Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 16

message: I do not understand the reasons for the POV tag. Most of the article is neutral, I can read criticism in all sections of the article (not only in the criticism section & article). JRSP 13:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen this before in other articles about leaders or countries the US government has a less than flattering view upon. Some say reality has an inherent bias. But we're not here to tell the reader one thing or another, we're here to present the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion. Just remember that. 68.193.94.214 00:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: I think his bid for reelection needs a section... He's still attacking George W Bush and apparently ignores the opposite candidate. I'll leave this quote that could help on expanding the proposed section. Just as a curiousity, I didn't know why he was calling Bush the devil, and finally found out; it's from the "W" similiar pronunciation to the spanish word for devil "DIABLO"... George Diablo Bush... 
: Spanish "W" is quite different than diablo, phonetically it sounds more like "DUB-LAY-VAY." Youknowthatoneguy 04:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reelection bid

message: There is a documentary made by an Irish film crew, who happened to be in Caracas during the 2002 coupe. It's called "the revolution will not be televised". They have a radically different account of the coupe. The private media showed an incident where Chavistas are apparently filmed shooting pieceful marchers, but this piece was edited so as not to show the Chavistas taking fire from above (they were acually shooting at snipers in the building above). They also show the same scene from a different camera angle, which shows that the march wasn't even passing through the street which the private media had claimed.
I think this artical should mention these facts.
:Yeah the section certainly needs a spruce up. Flanker 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's worth looking at the response to that video , which shows much of the original/uncut footage from the first.  It disputes many of the assertions of the original piece -- the scene mentioned above, for example, shows that the empty street was filmed hours after the shooting.  I haven't watched the two closely together enough to draw all the conclusions, but it's pretty clear that the first piece should be watched with care. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are even bigger holes in the counterdocumentary, including baffling internal inconsistencies, (was it 1:30 or 5:30 how could Xray claim it was both?) check the main article for the revolution will not be televised.Flanker 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the revolution will not be televised 

message: Some Joker has change the title of the article "Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías" a minutes ago and put some vulgar words instead of it. Please show respect for the readers and users of Wikipedia. Alejousb 03:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens all the time. Just have to revert it: WP:REVERT. :) Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Jokers 

message: He reportedly won re-election vandalism within the next hours, probably days..will be constant. --F3rn4nd0 BLA BLA BLA 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think it will be worse than during the UN speech times and article was not blocked or protected that time. As long as we can manage the situation there is no need for edit restrictions JRSP 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock the article please

message: I'm not sure if this is the right place to put this.
Concerning US policy toward Chávez: What if the United States endorsed him? I mean, wouldn't that make him look bad?
And cause him to change his apparent views toward the US? --ArtifexCrastinus 00:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseless Speculation: What if...? 

message: Not sure what should be done with this, but the phrase:
"Credible anecdotal evidence emerged that Chávez and his allies were penalising signers of the publicly posted petition by denying them government jobs and services.[51]"
Has a couple of problems with it. The link goes to an article which is not publicly available and so can't be independently verified by readers without paying, and is made by the Council on Foreign Relations, which is a US-centric right-wing thinktank and can't in any real sense be considered non-partisan, which surely should draw questions as to its credibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob Ray (talk • contribs) 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder what a "credible anecdotal evidence" is. JRSP 21:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This "credible anecdotal evidence" sounds like weasel words:Credible anecdotal evidence emerged that Chávez and his allies were penalising signers of the publicly posted petition by denying them government jobs and services.Shifter, Michael. "In Search of Hugo Chávez". Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006. 85:3, p. 48. "There is also credible anecdotal evidence of the existence of lists of individuals' votes that have been used to deny Chávez's opponents jobs and services."  JRSP 00:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governmental biases 

message: I was wondering, how does this article compare to that in other languages? --169.232.125.176 00:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: compariosn

message: I cut this sentence from article, the paragraph is about 15 December1999 not about mudslides: Subsequent mudslides in 2000 and 2004 left 14 dead..
.  JRSP 01:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mudslides