scholars, primarily -- and even then, only those scholars who are making statements of fact, rather than opinion -- and even then, only those that provide factual evidence for said statements. The quality of journalism on this issue is very low, and unless the author is a scholar writing in a newspaper, backing up their claims with facts, I think we should avoid journalists. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Adding such a section is silly. Its based on very weak sources. Exhuming Bolivar was not based on a conspiracy theory. Claiming that Chavez doesn't think that bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 is simply a perversion of the source. Chavez simple says all information on bin Laden comes from western sources. How can you extrapolate from this that Chavez thinks bin Laden was not responsible? Even so, these sources are very weak, and unsuitable for this article. If Chavez has commented on these theories, add them to the corresponding page. ValenShephard (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

These sources are opinion pieces. The first source writes about Chavez's "necrophilia". This is obviously not a very balanced and neutral account. ValenShephard (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources are highly reliable. I included none of their opinions -- only the quotes from Chavez.JoelWhy (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to include the "conspiracy theories" section -- it is clearly giving undue weight to useless trivia of low notability. And we are already going to be hard-pressed to fit all of the important information on Chavez into the article, as is. We should focus on important historical, economic, and political events, rather than trashy tabloid stories on trivialities published in the corporate press. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. There are much bigger issues than to try to discredit this article and Chavez. Like the above editor says, these are fluff pieces in the corporate media, and not articles per se, but opinion pieces. And that opinion is strongly anti-Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter's page has a section on his supposedly seeing a UFO. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's page talks about his supposedly denying the Holocaust. Yet, we somehow don't have room for Chavez's belief in conspiracy theories? Nonsense. These directly relate to his foreign policy views. And, even if you argue they don't, they are certainly relevant to his way of thinking. It's relevant, factual, well-sourced. Trying to pretend it's just gossip is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't worked on Carter or Ahmadinejad's pages, but as far as Carter and Ahmadinejad, these probably need to go too. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you all PLEASE try to remember to sign your entries with four tildes ( ~~~~ )? Y'all continue to waste time and space on the talk page arguing over non-issues; the decision about whether to include something in the article is not based on individual likes and dislikes and opinions, but whether reliable sources mention the issues, according to WP:UNDUE. And plenty of reliable sources most certainly mention all of Chavez's strange theories, for which he is well known ... find them and use them, and stop taking up space arguing over polemics and opinions here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I put the section back in. If you think it's biased, you can edit. Do not delete just because you don't like the content. JoelWhy (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody deleted it because they "don't like the content". It was deleted because it is giving undue weight to sensationalist trivia, was perceived as "poorly written", and is unencyclopedic and non-informative. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And by the way, please stop edit warring, or I'm going to have to report you for a WP:3RR violation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy -- Reliable sources are actually primarily discussed in WP:RS not WP:UNDUE. The latter is actually one of the primary reasons why this trivia should not be included here. Sure, some sensationalist journalists have written articles on this sort of thing, but that doesn't make it as relevant as the numerous other, more significant things that are discussed in things like the human rights concerns in the OAS report, or various economic analyses, etc. I don't think that most people would be in agreement with filling up articles on U.S. presidents with this sort of garbage (i.e. every quirky, odd, or downright insane thing they've ever said, just because some polemical journalist managed to get something published in a newspaper). And please stop being a hypocrite -- you are complaining about people "wasting time and space on talk pages arguing over non-issues", where a significant portion of the bickering on this talk page involves yourself. If they were such "non-issues", I highly doubt you or other authors would be concerned with them. They are issues because some editors perceive them as such -- the whole purpose of Wikipedia is to collaborate until these issues are resolved. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't "trivia". It provides insight into Chavez's state of mind. It is undisputed that Venezuela has severe diplomatic tensions with Colombia and the U.S. He has made fairly serious allegations (e.g. Covert invasion of Haiti; possible false flag attack; etc.) This mindset is hardly trivia. And, then dismissing the sources as "sensationalist journalists" is quite telling. I cited MSNBC and Slate, both reputable sources -- moreover, I relied primarily on quotes made by Chavez, so bias isn't even an issue. You and ValenShephard seem to think that agreeing with each other and making changes is somehow a "consensus". Don't think I haven't noticed the complete whitewashing by ValenShephard of the Human Rights issues "based on the Talk page." If you guys want to start a pro-Chavez site, go for it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not propaganda.JoelWhy (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anything significant about Colombia should be mentioned in the foreign policy section, with attention paid to ensure that we are not violating WP:Recentism, and giving undue weight to possibly insignificant recent events that are being sensationalized in the media current, and will probably blow over like all of the other "brink of war" situations between Colombia and Venezuela have.

As far as the other stuff, while you might think it "provides insight into his mind", your opinion does not justify inclusion. Other things that also provide insight into his mind, but are more notable, include economic, social, and foreign policy. These are much more notable and relevant to an encyclopedia article on a political figure.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, keeping up with y'all is a boatload of work. In addition to signing entries and confining talk page discussions to actual policy and guideline, please read WP:TALK and thread your responses properly, and avoid the personalization of issues such as demonstrated by Jrtayloriv's last post. You are ALL edit warring, and if it doesn't stop, the article is headed for protection. Please work from reliable sources rather than opinion -- a multitude of very reliable sources discuss Chavez's odd theories. Find and use them; I'm not going to do all the work here again. Yet, anyway, because the POV tag will be reinstated once I get to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rely on Christopher Hitchens' memory for what Chavez said. It would be wrong to build an article around this type of source. But one should not label an article POV unless one provides reliable sources for information that should be in the article. TFD (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a standard journalism practice. The interviewer takes notes, etc, and the interviewee gets quoted in the newspaper. There are countless examples of quotes that appear in newspapers that are really just the memory (or, more likely, the notes) of the journalist. Moreover, the other quotes are from other sources, not from Hitchens.JoelWhy (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy, PLEASE read WP:TALK and thread your responses for readability. The Four Deuces, you as well as anyone know very well that I have supplied innumerable reliable sources that are not used in this article, and they are already well detailed on this page, and can easily be updated once I catch up from travel. The article was and is dramatically POV and unbalanced, there is a well-documented POV dispute, and you can't will it away by ignoring it or policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy -- as I've said several times, WP:RS is not the only policy that Wikipedia editors must adhere to. We cannot violate WP:BLP, WP:Undue, and WP:Notability, WP:NPOV, and others. You can't just throw around WP:RS and ignore all other concerns related to these. Sometimes, reliable sources make opinionated claims that are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In an article entitled Media perception of Hugo Chavez, these sorts of op-ed pieces would be appropriate. Here, we should stick to statements of fact, and focus primarily on statements of fact that are the most significant. We can't be writing about every time Chavez has kissed someone's baby on the cheek, or every wierd, off-the-wall thing he's said, just because some reliable source mentioned it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're on to one thing there-- the most egregious violations of NPOV here are due to WP:UNDUE, which is a reflection of RS issues being ignored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, these aren't random, irrelevant claims -- he's not saying he believes some random government is covering up alien abductions. He has serious diplomatic relations problems with the U.S. He makes various serious allegations against the U.S. The same for Colombia. This isn't just a "weird, off-the-wall thing" he said. The reader can judge how it may or may not impact his foreign policy decisions, but to claim there couldn't be a link is a white washing of the facts.JoelWhy (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Freedom House report

In the Human Rights section, I included a reference to the report issued by Freedom House that includes a general summary about how Venezuela is on a 'downward trend' as far as rights go. It goes on to explain in detail the reasoning for its findings. It also includes a single paragraph about how rights have improved for women and a single paragraph about how rights have improved for indigenous. ValenShephard has altered the addition I made to make it seem like this is a primary focus of the report. When I changed it, he undid my change claiming "indigisnous and women's rights are much more important (and effect more people in more direct ways) than use of state funding for campaigning and such." This is precisely the type of bias that is being spread throughout this article. I am undoing his change (a change, by the way, that includes the mention of improvements in women and indigenous rights) -- I don't see how any objective person can find a problem with my summary of the report (or support Valen's). Again, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, not a demonstration of our personal political views.JoelWhy (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I didn't make those edits. They were agreed upon by 3 or more editors in the Freedom House reliable talk. It would do you good to read it and respect its outcomes. You need consensus when wanting to remove edits which were previously agreed upon and heavily discussed in talk. ValenShephard (talk) 13:21, 4 August

2010 (UTC)

Please point to the Talk section where this was agreed upon. I see the section about the supposed bias of Freedom House, but I do not see where anyone has agreed to implement your subjective views on what is or is not important over what is actually presented in the report.JoelWhy (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If this is not a forum for political views, why do you present yours consistently in your edits? ValenShephard (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh puhhhh-lease. You have no idea what my political views are, other than that I don't like oppressive governments.JoelWhy (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By catagorizing this regime as oppressive you have revealed alot about your politicalk beliefs, so I guess I do know them, more or less. :) ValenShephard (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The last half or 1/3 of the Freedom House reliable? section discusses how freedom house is not scholarly, doesn't fit the normal criteria for a reliable source, and Jrtayloriv agreed and later made the edits which you are talking about, the shortening of the article. ValenShephard (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the article does NOT mean misleading the reader as to its content. No one reading the report could possibly think you have accurately summarized it.JoelWhy (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is very well summarised (and again, not by me). Freedom House doesn't give equal space in talking about media and press rights, indiginous rights and women's rights. That is their own bias. However, here in wikipedia, we try to give fair exposure to issues based on their 'weight'. Just because they have literally written more about press rights in that report, doesn't mean that that issue should take more precedence. After all, women (about half the population if you need reminding) and indiginous people are a much greater proportion of the population than the media and the press. That is why they are mentioned on an equal footing as press and media rights. Its simple fairness and logic. ValenShephard (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First, freedom of the press is an issue that impacts ALL Venezuelans. Second, the report also focuses on political rights -- another issue that impacts ALL Venezuelans. Third, it is not up to you to 'remove the bias' from the report. This is an encyclopedia. You summarize the report as-is, not as you wish it were. This isn't "simple fairness and logic." It's the epitome of bias.JoelWhy (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The report is very bias and if we used the weight they give to certain topics, it wouldn't be suitable for wikipedia. And if we went into massive detail, it would again not be suitable for this article, that is another reason it was shortened. As was discussed.

That is why we had to give equal and fair weight to different topics, not following freedom house's lines, because as we discussed their report is very bias, badly sourced, blames alot of deep interconnected issues on the Chavez administration and is very partisan. It is fine how it is, and the other editors agreed. ValenShephard (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the critical point to make is that throughout the talk on Freedom House several editors came to the conclusion that detailed information about human rights is not suitable for an article on a president. Like one pointed out, it is much more suited to the article Human Rights in Venezuela but not so much attention is paid to it. ValenShephard (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A more critical point to be made, IMO, is that until editors here focus on specifically what is stated at WP:UNDUE with respect to reliable sources, this article will continue to be mired in POV. Rather than argue (largely based on editor *opinion*) every issue back and forth, a focus on due weight according to reliable sources is the only way this article can progress. MULTIPLE and SECONDARY reliable sources mention the OAS report and other human rights abuses and attribute those abuses directly to Chavez's authoritarian rule-- stop arguing back and forth individual sources, and begin to focus on the preponderance of what all and most reliable sources say, or this artilce will never progress. The issue here is not whether to use or not any individual source, but what the preponderance of reliable sources have to say. Until editors here get out of individual differences and try to have the article reflect the consensus of reliable sources according to due weight, the article will continue to be POV, and the talk page will continue to be a quagmire and a waste of time, with the article burdened by ownership, with every new editor who tries to address recurring issues chased out by ownership and tenditious editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Freedom House report isn't the true issue here. I was just using it as an example. As it stands, we clearly need some third-party input here. There are a few editors on this page who seem devoted to making this a full-fledged piece of pro-Chavez propaganda. I'm sure those same people would accuse me of being a right-wing plant of something. As it stands, I'm growing tired of having every addition I make be perverted into a glowing endorsement of Chavez. And, I suppose that's the point --keep making these changes, get the 2 other Chavistas to agree the change is warranted, and eventually the other editors will go away. Surely, Wiki has some manner of dealing with these types of situations. At the very least, the POV (and other banners that were removed) needs to be added back to this article.JoelWhy (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"There are a few editors on this page who seem devoted to making this a full-fledged piece of pro-Chavez propaganda. I'm sure those same people would accuse me of being a right-wing plant of something." - OK, let's have a lot less of that please. We can and should all Assume Good Faith of others, namely that at the end of the day, we are all here to write a WP:NPOV encyclopedia entry. Of course differences of opinion may mean different visions of what that looks like, but the idea of the Wikipedia consensus process is that through discussion and presentation of evidence, and dispute resolution if necessary, a compromise can eventually be found. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, every time you say how POV and how much like propaganda this page is, all you do is hurt anyone honestly wanting to add and improve to this article. I think thats pretty simple to understand. If you were honest about your intentions here, you would work on it, not simply accuse everything of POV, bias and propaganda and search around for negative statements about the Chavez government and add them into the article. Thats not how balance is made anyway. If you think the article is very pro-chavez then what does adding very anti-chavez statements accomplish except, by your own rules, take it in the same direction towards bias and propaganda.

You are calling editors here "Chavistas"? Do you want to retract that accusation?

By the way, those source from human rights groups do not talk about Chavez personally decreeing these decisions. They blame them on the government as a whole, in the majority of cases, not Chavez himself. You need to understand that. ValenShephard (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Organization Proposition

I would like to propose changing the organization of the content under presidency. (this format is similar to what we use on US president pages so why not with a venezuelan president, huh?)

Organization would look like this:

Presidency

Domestic Affairs

Economic Policy- see economic section above

Social Policy - talk about how he is transforming society AND/ OR his responses to a changing society (i.e. the conflict b/w Venezns' consumer culture and his "21st century socialism")

Politics - we could talk about how chavez has changed Venezuelan politics since '98 (im a lil' bit shocked this isn't in the article now???)

Civil Rights - this is where some of that "human rights" stuff could go, or the revocation of RCTV, or that stuff about the new constitution(?)'s rights (someone put that in the section) and how chavez affected those constitutional propositions

Drop me a comment if you agree, disagree, or are ambivalent, or none of the above. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not working first the Presidency of Hugo Chávez article? The main article "Presidency" section should summarize from that article. JRSP (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I had no idea there even was a Presidency of Hugo Chávez article! Thanks for bringing that to my attention. But my proposition is really just an organizational hierarchy, a way to more efficiently present information. I don't see why we can't summarize the presidency using this organization. I mean, it's what we do for the US presidents articles. --Schwindtd (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Besides there's no reason the Presidency article couldn't take some cews (did i spell that wrong?) from this article. It could add to the content of both pages! --Schwindtd (talk) 02:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Human and media rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do not see in the Barack Obama article any mention of Human Rights Watch criticism, which is echoed by many neutral observers, that "The United States, with a contradictory history of promoting and disregarding international human rights abroad, has a similarly mixed record at home",[1] let alone a catalog of U. S. human rights abuses. Also missing is partisan criticism of Obama's policies. Is there any reason why this article should be different? Obama of course is personally reponsible for pursuing the wars in Iraq and Iran, the policies pursued by his generals, including targeted assassinations of civilians and arbitrary detentions, and of course the stimulus package and health care reform. TFD (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not protection?

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

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

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

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

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

Indeterminant (98)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Rights Watch report

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

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

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

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

I removed, "and the UN officials alleged that the arrest was politically motivated". It does not seem to appear either in the Reuters story cited[2] or in the UN story.[3] That of course may be the inference but we should not go beyond what the sources actually state. TFD (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It is curious that so many of you advocate your view of "truth" over "reliabiity" or "verifiability" (see WP:V), while simultaneously arguing that Weisbrot or gov't econ stats should be used, when multiple reliable sources have discussed the problems with Ven. gov't data, and Weisbrot is partisan. No, we can't blindly report primary source data, for the very reasons discussed by reliable sources about the problems with that data-- this is precisely why primary sources should be used with great care, Jrtayloriv. Also, unless you don't read all sources, you know that many sources argue the arrest was politically motivated, so a better improvement to the article-- instead of removing the statement-- would be to attribute it correctly (like this, an example of selective deletion of easily sourcable text). Of course, that takes work, and I'm not going to do it all, but I have left some samples of how to improve one sentence, that took me about ten edits (which should help inflate my edit count for IP's analysis of me as a "NeoCon").[4] Will editors here PLEASE begin to format citations? Bare URLs are taking over the article sourcing. And for TFD's pointy statement about FOX news, they generally run the same Reuters reports run by most news agencies (which often go dead); please use durable sources whenever possible, since most of what is written about Chavez is written in multiple easily accessible reliable sources-- most certainly not only orgs like FOX news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy -- As I've said above, you are advocating your view, and your selection of sources and claiming that anything you haven't selected or given your approval is invalid. I don't personally care whether you actually believe that the OAS is not biased, while the Venezuelan government is. I don't care if your sources claim that the IMF and World Bank are completely honest, and have no political motivation. If that's what the corporate news sources and U.S.-controlled international institutions you prefer as sources want to tell their readers, then great. However, there are other scholars that easily meet the criteria for WP:RS and WP:Notability, who are claiming that the Venezuelan statistics, and those of notable NGOs are valid and that they are more representative of reality. And they claim furthermore (and demonstrate with evidence, unlike your sources) that the sources you are using have a long history of lying and misleading about this issue.(See for example: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], or [14]) The fact is, that you don't get to decide that certain notable and reliable scholars, newspapers, etc. are "biased", and that others aren't. Of course, you are free to declare that certain scholars are "biased" and that your newspaper articles are correct. But your declaration doesn't matter, as far as WP:RS is concerned.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the article biased or not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is biased (pro-Chavez)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article needs improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tendentious editing

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

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

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

Documenting further removal of legitimate tags without balancing the text per preponderance of reliable sources, and use of marginal or partisan sources in one BLP, discussing yet another living person, contravening BLP policy.[15][16] User:SandyGeorgia 01:48, August 7, 2010

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

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

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

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

Specific things that need to be fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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