Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 14

message: The talk page has reached 210KB, and some sections need to be archived.  I'm consolidating items left on lists here, so that we can archive upper sections of the talk page.
For reference:
*Last December 10 (Featured article) version
*Last version of Saravask (editor who brought article to FA) 17 March
*Pre-revert version of June 10
===To Do (left over from my list after the revert)===
*The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
*Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999,  Template:ChavezElections1998 
**Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added.  Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ?  I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box.  Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG Found sources, done.  Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated ToDo and POV lists

message: *The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
*Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999,  Template:ChavezElections1998 
**Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added.  Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ?  I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box.  Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG Found sources, done.  Sandy 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Do (left over from my list after the revert)

message: * Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
* Seven Chávez speeches, no balance (overall balance problem in External links?)
* After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because?  By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
* No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes.  No context for why abstention numbers are important.
* No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices. The entire section on the new constitution fails to explain how Chavez pulled it off, via extra-legal or extra-democratic means.  Need to explain in plain language what was done.
*During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection.  It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 14-year term (and now he's talking about even more).
*No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
**That was in the article before, but since people failed to understand its significance, it was removed. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POVlist from SG

message: Well we cannot have one side and not the other:
*Most issues of Human rights are not put in context, AI, and HRW detail only critiscism (that is what they are for) but compared to other countries it is not that relevant aside from the accusation (even sweeden check it out. ) and I would not even mention Colombia and the US itself 
**You argue for verifiability, not truth (I argue that it's better to aim for both :-)  Your discussion of AI and HRW context belongs in their articles. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV list from Flanker

message: I've noticed references to Chávez's reputation as a price hawk in the article, but no reference (that I spotted at least) to the repeated calls for OPEC to begin trading in Euros rather than US dollars . Surely the most important international issue involving Chávez. --Zleitzen 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well calls might be different than policy, Venezuela changed parts of its international reserves from Dollars to Euros, but oil is still sold in dollars. Flanker 18:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general (and specifically with respect to oil, economy and foreign policy issues) this article is not up to date.  (Recall that it was recently reverted to a version that is now 7 months outdated.)  I included the missing OPEC issues in my ToDo list at the top of this talk page.  We were ready to tackle the top of the article (Presidency), when the approach to the article changed (again) radically, away from Summary Style. Sandy 14:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it need of an update? could you give a list?Flanker 14:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OPEC

message: It seems we have reached a lull point in edits, what more is missing from the article? Just to get a few ideas.Flanker 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just kidding, right ?  Sandy 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err not really, I guess we were waiting for you Sandy and I don't believe we are finished but certainly we can outline future changes while there is some peace and quiet.Flanker 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's going to be hard to move forward as long as double standards and non-Wiki roadblocks continue to be put in place.  Yet to be resolved is the POV criticism fork.  Before my lightening strike, we were at a point that we had earlier consensus to shorten the article, I made a good faith consensual effort at removing all the criticism to the daughter article (because we were going to summarize ALL sections), and lo and behold, as soon as I removed all the criticism, it seems that no more summary was wanted.  The criticism needs to come back, or we have a decidedly POV fork, which was created by my good faith effort, because we were going to shorten everything else.  Since some of you changed your minds on using Summary style, the article needs to go back to where it was before the POV fork was created:  that is, with criticism in the article, and not in a POV fork.  New, and non-Wiki, conditions are being placed here all the time on editing.  Equal standards are not being applied.  Criticism has to come back, or the article is POV.  And we rebuild and summarize equally from there, this time, paying equal attention to which sections to shorten, and not just shortening criticism. What has become clear is that, reliable sources or not, you will raise an objection to *anything* that is not favorable to Chavez. Sandy 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "you will raise an objection to *anything* that is not favorable to Chavez." That is quite an accusation, what happened to civility? It has been multiple times already that you accused me of being dishonest to wikipedia principles, I never accused you of pushing anti-Chavez content. For the record I agreed to the Dodd report, Tascon list, crime and corruption additions.Flanker 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand:  it's not your choice to disagree with content from multiple reliable sources.  It was by graciousness that some of us have accepted your content based ONLY on the notably biased VenAnalysis.  Sandy 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And, as far as I'm concerned, there is an outline.  There's a POV list and a ToDo list, and I've not changed my mind mid-stream.  The stall right now is how to resolve the POV fork, so we can move forward from there. Sandy 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that you are the only one who acknowledges this POV fork.  Because the criticism section is a proportionate size and both critics' and supporters' claims are (supposed to be) covered in the "Criticism of" article, a POV fork cannot exist. -- WGee 07:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to let you know, my editing has stalled not because of this POV fork disagreement, but because of my recently acquired summer job, which leaves me much less time to edit Wikipedia. -- WGee 07:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck in your job, drop by the talk page once in a while as well, it is not as research intensive as editing the article.Flanker 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. -- WGee 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What else needs to be done? 

message: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia" []JRSP 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the video, but it is not necessary. Any statement that 1) says something negative about a living person & 2) is not sourced  must be removed without hesitation. The burden of proof is on the editor who adds the negative statement. I already removed from the article the phrase you quoted above JRSP 03:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You are welcomed, as I already posted one video from the opposition I leave here another one with footage from a non opposing documentary: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-295652150252909057&q=chavez
salutations--Antrax 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Remember to apply the WP:BLP policy, don't ask for permission, just delete. Please, be careful not to remove properly sourced criticism. BLP is a wikipedia policy JRSP 04:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HI, Antrax.  I encourage you to read the rest of this talk page to get a more balanced view of the application of WP:BLP.  JRSP went on a delete spree (some examples given below), deleting quite a bit of referenced text that doesn't apply under BLP at all.  His suggestion above amounts to an invitation to engage in edit warring, which is contrary to Wiki philosophy.  If you have questions about any material, I do encourage you to use the talk page.   Your impression of the time on one video isn't really a reliable source, and deleting material which anyone can easily verify could be viewed as not acting in good faith.  If JRSP would spend the same time seeking sources as he does deleting material, we'd have a better Wiki. Sandy 11:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I encourage you all to read the Wikipedia official policy. It is very clear: unsourced or poorly sourced negative statements about living persons must be deleted without hesitation JRSP 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, perhaps you have a unique interpretation of "poorly sourced" material, as evidenced by your delete sprees.  Sandy 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi All, there's been a miss interpretation, I was talking about the "pre-recorded" allegation and not to all of the phrase, I only don't know from where does wikipedia gets they were prerecorder, because according to the video he was speaking live..., the rest of the phrase is ok. Best regards,--200.89.180.233 14:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there you have the problem with JRSP's premature deletions.  Now, let's see if he fixes it, or assumes others will do the work of reconstructing what he deconstructs.  Another way he misinterprets is that BLP is intended to avoid slander of live persons:  JRSP uses it to delete any minor statement he doesn't want to see in the article.   Sandy 14:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:BLP

message: Flanker, even after Zleitzen's restore, you are systemically blanking the Criticism article of referenced text again.  You don't seem to have a good understanding of WP:BLP.  Please refrain.  I am not going to engage in another revert war initiated by your actions.  Good faith efforts at working with you seem to have stalled, and I am wondering if it is time to ask that you be blocked from editing these articles.  Sandy 16:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you do not understand the what Zeitzen said meaning that work was still needed to be done, if you want to ask for them to block me then go ahead. I have adhered to policy to the letter.Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.Flanker 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case you need to see it again, here is what Zleitzen said:  Some of the material may need work - but removing huge chunks is not the answer. You are going well beyond WP:BLP when you delete well-referenced text. Please restore the Criticism article to the last version by Zleitzen, so that we can proceed with consensus. Sandy 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consensus? JRSP 18:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Sandy but it is within WP:BLP I gave good reason for what I removed and what I found was only superficial removals by the afromentioned editor, I decided to do the same only more thorough. I removed poorly referenced negative statements, agrressively according to Jimbo Wales. You and I can reconstruct the critiscism only with strong references and strong prose from now on.Flanker 18:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the version that Zleitzen left, you deleted well-referenced statements.  Your intransigence is interfering with progress.  JRSP, consenus?  Give others a chance to weigh in.  It is this sort of precipitous editing that causes problems, is disruptive, and weakens good faith.  Restore the article to where it was, let us move forward from there without extreme measures.  Sandy 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry Sandy but policy from the very top, supercedes consensus or debate, Jimbo Wales demands that it be deleted on the spot, see below so you can understand what you did on MCM, applies here.Flanker 18:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flanker blanking of article

message: In utmost detail please explain why the NPOV tag should remain, provide specifics and an unbiased assesment as to why it should remain, if not vote remove. The poll will be open for 5 days so as to not rush a decision.
Weak keep Since I asked the question it is my default answer. Not against consensus.Flanker 19:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Re-assess the neutrality of article Hugo Chavez 

message: The talk page is past 300KB.  Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive TOC items 1 - 30, carrying forward the To DO and POV lists.  The consensus we previously enjoyed might as well go to archives. Sandy 01:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with this.Flanker 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too. JRSP 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. -- WGee 04:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page archive 

message: Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez has to be updated. Important elements missing: Venezuela looking for a seat in the UN Security Council and recent trips (Africa summit and Belarus-Russia-Qatar-Iran tour). Also we need to rewrite the summary in the main article JRSP 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign policy section and article need updating

message: Storing this here (another of JRSP's deletions) in the name of BLP :
:Chávez took over the Venezuelan airwaves several times in the early afternoon in what is termed a cadena, or a commandeering of the media airwaves to broadcast public announcements, asking protesters to return to their homes, playing lengthy pre-recorded discourses, and attempting to block coverage of the ensuing violence. 
JRSP, you might consider a good faith effort to locate the references before deconstructing an article of information that shouldn't be that hard to reference.
Sandy 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim". WP:BLP official policy quoted by JRSP 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and we all have the burden of editing with good faith.  As you know, most of the text of this article predates any of the current editors here, so you could show some good faith (with respect to your tendency to delete well-referenced criticism of Chavez) by attempting to reference statements about incidents which received ample publicity rather than removing them.  Why you would think that statement is controversial is a mystery to me. Sandy 13:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo Wales and WP:BLP demand that editors remove negative unsourced material on sight; so JRSP was only fulfilling his obligations as an editor.  Even if he were to go out of his way to attempt to reference the sketchy statement, he would do so after removing it, not before. JRSP is therefore exonerated, in my opinion. -- WGee 04:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another JRSP deletion

message: What is Hugo Chavez name? The article says "Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias", but I have repeatedly heard his name in the press as "Hugo Cesar Chavez".
:Then it is a mistake. --Espazolano 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some gringo copy editor probably got Hugo Chavez and Cesar Chavez confused:) HieronyMouse 03:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugo Chavez name 

message: Don't have time to get to this yet, updated GDP and inflation, here's ref:
Imported goods are cheaper, BCV acknowledges. El Universal (August 9, 2006).
Sandy 13:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, Sandy 18:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it means what you think it means I propose we eliminate the reference it has everything to do with currency exchange and almost nothing to do with inflation (although there is a correlation) for more info please see this article Purchasing power parity. If you want to write a sentence or two about currency pegs and CADIVI there is certainly a much better way, I still left it because it does not violate policy and await consensus.Flanker 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I made changes based on WP:BLP meaning that the changes are aggressive if it does not meet the specific criteria, spelling is secondary  (one could argue tertiary). It is already outlined above. I do not own the article and as a matter of fact have made little to no edits in weeks, please aproach the subject with a neutral stance.Flanker 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality of the information (in and of itself) is preponderant, not the quality of the prose.  Likewise, one does not have to be perfectly proficient in the English language to unilaterally make edits.  And copy-editing, extensive or not, is not "disruptive"; rather, it is an essential process, even among native speakers of English. (I have encountered numerous grammatical, syntactical, and semantical errors committed by native speakers of English in this article.) If you don't like the prospect of having to copy-edit, then you might consider spending your time somewhere other than an open content encyclopedia.  In addition, I would rather have to rectify spelling mistakes than continuously roll-back and revise partisan content additions. -- WGee 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also ironic that you're accussing Flanker of asserting ownership over the article while you have been keeping such a watchful eye over it. -- WGee 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated economic data

message: SF, Wiki is an encyclopedia.  If you can't introduce chcanges without extensive and basic copyediting needs (spelling and punctuation), then please propose your changes first on the talk page, so as not to cause additional work for other editors.  You do not own the article, and unilateral editing, which requires extensive copyediting, is disruptive.  Sandy 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made changes based on WP:BLP meaning that the changes are aggressive if it does not meet the specific criteria, spelling is secondary  (one could argue tertiary). It is already outlined above. I do not own the article and as a matter of fact have made little to no edits in weeks, please aproach the subject with a neutral stance.Flanker 01:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quality of the information (in and of itself) is preponderant, not the quality of the prose.  Likewise, one does not have to be perfectly proficient in the English language to unilaterally make edits.  And copy-editing, extensive or not, is not "disruptive"; rather, it is an essential process, even among native speakers of English. (I have encountered numerous grammatical, syntactical, and semantical errors committed by native speakers of English in this article.) If you don't like the prospect of having to copy-edit, then you might consider spending your time somewhere other than an open content encyclopedia.  In addition, I would rather have to rectify spelling mistakes than continuously roll-back and revise partisan content additions. -- WGee 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also ironic that you're accussing Flanker of asserting ownership over the article while you have been keeping such a watchful eye over it. -- WGee 23:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: The fact that Chavez refers to God, or asks people to pray in his speeches is not noteworthy, as many other politicians do the same thing, for example, G.W.Bush. Nor is it either out of character for Chavez himself-a life long catholic, or socialists in general, practicioners of liberation theology, for example. I have terefore put this sentence back in the section detailing his religious views.Felix-felix 18:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About God

message: *At 99 kB, that's not just a little oversized—it's an elephant.
*While many people would consider me to be in the lefwing camp, I know from general knowledge—and readily available information on the Internet—that there's too much controversy over the subject to promulgate an article that expresses little criticism of it. Although criticism is flagged in a general way in the lead, it is not satisfactorily followed up in the body of the article; to top it off, finishing with a cloying pic of him and his family may seem one-sided without further explication of the criticism. I'm unsure whether opposing views need to be mentioned in a number of places and in an explicit subsection. Probably. But at the moment, it's just a little like fancruft. By the way, it's well-written on the clause level: congrats.
*There's an unaddressed update tag.
*I'd be more comfortable with a little more sourcing, particularly in the light of the emotion surrounding the subject.
Tony 02:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with more critiscism is that it would unbalance the article, as it stands now there is little praise within it but lots of critical opinion against. The critiscism section is only a small part of this opinion. Plus it has to adhere to WP:BLP policies that detract from overwhealming the article with crititical opinions. As for critical facts they are welcome within the article but with as little editorializing as possible. (eg increase in crime statistics).Flanker 03:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanding on the idea, in order to balance more added critiscical opinion you would need a praise/positive opinion section, if it were to equal in size to critiscism it would need a Praise of Hugo Chavez dauguter article (obviously with the critiscism of the particular praise), both additions I would much rather AVOID. Hugo Chavez is a polarizing figure with strong opinion on both sides I would much rather deal with facts as oposed to what people think of him, plus we are missing THE most important opinion and that is of current day Venezuelans (no polls are mentioned at all).Flanker 03:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hugo Chavez is a polarizing figure with strong opinion on both sides I would much rather deal with facts as oposed to what people think of him — Flanker echoes my thoughts exactly: I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia to relay political debate.  We should not, in my opinion, be influencing readers' perceptions of the subject by including criticism (or praise) in the article; we should let the readers make their own unbiased inferences. -- WGee 04:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reasons for GA failure 

message: This was added by an anon editor:  I can't find support for this text in the reference given:
:Other sources say that the government demanded the anti-Chavez private media to stop broadcasting the protests because they were "inciting people to violence" Reporters sans Frontiers. 19 April 2002 Venezuela Press Releases Accessed 15 Aug 2006., allegedly because they showed only a small part of the scene of pro-Chavez supporters firing, claiming they were firing at unarmed demonstrators and not showing the direction in which they fired.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=1199 
Sandy 14:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  Where does that come from?  Sandy 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From coup section, for discussion

message: :Hugo Chavez atttempted to nationalize Venezuela's oil causing a strong reaction by the United States against his regime because this would have led to the seizing of US owned oil fields.Oil nationalization by oil producing countries has been viewed as a threat to the strategic interests of the United States .Comparisions have been made between the US government's reaction to the oil nationalization scheme of Dr.Mohammed Mossadegh in Iran.The CIA overthrew Dr.Mossadegh in a CIA operation known as Operation Ajax. There have been claims that the coup against Hugo Chavez in 2002 was CIA engineered just like Operation Ajax .
Removed from article to talk page for discussion. Besides that it was inserted in the wrong place, uses weasle words, and has no reliable sources, I don't know if there is salvageable content that can be sourced.  Sandy 05:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hugo Chavez and the politics of oil nationalization

message: Mets501 ran a bot through all of the Chavez articles, which added accents to Chavez.  We've got to make sure that all reference links still work.  Sandy 19:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mets and I checked through everything, and all seems OK:  a few images that needing correcting, and I reverted some ref changes.  All seems OK, and Mets has fixed his bot for future use.  Sandy 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: HUGE task - bot alert

message: Does anyone know the status of the new viaduct for the Caracas-La Guaira highway? Gazpacho 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As of last week, it took my family three hours each way to get to and from Maiquetia.  I don't know the current status, but this is yet another glaring omission from this article, which refuses to allow any discussion of anything critical of Chávez. Note that almost nothing has been updated for 2006; since there isn't much news in Chavez's favor in 2006, the owners of the article haven't updated 2006 content.  The autopista, Iran, North Korea, Russian arms deals, allegations from Chile of vote buying:  all missing.  Everything's rosy in Chavezpedia.  While Venezuela is enjoying the largest boom ever in petrodollars, giving money away to other countries as if there were no poverty in Venezuela, the main highway to Caracas is in ruins, and this isn't even mentioned in any of the Chávez articles. Sandy 14:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this article is not to discuss every little project carried out by Venezuelan government officials, and to examine its success or failure.  You can certainly highlight Chavez's achievements or lack thereof in a more general way, but it's extraneous in an article about Chavez to analyze every aspect of Venezuelan society. Furthermore, although Wikipedia is not a news wire, the 2006 section appears to be just that, and has the potential to run on forever. -- WGee 19:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of this article is not to discuss every little project carried out by Venezuelan government officials, and to examine its success or failure. WGee, the only possible answer to your response is that it is apparent that you have not been to Venezuela, and do not appreciate the significance of this issue.  You describing it as "every little project" is the first clue that you don't understand the significance of Venezuela's capital and major city being cut off from its airport and access to the sea, not to mention the people that Chávez supposedly cares about who must transit that highway every day on their way to work in Caracas.  I'm surprised you don't express concern that those workers must spend six hours daily transiting to and from work.  That's why it's important that people who praise socialism without seeing or understanding its consequences in Venezuela not exert ownership of a Wiki article.  By the way, I'm still waiting for you to object to the "newswire" from the parts of the article that deal with older history, and are currently only bloating the article size, when that history is well summarized in the daughter articles and no longer needed.  The older "newswire" items don't seem to bother you. Sandy 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In one statement you have assumed my political ideology, labelled me an "owner" of this article, called me ignorant of the effects of "socialism", and yet still have failed to explain how this infrastructure project is directly pertinent to Chavez. -- WGee 19:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Although I'm not sure what the Chavez article should say about this, I have to agree with Sandy that calling the Viaduct #1 replacement a "little project" suggests monumental indifference to facts on the ground. Caracas is Venezuela's largest city and it depends on that highway. Gazpacho 21:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My phrase "every little project" was used merely for rhetorical effect, to underline the need to avoid mentioning extraneous and excessively specific information in this article; it was not even in reference to this particular transport route. Of course, I have read the Caracas-La Guaira highway article, viewed a map of the motorway, and have read several articles on the issue; I consequently understand its importance to Caracas and area.  Nevertheless, I do not think that it's appropriate to attribute this specific infrastructure failure to Chavez.  And although this crumbling motorway certainly decreases productivity and poses enourmous incoveniences to workers and vacationers, its impact on Venezuela as a whole should not be overstated. -- WGee 22:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We can certainly expect him to allocate resources to fixing it, considering the money he is giving away to neighbors in his attempt to win a seat on the Security Council.  Sandy 19:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could criticze equally every president from the 1980's onward for failing to come up with a long term solution of the problem.  Better yet, we could criticize them all for failing to develop a sound urban development strategy for Caracas and its surrounding areas, one that doesn't promote congestion and pollution by encouraging the use of personal automobiles.  Your singling out of Chavez is irrational.  And, to be honest, I am much more concerned about the plight of rural dwellers who live in near absolute poverty than I am for the merely inconvenienced workers who are fortunate enough to have a stable job to which to commute and a means of motorized transportation. -- WGee 20:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What's the trocha? Gazpacho 19:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a nickname for the temporary road link built between the two closed points of the now collapsed bridge, it snakes around the ravine and it is only a road(ie one channel per way), takes 5 mins to cross without traffic (in other words late at night), it was finished in Late Feb of this year, it is only a temporary solution until the new longer viaduct is finished in 07.Flanker 20:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Viaduct