Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29

Balanced source on the Chavez/crime connection and crime in Venezuela generally

I know this has been a problematic issue for this article, but a good source was released today that seems to strike a balance ([1]). Talking about a report put out by the International Crisis Group, Al Jazeera writes (some excerpts):

"According to the study, a person is murdered in Venezuela every half hour due to gang and drug related violence. It goes on to say that international organised crime filters in through the borders from Colombia leading to greater kidnappings, drug trafficking and homicides. With armed paramilitaries, opposition groups, gangs, drug organisations, and a corrupt police force so intertwined, the think tank says a simple resolution is unlikely.Although the report is critical of Chavez, it recognises that there were factors beyond his control that lead to the current situation when he took power in 1999."

"Supporters of Chavez say his policies are more proactive in developing Venezuelan communities than previous administrations, but are plagued by disruptive opposition forces. They also contend the states with the highest number of murders are governed by the opposition. Pro-Chavez Venezuelans believe he made credible efforts to reduce violence, and he cannot be held responsible for factors stemming beyond the borders" such as drug trafficking, right-wing paramilitary action etc.

I don't have the time to incorporate this into the article, but I am sure some of you here will find it useful. I would highly recommend this source and I think it would fit well into the article, seeing as the Chavez/crime connection is so contested and important. Good work on the article guys, its progressed since I last saw it!ValenShephard (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Transparent

This is possibly one of the poorest attempts at maintaining neutrality I've ever seen in my life. I didn't even need to read the article before seeing that it was biased. ValenShephard and midnightblueowl, I think the two of you should take a break from this page and let people who don't seem to be so personally invested in the issue edit it. I mean, look at what you just wrote, ValenShephard:

I know this has been a problematic issue for this article, but a good source was released today that seems to strike a balance. Talking about a report put out by the International Crisis Group, Al Jazeera writes (some excerpts):

"Although the report is critical of Chavez, it recognises that there were factors beyond his control that lead to the current situation when he took power in 1999."

"Supporters of Chavez say his policies are more proactive in developing Venezuelan communities than previous administrations, but are plagued by disruptive opposition forces. They also contend the states with the highest number of murders are governed by the opposition. Pro-Chavez Venezuelans believe he made credible efforts to reduce violence, and he cannot be held responsible for factors stemming beyond the borders" such as drug trafficking, right-wing paramilitary action etc.

Do you not see how transparent that is to other people? You came in and declared you had an article that struck a balance, and then the only quotes you thought people on this page needed to see were pro-Chavez Do you understand what that means? It means that you yourself failed to strike a balance in pulling quotes from it: you are so unable to let your biases go even for the couple of seconds it takes to cut-and-paste quotes. That you only allowed one side of the article to be filtered through your keyboard should tell you something about yourself and I think you need to step back and ask yourself whether or not you should really be editing this page. And you should answer honestly.Phoenix Song (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The lack of neutrality in this article is at least a five-year-old problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I haven't edited this page since about September 2010. :) I quoted almost the entirety of the link now, and you'll see that it doesn't conflict with the image that the original quotes gave. The article (talking about an independant report by the ICG) states that crimes is very high, gives some of the reasons as overflow of drug trafficking, paramilitaries from Columbia etc. ValenShephard (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

So how does one go about fixing it when this sort of thing keeps happening? I mean, this is a page on Hugo Chavez, leader of a country, and it's controlled by like four people who think he's the absolute tits. I don't know very much about Hugo Chavez, so it's not like I can fix it right away, but is it even worth it if my edits will be reverted because they show him in a negative light?

I'm just astonished that no one is paying more attention to this problem, although then again that seems to be typical. Source something incorrectly on the Knuckles the Echidna page and it'll be fixed in five seconds, but Hugo Chavez? Nothing to worry about. Phoenix Song (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Of all the criticisms of Chavez' the one that seems to have no traction outside the partisan press is the crime rate. It is not even mentioned for example in the Socialist International's commentary on Venezuela. TFD (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
The New York Times is now "the partisan press"? [2] seems to be from the NYT. Not "partisan" as far as I can tell. [3], [4], [5], [6] ad infinitum. No -- this is not just a "partisan press" here - it is just about everyone who does not have blinders on. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
TFD, doesn't the source I've provided offer some interesting commentary? It is by no means pro-Chavez, but the article (and video) are discussing an independant report which didn't go for either extremes of the argument. One of them being that 'Chavez is reponsible for the crime rate increase' and the other being that corruption in the police force etc. is fully to blame. What do you think? ValenShephard (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, on all the Wikiprojects I flagged this page for immediate attention. Time to smash the beehive with a baseball bat. Another possibility could be an RFC. Even though Chavez is the leader of Venezuela, and not the USA, he has a fairly prominent stature. This state of affairs is unacceptable. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
@Collect, I don't think anyone is arguing that crime in Venezuela has not skyrocketed, the debate worth mentioning is how it's liked to the country's head of state, and this is very controversial; hence what TFD was trying to get at, I think. And I really don't see this article as flawed as WhisperToMe does. ValenShephard (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
With many sources which are not "partisan" raising the issue with regard to Chavez, I suspect that this should be non-controversial. And TFD made a blanket and errant claim here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
All I am saying is that the Chavez/crime connection is controversial, in the sense that there reliable sources disagree, or give different weight to different factors. And no, the NYT is not a partisan source, indeed. ValenShephard (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah -- so some pro-Chavez sources outweigh the NYT by an infinite ratio <g>. Sorry -- Wikipedia says that where a claim is made by reliable sources (and there are plenty of those) and the material is strongly sourced, that it should be covered in the article. If you feel that it is only a "minor issue" then just give it a sentence or two, but eliding it completely is contrary to WP:NPOV at the bare minimum. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I see Collect has followed me to this talk page. He might want to read the discussion, because his comments are incoherent. He also misrepresents my comments. I did not call the NYT partisan and have no idea what these "pro-Chavez" sources are. Collect should try to stay on topic rather than distract us. I am not interested in a long boring discussion with him about issues that have nothing to do with improving the article. TFD (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Get a grip -- I came here because I follow BLP/N and have edited somewhenre on the order of five hundred BLPs now. [7]. Next time you decide to make such unfounded accusations, I suggest you ask first. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The first step would be to ask "what are the most important points about this person?" - Think about how the Barack Obama article is constructed. Take anything too specific and move it to a subarticle. If the subarticle doesn't exist, create it. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, since you failed to read the discussion before jumping in with your opinion, let me re-cap the discussion. Chavex's opponents have blamed him for the crime rate in Venezuela, but no reliable sources have reported that as a mainstream opinion. The NYT did report that opinion and debunked it. The Socialist International, which represents the opposition to Chavez (which I presented as an example of anti-Chavez writing rather than as rs), provided a thoughtful criticism of Chavez' administration, but makes no mention of the crime rate. You should have sufficient familiarization with rs to understand that saying someone is responsible for high levels of crime is an opinion rather than a fact. TFD (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I had read the page, and find your comments above to be grossly offensive. Please remove it, as your posts here have been substantially less than collegial. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How about something like this: the opponents of the government claim that Chavez is largely responsible for the rise in crime, while supporters claim that the current administration has been more proactive than previous governments and that the highest crime rates are in opposition held areas. (from al Jazeera source). Is that ok? Of course, in a much expanded form. And we shouldnt be making so many references to eachother's behaviour, let's concentrate on the article. ValenShephard (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

How about "Outside reporters have linked the government to part of the large increase in the murder rate" and link to the NYT, Guardian etc. Asserting that the NYT and Guardian are "opponents" is outre at best. And I suggest the NYT and Guardian etc. are likely to be more highly regarded than is al Jazeera. And kindly note that I was not the one making the personal attacks here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Al Jazeera has gained alot in standing in the English speaking world since their excellent coverage of the Arab Spring, so I think we should view them equally to the other sources. I say opponents, because often those sources are based on the testimony of opposition figures etc. But I get what you're saying, and no accusations of personal attacks. :)
As the NYT and Guardian can not reasonably be characterized as "opponents", I suggest Wikipedia ought not do so. We are fairly settled then? I rather think the actual murder rate is a "fact" at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh the murder rate is definitely a fact, the only issue is what is the cause of this phenomenon. I agree with using the NYT and the Guardian, but we have to look into what we are quoting from them, or taking from them, and seeing who THEY are quoting. You will find that sometimes its from an opposition source, so we should mention that. :) ValenShephard (talk) 13:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless you can separately establish that those cited are specifically "opponents" in the sense that the comments are not neutral, I think the wording I suggested should be fine, and short. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Collect, you should distinguish between a newspaper reporting an opinion and a newspaper article stating an opinion as a fact. No idea btw where you are getting your views on Al Jazeera. What specific changes are you recommending anyway? TFD (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I suggest that many editors would regard NYT and Guardian as very solid sources, which makes no imputation as to al Jazeera. . And do you have any actual problem with "Outside reporters have linked the government to part of the large increase in the murder rate.? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, TFD, that's exactly what I meant. I am warning that we should watch out from where a newspaper gets its source and make that clear. If a reliable source is quoting an opposition source, then we should make that very clear. Secondly, I am still wondering how relevant the crime issue is for this article. Maybe we should have a small section, or a couple of sentences. There is a quite exceptional obsession that Chavez is personally responsible for the increase in crime, and this is a link which is very rarely made with other leaders (for example, the Obama page makes no strong link between him as an individual and crime). We should simply say that some claim that crime increases are related to Chavez, while others do not. ValenShephard (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the single short sentence I suggested is not hitting WP:UNDUE at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Caravana chavista 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Caravana chavista 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

Please add the following to the External links section. The more controversial an article is, the more important to provide alternative views in the media coverage. Videos are also important, to see him speaking for himself.

  • Appearances on C-SPAN
  • Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 at IMDb
  • Works by or about Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 in libraries (WorldCat catalog)
  • Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 collected news and commentary at Al Jazeera English
  • Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 collected news and commentary at The Guardian
  • Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 collected news and commentary at The New York Times
  • "Hugo Chávez/Archive 26 collected news and commentary". The Wall Street Journal.

Note that these are templates. 99.50.186.240 (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the external links policy is? Since these links could be used for any biography of a living person, should be consistent with other articles. TFD (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
They do indeed look like "one size fits all" from here. If any newspaper did print an overview on a person and then link to its other articles, however, such a link would likely be fine. Collect (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's what the newspaper articles do. Did you not follow any of the links to see what was there? I don't know what you mean by "look like from here". Are you not able to access these sites from your country? 75.59.229.4 (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Proc: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". - when you have a specific, agreed request - please re-state it; thanks.  Chzz  ►  07:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, you are in the wrong here. The request is quite clear and in the appropriate form. Standing on technicalities is just... not ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Jimbo, but I must disagree. This is not a simple issue; and contrary to what you say, Chzz is not "standing on technicalities" (an unfortunate phrasing which reads as though you presume he has not thought it through) but attempting to prevent grossly oversized EL sections to no purpose. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There are many valid reasons one might reject the request, you have listed a couple. But what I'm objecting to is that Chzz did, in fact, reject it on a technicality. He quotes this line: "This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it." Well, the anon did precisely that. This reason for rejection is hostile, rude, and false. The edit requested was quite clear - it didn't include any text he wanted removed, because he didn't want any removed. He wanted to add those external links. That's quite possibly not the right thing to do (though I don't think so - I think such links should be included in virtually all BLPs, particularly links which allow people to easily hear directly from the subject), but that requires discussion and consensus building, not shutting someone down for allegedly not following process. This kind of process wonkery has to stop at Wikipedia, it's wrong.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Then I suggest that this should be brought up at WP:EL and/or WP:NOTDIR, because your opinion that these should be included in "virtually all BLPs" runs contrary to those policies, and if community consensus agrees with your view, then we will need to change the policies. Meanwhile, yes we realise he wanted to add links, but he offers no rationale for why each link should be included. "Because they're there" is not generally considered a valid argument for inclusion; current policy indicates we should have a reason for including each link, per WP:NOTDIR. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
The title of the section clearly states 'External links', and that is what the discussion here has focused on. I'm sorry that wasn't clear enough for you, so I have added an additional statement to clarify. These are very typical additions to the EL for a BLP, as you also saw in the Hamid Karzai article. You can easily follow the usage of the various Templates to see that. The purpose of EL is to provide additional information about a subject or person which would extend beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. Ongoing news coverage from various countries and points of view, media appearances including speeches and interviews, and books written by and about the subject certainly achieve that. I'm very surprised this is suddenly an issue with these two articles. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Virtually any edit is "an issue" with fully protected articles. You are asking for content changes; I do not see a discussion, request for feedback, or clear consensus that your requested edit has support or consensus. This is not a simple typo fix or link correction - you are proposing a content change on a fully protected article. I am sorry, but this is not appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
    • KillerChihuahua, you are wrong and being incredibly rude. Let me be 100% perfectly clear on this point: it is always appropriate for anyone, at any time, to request a change to a fully protected article. It is never appropriate to respond to such a request with "I do not see a discussion, request for feedback, or clear consensus that your requested edit has support or consensus". We have an ip number asking for a change, and you are throwing technicalities in his face. It's OUR responsibility as active Wikipedians to respond to such requests with discussions, requests for more information, discussions about why the change might not have consensus, etc. As far as I can tell, this was a good faith request, not POINT-y in any way, not part of any kind of POV-pushing agenda, etc. It's just someone who thinks more external links would be a good idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry my comment read to you as rude. Yes, it is always appropriate to request a change. However, merely because such a change is requested does not mean such a request should be done. If my attempt to explain that some kind of rationale is expected, and preferably consensus or at least a brief period for other points of view is appropriate prior to requesting an edit on a fully protected page somehow came across to you as rude, then I will be more verbose next time. I never thought, nor did I indicate in any way, that I thought the request was not made in good faith - nor has anyone on this page said anything to indicate they thought the request was a POV request or in bad faith. I don't know why you are tilting at that windmill, Jimbo - please indicate which post made you think that anyone thought that. On the contrary, I think it was indeed made in good faith. I resent your implication that my efforts, which you find less than clear, are anything but an attempt to assist this editor. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
You told him that his request was inappropriate. It was not an inappropriate request. I'm glad to hear you didn't mean to say it that way. I'm sorry for being so firm on this point, but it's really dismaying to read a page like this an imagine what it must be like to be a newbie. "I thought it would be nice to add these links to an article, but rather than just saying no to me, I was told by Chzz that my request wasn't in the right format, and told by KillerChihuahua that my request was inappropriate." That's depressing. It's a good faith request, one that is entirely plausible. He wasn't even thanked for it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see where the miscommunication lies. Yes, it is inappropriate - to ask for an edit to a protected page unless it is a non-controversial edit, such as a spelling change or such; if you ask for a bigger change, you should suggest the edit on the talk page and get feedback and consensus. The IP would have read this on the instructions for the template s/he used, which reads: "The template should be accompanied by a clear and specific description of the requested change, and consensus should be obtained before the template is added. Please see Wikipedia:Edit requests for guidance, especially if this is the first time you are making an edit request." (em added.) Since the IP used the template, the IP would have seen this already. Chzz and I were asking for what was already required by the use of the template, which had already been made clear to the IP when s/he used that same template. This is a different situation from your accusation that we were "throwing technicalities in his face". KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I am unable to Assume Good Faith on Killer Chihuahua's part on this. See his edit note on the Hamid Karzai Talk page: " 13:08, 29 September 2011 KillerChihuahua (talk | contribs) (27,498 bytes) (→External links: You got your answer, from two different admins. That you don't like it doesn't mean you get to admin shop.)". I have never been under the delusion that Admin was a synonym for God. Admins should not be rude and insulting. I explained my rationale for why I believed these links were not in violation of the Guidelines. It was clear we were looking at the same Guidelines yet interpreting them differently. (Since KillerChihuahua was involved in both articles, my comments are spread between the two.) I suppose the third sentence of WP:ELRC might be the best 'official' summary reflecting my interpretation of the EL Guidelines as a whole: "Exceptions—websites that can be both references and external links—include any official sites for the article topic, or websites that are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and meet the above criteria." For most BLPs, ongoing coverage by the news media, books both by and about, serious interviews and serious statements provide the best available extended reference material for readers who want to go beyond our encyclopedia articles which is roughly what I stated (see above) in what passed for a 'discussion'. However, there was no effort to engage me in an actual discussion, or to point me to an alternate location where such a discussion (as opposed to "we're right, you're wrong, now get the hell out of here") might best take place. So, I did the best I could. In return I received yet another slap in the face. And now he's trying to spin his actions and statements. Not true, not right. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
For the sake of those trying to follow all this, 75.59.229.4 and 99.50.188.228 are the same editor. (at least today.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (changed from question to statement per comments left on my talk page by .228) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: regarding my supposed "involvement" - I was checking the Requested edits category. This is how I ended up on both pages, in this discussion; and incidentally how I'm here without knowing about the history of resistance to RSs in this article as described by SandyGeorgia, below. For future reference, on Wikipedia "involved" means something fairly specific, especially when speaking of Admins and Admin actions. See WP:INVOLVED for more information, or feel free to ask me more on my talk page (linked from the ?!? in my sig here.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the above, the external links policy says we must avoid Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. Media coverage such as that you describe should - if/when appropriate - be included as facts in the article. "External links" are not an excuse to shoe-horn in information that otherwise would not be included directly.  Chzz  ►  17:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
iow, we don't include a stack of individual news articles which could have been used as footnotes if the contributor had worked to expand the article instead. We aren't Digg or Reddit or anything like that. I don't believe the Guideline was ever intended to treat Topic pages in the same way. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Please join in User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Further_reading.2FExternal_links. 75.59.229.4 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

While the gist of the argument about controversial topics here may be correct, the proposal is not: we don't create POV battles in External links. The correct way to approach this is to write a neutral article to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm missing something - where is anyone talking about a controversial topic? Did you accidentally post this on the wrong talk page? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
First Second sentence posted in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Um, "Does anyone know what the external links policy is? Since these links could be used for any biography of a living person, should be consistent with other articles. "? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
To further explain: watchers of this article have long rejected highly reliable sources such as The New York Times and The Economist for article text. We don't correct that by adding indiscriminate collections of sources to external links-- we correct that by adding relevant text sourced to high quality reliable sources, to balance the POV present in this article. Same applies for both directions. So, the original intent may be correct, but the proposed method for correcting the POV in a controversial topic (adding boatloads of external links) is not. I think the more relevant policy is found at NPOV, not EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. I was unaware of the history of resistance to RSs on this article. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I too was unaware of that, nor was it my reason for requesting the sources be added. As people often say about the Bible, you can find clips and snips in it to 'prove' anything you like. I would say the same about news sources (and perhaps full and unedited video interviews, and full and unedited video statements, although I find that a stretch). Newspapers print news, commentary, editorials and op-eds. Each is very different from the others, but I expect one could find POV in at least most of those. Therefore, suggesting the solution is to pick and choose which of those go in the article does not, imo, solve the problem. Necessary, but insufficient. I think it's important to provide these additional references for those readers who wish to go further and do their own research and come to their own conclusions. This is an online encyclopedia, not an elementary school text. Obviously an international figure is covered, and often covered differently, in different places in the world. That means multiple sources are needed to help the reader form a full picture. There is no one 'correct' or 'best' news source in this case. It's more like the eight blind Indians describing an elephant, each from a different place. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not confuse external links with 'sources' (AKA references, citations). It might be fine to provide additional references - ie, numbered inline foonotes to verify information in hte article - but, that would be a very different edit request. It is not fine to put such things as external links, in accord with current EL policy, viz. "does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became [...]" FA. I appreciate that Jimbo Wales might not agree with that, but - for now - that is the policy - that references (within the article, inline, supporting facts) are fine, but should not be put into external links. If the EL policy were changed, then that could of course be re-assessed - but discussion/consensus regarding changing that policy of course belongs elsewhere.
We do not put links to reliable sources in "External Links" just as a 'see here for further information' because, a link to a newspaper article is either a) a reliable source with encyclopaedic facts about the subject (in which case, it should be used within the body of the article as a reference supporting facts), or b) it's not an RS, and thus doesn't belong in the article at all.
I'm not making this stuff up; see Wikipedia:External links. I think, perhaps, some people here are misunderstanding the purpose of an EL section - which is, for information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail [..] If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it (my bold). I also agree with SandyGeorgia's comments above.  Chzz  ►  19:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In a relatively undeveloped article, IP 99.50's argument has some merit, but Chzz's argument is more generally sound. This article is well developed (in fact, too large), was once a Featured Article, and has suffered under POV for at least five years-- because the article watchers refuse to allow highly reliable sources if they say anything unflattering to Chavez, and consistently choose to use pro-Chavez sources. Your (IP 99.50) argument amounts to attempting to balance an overly long, fully developed article by adding a ton more links at the bottom of the article-- where no one will ever see or read them. It begs the question-- the article should be correctly developed to begin with, and no amount of External links is going to fix the problem. And there are few things as obnoxious as articles where the POV battle continues from the main text into the External Link section. Those highly reliable sources have long been excluded from this article, while pro-Chavez sources (even those funded by him) are routinely included. Fix the problem, which isn't external links-- it's that reliable sources are routinely excluded if they aren't favorable to Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, you yourself quoted "for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail". Yes. 100 articles from the NYT is indeed a large amount of detail as well as being copyrighted. Same for the other Topic pages, same for C-SPAN, same for Charlie Rose, same for the books listed in Worldcat. So what's your point? I don't care what size font you use, or how bold, the fact remains a Wikipedia article is not going to be able to include all the detail in all those news articles, books, interviews et al. It can't. That's why we have EL, which is why I reqested these links be added. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Further reading as it explains that section's relationship with External links. As I've said several times now, the problem is not the Guidelines themselves, but the very different interpretations of them. SandyGeorgia, it's clear you have an ongoing issue with this article, but I don't see how that is relevant to the section of External links. If you truly believe EL is "where no one will ever see or read them", and you are certainly welcome to your own opinion on this, then why are you so adamant in not having these listed? Why not discuss your issue in a separate section? I really don't understand why you keep insisting the purpose of EL is to fix some other problem. Not true. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
"That's why we have EL" - no, it isn't. Apart from re-quoting the policy and guideline (which clearly says that), I don't know what more I can say: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal (WP:EL). So, no, I don't think we should add these links. Of course, if enough other people think that we should, then I'd accept the consensus. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is exactly why we have EL. Chzz, you have gone from one clip of the Guideline to another. Each time I have explained what I believe to be your misinterpretation of it, and each time you continue to claim the Guidelines are "clear" and only your interpretation is correct. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. This is in the lede: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." That describes the collections of C-SPAN, Charlie Rose, Worldcat, and major news media. "Minimal" is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia article length varies: we try to use the right number of words to describe someone, just as Mozart used the right number of notes to write his compositions - others' opinions notwithstanding (ref to famous quote). By including collections rather than individual articles, we are indeed keeping the links 'minimal'. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion change In the case at hand, and per discussions on other pages, this particular article would benefit from having external links to news sources which have, it appears, been substantially excised as sources for the article. The persuading arguments have been, for me, NPOV and RS, not the EL niceties being used to keep readers from seeing other (and mainstream, in point of fact) opinions concerning the topic. The talk history here has been "illuminating" to say the least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense in that something needs to be done to include mainstream news sources in this article, as they have been regularly excised, but we shouldn't do something to correct inappropriate, out-of-policy editing on one article that will compromise other articles. Sure, I'd love to see this article contain neutral content-- even if only shoved down into External Links, but there is a reason we have {{external links}}-- we avoid External Link farms, and the worst type of External Link farms are the ones that grow in response to unaddressed POV concerns in the article. If you add those proposed, pretty soon there will be a massive EL farm here, as the article owners slap in more sources controlled by Chavez to offset the mainstream news sources. And, all we will have done is set a precedent here that will carry forward to other articles-- and that precedent won't be worth the cost, because this article still won't be fixed. Very very slippery slope here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The objection was not to news sources but to opinion pieces. That is incorrect, revisionist history,[8] [9] but neither here nor there for the purpose of this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, we are discussing collections of major news sources, C-SPAN statements, extended unedited video interviews, and published material by and about the subject - listed in EL. You are discussing individual articles which may or may not be suitable as references for the body of the article. There is no connection. iow, you are off-topic. It may well be an excellent topic to discuss, but this is not the place. 99.50.188.228 (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Chzz has already explained it, exactly as is explained at the EL page-- we don't need to include links to text that couldn't already be included in a comprehensive, neutral article (this article is currently neither, because info you want to link to in EL has been exluded from the body of the article, with the inclusion of WP:UNDUE material from biased sources). We add to ELs things that can't be added to a fully developed, comprehensive article for reasons of copyright, etc-- as explained in the EL page. It might also be noted (although a tangent) that the same editors who don't agree with mainstream news sources for this artice regularly delete mainstream news source articles as External Links from other Chavez-related articles, arguing that if they aren't cited, they can't be in EL-- so we've got lots of issues here, all of which are resolved by including reliable sources to begin with and writing neutral articles based on a preponderance of the information presented in reliable sources. If you have the patience to read five years' worth of archives (here and at other Chavez-related articles) you might get the full picture and understand why we have an EL guideline page. We don't fix non-neutral articles by adding an External link farm, and we do have a maintenance template and a guideline page discouraging external link farms. While I appreciate your views on what is appropriate on this talk page, attempting to change our EL guideline on one article talk page is what is in the wrong place. Further, SandyGeorgia, we are discussing collections of major news sources, C-SPAN statements, extended unedited video interviews, and published material by and about the subject - listed in EL; no, we're not. We're discussing the very sources that have long been excised from this article, as most clearly listed at the top of this section-- the list that started this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to see critical analysis in this article, but the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Fox News Channel are not what I expect for informed opinion. You provided good sources earlier, (peer-reviewed journal articles and books from academic publishers. We should use that type of source because they avoid the hysteria and explain the weight that should be provided to different viewpoints. We should avoid the Chavez is the devil and Chavez is a saviour dispute. TFD (talk) 05:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

What you regard as "informed opinion" is irrelevant. What you regard as "hysteria" is irrelevant. You fatuously interpose yourself between reader and journalism (opinion or not), between the clueless and those with clue. Please give readers a free choice of reliable mainstream sources--if not in the referencing, then at least in the links. Not sure how the bias situation stands here--don't care to waste another minute of my life reading this work of hagiographic plebeianism--but you are perhaps deliberately choosing to help confuse ~ 50,000 readers per month. Here they can click one link of their choosing; denied this, it is a tedious affair involving Google News, then the journal site and attendant confusing menus, to find their way to the same list of, say, WSJ pieces. Please consider making readers' lives easier. Not more difficult. Saravask 09:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge and (somewhat) support the arguments being made to incude these links because this article has been glaringly and unabashedly hagiographic and POV for at least five years, and because it is "protected" by WP:OWN and changes aren't possible, it appears that they only way we can correct the issues and serve our readers is by adding External Links. However, I remain concerned that an External Link farm-- added to address POV and hagiography in the article-- is outside of policy and guideline, should not be extended to other articles, and the ELs should be replaced by a neutral article ASAP. I also remain concerned that any attempt to add ELs to other articles in the Venezuela-Chavez suite are quickly removed by the same editors who have maintained the status quo of this article. This matter is not resolved correctly, although I understand the reason others want to add these ELs-- it seems to be the only way possible to get some sort of neutral info to our readers. I see the article is still almost entirely based on biased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not that biased, they haven't used the word "gringo" – yet.86.42.221.155 (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow

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

And, the article as well as the lead has become burdened by length (11,000 words of prose); it appears that the POV increase is due to the over-reliance on two sources, to the exclusion of other sources. Those issues and sources are well documented in archives here, no need for me to repeat them as they won't be read, but some of the POV introduced here is beyond over the top. I suggest whomever has added so much of Jones and Wilpert might want to read some other sources to neutralize the article; overrelying on one source for a bio of this nature is bound to introduce that author's POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who has been making the additions with Jones and Wilpert. Agreed, they are somewhat pro-Chavez sources, but at the same time they contain a lot of useful factual information in them. I welcome other users to introduce information from anti-Chavez sources, but I don't happen to have any of them. Thos that do, please introduce them, to help make this a more nuetral article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
I don't think writing a balanced article is about creating a balance between pro and anti sources on the subject. We should just expand to other sources. ValenShephard (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is already much too long (and yet incomplete), doesn't use summary style appropriately, and we don't attain neutral articles by using battling sources, one to overcome the POV of the other. We attain neutrality by using sources correctly to begin with; that hasn't been done here, so adding to it will be unproductive. And if you don't have any sources that present more balanced views, that would help explain why your writing has introduced so much POV. To write an article correctly involves not only "writing for the enemy", but "reading for the enemy" first, so you know what to write and where and how your sources are biased (see our WP:NPOV page on "writing for the enemy"-- when you add POV text, we don't later fix it by adding more POV text to balance it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
When you write 5,000 words in an article, drawn from partisan sources, it's not likely fixable, and having a battle of competing POVs and sources is not how we write articles (please read WP:NPOV and WP:V). Suggestion: when you know your sources are partisan (and you acknowledged that on this talk page), consider whether your additions are neutral and balanced, and go read other sources to determine if you're giving undue weight to one view. If you write from sources that present all views (like The New York Times, the BBC, and others), then include all sides of the story when adding text, and avoid cherrypicking parts of the article that support only one POV. If you aren't familiar with all mainstream POVs, and willing to read all sides, consider not editing the article at all, and only entering commentary on talk. Many months of unnecessary work and has gone into creating a poorly written and even more POV article here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Serious prose deterioration

Where exactly do you see tone issues so we can begin to work on that? ValenShephard (talk) 06:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that's the most important issue at hand; there are much bigger problems, and listing them would be a major undertaking. I'm thinking a revert would be more useful, but why revert one POV article to another POV article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
True enough; the reason I mentioned tone is because it's a task lacking in ideology and could be tackled pretty simply enough. ValenShephard (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see a lot to be gained by fixing text that should be mostly removed anyway, at least not until the article is neutralized (and a lot of the expansion belongs in daughter articles, if anywhere, but should be written neutrally there, and balanced by mainstream reliable sources that are now obliterated in the article). I only raise the issue so it won't continue, but copyediting is the least of the problems here, for now. Smoothing the prose would amount to sticking a finger in the dike. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A few quick samples of prose issues, before I unwatch, but considering that the Foreign policy and multiple sections of this article still need expansion, I don't know why so much content is being added here anyway, rather than to daughter articles:
  • He subsequently also began (subsequently also?)
  • It was because of his great interest in Bolívar that ... (ugh)
  • Meanwhile, Chávez graduated ... (Meanwhile?)
  • Chávez went on to form a new ... (went on to ? so much redundant and sloppy wording in an article that needs trimming!) How about "He formed ... "
  • was assigned to take up a position ... (to take up? not needed, extra wordiness)
  • of the Democratic Action party was democratically elected into office after a campaign in which he promised to go against ... ugh ... of AD (an acronym which should already be defined at this point) was elected (why is democratically elected there, how else is one elected? and why "into office", what else is one elected to) and why "after" a campaign, that's obvious ... and "to go against", colloquial... entire sentence needs to be written in English.
I hope that's enough for samples, but it goes on and on; I don't see the usefulness in typing it all out. Jones wrote a book (has to have marketing appeal); we're writing an encyclopedia, hopefully in neutral and encyclopedic tone, we aren't selling a book.

And I hope we're not dealing with WP:PLAGIARISM or WP:PARAPHRASE here, because who writes like that? Does someone else have the sources to check for WP:COPYVIO?

But skipping down, this is a jolly bit of unrefuted POV: "gave himself up to the government after they threatened to bomb the museum, which he recognised would have caused large numbers of casualties amongst both his own men and those communities adjacent to the building." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And another thing WP:ENGVAR; the article is written in US English, not British-- it's "recognized", not "recognised". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit wordy, but it can be fixed, thanks for the heads up. ValenShephard (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Prose issues everywhere, in an entirely too long article, discussing items that aren't relevant in a broad overview. It looks now like someone read one book and decided our article had to look like that one book. It's everywhere I look, and I haven't even started tagging the POV unbalanced statements. Look at this sentence:
  • It was because of his great interest in Bolívar that in 1974 he was selected to be a Venezuelan representative to travel to Peru in order to take part in the commemorations for the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Ayacucho, the conflict in which Bolívar's lieutenant, Antonio José de Sucre, defeated royalist forces during the Peruvian War of Independence.
Yes, that really is one sentence, with about twice as many words as needed to convey the thought, and wholly unuseful to this article (it belongs in one of the daughter articles, there is more to cover here and we don't need so much detail, we have Wikilinks). How about:
  • Because of his interest in Bolívar, he was selected in 1974 to represent Venezuela at Peru's 150th commemoration of the Battle of Ayacucho.
Please revert this article to an earlier version; the writing is poor, the good parts that were here are gone, it overrelies on one source, and the POV is much worse than before. I will begin tagging POV statements next time I have a moment. I just don't understand what everyone was thinking here to let this kind of writing creep in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned earlier, we need academic sources to explain how Chavez is generally perceived and no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, WP:NPOV tells us to give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources; we can't cherry pick journal articles, which aren't the preferred source for a contemporary bio anyway, to present only one POV. We don't expect academic sources-- except those likely to have a bias-- to cover current events. And we don't exclude other mainstream reliable sources to tell the story as one journal author sees it; we balance sources, according to due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on prose

And back on prose, why is this here, what is it adding to the article?

  • On one of his scheduled holidays, he decided to travel out on foot in order to learn more about his family history by tracing the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado, ...
  • "decided to" (redundant)
  • travel "out"?
  • "in order to" is always redundant
  • Why do we care it's on holiday? This is an encyclopedia, not a novel.

and this text belongs in a daughter article if anywhere. Last August, at least some of the top sections of this article were in good shape (I don't recall having any complaints about the older sections written by Saravask at the top of the article); now even that is gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If this text belongs anywhere, it's Early life of Hugo Chavez or Military career of Hugo Chavez, although I doubt it's even relevant there, but for the purpose of examining the prose:
  • On one of his scheduled holidays, he decided to travel out on foot in order to learn more about his family history by tracing the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado, better known as Maisanta, who himself was a revolutionary, and who had lived much of his life in Apure State. In doing so, he met an elderly woman who claimed that she had remembered Maisanta from when she was a young girl, and who told Chávez a story of how Maisanta had become a hero to her local community by rescuing an abducted girl.
consider
  • While on holiday, he retraced on foot the route taken by his great-grandfather Pedro Pérez Delgado (known as Maisanta, a revolutionary), to understand his family history; on that trip, he met a woman who told Chávez how Maisanta had become a local hero by rescuing an abducted girl.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Summary

Summarizing, I think the article has been even more damaged, and attempting to write a neutral article from here-- with prose issues, overreliance on one source, overly long lead, and destruction of Saravask's sections which were well written-- is not viable. I suggest a revert to somewhere around this version, and then start working in sandbox, shorten the lead, and actually discuss sources and improvements so the article at least won't be made worse. Working from here will be harder than starting over, and you lose the good portions written by Saravask. Copyediting and cleaning up a poorly-sourced article is a waste of everyone's time, and this article now relies too heavily on a few sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you determine what weight to give the differing viewpoints? Normally you would use a journal article that would explain it. TFD (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
And this is when I unwatch, because we've discussed this many times, and policy is clear. When virtually every mainstream reliable source in the world says x, we can't ignore x in our articles because we find one biased book or journal article that does. You are aware of the ridiculously long list of sources I put together the last time we had this discussion: on a contemporary bio, we don't ignore The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, The Economist, El Universal, the BBC, The Boston Globe ... shall I go on? Academic journals may have some place in an article of this nature, but biased books and journal articles must be balanced with the multitude of mainstream sources which cover current events. The links I gave above answer your question very clearly; this article currently excludes mainstream thinking in favor of Jones, Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis and is unbalanced by mainstream sources. I don't know what you mean by "normally"; on a current bio, we don't expect academic publications to be up to date or unbiased. "Normally" when I add medical content to Wikipedia, I rely on journals and not the lay press-- that is not the case for an article of this type, particularly when a multitude of sources present a view that is nowhere present in this article. I suggest you look at the lead of this old version, which at least attempted some balanced compared to what we have now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
These are the types of opinions that claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he was behind the 9/11 attacks, global warming is a hoax, etc. Are they informed opinions or merely polemics? We should really be using intelligent opinions, both pro and con. TFD (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please confine your opinions and polemics to user talk pages; they have no place here. See WP:NOTAFORUM, and try to base your talk page commentary on sources. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Jones, Wilpert, and several other sources on which this article now relies are too old to be useful here; they were published in 2007, which means they were written likely in 2006. Besides that they reflect the author's personal biases, they are outdated, and need to be balanced with more current publications. (And Gott is 2005, for gosh sakes!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the quality of analysis in the sources you recommend is poor, and beneath the standards that would normally be used in an encyclopedia. Even if some of the writers are experts, we should be able to use their academic writing rather than their polemical writing. And looking at Google scholar, there are numerous current articles that could be used. Here are over 1,000 articles from 2010, most of which are high quality sources. TFD (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We've already had the discussion about the "thousands of google scholar hits"; see archives, stay on topic, which is policy, not opinion. No matter how many sources there are or are not, mainstream viewpoints are not reflected in this article. And if you think the quality of sources I recommend is poor, then by all means ask at the reliable sources noticeboard, but please don't continue to take up talk page space with your arguments in favor of certain sources that you prefer. I have a more curious question: the prose here has significantly deteriorated, POV has been worsened, and the text is based too much on one source. If there are, as you claim, thousands of sources, why did you not offer them as the article was deteriorating? It would be helpful if regulars here would apply the same standard to all editors, and I suggest that you might have offered those sources or objected to the prose deterioration as it was happening, not just when I happen to check in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have not argued about the sources I prefer but about the types of sources. Highly polemical tirades in the WSJ do not really provide any insight into the subject, other than tell us that they do not like him. But anyone could have guessed that anyway. Incidentally most of the changes that bother you were made recently and I have discussed them above. TFD (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Please don't deflect the discussion; no one is suggesting "highly polemical tirades in the WSJ". I am saying that you can't leave out major chunks of this article because old or biased books don't mention the issues, when every reliable mainstream source does.

I haven't yet taken the time to decipher who wrote what and when (and considering the very poor shape the article is in, I'm not sure that would be a good use of time, a revert would be better), but what I do see is a solid string of edits going back to at least December 8, with no objection, rewriting, copyediting, or anything from any other editor to correct the obvious issues being introduced into the article (I don't know when the size got so out of control, but presumably it was there). At some point someone expanded the lead, and it's out of control. And I see a chunk of edits from Schwindt, which I presume (haven't looked) were formatting cleanup, so it's likely that his time was wasted, since the article is now in shape that IMO only a revert can yield a decent starting place. Much of Saravask's writing in the top part of the article had endured, and it had little problems; now we have unsalvagable writing and POV even in those sections.

So, what I don't understand is why edits from certain editors are reverted so quickly here, scrutinized interminably, rejected for any tiny reason, and yet, it looks to me like a whole lot of editors sat by and watched this article seriously deteriorate for over a month, perhaps because the POV was agreeable to everyone except the lone voice of JoelWhy and occasionally Lecen (please see the ArbCom decision about blocks of editors overruling policy). And that is the root of the problems here-- unequal treatment, irrespective of policy or guideline, some edits welcome even if they're very poor, others rejected even if they're very good. And that is why you end up with rants on the talk page and a POV article. You jump on Lecen above for pointing out a good source, while you let someone else misbehave on talk and you let the article deteriorate-- start some good for the goose is good for the gander, accord policy and all editors the respect they deserve, and scrutinize edits and editor behavior the same, regardless of whether you happen to agree with the editor's stance on the issues (which shouldn't be entering into talk page discussions anyway, but some of the edits make it very clear how dramatic is the POV of some people writing here, and that should be set aside, text balanced, "write for the enemy"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

PS, post above uses the global "you", not directed at TFD "you", although he does seem to have sat by and watched this happen along with others-- it's a pattern here, some edits are accepted no matter how poor, others rejected no matter how good, depending on the POV of the edits, and it goes one way only. Same for tolerance of misbehavior on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Restoring from archives, unaddressed, still POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whilst I would disagree that this page is "decidely partisan", I think it fair to say that yes, this page does certainly have a bias that is more pro-Chavez than against him. That is partly because I - who am responsible for much of the article - take a pro-Chavez stance. My bias has crept in, and for that I apologise, and I am working on trying to remove it. On the other hand however, there are editors who have consistently tried to push an anti-Chavez agenda, using western media sources that are decidedly anti-Chavez, whilst all the time they label it as "neutral", something it quite frankly isn't. We're all just going to have to work together on this one, and I welcome your cooperation.
To answer your more specific points about areas of neutrality, yes we must have information on those Venezuelans who have argued that Chavez is undermining representative democratic institutions (and I think that this can already be amply seen in the section on "Origins of the opposition movement"). It would be foolish however to think that there is not a huge race/class issue at play here regarding the opposition movement: academic investigation from both pro-Chavez sources like Wilpert and more neutral sources like Cannon have all established (quite convincingly in my view) that the opposition to Chavez and the Bolivarian revolution is dominated by middle and upper class individuals. By trying to dismiss this and say that it isn't worth mentioning in the article (and I'm not accusing you of this, just warning of it), one would be taking a very anti-Chavez stance. As it currently stands (as of today), I think that the "opposition" section does a good job of reflecting both points of view, but I welcome further debate on this issue.
Regarding your information on the 2002 coup, I would agree, and have tagged that section of the article as requiring much needed work, using academic sources as a basis. We should also have mention of FARC, but little more than a few sentences are really warranted: there simply is no good evidence of a connection between the two as of yet. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your kind words about the introduction, I feel that it is pretty nuetrally written. I concur that Wilpert is obviously a pro-Chavez source, but that is not to say that his works are not scholarly or intelligently put together. His Changing Venezuela By Taking Power is easily one of the best studies of the policies implemented by the Chavez administration yet published in the English language, largely because of the detail that it goes into. I would like to put on the table the idea that maybe Wilpert is supportive of Chavez precisely because he has studied the regime in such depth and believes that on the whole it is beneficial for the Venezuelan people? Nevertheless, as long as we keep in mind that Wilpert is a pro-Chavez source, in the same way that the western media is (overwhelmingly) an anti-Chavez source, but still search for the facts in his analysis, then I don't think we shall run into too many problems.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC))

POV

Lead

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

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

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

No, before arbitrarily removing the tags, the editor should obtain a consensus. That wasn't done (and there is no consensus.)
I haven't bothered working to fix it because I'm tired of wasting my time trying to bring some neutrality to this article only to have it transformed into more pro-Chavez propaganda. (This is not directed at you, just at the general statement regarding this article.) I spent a substantial amount of time researching and constructing the crime section only to have gutted to become a fantasy piece. Like I said in the past, if this page is to remain dedicated to praising Chavez, then the tags have to remain warning anyone reading it, lest they be tricked into thinking this article meets Wiki guidelines.
If you want specifics, start with this sentence: "Detractors within the Organization of American States, European Union, United Nations, U.S. State Department, and others, criticize Chávez for alleged human rights violations, while supporters point to improvements in constitutional and legal rights, poverty reduction, health care, women's rights, and the treatment of indigenous peoples under his presidency." This really captures the tone of the entire article -- diminishing criticisms and emphasizing supposed achievements.JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

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

It seems neutral to me, because he explains how supporters and detractors describe him. Can you propose a more neutral phrasing of the sentence? I can post it to the NPOV noticeboard for broader input. TFD (talk) 18:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
" arbitrarily removing" tags - more dismissiveness, which I don't appreciate. I already explained that I revised and improved the lead a while ago, and then waited some time to see if anyone would respond. No-one did, so I eventually removed the relevant tag. Furthermore, since the tag was applied to a substantially different version of the lead, it doesn't need consensus to remove, since tag justification should apply to the current article, not a substantially different previous version. Rd232 talk 18:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The bias starts from word-one: "Detractors". A more appropriate term would be "critic". Then you have "alleged" human rights violations, while the laundry list of supposed improvements are presented as if they are fact rather than opinion. Some of it is fact. But, "improvements...in legal rights", for example, is definitely in dispute considering that many of the supposed "improvements" only appear on paper (as detailed by Human Rights Watch and other organizations.) Also, it appears as if the only criticism of Chavez has been his human rights record, yet he has achieved a long list of improvements.JoelWhy (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
It would seem to me that since the sentence is unsourced, it would be best to remove it. I think the intention was to show that Chavez is controversial, he faces strong opposition from some quarters but has strong support from others, not that anyone was trying to give greater weight to one side. TFD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The sentence puts the human rights issues high up in the lead, naming a number of important institutions raising concerns about them, whilst the improvements are merely attributed to "supporters". The topic of the sentence can certainly be handled better, but it's fairly even-handed in its current imperfection. Rd232 talk 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
With respect to the length of the lead, it's supposed to be short no matter how much the article needs to cover. Just keep leaving out detail until it's short enough. Warren Dew (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
"short" is relative. See Wikipedia:LEAD#Length (though the meaning of "number of paragraphs" obviously interacts with their length; a number here are quite short). Rd232 talk 00:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The paragraphs in the current lead are of average to long length. For an article of this length, Wikipedia:LEAD#Length says there should be 2-3 paragraphs. There are currently 5 paragraphs. That means the lead is about twice as long as it should be. That justifies keeping the tag there until it's fixed.Warren Dew (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
No, the first 3 paragraphs are of normal length for a large lead, and the last 2 relatively short. Rd232 talk 09:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the article is fairly long and the lead reflects that. Also, I would argue its length is based upon its detail which all happens to be notable. But I wouldn't say it is too long; and anyhow, length is not a big issue right now. More importantly, I think the content is fine, it represents sources present in the article, is well written and clear and addresses the concerns of critics by stating them clearly and without any judgement. ValenShephard (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

Article has become private property

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

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

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

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

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

Better (more academic/comprehensive) sources will be an improvement, but in doing that watch that this article doesn't get out of sync with the related/daughter articles (Military career of Hugo Chavez etc) - it's best to update both, and probably best to update/improve the daughter articles first, before updating the summary here. Rd232 talk 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, I've been primarily updating this article first, but if I get time I will go and add to the more in-depth articles afterward.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC))
And that approach was wrong, and what caused this article to grow too long and become more POV: see Bart Jones reviews below, and Jones is by no means a scholarly source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Absolutely, positively not. This article is, if anything, more POV than before, and there has not at all been a consensus reached to remove this tag. As stated in Tag is to remain on this article until the extreme bias is removed.JoelWhy (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it best if we start a new conversation on the nature of POV in this article then. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
I think it best if you read archives before removing tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I have digital access to pretty much all English language journals (dozens mention Chavez, looking a quick search) so if I have some time during the next few months I will engage again (after a very busy period away from wiki) and try to add some of the information here. I hope it doesn't disappoint some editors here that these journals concur with and expand upon statements already sourced here. Hope that helps. ValenShephard (talk) 04:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Too Much Trivia

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

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

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

Being the individual responsible for the recent added content, I thank you for your kind comments. I can certainly appreciate why you highlight what can seem to be superfluous information inserted in the text. Whilst I agree that it is not entirely necessary, I feel that it does make the article more generally readable, after all is not "In the mid 1960s, Hugo, his brother and their grandmother moved to the city of Barinas so that the boys could attend what was then the only high school in the rural state, the Daniel O'Leary High School, named after the Irish revolutionary who had made South America his home" more readable than simply "He went to high school in Barinas" ? I believe that it also helps to show more of a context from which Chavez came (his high school was named after a revolutionary, possible influence on him methinks). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC))
Where someone went to high school, their twitter accounts, etc., is important for biographies. TFD (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the twitter accounts, however where a person went to high school is an extremely important part of a biographical article. Secondary schooling can be a very useful indicator in determining a person's social class, amongst other things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by jrtayloriv (talk • contribs)
I agree, especially when what he did in his early life compliments or links in with his later life, it makes it notable. Twitter is an odd issue. It seems to have some notability, for me anyway, because from Chavez's own rhetoric it seems to make up part of his political strategy which is notable if only for its uniqueness. ValenShephard (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Lets sort this POV situation out

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

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

Midnight, we tried this numerous times in the past and got nowhere fast. You can certainly go through the archive and find some of the previous discussions, but I will post some of my many, many criticisms of this page.
First off, you do realize that many of the books you are relying upon are written by not-so-subtle supporters of Chavez, do you not? Yes, Jones is a reporter, but he's hardly objective. Of course, being pro-Chavez doesn't mean the information provided is inaccurate. But, just because a work that is "scholarly", doesn't mean it's free of bias. (And, then there's the reliance by other editors on venezuelanalysis.com, which may as well be written by Chavez.)
Some general examples of the bias in this article (and, I find it preposterous that anyone can seriously argue this article is biased AGAINST Chavez): The Crime section. I started the section because there were a plethora of articles pointing out how murders and kidnappings had skyrocketed since Chavez took office. This was quickly changed to make crime-fighting seem like one of Chavez's big victories.
Another example is the Human Rights Watch report. This is a 200 page report entitled "A decade under Chavez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela." You don't have to read past the title to recognize that this report is slamming Chavez for his human rights record. Yet, it appears from the Wiki article that the report is a mixed bag of failures and great successes under Chavez. Yes, it does technically include what is mentioned in the Wiki section, but it's a gross mischaracterization of the article (and, yes, I've read the entire 200-page article.)
The part about the closing of the TV station is a complete farce.
I previously added a section which included a list of the various conspiracy theories that Chavez has propagated (my favorite being the accusation that the U.S. used the HARRP program to create an earthquake machine, which was tested on Haiti during last year's quake.) This was summarily removed by the pro-Chavez crowd as being "trivia" (as opposed to more substantive issues such as how many people follow him on Twitter...)
For the record, these are just a few examples. Ultimately, I gave up trying to fix this article and have said repeatedly that the only thing I am going to do for the time being is ensure that the POV/neutrality tag remains. This article is far from neutral, and people visiting this page at the very least have to be informed that they are not getting a fair representation.
Moreover, not to sound overly cynical, but I don't see how this article will possibly be improved until more editors get involved. I would be happy to be proven wrong on this, but I am highly skeptical of this happening. There are a very small number of editors working on this page, and most of them have shown (IMO) a substantial bias in favor of Chavez. I don't mean this as a personal attack -- people are free to believe whatever they wish. But, unless dramatic changes are made, this article simply fails to meet Wiki guidelines through-and-through.JoelWhy (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing these issues to attention. I am well aware that the two main books I am using are generally pro-Chavez, but I still believe them to be perhaps the best books on Chavez available, as long as one is able to remove the writers' opinion from the facts. As a general supporter of Chavez (I make no secret of this), my personal opinion is inclined to be pro-Chavez, but at the same time I try and commit to being nuetral for the sake of the article. I'd be more than happy in working with you to achieve nuetrality JoelWhy, and I think that from what you say, it is clear that most of the POV problems come from the latter part of the article, that which deals with Chavez's policies, no? Then it is here that we must focus out attentions. Do you see any POV problems with the biography section? (that which I have been primarily focused on recently). (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC))
Neutrality "requires that each article... fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". In order to do that we require academic sources that explain how Chavez is perceived, but no one has presented any. Also, it says in reliable sources, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". TFD (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the books that I have been using to flesh out this article have largely fitted in with this description, no? Before, it relied almost purely on various internet articles.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC))
TFD, the problem is these "scholarly works" are written by people with clear biases. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but we are not going to be able to move forward if we pretend these are somehow objective pieces of work.
I do not have time right now to go through all your recent change, Midnight. Some of them are fine, but some of them read like a story being told about Chavez the Hero of the poor. I am fairly certain it reads this way because it is exactly how those books describe his upbringing.JoelWhy (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Facts (e.g., when Chavez was born) are the same in all reliable sources. The benefit of high quality rs is not the opinions that they present but their explanation of how the subject is perceived. They will say for example, "most analysts believe that Chavez is moving the country towards dictatorship/has lost control of the country/has improved living standards, etc. That all writers will have their own personal opinions on should not matter. Good academic sources will explain how the subject is perceived and do so in a neutral tone. TFD (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to add that one of the most significant differences between news periodicals like the Economist and academic sources is that academic sources provide you with citations where you can actually check their facts for yourself. With the Economist, you have to just take their word for everything (which is probably not a good idea, considering their frequent publication of gross misinformation). Everyone is biased, sure, but at least with academic sources, you have an improved (albeit not without its own issues) of checking the factual accuracy of what they are saying. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Please see WP:DUE and WP:V; academic sources are not widely available for a contemporary political bio, and mainstream news sources are reliable for this purpose; looking for more journal articles that express the opinions of the few writers who have taken the topic on will not create a balanced article that gives due weight to all mainstream, reliable views as required by Wiki policy, and unless that is done, the article will not advance out of its POV state. Please do find the journal sources if they exist, but that doesn't mean that mainstream reliable sources and viewpoints can be excluded, and particularly not to the extent that we have now, where one author's account (Jones) dominates the article, with some very dubious statements and opinions that all need to be tagged to alert our readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
News sources are good for news, but not so good for analysis. If we cannot find good analysis, then it is better to just have bare facts. TFD (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Holy Cow

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

And, the article as well as the lead has become burdened by length (11,000 words of prose); it appears that the POV increase is due to the over-reliance on two sources, to the exclusion of other sources. Those issues and sources are well documented in archives here, no need for me to repeat them as they won't be read, but some of the POV introduced here is beyond over the top. I suggest whomever has added so much of Jones and Wilpert might want to read some other sources to neutralize the article; overrelying on one source for a bio of this nature is bound to introduce that author's POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who has been making the additions with Jones and Wilpert. Agreed, they are somewhat pro-Chavez sources, but at the same time they contain a lot of useful factual information in them. I welcome other users to introduce information from anti-Chavez sources, but I don't happen to have any of them. Thos that do, please introduce them, to help make this a more nuetral article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
I don't think writing a balanced article is about creating a balance between pro and anti sources on the subject. We should just expand to other sources. ValenShephard (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is already much too long (and yet incomplete), doesn't use summary style appropriately, and we don't attain neutral articles by using battling sources, one to overcome the POV of the other. We attain neutrality by using sources correctly to begin with; that hasn't been done here, so adding to it will be unproductive. And if you don't have any sources that present more balanced views, that would help explain why your writing has introduced so much POV. To write an article correctly involves not only "writing for the enemy", but "reading for the enemy" first, so you know what to write and where and how your sources are biased (see our WP:NPOV page on "writing for the enemy"-- when you add POV text, we don't later fix it by adding more POV text to balance it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
When you write 5,000 words in an article, drawn from partisan sources, it's not likely fixable, and having a battle of competing POVs and sources is not how we write articles (please read WP:NPOV and WP:V). Suggestion: when you know your sources are partisan (and you acknowledged that on this talk page), consider whether your additions are neutral and balanced, and go read other sources to determine if you're giving undue weight to one view. If you write from sources that present all views (like The New York Times, the BBC, and others), then include all sides of the story when adding text, and avoid cherrypicking parts of the article that support only one POV. If you aren't familiar with all mainstream POVs, and willing to read all sides, consider not editing the article at all, and only entering commentary on talk. Many months of unnecessary work and has gone into creating a poorly written and even more POV article here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Back on POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I mentioned earlier, we need academic sources to explain how Chavez is generally perceived and no one has been able to find any. TFD (talk) 07:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, WP:NPOV tells us to give due weight to all mainstream reliable sources; we can't cherry pick journal articles, which aren't the preferred source for a contemporary bio anyway, to present only one POV. We don't expect academic sources-- except those likely to have a bias-- to cover current events. And we don't exclude other mainstream reliable sources to tell the story as one journal author sees it; we balance sources, according to due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Length

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

Bart Jones reviews

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

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

I have no objections to that. Notice that Hugo was written by a journalist and published by Random House. I have not conducted my own investigation to see how reliable it is, but if we stick to academic sources we will not have the same neutrality issues. I do not see how we could determine that this book is any more or less accurate than the opinions of other journalists or other writings in the popular media. TFD (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The current problem is that we apply one standard to Jones, and a different standard to other sources that are argued here as being "partisan"-- we need to apply the same standard to all, and use sources appropriately, without undue expansion of the text that overrelies on one source. That would include a discussion of sources, without a double standard. It appears, for example, that the Brewer-Carias book is so new that there are few reviews (at least, I can't find them). At least it was published by a serious and respected academic press, his bias notwithstanding, so I'd expect reviews to be more favorable, but can't find any. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
A cursory examination of all of the approximately 5,000 words of text added since Dec 3 reveals that virtually all of it was sourced to Jones (some to Wilpert and Venezuelanalysis, all sources that share the same bias, with no attempt to balance the text with a broader use of sources); this is an inappropriate use of a partisan source that introduced POV, expanded the text unnecessarily while ignoring summary style, and obliterated some of Saravask's well written work that did rely on a more appropriate use of summary style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
We should apply the same standard and if we keep it high, we could avoid neutrality disputes. Because Brewer-Carias' writing is recent, it may be some time before we know what acceptance his opinions receive. TFD (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Yes, I agree. The work you did was good. I was away from the article for like 3 months and came back to see a great deal of well written detail added. I don't think reverts and deletes would help. It is a bit wordy in places, but we can fix this. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is not in a state that can be improved, it is too long while not even covering the basics, and it is phenomenally POV. That you spent many hours trying to improve it, well, I suggest the editors who watched this "improvement" and did nothing to ask you to write neutrally, broaden your sources, or address the serious prose deficiencies should answer why that was allowed to happen. I wasn't here, and JoelWhy and Lecen tried; it is those who didn't speak up that should answer why you were allowed to misspend your time here. And no, we don't just randomly include other sources like Brewer-Carias to balance your POV; we start by evaluating sources before we use them, and then using sources correctly. Jones is not an adequate source for the amount of text that now relies on him, most of which belongs in daughter articles, even if better sourced and better written. (But please don't go do the same thing to the sub-article at Military career of Hugo Chavez, which is a featured article and will end up at WP:FAR if it sees the kind of deterioration this article has seen.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Firstly I would disagree with your claim that the article has deteriorated with my additions. If you can call the messy, mostly unreferenced, unformatted state of affairs that I set out to improve better then, well, I just can't agree. I have brought a level of order and detail to the work - yes, using mostly pro-Chavez sources BUT I believe myself to be justified in using these. There simply are no unbiased sources, and to use the most prominent biography of Chavez (i.e. Jones) is, I feel, justified. Agreed, the work might be too long. I'm willing to work on that. Agreed, there might be some POV in my use of language, and once again I am willing to work on that. By mass deleting my hard work (which is, effectively, what a revert is) however, simply to replace it with what went before would be downright annoying to those users who have worked hard on it.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Please address your annoyance at those who allowed it to happen, as well as the serious issues I have documented above; the article is not fixable as it stands, and the previous version affords a better starting place (and was not unsourced as you claim). If you want to salvage some of your text, you can put it in a sandbox and massage it there, and later propose it for addition to sub-articles. Trying to salvage POV text isn't worth the effort; using sources correctly to begin with would have avoided this problem. If you would like, I will put your text in a sandbox for you, and we can see what you're able to do with it, but it shouldn't be in this article until it is balanced, better sourced, and copy-edited. And finally, it is simply incorrect to say there are no unbiased sources; perhaps you just haven't read them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, please put it in the sandbox. Rather than debating this for days and days on end, with many people chipping in, let's just get started on improving this article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Will do now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for being so cordial in this conversation. It can be so easy for some users to become right b**tards on discussion pages, doing nothing but ranting and hurling personal attacks. Shall we archive this user page so that we can start afresh with working together on this new article? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
Here you go: User:Midnightblueowl/ChavezSandbox. I've left off the interwikis, cats, etc at the bottom of the article, as that will cause your userpage to be incorrectly added to cats, etc. Please be aware that if text is moved from sandbox back to an article after being changed, it has to done correctly per attribution purposes of Wiki licensing (I don't know the link to that page offhand, but please ask for assistance if you intend to move text back and don't know how). And thank you, too-- the tone on this talk page has long been unconducive to collaborative work, and in case anyone finds my tone harsh, it's because I'm used to working at WP:FAC, where editors submit their work, knowing it will be subjected to harsh criticism and intense scrutiny. No, I don't think we should archive this page, because it documents the many outstanding issues. I still suggest we revert for now, subject to the idea that you can bring text back from sandbox as it is massaged and discussed, and consensus is gained about sourcing, undue weight, whether to put text in sub- or main articles, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Although I'd personally like to alter the page as it is, I recognize that I'm biased because of the work and effort I've already put in, so I'll agree that it's probably best if you revert the page, and then we start working through the article, area by area. Thanks. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC))
That's a most collegial approach! But I'll wait for further feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't support reverting the page. Supporting the revert would mean supporting the idea that the article has gotten worse or is a mess, and I simply don't agree. There are a few simple examples of POV wording like the word "oligarchy" (it is legitmately used in sources not the prejudice of the editors) and this can easily be fixed. I simply do not see fundamental issues and a piece of trash, I won't accept that. ValenShephard (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, don't throw out the baby with the bath water, I also think that reverting is a bad idea, I think it's better to fix present version and move some material to daughter articles. JRSP (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It is quite saddening to see Midnightblueowl appear to become dissolusioned with his own edits, that is unfortunate. His edits need a little copy editing; a few uses of POV language (because it is present in the sources) have crept in but this is minor and was unfortunately missed by others. His additions are both useful, well sourced and generally very well written (yes there are a few wordy bits) no need to trash his good work, and the article is definitely not a POV mess. It could do with expansion in certain areas however, but this has been overshadowed by exactly these disputes. ValenShephard (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
@JRSP, there is no baby here, only bathwater. The portions of the article most edited were in good shape before, now they're poorly written, POV and too long. @Valen, it seems to me that Midnight is handling it just fine. Please don't persist with the claim that the new text is either well written or well-sourced in the face of the evidence above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't call anyone's opinion evidence. My opinion is that the article has overall improved, with a few small issues introduced (which I mentioned) which can be fixed. ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, although I am willing to accept a revert and work from there, I would certainly prefer it if the page stays as it is (rather than suffering a revert to what I believe was most clearly an inferior page, lacking references for certain areas, being visually a mess and what not), and that we work on improving it from here. Either way, I will work with whatever the concensus is.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC))

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

Looks pretty good so far but I would reinsert the statements about him reading Marx etc in his youth and the statement about the Allende government. The first especially seems important to understand Chavez. ValenShephard (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, there's still information on him reading Marx, Lenin etc whilst stationed in Barinas, when he actually began to convert to the leftist cause, so I think the deletion was acceptable in this particular case.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
Alrighty, keep up the good work and keep an eye here for any thoughts we have on your cuts. ValenShephard (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

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

SandyGeorgia, I ask that you give us more time on this issue. I have obtained a copy of Christina Marcano and Alberto Barrera Tyszka's Hugo Chavez: The Definitive Biography, the less detailed, but also more neutral biography of Chavez, and plan to use this work to add to the sections which are so-far dominated by references from Bart Jones. As far as I am aware, these are the ONLY two English language biographies of Chavez, and it is therefore only fair that we use them in this article, rather than relying on a few internet articles from the media (which, it could certainly be argued, were just as non-partisan in one way or another as Jones's).
I also strongly contest, as seemingly do several other editors here, that the biographical sections on Chavez were in some way better before I began my additions: I would firmly argue that they were far too short and uninformative (the Wikipedia pages on other important political figures have greater information on earlier parts of their figures' lives). I'd also like to note that I have kept many of the references that were already existing then rather than deleting them.
I also contest, once again seemingly as others do, that the quality of prose has deteriorated. Fair enough, it might need some tweaking here and there, but I'd request that you help with this, rather than simply reverting this article to a state where the page was simply insufficient. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC))
I generally agree with Midnight. My college library, one of the most well stocked in the country, only features the two biographies which Midnight has mentioned. According to my tutor, they are both widely read and respected, especially the one by Bart Jones, which she called the most significant analysis of Chavez the individual currently available. Apart from that, the prose has improved and to say it hasn't simply isn't supported by looking at the material or other editors. Reverting is counter productive as in most cases, unless the article has been totally rubbished (which hasn't happened here). The article is a little too long, and this can be remedied by cutting down the sections which are much more appropriate elsewhere. ValenShephard (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Crime section

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

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

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

I'm afraid I must agree that I am unsure why a crime section is required in this page, after all, the British tabloid press made a huge deal over crime rates and "anti-social behaviour" under the Tony Blair regime but that doesn't mean that there is a section on crime in the UK there. It's simply not directly related to the president or his policies themselves.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
I can't tell who wrote what above, or decipher the meaning or the grammar, but as long as a multitude of reliable sources do associate rampant crime and corruption with Chavez, our article should as well. To leave it out violates undue; Midnight, there are plenty of sources that explain the relevance-- rampant crime and corruption are central issues to Chavez's governance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe crime is an issue to the Chavez presidency, or Venezuela generally (long standing problems that fluctuate) not Chavez himself as an individual. It is difficult and dubious to associate such a wideranging and long term social issue with a single leader, I've never seen it done before. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The sources say that crime was a continuing problem in Venezuela and Chavez was initially unable to address it, because law enforcement came under local control. But centralization of policing has reduced the problem. TFD (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This should be mentioned more briefly in the sections on the Chavez presidency at best, not its own section. It would also be useful to get more historical perspective, it is too easy to appear to simply be laying the blame at Chavez himself for the high/increasing crime levels in some areas. ValenShephard (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
In my personal opinion (and I am confident that somewhere there will be published sources that back me up here), right-wing and/or centrist reactionary media tend to trump up accusations of rising crime levels whenever left wing or “progressive” regimes to get into any sort of political control. The fact that the opposition to Chavez makes a big deal out of crime rates under him makes me very suspicious that this is true in this case as well. As such I suggest we be very cautious in our choice of sources for this section, although I still do not fully understand the need for it at all. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
You are probably correct in your analysis but that is not the most important thing, what is crucial is not to over play the issue of crime which is an issue of a whole nation (since before Chavez was born) and has fluctuated across a range of regimes of multiple ideologies throughout the modern history of Venezuela. It is very odd to have a crime section in the biography of an individual leader (we could also expand this analysis to the human rights section too, which is also better suited elsewhere). It can be mentioned briefly in his presidency section here, but it more suited in a sister article like Venezuela itself. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The stats are fine and sources have been found to explain them. Polemical writing however blames the crime rate on Chavez, yet never explains what supposed Chavez policy led to the increases. No one has found a serious paper that explains this relationship. TFD (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been dozens of reports regarding the sky rocketting crime rates in Venezuela since Chavez took office. Dismissing this as 'right wing propaganda' really encapsulates the POV issues with this article -- everything that reflects poorly on Chavez's presidency is part of some corporate oligarchy agenda. If you have evidence to support your claim that these are trumped up charges, please present said evidence. Otherwise, the issue should be properly addressed in this article.JoelWhy (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As TFD said, if there is no reliable source to pin the blame on policies invented by Chavez himself (let alone his government) then how can we include it here in its current form? ValenShephard (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The crime section never stated "Chavez is to blame for the increase in crime." It presented objective facts (and still manages to keep a few, despite being thoroughly gutted to fall more in line with the pro-Chavez talking points.) But, thank you for reminding me why I stopped trying to fix this article and have remained content with simply maintaining the POV tag.JoelWhy (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The text reads, "During Chávez' administration, homicide rates have more than doubled, with one NGO finding the rate to have nearly quadrupled; the number of homicides increased from 6,000 in 1999 to 13,000 in 2007. Kidnappings have also become increasingly common. Caracas in 2010 had the world's highest murder rate." TFD (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is all entirely correct.JoelWhy (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That is true. This is the only article I have come across where these domestic issues have been given prominence here (and as such implying it is the work of the individual). Some else mentioned Tony Blair further above, where crime (which was/is a huge issue in the UK) is not attributed in his article, and I suspect it would be removed if it was. I think we should get on this task soon. Maybe copy paste the current crime, human rights, media and foreign affairs sections into the presidency of Chavez article, and keep a brief, informative summary here in the presidency sections. There have been many mentions of the article being too long, so here is also a solution to this pretty agreed upon issue. What do we think? ValenShephard (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Crime and human rights have been major issues for Chavez and his administration. If the homicide rate had quadrupled under Obama, you would see a Crime section in Obama's article. I am really growing tired of having this conversation over and over again.JoelWhy (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You said it yourself, his presidency is where it is needed. To give you an example, unemployment (one of the biggest issues of the US political sphere, as crime is in Ven.) is given a couple of sentences, noting that it increased past 10%. This is all this information deserves in the article of an individual. It is taken for granted that a leader is not wholly responsible for domestic (economic or crime issues included) issues, especially when no sources point towards that, as in this case. Some media refering to "crime increasing under Chavez" is not a strong enough link to Chavez as an individual, even if some would like that. Information of such detail on crime, foreign affairs, etc. deserve to be in the neglected sister articles of Chavez and Venezuela, where they logically fit; with a concise summary here (as in the Obama article). And I could be wrong, but you appeared to be supporting a cutting down of the length of this article. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the crime discussion belongs in the presidency article. But we are going to summarize that article here. Crime will probably warrant a sentence or so in that summary. All of the major topics in the presidency article (human rights, economy, etc.) will need to be included in this article, only more briefly (because we are also going to be covering Chavez' early life, military career, etc. here). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Re, one sentence, wrong. Due weight to reliable sources. Crime, corruption, consolidation of power, undermining of democratic processes, economic detioration-- all are major issues directly attributable to Chavez and his administration, and until due weight is given to reliable sources here, the article will remain POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
We do in fact have a crime section and it does in fact say that the homicide rate doubled under Chavez. TFD (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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


Overthrow through elections

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

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

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

Various people have commented on this article having a bias, both pro and anti-Chavez. It is something that editors are addressing, slowly but (I hope) surely. As for the specific usage of the term "overthrow", I think that you're right on this point. "Remove from power" might be a better term to use.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))
"Remove from power" would then sound like downplaying/legitimizing the coup. Split the phrase, they dont belong lumped together since its apples and oranges. A coup attempt and and opposiing via elections shouldn't be in the same breath. -86.157.81.232 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I was a poor election of words ("overthrow" imply the use of force), but the idea is correct. The lead is a summary, and it states that his opponents want to remove him, both by legal and illegal ways. The ways are different, but the goal is the same, they are not "apples and oranges". Simply add a little more clarification on the difference between both things. MBelgrano (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.38.9 (talk)

Other bios and ongoing POV

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

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

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

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

The biographical articles are all tertiary sources, but provide an example of how the article could be written. The International Crisis Group article could be a good source for analysis in the article. TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "Policy" section

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

Disagree, not only are his policies relevant to his bio, in his case even more so than for other leaders that info is relevant because of the consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions and the judiciary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that his goivernment's policies were not relevant to his biography, but that these can perhaps be dealt with better in the above biographical sections about his life as president. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC))
I don't understand your argument, Sandy. First of all "consolidation of power in the Executive and weakening of other democratic institutions" is an opinion advanced by some sources but we cannot say there is a consensus about that. Further, even if this were true, the point is that this article should be more about Chávez the individual, there is a lot of details that could be moved to the Presidency article. JRSP (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps this article doesn't need to go into extensive details, but you can't separate the man from his policies. So, for example, the foreign policy section shouldn't go into as much detail as a separate page devoted to his foreign policy, but this article should still provide a summary.JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoring from archives, still POV, still unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Proponent of democracy

The first paragraph in the lead of this article characterizes the subject as a proponent of democracy. But that is only one POV, and the other POV needs to be presented there as well. For example, this article says: "The United States denounced Thursday as 'undemocratic' extraordinary powers the outgoing Venezuelan National Assembly granted leftist President Hugo Chavez." After asserting as fact (in the first paragraph and in the voice of Wikipedia) that Chavez has implemented participatory democracy, there is no mention until the third paragraph that anyone disagrees with that assertion.

On the one hand, Chavez has set up many "communal councils" and "Bolivarian circles". On the other hand, he has amassed great power in himself that used to belong to the legislature. When I get a chance, I'll put together a list of reliable sources that characterize the latter actions as undemocratic. My main point being that we should not be proclaiming him to be a champion of democracy in the first paragraph of the lead. He may well be a champion of democracy, but reliable sources have differing views about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The lead does not say what you claim it does. TFD (talk) 12:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the lead says that he has overseen "the implementation of a new constitution, participatory democracy, and the nationalization of several key industries". That pretty clearly conflicts with the notion that he has overseen the erosion of democracy. It's kind of like saying that George W. Bush oversaw a policy of peace and tranquility (which he actually did only until 9/11/2001).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think that the introduction is okay as it is, although I accept that you do have a point Anythingyouwant. As it stands, the introduction notes that Chavez's government has implemented "participatory democracy" - this refers to the introduction of the communal councils and Bolivarian circles. On the other hand, the introduction also refers to the government's critics' argument that the Chavez administration has eroded representative democracy in the country. We must be clear here that we are discussing both participatory and representative democracy; the former of which has certainly been increased under Chavez, the latter of which has been eroded to some extent. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC))
Of course it's misleading-- a preponderance of reliable sources mention that Chavez undermined democracy in Venezuela, but you won't find that in the lead. It's only one small part of the POV here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Midnightblueowl, I appreciate your reply, and your rephrasing in the lead's first paragraph to be more specific. However, I still feel that the lead paragraph gives the definite idea that he's pro-democracy, and it should be possible to add something to remedy that problem. Maybe to say (in Wikipedia's voice) that he wants to replace representative democracy with participatory democracy. He definitely does not seem to be a supporter of representative democracy. Here are some quotes from a few reliable sources:

“President Hugo Chavez has promoted to his nation's highest military level a controversial general who has vowed not to cooperate with opposition leaders if they win the South American nation's presidential election in 2012.” See Miller, Joshua. Chavez's Pick for Top General a 'Major Insult to Democracy,' Critics Say, Fox News (November 18, 2010).

“Only blatant gerrymandering of constituencies and an electoral reform that abolished proportional representation allowed Mr Chávez to keep control of the legislature….[R]epresentative democracy—which Mr Chávez promised to replace with a “participatory” version—is still alive.” See “The revolution checked: The opposition bounces back”, The Economist (September 30, 2010).

“Legislators have granted Mr. Chávez decree powers three times during his 12-year presidency. He used a decree in 2008 to name regional political leaders with separate budgets, offsetting gains by the opposition in state and municipal elections… [N]ew decree powers…are allowed by the Constitution and would include matters like security, public works, finances and housing.” See Romero, Simon. Chávez Seeks Decree Powers, New York Times (December 14, 2010).

“With his relentless pressure on opposition media, domination of the courts and use of legal proceedings against powerful critics, Chavez is open to accusations he is autocratic. Many poor people in Venezuela say, however, the president has ushered in greater democracy through increased participation in politics and decision-making, with grass-roots councils and other organizations giving communities funding for public works.” See Daniel, Frank. Q+A-Venezuela's Chavez to legislate by decree again, Reuters (December 14, 2010).

“[T]he Chávez government has adopted a series of measures to control the media. Some 34 radio stations have been closed for ‘irregularities’ and 200 more are ‘under investigation’….[A] law … could jail journalists for up to four years if they divulged information against ‘the stability of the institutions of the state’…. [F]or all his faults, Chávez is a lot straighter and more honourable than the corrupt and kleptocractic regimes that preceded him….Though his opponents dub him a dictator, Chávez keeps getting re-elected – and with very high turnouts in elections praised as free and fair by international observers such as the EU.” See The Big Question: Is Hugo Chavez guilty of wielding excessive power in Venezuela?, The Independent (August 5, 2009). Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The term used is participatory democracy, which is certainly part of the Bolivaran ideology. Also, Chavez has been around long enough that we should be using academic books and articles for analysis of his administration, rather than opinion pieces, and cannot provide our own analysis of his actions to make conclusions. Note that the current opposition also used decree orders when it was in power. TFD (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
A faulty definition of "opinion pieces" is regularly employed on this talk page, along with an endless stream of reasons to ignore the preponderance of reliable sources. Further, it is factually inaccurate (euphemism) to say or even imply that decree orders have been used by any other administration to anywhere near the degree that Chavez used them. Please, read the sources you decry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss all journalism as "opinion", although I admit that the line sometimes gets blurred nowadays. I am happy to look at other reliable sources as soon as I get a chance. The journalistic sources were just a place for me to start, because they are usually concise and do not presume prior knowledge. I do not doubt that Chavez is more honorable than "corrupt and kleptocratic regimes" that preceded him. However, that is not a valid reason for the first paragraph of our lead to paint him as something he is not. Chavez could hypothetically improve on his predecessors in various ways, one of them being to improve and clean up the representative process, but he seems to be trying instead to weaken or eliminate it. Whether that's the correct solution for Venezuela I do not know, but that's what he seems to be doing, contrary to what is suggested by our lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) I would like to add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph of the lead, saying: "Chavez is opposed to representative democracy in Venezuela". I think the sources I cited above support this, and lots of other sources support it too. Chavez has said: "We are in the midst of the process of change--giving birth to a new political system, because representative democracy is not really good for us." See "Chavez: End Tyranny of the Small Elite", Washington Post (October 15, 2000). Another source: "The Chavez administration is critical of representative government and proposes to replace it with participatory democracy...." See Leon, Luis.    "Participatory Democracy in Venezuela?", Woodrow Wilson Center Update on the Americas (April 2009).

More: "Once in office, Chávez did not waste any time consolidating power. Between April and July 1999, via referendum, he successfully orchestrated the drafting of a new national constitution, ushering in a new political era in Venezuela—one marked by the virtual death of political parties and institutional representative democracy. Chávez had managed to launch a revolutionary process that reduced the power of parliamentary politics in favor of grassroots populism.1 Long-winded public speeches and television programs lionizing the new leader replaced parliamentary debate, and the national executive slowly but surely began to eclipse the legislature and judiciary." See Fleischman, Luis.  "Venezuela: Anatomy of a Dictator", The Journal of International Security Affairs (Fall 2006).

Of course, in addition to a sentence at the end of the lead's first paragraph, it might be appropriate to insert some corresponding text with footnotes later in the article. Thoughts?Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Again these are just opinion pieces and present a problem of what weight they should be accorded. The Journal of International Security Affairs for example is published by a think tank run by Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, R. James Woolsey, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, etc. Articles should not be written from a neoconservative perspective. If you believe that neoconservative opinion enjoys consensus support in the academic community then please provide sources. TFD (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I listed many sources precisely because some of them might not be convincing to all Wikipedians. But surely you can find something that's convincing among the sources I have quoted at this talk page. Is Hugo Chavez an opinionated neoconservative? I quoted him directly from the Washington Post, which is not known as a neoconservative fabricator of quotations. Every single source I have quoted at this talk page is unacceptable to you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Taking excerpts from an edited interview made ten years ago as a source for explaining Chavez's political views does not seem like a good approach. See for example WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. Chavez has been around more than a decade and you should be able to find decent sources. In fairness I oppose this type of sloppy editing when it is done by "liberal" editors as well. Do you really think a good, neutral encyclopedia can written based on editorials and primary sources? TFD (talk) 05:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(Ubdent) I have not suggested that every source I've mentioned here at the talk page should be inserted into this Wikipedia article. At the same time, some of them would be fine in the article. They are not all editorials and prinary sources, by a long shot, and dismissing them that way strikes me as the kind of shoddy editing that you've just accused me of. Here's another very reliable source for you:

"Democratic governance requires an executive that faithfully executes the law, maintains it's autonomy from the influence of unelected actors, and yet remains accountable to other democratic actors such as a legislature and an independent judiciary.  Chavez based his democratic legitimacy primarily on the first two conditions, and sought ways to avoid the third condition, which is based on the logic of liberal democracy."

Coppedge,, Michael. "Venezuela: Popular Sovereignty Versus Liberal Democracy" in Jorge I. Dominguez and Michael Shifter, Constructing Democratic Governance, 2d Edition (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 2003), pp. 165-192.

All of the sources I've mentioned are freely available on the Internet. I think that's preferable for reasons of accessibility. But since more sources are requested, I plan to access JSTOR and other neoconservative databases tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Coppedge's article is a good source because it is from a book published by the academic press. Ironically the article refers to the Chavez administration as "an extreme case of delagative democracy", and you created this discussion thread because you claimed using the term democracy was biased. I suggest we use the article as a source for explaining how the Chavez administration is normally perceived. jstor btw is not a neoconservative database, but provides articles from a range of sources, some of which are rs, others are not. TFD (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently you've misunderstood everything I've said. I have no objection whatsoever if the lead paragraph says that Chavez has supported "participatory democracy" or the like. At the same time, it should also say that he has opposed "representative democracy". As Coppedge says, Chavez doesn't want to be accountable to any representative body like a legislature, but rather wants legislative powers delegated to him. Chavez said so in 2000 to WaPo, Coppedge said so in 2003, the cited article in the Woodrow Wilson Center publication confirmed it in 2009, et cetera, et cetera.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
You must be careful in reflecting accurately what sources say. Coppedge for example never uses the term "representative" in the article. Notice too that Coppedge writes, "critics came close to labelling [the administration] a dictatorship.... The truth is more complex and subtle." TFD (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, I've not said, or proposed to say, that Chavez is a dictator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to work on this today. Hopefully there will be time soon to do it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Currently, the introduction states that "The opposition movement meanwhile, arguing that he was a populist who was eroding representative democracy and becoming increasingly authoritative, attempted to remove him from power both through an unsuccessful military coup in 2002 and a recall referendum in 2004." I personally think that this should stay, although I would accept an additional line that might also say, for instance, "Chavez is a highly divisive world figure, who has been criticised both at home and abroad for the erosion of representative democracy under his administration, and championed for his support of participatory democracy and the world's poorest..." Something along those lines ? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC))

The first paragraph of the lead says that he's done some things to promote democracy. It doesn't state that his supporters believe he's promoted democracy, but rather states as fact (in the voice of Wikipedia) that he's done some stuff to promote democracy. And that's fine, because he has in fact done some stuff to support democracy. But he's also done some stuff to undermine democracy, especially representative democracy, and that should also be in the first paragraph of the lead, in the voice of Wikipedia (not "some people think" or "his opponents say" he's done some stuff to undermine democracy). Anyway, I'm sorry that I haven't gotten to JSTOR yet, but I'll keep you posted.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Anythingyouwant, but whilst I appreciate where you are coming from, I still don't quite concur. Personally, I don't agree that the introductory paragraph as it stands is saying that Chavez has done things to "promote democracy"; as it currently reads, it states that his administration "has seen the implementation of a new constitution, participatory democratic councils and the nationalisation of several key industries." Now, it is an undisputed fact that the Bolivarian administration has seen the implementation of participatory democratic councils — in the form of workers' councils, Bolivarian Circles etc etc — and this is something that has been a major part of the Chavez administration's policies. Now, on a personal level, as someone who is (I admit), rather sympathetic to the Chavez government and what it is trying to achieve (although this does not mean that I do not have certain misgivings about the manner in which it is going about it), I do think that the introduction of these participatory democratic councils has promoted democracy in Venezuela, but equally, I will accept that this is my opinion, and might be refuted by others. The fact that participatory democratic councils have been a major part of the Chavez administration's reforms is irrefutable, the belief that this has promoted democracy is, on the other hand, debatable. Equally, I would argue that claims that Chavez has eroded democracy is also debatable, hence why I object to these claims being presented as fact, which is what I feel some editors here would wish to do. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
And if I may just add something (I apologize if this is all becoming a little long winded), it would be to comment that even if reliable academic citations from obviously neutral parties would establish that Chavez had indeed taken steps to undermining the role of representative democracy in Venezuela — and if any editor is able to produce those, then I welcome that — it would not necessarily warrant being on the very first paragraph of the introduction, but on one of the later paragraphs of that introductory section. The undermining of representative democratic institutions (as opposed to the full abolition of representative democracy, such as the banning of elections) would certainly not, I believe, be a key element of the Bolivarian administration, and therefore would not warrant being in the very first paragraph. To make a comparison, the fact that Adolf Hitler's administration outright eliminated representative democracy is not mentioned in the first paragraph of his page; so why would the rather more minor point that Chavez's administration had undermined representative democracy (hypothetically assuming that it had been proven) be placed in the opening paragraph ? To me that feels like it would swing the article in an anti-Chavez balance rather than a neutral one by placing undue emphasis on an aspect of the Bolivarian regime which would — to most westerners reading Wikipedia at least — be seen as a negative trait. By all means include it in the introduction (if it can be reliably backed up), but not right in the first paragraph of that introduction. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC))
I would add a sentence like this to the lead paragraph: "Chavez has sought ways to avoid accountability to other democratic institutions." This is amply confirmed by reliable sources like Coppedge, and it balances the idea that he has set up new democratic institutions like Bolivar Councils.
Regarding Hitler, the Holocaust is mentioned in the lead paragraph of that article. If Chavez had done something that awful, then I would be arguing to include that info in the lead paragraph instead of the Coppedge material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
"Chavez has sought ways to avoid accountability to other democratic institutions" — now that's a lot better! I would however suggest perhaps the slight alteration to "other, established representative democratic institutions", but that's not essential, and might be a little too wordy. I'm still not convinced that it is of sufficient importance to be in the very first paragraph however, although I do feel that its inclusion in the general introduction would be of benefit not only in reflecting Chavez's administration but also in helping to sort out the general neutrality dispute that is currently raging on this talk page. I think we're making progress :) (Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
No, that is POV. TFD (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, I agree with TFD's explanation, Midnightblueowl. TFD is correct that it would be POV to have the sentence about Bolivar Councils separate from the sentence about democratic accountability. They should be juxtaposed, either in the first paragraph of the lead, or instead moved to a later paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I'm not sure if that is what TDF meant to say but, I welcome input from others, such as SandyGeorgia as to what they think, and if the concensus if with your view Anythingyouwant, then I'll back you on that. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

llaguno bridge assasinations

please include material about the assasinations of llaguno bridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvarorincon2005 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

See Hugo Chavez#Coup, strikes and the recall referendum. TFD (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

I just noticed that the bias tag was deleted. This is outrageous. The article remains a propaganda piece; and, whether you agree with this or not, it is indisputable that there has been NO CONSENSUS to remove the tag.JoelWhy (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to explain what needs to be added/removed. All you have provided so far are a bunch of FNC etc. opinion pieces and not sources explaining the weight that should be provided to various opinions. TFD (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
No, the issue was debated ad nauseum in the past and it was clear that there was a dispute over the neutrality of the article. To then remove the tag requires a consensus. Instead, we had one poster who decided 'I don't see any bias' and unilaterally removed the tag. (For the record, a similar incident occurred about a year ago, with a few people deciding the tag was not warranted, they removed it, and we had this very same debate again back then.)
I've provided plenty of factual reasons related to the bias in this article over the past couple of years (human rights violations, criminal, etc.) You have been a party to these debates; but, if you do not recall the specifics, feel free to dig through the archives to view the plethora of issues I and others have raised. These issues have not been resolved.
In any case, it's a simple issue: Is there a consensus here that this article is POV neutral? Clearly not. And, if I was the lone voice of dissent, I would concede that it is close enough to a consensus. But, we have a small group of people who keep tabs on this page, and several members of this group agree it is not POV neutral. Removing the tag is contrary to Wiki policies. Until the page is fixed (and, IMO, the changes have been making the page progressively worse) the tag is to remain.JoelWhy (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

NOthing has improved since the last time it was tagged, it still overrelies on several biased sources to the exclusion of other sources (all documented above), and if you need more than that, the section just above this one documents clear UNDUE and POV. Chavez is widely cited in reliable sources for destroying democracy in Venezuela. The article is still POV (I still see a whole lot of Jones and no Nelson in the citations, for example, and this has been well discussed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The rs (Coopedge) presented in the last discussion thread says, "critics came close to labelling [the administration] a dictatorship.... The truth is more complex and subtle." BTW what are these "biased sources"? Most of the sources used are mainstream Western media and organizations and Venezuelan sources are only used for non-controversial statements or reporting Chavez' opinions. TFD (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Helping readers understand why this article's neutrality is disputed

Having witnessed it happen several times over the last year or so, I've noticed that each time the NPOV tag is removed — something I accept I was guilty of many months ago — it is typically by an editor who is new to the page and finds that it reads like a very neutrally worded article; they are simply unaware of the issues which have led to the articles' neutrality being challenged. Just to be clear, I see these as being;

1) that many of the references used, both biographical and academic (namely Jones' Hugo! and Wilpert's Changing Venezuela by Taking Power), are pro-Chavez in general outlook.
2) the article does not outright claim that Chavez is autocratic and has eroded representational democracy and/or democracy in general, instead stating that these are things which he has been accused of by his critics. Editors such as SandyGeorgia and JoelWhy believe that there are ample media sources (from the likes of The Economist, The New York Times and Fox News), as well as some academic sources (like those of Allan Brewer-Carías) that allow us to say with definite authority that Chavez is autocratic and is eroding representational democracy. In contrast, other editors, like TFD, ValenShephard and myself, hold to the opinion that these sources are innately economically right wing and thereby biased against the economically left wing Chavez government, and so cannot be taken as reliable, neutral sources but must be viewed as forms of opposition media.

If those editors who believe firmly in maintaining such a tag — and I concur that, according to Wikipedia rules, without a consensus, we must maintain this tag — want to stop new editors removing it, I believe it is imperative that they make these issues clear, perhaps by mentioning them within the NPOV tag itself, so that such editors will understand just why the neutrality of the article is disputed. I welcome thoughts and suggestions. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC))

If there are any facts from Wilbert and Jones that are false, then take them out. If their opinions have undue weight then remove them. Identify the problems or remove the tags. TFD (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Midnight, please stop talking crap about other editors. Typically, when you want to (mis)attribute things to other editors, diffs are helpful. If anyone wants to know why this article is POV, they can read Wikipedia's own words at WP:NPOV. Also, personalizing disputes by dividing editors into those "with and against" your own POV is just not on. Alternately, they can read your own admission that you and some other editors ignore key Wikipedia policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE:

In contrast, other editors, like TFD, ValenShephard and myself, hold to the opinion that these sources are innately economically right wing and thereby biased against the economically left wing Chavez government, and so cannot be taken as reliable, neutral sources but must be viewed as forms of opposition media.[10]

That is about as far from Wikipedia policies as any open admission I've ever seen-- you should take yourself straight to dispute resolution with such a clear statement of POV.

@TFD, you know very well (and Midnight has acknowledged above) that any time other editors introduce information here that is from a preponderance of highly reliable sources, or removes POV information from the article, the majority will revert. You should know that creating a due weight article on a controversial topic requires talk page collaboration, which isn't present here, for the reasons acknowledged above by Midnight, and responsible editors don't edit war. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, I'm genuinely trying to sort this NPOV issue out here, as I assume that you are, and by accusing me of "talking crap" it's just demoralising and quite frankly insulting. Fair enough, you can dispute what I have to say, and put forward a valid argument, but don't dismiss it as "crap". I apologise if it is deemed innapropriate to divide editors into two groups as I have done, but it seems very clear to me that two groups of warring editors have emerged here, and I was only trying to clarify things, particularly for editors just stumbling onto this page who simply don't have the time or the intention of scrawling through pages and pages of warring opinions. Look, I'm honestly saying - here and now - that I want to co-operate on improving this article. Please, help me in this, let's not start a fight. Work with me, not against me. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
Midnight, I'm not sure what to make of your post. Are you trying to be insulting? Or, do you truly believe your preposterous statements regarding what edits I am trying to make? I am not trying to be confrontational, I seriously cannot tell. But, I will take you at your word that you believe what you say and are simply trying to improve the article. Let me take a moment to correct your misguided assertions.
First of all, I would never advocate including within the article that Chavez is autocratic/eroding democracy, as opposed to saying this is something he has been accused of. To do so would be a gross violation of Wiki policy.
Secondly, I don't recall every having cited FOX News or The Economist for anything (and this goes for the Chavez page and every other page I've ever edited.) These are right wing media sources and should be viewed with suspicion. That's not to say they can never be used, but I am interested in objective facts and in having Wikipedia articles reflect this objective nature. I have little patience for clearly biased news sources whose information, while generally accurate, is far from actual truth. And, what I mean by that is that while FOX News may present accurate news stories, they clearly focus on information that suits their ideology, while ignoring or minimizing information that counters their bias.
Thirdly, you seem to be implying that I am a neo-con trying to ensure that the conservative spin on Chavez is reflected in the article to counter the liberal spin. Let me make this perfectly clear -- I AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE. Far from it, actually. If I had been living in Venezuela the first time Chavez ran for office, I would have voted for him. I have closely followed his career since rising to power because of my family ties to Venezuela, and when I read his Wiki entry, it reads like it came straight from the pages of Venezuela Analysis. This is a fluff piece, not an objective examination of the man and his policies.
With regard the sources used, the fact that they are "academic" does not make them unbiased. Just as FOX News can take information and, while factually accurate, is perverted into spin, the same can (and is) done by academics who act as little more than accredited cheer leaders. These sources should be used, but not to the exclusion of all others. And, the sources that are used should be presented as the authors intended, not perverted to suit an ideological bias. The Human Rights, Media, and Crime sections are atrocious -- there are a plethora of articles eviscerating Chavez for his actions in these area, yet the Wiki entry attempts to create a false balance by cherry picking any evidence that can be found which mitigates Chavez's failures in these areas.
In closing, I am tired of spending time make substantive edits only to have the work completely twisted to suit a pro-Chavez agenda. So, for the time being, I am content with merely ensuring a bias tag remains on the article lest any reader see this and believe it accurately reflects who Chavez is and what he has done.JoelWhy (talk) 13:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
About sources:
"Secondly, I don't recall every having cited FOX News or The Economist for anything (and this goes for the Chavez page and every other page I've ever edited.) These are right wing media sources and should be viewed with suspicion. "
Erm, you can have a biased source, but it can be completely acceptable for WP:V purposes. As long as it has a good record of fact checking you can use it.
There is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard post Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97#Fox_News_is_an_unreliable_source
Fox is a news agency, and as a news agency it is an RS
WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Whisper, but you've misunderstood. Of course FOX News meets Wiki standards. I was simply refuting the claim that I was trying to use right-wing news sources to make the article more balanced. To the contrary, I'm simply advocating the use of objective news sources to counter the sever pro-Chavez tilt in this article. So, although FOX News meets Wiki reliability standards, it's also highly biased. And, academic sources meet Wiki standards, but can be equally biased. (And, I suppose VenezuelaAnalysis meets Wiki's standards, despite the fact that it's little more than a mouthpiece for the Chavez administration. Still, I appreciate the sentiment.JoelWhy (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. In that case I agree with your statements. Anyway I would like to do a sudden revert to the past article, as Sandy mentioned, and forcefully keep it in place, to prevent POV pushing from going further. Strategies include labeling all POV pushing as meatpuppetry, having people who revert to the past version (clearly more NPOV) as NOT violating 3RR, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply JoelWhy, and I apologise if you felt that I was accusing you of being a political NeoCon, but I was reflecting the trend in many editors as I saw it (in this, I assume from the response, I was misguided); I can appreciate that my statements seem to have caused more trouble than dialogue (which was most certainly not my intention). If it means anything to do it now, I retract my statements regarding those other Wikipedia editors working in this page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC))
That's encouraging. OK, you say you really want to NPOV this thing. Here are all of the contributors to this article over the last year who have more than five edits, during which time this article has grown even more POV than it was before, grown much too large, become decidedly lopsided in terms of UNDUE and bias in sources used, and deteriorated in prose quality:
  • 558 Midnightblueowl
  • 13 ValenShephard
  • 8 Rd232
  • 7 Rothorpe
  • 7 SandyGeorgia
  • 6 Rickyrab
  • 5 Cambalachero
  • 5 JoelWhy
From that data, we could likely conclude that your efforts are not succeeding. I suggest that if you really want to NPOV the article, we would a) either revert to the point I suggested quite some time ago, before you chunked in so much POV text from biased sources, or b) agree to chop out about 60% of what's here now and begin to rebuild text based only on consensus (that is, you agree to stop chunking in POV text without consensus). If something like that doesn't happen, it's unlikely that editors will engage to NPOV this article, knowing their edits will simply be reverted. You are responsible for most of the prose and neutrality deterioration, but the watchers of this talk page are the ones who are enabling you to continue doing this. If you're serious about wanting to NPOV this, go read any brief bio of Chavez and compare it to this one: if you don't see the hagiography here, you need to look beyond the end of your nose. Even Saravask-- who wrote the featured version of this article five or six years ago-- appeared to think this is pure hagiography[11] (and that featured version had substantial pro-Chavez bias-- we've gone downhill even from there).

Here's another indication of what's gone wrong here: eight of the top 10 editors to this article (going back to 2005, who have more than 100 edits here) have expressed decidedly pro-Chavez views on this talk page and have a history of reverting any attempt at neutrality-- the two editors who attempted neutrality both gave up editing the article, which you have owned for the last year, with the backing of the others on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Right Sandy, thank you for interacting on a level where I really feel that you, I and other editors can proceed in a more progressive manner. Firstly, I want to reiterate that I really am committed to improving this page, but at the same time, I don't believe in making the sweeping cuts across the page or reversions to earlier forms of the article that you suggest. Even looking at thepoint where this article had achieved FA status in 2005, it had quite a few sections which were simply unreferenced, and lacked a wide spectrum of references, particularly of the academic variety. Clearly, the criteria for achieving FA status has increased quite a bit since then (thankfully), and so instead, I suggest - and I hope you agree - that we undertake a process of going through the article section by section, and discussusing what needs to be added and what needs to be removed. This, I feel, will be the best way to move forward. For this reason, I believe that we start by having a discussion as to what needs altering in the introduction, and feel that perhaps we should open a new section dealing with this ?(Midnightblueowl (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC))
Midnightblueow, would you consider taking the rather extraordinary good-faith step of voluntarily not editing the article or the talk page for, say, a month's time? The evidence is substantial that you have been by far the dominant editor of the article (per SandyGeorgia's stats up above) and as an experienced Wikipedian with some knowledge (but not expert knowledge) of the subject matter, I can say without hesitation that the article is really really bad and utterly fails to live up to what I'd like to see in Wikipedia. The article, as others have pointed out, is hagiography, and you have admitted to systematic exclusion of sources that you don't agree with and systematic inclusion of sources that you do agree with. That's very problematic and the best thing might be for you to take a holiday from the article so that others less invested in the subject can repair the damage.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
By all means, if it will help this article improve, although I am unsure that it will for quite some time. I've been focusing my efforts elsewhere, on less controversial articles for now, such as at A Community of Witches, which hopefully will prove to be of greater benefit to the Wikipedia project than any work I can do here. Good luck to those who continue working on this page - you're gonna need it! (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
This article is the very reason to why I avoid contributing to articles about contemporary subjects. Anyone who knows me might think that I only have interest in the imperial (or 19th century) history of my country, Brazil. Not at all. I always dreamed of taking to FA level articles such as Brazilian military government, Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. I won't even dare to make a single edit in any of them because I'm aware that there would be enough editors to oppose anything they might regard as "biased" (in other words, whatever which doesn't suit their politic views). A clear proof of this behavior can be seen on Midnightblueowl own words. Whoever doesn't agree with him, does it because he/she has another politic view other than his. The conflict about this biased article is seen through his eyes as no more as an ideological conflict: "You're either on our side or against us". Any source (even reliable ones) are quickly dismissed as "right wing" or "conservative" as if only "left wing" or "progressive" (or whatever this means) should be used here. He defends an unbiased approach which is... nothing else but a clearly biased one! How can an article such as this be improved? Well, I have no idea. --Lecen (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The best way to avoid controversies is not by time period, but by how controversial is the topic of the article; the lines may overlap but are not the same. The articles War of the Pacific and Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands (XIX century stuff) involve ongoing territorial claims, and have heated talk pages; other men or events from the past may not be controversial, so they are unlikely to generate controversy. The article of Hugo Chávez attracts controversy because, well, it's Chávez, he's Mr. Controversy himself without any internet help. But Lula da Silva is not Chávez, his good image is mainstream. Sure that there may be some controversial topic within his administration, but it should be a small and localized problem, and it should be easy to solve any dispute that may arise (if any dispute arise at all). So, if you want to work with Lula's article and make it featured, I would say that you should try it. That's a Brazilian topic that more non-Brazilians will be interested in reading about, ongoing or recent politics always generate more social interest than history Cambalachero (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm tired of waiting for change to come. Let's remove the contentious portions now. If anybody tries to revert, sic the NPOV noticeboard on the article. The contentious portions can always be put back later in daughter articles, etc. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Chavez and food

I am not going to have time to contribute substantially to this article, but I wanted to be clear about why I have said (up above) that this article is very very bad and a huge disappointment.

Let's just take one aspect of the world as it related to Chavez: food. Food for the Venezuelan people.

Reading the article, we see food mentioned exactly and only 4 times:

  1. "Costing $113,000,000, Plan Bolívar 2000 involved 70,000 army officers going out into the streets of Venezuela where they would repair roads and hospitals, offer free medical care and vaccinations, and sell food at cheap prices."
  2. " The new constitution included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare and food."
  3. "In 2010, Chávez supported the construction of 184 communes, housing thousands of families, with $23 million in government funding. The communes produce some of their own food, and are able to make decisions by popular assembly of what to do with government funds."
  4. In the section on human rights: "In the 1999 Venezuelan constitution, 116 of 300 articles were concerned with human rights; these included increased protections for indigenous peoples and women, and established the rights of the public to education, housing, healthcare, and food."

So everything we learn about Chavez and food from Wikipedia sounds positive and helpful to the poor. Twice we mention that the constitution gives rights to food. Once we hear that he had the military out selling food at cheap prices, wow, talk about swords into ploughshares! And we hear about his funding for communes that produce some of their own food.

What do we not hear?

  1. Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
  2. "But nearly five years after the measures were implemented nationwide, farmers and agriculture experts say, Venezuela is not only far from self-sufficient in food, but also more dependent than ever on foreign countries. " Washington Post
  3. "Under state ownership, though, production has suffered. From 1999 to 2008, per capita, sugar cane was off by 8%, fruit declined by 25%, and beef production dropped by 38%, according to Carlos Machado, an expert in agriculture at the Institute of Higher Administrative Studies, a business school in Caracas. "The cooperatives have failed and our cattle ranching has been decimated," Machado says." A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez
  4. From 4 days ago: "“There’s still going to be speculation and shortages, and who will suffer the most? He who has the least..." Bloomberg News

The facts of reality are being systematically obscured here. A reader of this article would naturally be impressed with how Chavez appears to have been achieving a certain kind of socialist dream. That it is in fact, as evidence plainly in reliable sources, not quite so rosy, is something that we have kept carefully hidden.

This is just one issue, food, which I picked more or less randomly. The article is a disaster.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo - I don't believe the article is as bad as you make it out to be. Most of those for-profit media sources you provided (whose investors and advertising clients have a vested interest in demonizing someone who is nationalizing businesses, redistributing wealth, heavily regulating industry, etc.) are based on anecdotal evidence, out-of-context statistics, and hyperbole. I agree with you that there is certainly no "socialist dream" taking place in Venezuela, but it's not the nightmare that the corporate press makes it out to be either. A more balanced view of food/agriculture in Venezuela can be found here, in our article on the economy under Chavez. Yes, there might be shortages in coffee and toilet paper in limited cases, but overall people are eating more and healthier foods and agricultural production is up in most areas. We should try to use macroeconomic indicators and large data samples rather than random, unverifiable quotes from some non-notable Venezuelan person telling us they couldn't find coffee at the supermarket one day. 98.89.56.16 (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"for-profit media sources" want to make money. We understand their motives. But as per WP:V they fit as sources and we have to consider them and include them.
Look carefully at the sourcing and content of Barack Obama. That is what this article should look like. That is the article that is featured.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If it is alright, Jimbo, I'd like to revert the article to the past one now. And...
  • The past article is the default article and, while discussion is taking place, the past revision MUST be the revision put in place
  • 3RR cannot apply to people reverting to the past article
  • Any editors advocating for POV will be counted as ONE editor for aurgment AND 3RR purposes - Meatpuppetry of any kind is frowned upon
  • NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, and it is the first priority
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Another step is to forcefully trim the article and move stuff to sub-articles like "Presidency of Hugo Chavez" WhisperToMe (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you should wait for consensus before mass-reverting to whatever article you personally like the most. Jimbo is the Founder of Wikipedia, but he's not a dictator (i.e. You don't say "Hey Jimbo - mind if I go ahead and revert months worth of editing without asking anyone else?"). When Jimbo voices his opinion, we respectfully take it into consideration, and then act on consensus as always. He's just another editor when he jumps into article talk space. 98.89.56.16 (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It would be a mass revert to a version that is closer to Wikipedia
See, the problem is that this version is a hagiography. We don't do hagiographies here.
While in theory Jimbo is just another editor (and he technically has just as much rights as any other editor) in practice, he's respected. He has insights that not every person has.
WhisperToMe (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
98.89.56.16's argument is not persuasive at all. It's frankly an absurd argument to say that for-profit media can be excluded as reliable sources on Chavez - there is no precedent for it, no rational argument for it, it's just unjustified ranting. I'd like to recommend on a personal level of 98.89 that such a way of looking at the world is likely to lead you to believe many falsehoods about the world. And, by the way, the BBC is not for-profit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to recommend against drastic reversion to an old version. A better approach may be to look for perfectly valid information in the old version and bring it back in, and to look for cases in the edit history where valid sources such as the Economist have been excluded on flimsy grounds.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't much care whether we do a major revert or edit the article as it stands, taking the information from the previous version. Either way, this article needs a ton of work (and, keep in mind that a revert doesn't give us a good article -- only one that is slightly less POV than it currently stands.) In any case, I shudder to think what Wiki would look like if we excluded for-profit media sources, or decided that these sources are somehow less reliable than non-profit sources.JoelWhy (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Since Chavez has been in power for over a decade and has attracted serious academic study, we should be using academic writing as sources rather than editorials and news stories that are years old. If the article is about what Chavez's supporters and his most vocal critics say, then it ignores the range of informed opinion and presents a view that Chavez is either the saviour or the destroyer of Venezuelan democracy with no middle ground. TFD (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
If you look at Barack Obama, its sources include lots news stories. Remember that the purpose of Barack Obama is to provide a general overview of the subject. "Hugo Chavez" should do the same.
The journal articles may be useful in indepth articles about particular aspects of Chavez.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Chavez came to power 13 years ago, while Obama has only been in office 34 months. Since the publishing times for academic papers are 18 mos to 5 years, we would not expect that they would be very helpful for the Obama article. We also do not see any analysis of the Obama administration in his article, and none of the types of opinion pieces recommended for this article are used there - there are no quotes for example saying that Obama is a socialist. On the other hand, Richard Nixon is sourced to academic writing, and does not rely on newspaper articles published at the time. Despite Nixon having been highly controversial throughout a career that spanned decades, there is no analysis there either. TFD (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this same argument made repeatedly in this thread by the same group of people. The desire to rely on 'academic writing' as opposed to news articles appears to be motivated by the fact that the academic writings tend to take a pro-Chavez POV. These are not medical journals with objective observers providing peer review. These are articles that frequently reflect the bias of the author. I'm not saying they shouldn't be used. But, they are no more reliable than your average news source.JoelWhy (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I question whether there is a pro-Chavez consensus in academic writing, and ask you to support that statement. However my reading of WP:WEIGHT is that we cannot decide that mainstream scholarship is wrong and redress that in articles. Incidentally other writers make arguments similar to yours in evolution, global warming, aspartame and other science-related articles. TFD (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You are conflating hard sciences with social sciences. In the hard sciences, you have peer reviewed studies which can be replicated. This is not a scientific article, it's a biographic article. There's a world of difference between the two. In any case, as I've stated, I am NOT saying that these articles shouldn't be used. I am simply pointing out that they are no more reliable than articles from news sources. Therefore, your repeated calls that we rely primarily on these "scholarly articles", as if this label somehow makes them immune from bias, are getting us nowhere. The article is littered with these citations, and what we're left with is a propaganda piece.JoelWhy (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Peer review exists in social sciences and humanities as well. Just as in natural sciences, scholars establish what are consensus, majority, significant minority and fringe views, and just as in natural sciences, the weight provided to different opinions may change. Just as in natural sciences, we must "fairly represent[] all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint". TFD (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how many ways I can explain this -- there's a fundamental difference between articles in a science journal and a social science. And, as I've said ad nauseum, I'm not saying to remove them; just that it's absurd to argue they should dominate the article (and there's certainly no Wiki policy supporting your argument that the crux of the entry should be based on these articles.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The policy is WP:NPOV and you should read WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity". If you do not believe that it applies to social sciences then you should take the conversation there, as it affects thousands of articles. And if it does not, how do we determine what weight to assign differing viewpoints? TFD (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Nothing in this policy supports your argument. Try again.JoelWhy (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I’m not intending to get heavily involved here, but I notice that some of this criticism was recently added to the article, and then subsequently reverted without comment four minutes later. The person who reverted it (Bongwarrior) simultaneously indef-blocked the person who’d added it as a sock, without either specifying who the sockmaster was or using the "blocked" template.

Can anyone who’s more familiar with this article determine whether this is a problem? The edit being reverted clearly wasn’t vandalism, and if Bongwarrior is someone who’s been involved in the content disputes over this article, this looks like it might have been a breach of WP:INVOLVED. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: apparently the person who made this edit was a sockpuppet of user:Grundle2600. However, that doesn't necessarily mean there was nothing worthwhile about the content he added, considering there's some overlap between that and the new material Jimbo Wales is suggesting. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that beginning the presidency section with three paragraphs of criticism is in the spirit of neutrality. The addition is poorly constructed anyway. It begins with a 2006 report from the BBC that says price controls are leading to shortages and hoarding. It then adds examples from articles that were written after the BBC article. A neutral approach to the subject would explain why price controls were imposed and explain to what degree, if any, they met their objectives. TFD (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I've added the content under a new subsection because I agree with you that it did not need to be at the beginning of the presidency section. I also agree with you that it is currently not very well constructed. Indeed, I'm not sure that the 2006 BBC report is the best source to use, because the reader may get the false idea that this was a short-term problem that passed. There are contemporary stories about the acute shortages being faced right now due to price controls, and it would be better to use those. And yes, a neutral presentation would explain the stated rationale for the price controls (to combat inflation) and the results ("Venezuela’s inflation rate, which at 26.9 percent is the highest among 78 economies tracked by Bloomberg, rose to a seven-month high in October as the government adjusted price caps on food products to avoid shortages." Bloomberg News, November 22, 2011--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed it as I feel it has little to do with Chavez himself, as well as the matter as it being a verbatim copy of a banned sockpuppet's edits. This is a bio of Chavez the person, not a platform from which to dive into every nook and cranny of speculation and "controversy" regarding things his political opponents disagree with. Tarc (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In your edit summary you removed it with the reason "it needs discussion before unilateral addition". But there has been a discussion here for several days. So please don't simply revert - improve the text. As to your new reason given here on talk, that "this is a bio of Chavez the person, not a platform" I find that uncompelling - he's a famous political leader and this is a big controversial part of his regime: price controls and threats of nationalization (sometimes carried out) leading to shortages. His price controls are not incidental - they are part of his anti-capitalist ideology. This is all, as agreed by everyone here as far as I know except for you, a perfectly valid part of his biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And I find your argument equally uncompelling. Ask yourself whether this has more to do with Chavez personally or with policies he has enacted. Logically it falls into the latter, and would be better suited in a sub-article, i.e. "Political Positions of Hugo Chavez" if one exists or "Presidency of..." Tarc (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
With him personally or the policies he's enacted? How can you possibly separate the two in a biography page of the President of any country? Of course you could have a separate entry on the issue with more detail, but that doesn't mean you exclude the information in this page. This is standard practice in any biography page of a world leader.JoelWhy (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
JoelWhy is correct. As a simple example, take a look at George W. Bush which has sections on such specific details of his policies as "Education and Health", "Stem Cell Research", etc. It's completely bizarre to argue that Chavez' policies which - love him or hate him - are undoubtably what make him more noteworthy than most leaders of similar sized countries should not be in his biography.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The food subsection is pretty horrible, it does not read like an enciclopedia but rather like a list of criticism, there are food shortages and nobody should deny it but a shortage is production + imports - consumption, consumption is on the rise so are imports and production and ALL OF IT (shortage, production,imports and consumption) can be mentioned, FAOSTAT has a database http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor that can be made into a graph for the most important crops by tonnage.Flanker (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A general philosophical remark about 'academic' sources

TFD has argued repeatedly that "Since Chavez has been in power for over a decade and has attracted serious academic study, we should be using academic writing as sources rather than editorials and news stories that are years old." When challenged on this highly idiosyncratic position with the example of the article on Barack Obama, he responded "Chavez came to power 13 years ago, while Obama has only been in office 34 months."

TFD is wrong, and there is absolutely no reason to pay one bit of attention to this position. It's completely at odds with all traditional standards of Wikipedia. Yes, if there are reliable academic sources, then it is perfectly fine to use them. But it is also perfectly fine and often absolutely necessary to use reliable newspapers and magazines as sources. Bill Clinton came to power nearly 18 years ago, and our article has 210 references, the vast majority of which are from reliable newspapers and magazines.

I offer no opinion on whether the academic sources in the case of Chavez are biased in a pro-Chavez manner. I actually doubt if that's true if we look comprehensively at the literature. But it doesn't matter and I think it not necessary to speculate on the motives of obviously pro-Chavez editors. It's simple enough to simply say: no, you can't refuse information that comes from reliable newspapers and magazines just because it isn't academic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That he (and a few others supporting him) is so clearly wrong and misusing WP:V and WP:RS is not the problem here: the problem is that no one challenges him, so that we end up effectively with meatpuppetry on the article, where it only takes one editor to revert reliable sources, and others to back that one editor on talk. The coordinated editing and misuse of Wikipedia's sourcing policy is such that this should have gone to dispute resolution long ago, but no one will touch it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How do we determine the significance of the various events and the weight to be assigned various viewpoints? SG, I have not edited the article for over a year, and do not remember removing anything you added. BTW, when Grundle2600 originally added the food section, the notation was, "Adding true, accurate, reliably sourced info which shows that Chavez is a power hungry tyrant who is using the military to wage war against the food industry". Regardless of the merits of the edit, the notation does not show that the editor was taking a neutral approach. TFD (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I once examined Grundle's sources (which were reliable) and text (which was hyperbolic), used those same sources, edited the text, added similar text without the hyperbole and POV... and was summarily reverted no different than Grundle. For what it's worth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
As you should have been, and so should Jimbo's edit be reverted. If one can't make their own edits without copy and pasting material from a banned user, they should not edit the article. For the record, on the surface Jimbo is right and the critical material describing the actions of the Chavez should be added to the article with reliable sourcing. But nobody should use the text from Grundle. It's an insult to the editors who have to put up with his constant trolling and dozens upon dozens of socks. So you are all wrong here. Dave Dial (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Please try to pay attention and read what I wrote and not what you imagine: where did I say I copy and pasted material from a banned user? And this is disruptive. So, any time anyone wants to keep info out of an article-- no matter if rewritten and submitted by another editor in good-standing-- any banned user can make an edit, and any text related to the same topic is forever more excluded from the article? What kind of logic is that? Disruptive logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, it doesn't matter who wrote the text, period. It's an ad hominem to argue against text based on the author. Is the information accurate? Is it well sourced? These are the questions we need to be asking. Not whether it would serve as 'an insult to the editors'. Tarc's justification for removal is asinine.JoelWhy (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some points here. First, Jimbo copy and pasted the same exact wording from Grundle's edit. That's obvious. Next, I don't need lectures about 'paying attention' from an editor whose sole purpose seems to be to disrupt the encyclopedia by making snide remark after snide remark about other editors. And lastly, it does matter who inserted the material, it poisons the well, as has been stated several times by various editors on this very Talk page. I could support some addition to this article concerning the issue of "food control'. In this article or the Presidency article. But most definitely do not support a word for word copy and paste job from a banned editor. What is disruptive is adding the material into the article without Talk page consensus. And whether it is Jimbo or any other editor, doing so should be met with the same results. Dave Dial (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)(added to state I am leaving for some hours now, so must withdraw for a bit)Dave Dial (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In case anyone’s interested, this is also being discussed here.
I think I’ve made it clear where I stand on this. The principle behind WP:IAR is that the purpose of all Wikipedia’s rules is to improve the encyclopedia, and if there’s ever a situation where enforcing one of Wikipedia’s rules runs contrary to that goal, the rule shouldn’t be enforced in that situation. This seems like a textbook application of that principle. Ordinarily edits from sockpuppets need to be reverted, but what matters more than anything else is that we do what’s best for the articles. And in this case, reverting a sockpuppet (and then reverting Jimbo Wales, when he tries to add content previously added by a sock) means removing reliably sourced information that’s necessary in order to comply with NPOV. I think it’s clear how IAR applies to this situation: doing what’s best for the articles must take priority over preventing a banned user from having any influence. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
And I think for the purposes of this page, the whole issue of Grundle is moot, since when I rewrote the text from scratch, removing POV and hyperbole, using the sources that were reliable, I too was reverted. Anyone who thinks we can't add something to an article just because a banned user once added similar text isn't thinking clearly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Captain, I've gotta disagree with you on one point -- there's no Wiki policy that says we can't use info from a sockpuppet. Therefore, there's no Wiki rule to ignore. If a banned user makes 100 bad edits and 1 good edit, there's no reason to revert the 1 good edit. And, this goes doubly so where the exact same information is posted by a different user. Even if it were copied and pasted, it's a preposterous argument to say it can't be used because the person who originally wrote it is now banned. (But, as Sandy points out, even this is a moot point -- it's rewritten, and yet still gets deleted.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
So, what happens now? The last three comments about this particular issue have been about why we shouldn’t reject Jimbo’s edit just because the same content has been previously added by a sock, and after more than a day nobody’s attempting to argue with that. Either we’ve reached a consensus about this or we’ve hit an impasse, and I’m not familiar enough with this article to tell which it is. Can someone else give an opinion about what the next step here should be?
If we aren’t able to reach a consensus about this, I think it should go into dispute resolution. When Jimbo Wales considers an article here to be an embarrassment, that’s a sign that we shouldn’t just let the discussion taper off without resolving anything. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the section added by the sockpuppet was edited and then added. So, unless someone is arguing that we can't even include a topic which was added by a sockpuppet, the entire issue appears to be moot.JoelWhy (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like you’re right; I hadn’t been watching closely enough to notice that. I agree that unless someone reverts it again, this is resolved now.
To paraphrase one of Niven's laws: “There is no edit so helpful that one cannot find a sock advocating it.” --Captain Occam (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment In the books vs. newspapers thing, it must be pointed that we can find books biased both for and against Chávez, same as with news. In a simple search in google books, I found books named "The revolutionary has no clothes: Hugo Chávez's Bolivarian farce" or "Threat closer to home: Hugo Chavez and the war against America". So, if there was a problem in the past with books about Chavez, the problem was not in the books because of being books, but in the specific books used, or in the balance.

As for the selection of newspapers or books, there is a huge difference. Newspapers are useful to write about things which are not in books yet, but when time passes and things get written in books, we should migrate the references to them. Books can write in full detail about things: the context, how did thing start, how did they develop, how did they end, which were the important events in the topic, which ones were not, wich was the outcome, if they left unresolved points... Most news, even if reliable, are not so good at this. First, they are written in the day, with no knowledge of what would happen tomorrow. This is self evident for today's news, but it is a clear lack when checking archives of old news of the day. Second, the context and past events are not always fully detailed: it is generally assumed that people knows about the event going on, and that it's only needed to detail what's new as of today. If a time traveler brings Simón Bolívar from the past to our modern time, and he asks "Who is Hugo Chávez?", a magazine or newspaper would not be enough. And third, the context. A book selects only the information that is relevant for the book topic, and dismisses info that is trivial or gets too much off-topic. Daily news, on the other hand, selects the noteworthy information of the day; most of it is basically crap that will never make it to any printed book. A printed book saves us the trouble to distinguish between trivial and important info by using only the important, a mere news article does not. Cambalachero (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • structure, weight and coverage should be derived from the highest quality field reviews available, these are almost always academic, but the topic may be too fresh for this to have occurred. Content should be sourced from the comparative weighting and evaluation of sources in preferential order of quality. As scholarly works have a more rigorous system of fact checking than newspapers, scholarly works should be used in preference to newspapers, to the extent that the work is genuinely accepted by scholars. Newspapers of the higher quality are useful when filling in facts, but their capacity to provide high quality analyses are very limited. Obviously as the subject is still alive, some sections can only be written from periodicals; but emphases, analyses and coverage should follow the interest indicated in field reviews if available or long whole of topic scholarly works if not. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
When the issue came up earlier, if was about criticism of the Chavez administration. SandyGeorgia had compiled a long list of editorials from the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, The Economist and other writings by authors all of whom were associated with American foreign policy experts who are normally described as neoconservative and none of these works had been published in academic journals. My original concern was that these analyses were superficial and polemical and since they were not taken seriously then they should not be provided weight here. You can read through the earlier list of suggestions - Chavez and singing in the shower, Chavez getting coca leaves from Morales, Pat Robertson saying Chavez should be assassinated, Chavez having taken Gadaffi as a refugee, Chavez helping Iran build nuclear weapons, Chavez being a greater threat to the U.S. than al Qaeda, etc. Obiously current issues can only be sourced to current events sources. But I do not see why something that happened 13 years ago or longer should be sourced to a newspaper that was published one day after the event rather than a later source where the author has been better able to confirm the facts of the story. If you read through the discussions, I have recommended that we choose sources based on their quality rather than the opinions of their authors. Putting in polemical writing from pro and anti Chavez writers does not create a neutral article, it just provides a parody of balance. Informed opinion is neither pro nor anti-Chavez. TFD (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the view expressed here that w should exclude criticism of Chavez on the grounds that TFD thinks it is "superficial and polemical". The vociferous criticism of Chavez and his policies is crucial for the reader to understand his place in history - whitewashing it is not neutral. It is absolutely false to say "Informed opinion is neither pro not anti-Chavez".
To pick just one of the several examples you gave: Chavez and Iran. If you read our article today, you find no mention of Iran at all, despite this being one of the most important aspects of his foreign policy and something that he has come under substantial criticism from informed and relevant sources. Iran–Venezuela relations covers the material neutrally but it has been systematically excluded from this article based on fallacious arguments like TFD's.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I suggested using the article "Iran & Venezuela: the "axis of Annoyance"" by Kavon "Hak" Hakimzadeh; Military Review, Vol. 89, 2009, which you can see in the archived discussion.[12] Here is a link to the article. I do not think that qualifies for systematically excluding criticism, just asking that criticism be informed and relevant. TFD (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that discussion was about - and ended in - compete censorship of this Wikipedia entry from informed and relevant neutral information which might reflect negatively on Chavez. It's a disgrace that we don't talk about Iran at all, and it is silly to say that we should not unless we use only an academic source. It's wrong and against policy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, the issue regarding which sources to use is little more than a side-show. Regardless of which sources are used, the various sections which include criticisms of Chavez are heavily slanted. The section on Crime, for example, is written from the point of view of a Chavez apologist. I tried to add a paragraph about Chavez's conspiracy theories (e.g. The U.S. used a secret HARRP weapon to cause the earthquake in Haiti;) it was removed because it was "trivial". The fact is, those advocating the near-exclusive use of "academic" sources have gotten their wish -- and we've been left with this gawdawful entry.JoelWhy (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Which diff is it? I can add it back and say "not trivial" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I added that months ago, not sure exactly when. If we were going to add it again, we could just rewrite it from scratch. (It wasn't a big entry -- just a couple of sentences, IIRC.)JoelWhy (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
One of the reasons cited by the editor who removed your mention of HAARP was that it was, according to him, poorly sourced. It did not appear that you provided any sources for this statement and I have been unable to find anything other than blogs that mention it. Do you have any sources? TFD (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I went back and looked at the post I made regarding conspiracy theories. I didn't realize at the time that one of the sources cited was from an Iranian, state-run newspaper. That should be removed. The others were all sourced to reliable sites. Also, new story today of Chavez speculating about the possibility that the U.S. has found a way to start transmitting cancer to Latin American leaders.
In any case, I'm not arguing this is the most important thing wrong with this article -- it's just one of the many, many things demonstrating the overt pro-Chavez bias within it.JoelWhy (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A good approach might be to find an article about Chavez's comments and say something like, "Chavez has been known to make a number of controversial and irrational statements", then mention the most egregious. TFD (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Chavez and Iran

I've just pulled this topic out of the previous section as I think it has emerged as something deserving a fresh look.

One of the most interesting and notable things aout Chavez is his foreign policy and, particularly, his policies and statements about Iran. Due to an invalid discussion held here when the incorrect view that reliable sources could be excluded for a variety of reasons that are not generally valid at Wikipedia, the article currently fails to inform the reader even a little bit about Chavez and Iran. This should be rectified.

Our article Iran–Venezuela relations has some very helpful starting points. Additional starting points can be found in contemporary headlines and archives.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft article

Why doesn't somebody just make an NPOV draft article in a user subpage. Then when the community agree that it is either NPOV or at least less POV than the current version, we replace the old Chavez article with the new one? WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

criticism section?

¡¿Where's the criticism section?! Chávez is a very controversial guy. --Lacarids (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism is supposed to be incorporated into the various sections of the article. It is not supposed to have its own section.
Unfortunately, over the years, large amounts of reliably sourced criticism have been removed from this article. This dif contans a few examples that have been removed in recent months. (Please note that the editor who did the "after" version is not necessarily responsible for removing any of the content, as this dif spans a period of a few months.) Here are three criticisms that have been removed recently:
Since 2003, Chavez's price controls on food have been causing shortages and hoarding.[1]
Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[2]
Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[3]
In each of these cases, only the criticism has been removed, and the positive content remains. This makes the article biased, and is a clear violation of NPOV.
The article would be much better balanced if the above criticism, as well as other criticism, was restored.
Sdm900 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


I just did a search at google news, and found this April 2012 article from the New York Times, which states, "... shortages of staples like milk, meat and toilet paper are a chronic part of life here..." The article also cites numerous other specific examples of people being unable to obtain many different kinds of basic goods. This is notable, and should be included. Sdm900 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Here is some more criticism that has been removed from the article:

Chavez's price controls have caused shortages of materials used in the construction industry.[4] Chavez has nationalized key industries, including telephone and electric,[5] steel,[6] and cement.[7] As a result of Chavez's nationalizations of the steel and cement industries, production has fallen substantially. Nationwide production of steel rods declined 20 percent in September 2010 compared with a year earlier. Cement output fell 40 percent in the second half of 2009. These shortages have caused new housing construction in 2010 to fall to less than half that of the previous year.[8] In 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized oil industry was so severe that the country actually had to import gasoline, despite having some of the hugest oil reserves in the world. Also in 2010, the government's mismanagement of the nationalized electricity industry was causing shortages of electricity.[9] In December 2006, the Venezuelan government instituted a 15% tax on imported toilet paper, which it described as being a "luxury."[10] The 2010 Index of Economic Freedom ranked Venezuela 174th out of 179 countries.[11]

Because of Chavez's criticsm and legal attacks against the productive members of his country, the country has been experienceing a substantial brain drain. Doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs, business owners, software developers, advertising account executives, scientists, classical musicians, and lawyers have been fleeing the country. Of this brain drain, an editorial in Investor's Business Daily declared, "Chavez talks a lot about Venezuela being a rich country, and extols its vast oil wealth. But the human capital he is throwing out is far more valuable... He's throwing away his country's biggest treasure."[12]

Without this info, the article is POV.

Sdm900 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


User:Jimbo Wales, the founder of wikipedia, made a very lengthy comment in this article's talk archive where he criticized this article for not having enough criticism of its subject. Jimbo cited numerous examples of things that should be in the article, but which were not in the article. He summarized his criticism of the article by saying: "... this article is very very bad and a huge disappointment... The facts of reality are being systematically obscured here. A reader of this article would naturally be impressed with how Chavez appears to have been achieving a certain kind of socialist dream. That it is in fact, as evidence plainly in reliable sources, not quite so rosy, is something that we have kept carefully hidden... The article is a disaster."

Jimbo's observation still stands. Without the above information that I cited, which has been removed from the article, the article is POV.

Sdm900 (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, huge NPOV issues with this article. That is why we've tagged the article as such. Don't expect improvements to be made in the foreseeable future...JoelWhy (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The article's edit history shows that many improvements have been made. It's just that someone else always undoes those improvements. Sdm900 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I won't have time for the next few days to get into detailed editing, but I've got your back if you make good edits to add that stuff back. It is outrageous that material from the New York Times which is critical of Chavez is systematically excluded. What we talk about now, with respect to his food policies, is totally absurd propaganda from a heavily pro-Chavez site... while exluding reliable sources. It's ridiculous. Be Bold. Let's fix this thing. And I'm ready to escalate to dispute resolution if we don't get something sensible here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! I think I have to wait until my account is four days old, but I can wait. Sdm900 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I can wait. - Yeah, I bet you can. I'll give you one thing, banned user User:Grundle2600, you're bloody patient. Rd232 talk 09:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! What's interesting is that it was indeed me who originally added all of the above criticism, and that this is the very type of so-called "POV" material that got me topic banned, and eventually banned entirely. Even my biggest critics have to admit that if the above type of info is acceptable by Jimbo, then there is a very strong argument for unbanning me, and eliminating my topic bans. Since the very creator of wikipedia thinks that the above info should be included, then there is absolutely no reason for me to be banned, or topic banned. Sdm900 (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Jimbo's opinion on content is no more valuable than anyone else's. And in case anyone cares, Grundle's community ban was agreed here. Rd232 talk 11:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The only edits that you or anyone else ever cited as justification for banning me were edits where I added reliably sourced information, very similar to the type of reliably sourced information that I posted above about Chavez. The only reason for banning me was to prevent me from adding reliably sourced information that was critical of left-wing political figures, such as Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, and Barack Obama. I was banned for the single and sole purpose of preventing me from adding reliably sourced information that was critical of the political left. I am a Ron Paul fan, but I have never, ever deleted any of the information that is critical of him from his article. I am appalled by his racist newsletter, but I would never try to delete that information from his article. 200cvy (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
And if anyone reading the above believes it, I've got a bridge to sell them. Grundle2600 is not the first person to ever to agree with their community ban? I'll try to contain my shock. Rd232 talk 17:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

This is my proposed merger of the positive and negative info. I should point out that I am highly skeptical of the claim by Venezuelanalysis.com that the average food consumption is only 790 calories per person per day. The same source also cites claims of increased food production which are contrary to the claims reported by the BBC, New York Times, and Washington Post:

According to the BBC, in 2003, Chavez started setting strict price controls on food, and these price controls had caused shortages and hoarding.[13] In 2012, the prices controls were still in effect, and the New York Times reported that "shortages of staples like milk, meat and toilet paper are a chronic part of life here."[14] Bloomberg News reported that Chavez's goal of these price controls was "to curb the region’s highest inflation rate by stamping down on what he terms price 'speculation.'"[15]

In January 2008, Chavez ordered the military to seize 750 tons of food that sellers were illegally trying to smuggle across the border to sell for higher prices than what was legal in Venezuela.[16] In February 2009, Chavez ordered the military to temporarily seize control of all the rice processing plants in the country and force them to produce at full capacity, which he claimed they had been avoiding in response to the price caps.[17] In May 2010, Chavez ordered the military to seize 120 tons of food from Empresas Polar, after inconsistencies in reports from the Empresas Polar conglomerate were said to have been detected by authorities.[18]

According to the Washington Post, Chávez has nationalized many large farms. Chávez said of the farmland, "The land is not private. It is the property of the state... The land is for those who work it." Some of the farmland that had been productive while under private ownership is now idle under government ownership, and some of the farm equipment sits gathering dust. As a result, food production has fallen substantially. One farmer, referring to the government officials overseeing the land redistribution, stated, "These people know nothing about agriculture."[19]

According to the BBC, in March 2009, Chavez set minimum production quotas for 12 basic foods that were subject to price controls, including white rice, cooking oil, coffee, sugar, powdered milk, cheese, and tomato sauce. Business leaders and food producers claimed that the government was forcing them to produce this food at a loss.[20]

According to Business Week, Chávez has seized many supermarkets from their owners. Under government ownership, the shelves in these supermarkets are often empty.[21]

According to Huffington Post, 2010, after the government nationalized the port at Puerto Cabello, more than 120,000 tons of food sat rotting at the port.[22]

In May 2010, after price controls caused shortages of beef, at least 40 butchers were arrested and detained on charges of speculation for allegedly driving up their prices, and some of them were held at a military base and later strip searched by police.[23]

According to venezuelanalysis.com, the government runs 19,000 food outlets throughout the country, which employ 37,000 workers and distribute some 8,000 tons of food daily. According to Commerce Minister Richard Canan, “The average [savings] for the basic food bundle (at the Bicentennial markets) is around 30%. There are some products, for example cheese and meat, which reach a savings of 50 to 60% compared with capitalist markets.”[24]

According to venezuelanalysis.com, between 2002 and 2012, soybean production has grown by 858% to 54,420 tons. The production of rice has risen by 84%, reaching close to 1.3 million tons yearly. Milk production has increased by 47%.[25] In January 2012, it was reported that caloric intake of the Venezuelan people had increased by 130% over the past 13 years, reaching 790 kilocalories per person per day.[26]

Sdm900 (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

I think him changing the constitution to remain in power deserves to be added to the introduction. Crzyclarks (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
  2. ^ In Venezuela, Land 'Rescue' Hopes Unmet, Washington Post, June 20, 2009
  3. ^ A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez, Business Week, March 11, 2010
  4. ^ Venezuelan businesses say Chávez's price controls create shortages International Heralrd Tribune, January 3, 2007
  5. ^ Outraged Chávez puts stop to near-complete shopping mall, The Guardian, December 24, 2008
  6. ^ Venezuela nationalizes steel industry, CNN, May 1, 2008
  7. ^ Hugo Chavez Nationalizes Cement Industry, CBS News, April 4, 2008.
  8. ^ Chavez Seizures Crimp Housing Campaign as Output Sags, Bloomberg, December 22, 2010
  9. ^ The Chavez Spiral, Forbes, January 11, 2010
  10. ^ Fifteen Percent Surtax On Non-priority Goods, El Universal, December 07, 2006
  11. ^ 2010 Index of Economic Freedom
  12. ^ Venezuela's Lost Human Capital, Investor's Business Daily, January 25, 2007
  13. ^ Venezuelan shoppers face food shortages, BBC, January 10, 2006
  14. ^ With Venezuelan Food Shortages, Some Blame Price Controls, New York Times, April 20, 2012
  15. ^ Chavez Activates Price Law to End Capitalist Speculation, bloomberg.com, November 22, 2011.
  16. ^ Venezuelan troops crack down on smuggling along Colombian border, Associated Press, January 22, 2008
  17. ^ Chavez orders army to seize Venezuela rice mills, Reuters, February 28, 2009
  18. ^ Chavez Government Seizes 120 Tons of Food from Venezuela's Largest Company, Latin American Herald Tribune
  19. ^ In Venezuela, Land 'Rescue' Hopes Unmet, Washington Post, June 20, 2009
  20. ^ Chavez boosts food price controls, BBC, March 4, 2009
  21. ^ A Food Fight for Hugo Chavez, Business Week, March 11, 2010
  22. ^ A Rotting Chicken in Every Pot: Venezuela's Disastrous Food Policy, Huffington Post, August 2, 2010
  23. ^ Hugo Chavez's Response to Beef Shortage: Arrest Butchers, CNBC, May 7, 2010
  24. ^ Popularity of State-Run Food Markets on the Rise. Venezuelanalysis.com. Accessed: 27 February 2012.
  25. ^ Venezuela’s Agricultural Production Advances. Venezuelanalysis.com. Accessed: 27 February 2012.
  26. ^ Venezuelan Diet Sees 130% Increase in Calory Intake. Venezuelanalysis.com. Accessed: 27 February 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_26&oldid=1152155309"