Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 11

message: Since there is (weak) consensus above to work on Dec 10 version, I am starting a To Do list of work necessary to bring it up to date.  
Structural restoration changes (things like restoring Wiki links, categories, etc.) should be made to the main page version, while content revisions should be proposed in the Sandbox version, for later merging to the main article.  Edits made to the main page version without consensus may be moved to the Sandbox version, pending review.
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
Please add to list, and strike items as they are completed.  Also, please indicate if you are working on a particular item, to avoid duplication of effort.  If discussion of an item on the list is needed, please use topics already started, or start a new topic, so the list will stay just a list.  Sandy 12:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TO DO LIST

message: *What's up with two different referencing styles?  Fix ? Done, SG. 
*The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
*Deal with voter tally boxes
**I seem to recall some revisions to these numbers:  check June 10 version.  Reviewed all voter boxes, numbers same, SG
**Remove absurd level of precision from decimal place percentages in voter tables (after numbers are verified and referenced)  Removed decimal point precision in all voter tally boxes.  You can check my work Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999,  Template:ChavezElections1998 SG
***At the same time, remove silly 71.xx numbers from article:  just say 72% for readability (after numbers are verified and referenced) SG.
**By the way, where is the reference for the vote tallies?  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
*Resolve 53rd President (see above); search talk page history Done, found reference, SG.
*Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions.  This includes (at minimum):
**Double check that article structural updates are complete and all items are restored (things like interwikis, categories, IPA, etc.) I believe we're now up to date.  We are short one Presidential succession template, but why do we need three different ways of listing Presidents of Venezuela?  We have Presidential template at bottom of article.  SG
**Review all internal and external links (checked and updated all Wikilinks: SG)
**Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
**Update foreign policy
***Review unreferenced statement, introduced by anon editor, and lost on revert (under foreign policy, Peru presidential affair):  Garcia responded by saying that Chavez was "a midget dictator with a big wallet."   Update: Here is a source, should we decide to use it.  Forbes SG
****For stylistic reasons I disagree with any sort of quotations other than from Chavez himself it is afterall an article about him. Flanker 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More To Do

message: *Later (after we get article restored)?
**Review all other POV issues (after we get the primary restore work done).
***Dodd
***Peru
***Súmate
***Review Enano's concerns (above):  Nothing about Lula da Silva, nothing about Evo Morales, nothing about his relationship with Iran nor Lybia, nothing about the 2005 parliamentary elections, nothing about the weapon selling prohibition, nothing about the currency control, the 2002-03 general strike information very incomplete.  
***"I won't go even if 90% are against me" Added, SG
***Is Chávez "gerrymandering" to stay in power beyond previous 5-year term (now possibly 16 years) covered sufficiently anywhere.  
****(Adding a note here for clarification:  I used "gerrymandering" in quotes, as that is not the precise term for all the changes to the electoral process that were alleged:   I don't know what the correct word would be, since the changes to the electoral provess were so massive, but I'm sorry the term "gerrymandering" resulted in confusion later on.  I also did the math wrong:  I think the 16 should be 14?  1999 - 2012 inclusive?)  Sandy 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Later To Do

message: Last sentence under Economic Policy, not sure where content came from, but reference wasn't working right ... Proposed content (Flanker?) to be added, pending review and consensus:
On March 2006 the Communal Council Law was approved, whereby communities that decide to organize themselves into a council can be given official state recognition and access to federal funds and loans for community projects. This skips the local and state governments that are perceived as corrupt. Conexion social. (Conexion social, 2006). Law Of Communal Councils. Retrieved June 9, 2006. Critics state that the councils are another avenue for corruption. 
Also, does last sentence need ref?
The link is on there http://conexionsocial.org.ve/wk/Law_Of_Communal_Councils._Final_Draft I don´t see why it is not working as for the last reference I really do not have one.Flanker 17:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flanker, I'm sorry to be behind here, but how is this relevant to the most important info about Chávez (the article is already too long), how is it relevant to Economic Policy, and who/what is ConexionSocial (in terms of reliable source)?  The relevance of this addition isn't clear to me, so it may be less clear to people even less familiar with Venezuela than myself. We need to reference claim of another avenue for corruption.  When I google Communal Council Law Venezuela, all I get are leftist sources.  Google News returns nothing at all. Sandy 17:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The comunal councils are IMHO as important as the Missions, just that they are brand new, all of the critiscism has been in spanish and from other people I have met not from a linkable source. I put them under the missions (and not economy) however I propose that we modify the titles, in Venezuela there are two ministries: One for the tradiditonal economy and one for the "popular" economy although both the comunal councils and misiones bypass this ministries the titles could be changed into popular economy and traditional economy. conexion social is translating the law and therefore more direct without bias, removing them means adding venanalysis.Flanker 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand they are important "in your humble opinion:"  I'm hoping you can explain why, as I'm not seeing it, and all the news references are from biased sources.  They don't seem to have caught the eye of mainstream media. Since the article is already too long, I'm trying to understand the relevance (other than the obvious, another means for corruption, as mentioned).  Sandy 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering we are trying to fight off mainstream bias I believe your comment is off, my opinion is that it is important and so is to a lot of Venezuelans that cannot contribute to wikipedia, http://consejoscomunales.org/index.php this issue is not that controversial aside from the relatively weak critiques of "more corruption" etc.Flanker 20:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flanker, can you please explain it's importance?  That is, how you see this one particular law (among so many) as being a pivotal part of understanding Chavez?  I'm just not seeing it.  If it's not clear to me, it's not going to be clear to readers unfamiliar with Venezuela, or who can't read Spanish.  Sometimes you have to spell it out for us dummies:-)   Thanks, Sandy 21:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The law is important because it is recentl being pushed strongly and openly by the executive, from having several 'Alo' dedicated entirely to it, a cadenas recently for the comunal banks etc.If anything it is undereferenced because this will have an equal impact on the population in supporting the government as the missions, if this is too unorthodox we could return to good old venanalysis to spell it out for us ;)Flanker 22:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to do next, Flanker: I wish you could tell me why the law is important (other than Chavez talking about it for hours :-)  Perhaps if you post the VenAnalysis info here, it will explain?  Just not wanting to add more hodgepodge pieces of info to the article without understanding how they fit into the big picture.  Is it because of the corruption factor, does it have to do with Chavez consolidating more power, what is the goal?  (I don't expect VenAnalysis to tell me :-)) Another question:  why was the Communal Council Law inserted under Bolivarian Missions?  What is the connection?Sandy 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had assumed you read Venanalysis take (you should always look at the other side I read El universal every day, and even Vcrisis on many occasions)    I can tell you that right now it is the most important social project the government and the supporters are currently working on.Flanker 01:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, now I recall those articles. I see a problem with there being nothing anywhere to counterbalance the bias in the VenAnalysis articles, so there's nothing I can add.  (I would read ElUniversal, but since freedom of speech is legally limited regardless of your interpretation, I don't expect to find a frank analysis there.)  I can find no mention in any news source, so I suggest we leave stand what you've added to the article, for now.  But for the unitiated, you might want to explain what the CCL has to do with Bolivarian Missions.  As the article reads right now, the Bolivarian Missions section makes no sense.  It mixes economy with the Missions and now with a law whose connection to the Missions is not established in the text. Sandy 02:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speech is legally limited in the United States as well: libel, slander, state secrets, perjury, revealing sources, FCC control of the airwaves, calling for the assasination of the pres, Patriot act etc. I don't see how the NYT is now unable or unwilling to critiscize the gov, there is a difference between non-absolute freedom of speech that no gov allows and no freedom of speech, besides all you have to do is read the editorials and you will see. As for the title conection it is weird I know, I propose changing the titles the gov has two ministries one related to the old economy and a new ministry for the 'popular' economy, even though msiions and CC bypass the ministries I propose a similar change in titles.Flanker 02:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communal Council Law

message: First paragraph of Bolivarian missions
ORIGINAL (based on biased sources, btw)
Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at radically altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. Although recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust, per-capita GDP in 2004 has dropped around 1% from 1999 levels.  However, as of September 2005, there have also been significant drops since 1999 in unemployment and in the government's definition of "poverty," and there have been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005. 
PROPOSED by Flanker (on reverted version, still using Weisbrot and VenAnalysis sources - also based on INE numbers, which is a Chávez defintion for poverty, not international standard)
 
Chávez's domestic policy relies heavily on the "Bolivarian Missions," a series of political campaigns aimed at radically altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela. Recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust,Latin Business Chronicle. (Latin Business Chronicle, Oct 2005). "GDP Growth: Venezuela Best". Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Venezuela will likely end the year with an economic expansion of 7.8 percent, the IMF forecasts. ECLAC's forecast is 7.0 percent. However, both figures mark a slowdown compared with last year's growth rate of 17.9 percent, which was Latin America's best performance last year as well."Latin Business Chronicle. (Latin Business Chronicle, April 2006). "GDP Growth: Argentina Best". Retrieved 13 Jun 2005. "Venezuela's economy, Latin America’s fourth-largest, is expected to grow by 6.0 percent this year, the IMF predicts. ECLAC expects a 7.0 percent GDP increase. Last year, the economy grew by 9.3 percent last year, the highest in the region, according to IMF data."Bloomberg.(Bloomberg, May 16 2006) Venezuelan 1st-Qtr GDP Grows 9.4 Percent on Oil Surge (Update1). Retrieved 13 Jun 2006 . As of May 2006, there has been a 6.4% drop in official unemploymentInstituto Nacional de Estadistica.(INE, Jan 1999) Globales de Fuerza de Trabajo. Retrieved 13 Jun 2006.Instituto Nacional de Estadistica.(INE, April 2006) de Fuerza de Trabajo. Retrieved 13 Jun 2006. and a 6% drop in the government's definition of "poverty," Weisbrot, M., Sandoval, L., and Rosnick, D. (2006), "Poverty Rates In Venezuela: Getting The Numbers Right" Center for Economic and Policy Research, Retrieved May 31, 2006. Venezuela Analysis.  "World Bank: Venezuela decreased poverty", Retrieved 9 June 2006. and there have been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005.Central Intelligence Agency. (CIA, 1998). The World Factbook 1998: Venezuela. Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Infant mortality rate: total: 27.52 deaths/1,000 live births ... Life expectancy at birth: total population: 72.66 years ... (1998 est.)"Central Intelligence Agency. (CIA, 2005). The World Factbook 2005: Venezuela. Retrieved 18 Oct 2005. "Infant mortality rate: total: 22.20 deaths/1,000 live births ... Life expectancy at birth: total population: 74.31 years ... (2005 est.)"
===Suggestions===
altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela.  How did that make it through the FA review ????
:Fixed grammar.  Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed grammar.  Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Strike that.  Now that I've researched how Chávez reports the numbers, versus international standards, I don't know how such inaccurate and POV statements made it into the FA article, except that clearly, there is not an economic data review as part of the FA review and maybe there aren't any economic data standards on Wiki ??  We need to put some real and accurate numbers in the article, with accurate sources (which will likely show, as anyone familiar with Venezuela knows, that the poor under Chávez have gotten dramatically more poor). Defining "poverty" by Chavez definitions, different than international standards, isn't going to fly in an encyclopedia unless it is fully explained. Sandy 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look if you want to debate if poverty has dropped it is your prerogative, but we cannot debate here, however it is what the government reports all governments have their own standards, Venezuela's current poverty standard is the CPI (around $250)of the Andean Pact so it is directly comparable to the other regional nations. As for an internationally comparable standard I also gave the one about the World Bank that says poverty dropped 10% in 10 years (would you prefer we reference what the World Bank says over the lower drop from gov figures?). The 1% drop in GDP per capita is outdated, since it was recorded 6 months have passed with strong GDP growth. We cannot remove the postive such as recent strong economic growth (averaging 13% in 3 years) and reported poverty drop and unemployment.Flanker 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No debate:  we don't decide the numbers.  We'll need to present data that contradicts and/or explains Chavez's data, for balance.  We can't just tell one side of the story, when Chavez redefines the numbers (apples and oranges).  Sandy 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no redifining the numbers, what you alude to was an Andres Oppenheimer editorial were he claims the governemnt made a change but it was rebutted by another editorial from the same guy claiming that the government told him the same yardsticks were being used. There are no other internal numbers, there are international numbers of which I gave you one (world bank), IMF and UN agencies (UNICEF, World health org, etc), etc. They all corroborate government data, and in the case of the UN audit it. heck there are some statistics whose omission makes the article biased against chavez (check the last entry on POV against)Flanker 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of balancing the numbers. On one side we could present the official data, and to contradict (or support in some cases) the official data we could use numbers from organizations such as Datanalisis. This would really help POV. --Enano275 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bolivarian Missions

message: altering Venezuela's economic and cultural landscape of Venezuela.  How did that make it through the FA review ????
:Fixed grammar.  Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed grammar.  Sandy 14:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Strike that.  Now that I've researched how Chávez reports the numbers, versus international standards, I don't know how such inaccurate and POV statements made it into the FA article, except that clearly, there is not an economic data review as part of the FA review and maybe there aren't any economic data standards on Wiki ??  We need to put some real and accurate numbers in the article, with accurate sources (which will likely show, as anyone familiar with Venezuela knows, that the poor under Chávez have gotten dramatically more poor). Defining "poverty" by Chavez definitions, different than international standards, isn't going to fly in an encyclopedia unless it is fully explained. Sandy 01:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look if you want to debate if poverty has dropped it is your prerogative, but we cannot debate here, however it is what the government reports all governments have their own standards, Venezuela's current poverty standard is the CPI (around $250)of the Andean Pact so it is directly comparable to the other regional nations. As for an internationally comparable standard I also gave the one about the World Bank that says poverty dropped 10% in 10 years (would you prefer we reference what the World Bank says over the lower drop from gov figures?). The 1% drop in GDP per capita is outdated, since it was recorded 6 months have passed with strong GDP growth. We cannot remove the postive such as recent strong economic growth (averaging 13% in 3 years) and reported poverty drop and unemployment.Flanker 17:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No debate:  we don't decide the numbers.  We'll need to present data that contradicts and/or explains Chavez's data, for balance.  We can't just tell one side of the story, when Chavez redefines the numbers (apples and oranges).  Sandy 22:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no redifining the numbers, what you alude to was an Andres Oppenheimer editorial were he claims the governemnt made a change but it was rebutted by another editorial from the same guy claiming that the government told him the same yardsticks were being used. There are no other internal numbers, there are international numbers of which I gave you one (world bank), IMF and UN agencies (UNICEF, World health org, etc), etc. They all corroborate government data, and in the case of the UN audit it. heck there are some statistics whose omission makes the article biased against chavez (check the last entry on POV against)Flanker 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of balancing the numbers. On one side we could present the official data, and to contradict (or support in some cases) the official data we could use numbers from organizations such as Datanalisis. This would really help POV. --Enano275 23:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I don't speak Harvard references, so can't fix those, but I notice several editors having problems with m:Cite/Cite.php, which isn't every well explained on its page.  The key is in understanding naming of refs.  First, they don't have to use quotes.  You can just name a ref SandyRef1, for example, with no quotes.  Second, you only have to name a reference if you're going to use it twice.  That makes it easier to refer to it the second time, and causes the ref number to repeat, indicating uses a, b, etcetera.  If something is only used once, you can just use the ref tag, with no name.  So, there are two problems occurring.  If you are editing the article, and delete a named ref, that causes all future uses of that reference to go blank (I just put two back in).  If you delete a named ref, you must check the article for all other uses of that same ref, and replace with the full ref (or I'll go back and do it).  Second, if you inadvertently use a reference twice, without naming it, the same reference will show up twice on our list.  So, it's necessary to periodically review the entire ref list, checking for duplicates.  Hope this helps -- I'd say I highly recommend reading the Cite.php description above if you're working on refs, but it's really not written very clearly at all.  You can see my example of a short, hopefully correctly referenced article using cite.php on Tourette syndrome.  At some point, we need to find someone who knows how to clear out the other referencing mechanisms in the article, for consistency.  Sandy 00:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I figured out how to do it, and changed a few of them to cite:php.  I don't know how to change the cites that indicate a specific page number, and those books have to remain in reference, so I'll need help on that.  Also, I trimmed the References section a bit (took out a dead Yahoo link and a VenAnalysis article).  References (as opposed to Notes, which are inline citations) are supposed to represent general works upon which the article is based.  So, what to do about Chomsky?  I don't want to delete more of those without consensus, but some of them show a source of imbalance.  Sandy 01:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You already deleted all I did so why worry about Chomskey's feelings ;)Flanker 18:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went through each of your edits, reconstructed them, and they are all discussed above, including links :-)  Please let me know if you've reviewed my work above, so I strike it from the ToDo List.  Sandy 23:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on referencing mechanism

message: Bringing forward Ozzy's post from talk page archive, as it is still an active topic.  Sandy 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1998-2000, the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly. 

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)
replies: text: I disagree with almost all of it (as either incorrect, unencyclopedic, wrong article, too much detail, inaccurate, or irrelevant), but don't have time to spend on every single false claim raised on the talk page.  Some of it is bordering on strange: Chavez destabilizes Colombia, leading to emigration to Venezuela, and you want to credit him for Venezuela being a refugee haven?  Even the parts that are clearly true and won't need to be refuted and rebutted (like Pat Robertson) may fall into the not-needed in an already too long, unbalanced article.  Pat Robertson shot himself in the foot, and spoke for no one but his nobody self.  If you are determined to make an already too long, unbalanced article even longer and more unbalanced, turning it again into a hodgepodge of claims and counterclaims, might I suggest you add the detail to the daughter articles, for later summary into the main article?  Your list shows the article is not comprehensive, but an encyclopedia entry doesn't need to cover every piece of minutiae of Chavez's life.  It needs to present both sides of the story:  right now, it presents only one, from one POV.    Sandy 04:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: WOW you are aware that Colombia had been in a civil war 40 years before Chavez? Venezuela is one of the leading refugee countries on earth should that not be noted? Pat Robertson is just one guy I gave you 3 examples and can link to them if you like. Claiming that calls for assasination are not relevant to the article of the individual in question is what is strange IMHO, As for POV I disagree again right now I see it as unbalanced against. I warned you about hodgepodging but at this stage it is inevitable. I will start detailing the things that are right there such as the Carter center veredict on 2000.Flanker 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chavez has further destabilized Colombia.  Venezuela as a refugee host might be an appropriate addition to Venezuela, not Chávez.  I can see summarizing all of the assassination calls in one sentence (something to the effect of "several prominent people have publicly called for his assassination" -- yes, I agree that is perhaps encyclopedia-worthy, but singling out Pat Robertson isn't, since he spoke for himself as nobody - it belongs in his article).  I don't think the hodgepodging is inevitable:  I hope you'll adopt the encyclopedic tone that exists in the FA version, and summarize main concepts rather than adding detail that will put us over 100KB. Even better would be to cut half of the article out first, merging content into daughter articles, before adding more content to a laboriously long article. Sandy 21:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is quite the unfounded accusation, if anything Colombia is better off than they were 4 years ago, a credit to Uribe. As for the rest: when the shoe is on the other foot you want summarized sentences no? ;) I cannot beleive that an event that caused more articles writen about Chavez from every news source ever is not relevant but quotes 2 years removed from the referendum, hardly reported and later retracted when it was relevant, needs to be added. This article is now a hodgepodge again and there is no stopping it, I was a fool to think it could be avoided with such a strong crontroversy and nuances.Flanker 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you give credit to Uribe where due, in spite of Chavez's destabilization.  If you think Pat Robertson is that important, then add it, but the publicity was not over Chávez, it was over Robertson as an attack on his hypocrisy and the far right he represents -- it would have made news if he had said it about anyone else as well.  Yes, we could avoid a hodgepodge.  It's never too late to decide you want to work together, rather than put up obstacles (no quotes, no links, no speeches, no references to words you don't agree with ... ) Sandy 22:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too late :( It did not seem fair that you were having all the fun ;), the hodgepodge is inevitable, the best we can do is present all sides and lets just let the reader decide. As for Robertson I made it about Chavez not him.Flanker 04:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV list (biased against) 

message: Including the last sentence added to the final paragraph of Chavez and the media, which was reverted by Flanker, for discussion. I can't recall who added this passage, but I think it was an anon editor.
:In June 2006 he stated that he may shut down dissenting TV stations when the concessions are to be reviewed. (Kennedy, A. Chavez Threatens to Shut Down Venezuelan TV Stations. Bloomberg.com. Accessed 15 June 2006.)
I hope that we can build a balanced, unbiased article, without getting into a point-counterpoint hodgepodge.  We had almost gotten the June 10 version to the point where there was some balance.  We don't need to add everything Chavez has done:  we do need to add enough basic fact that his term can be viewed in a balanced context, and that this article can move beyond being an advertisement for Chavez.  He has limited freedom of the press, and that has not been made clear in the article.  Sandy 23:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agreee that not everything should be added or else we would have to get the other side leading to size, as for limited freedom of speech it is on par with the United States IMHO (stronger on one side weaker on the other), You should check out Union radio or Globovision  and see/hear it for yourself.Flanker 14:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloomberg report of TV station shut down 

message: Copied from ToDO List:
Review unreferenced statement, introduced by anon editor, and lost on revert (under foreign policy, Peru presidential affair):  Garcia responded by saying that Chavez was "a midget dictator with a big wallet."   Update: Here is a source, should we decide to use it.  Forbes SG
:For stylistic reasons I disagree with any sort of quotations other than from Chavez himself it is afterall an article about him.Flanker 19:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know of any precedent in Wikipedia for such a restriction?  I can't imagine there would be one, as it would not allow us to write a correctly-referenced, NPOV article. Sandy 19:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no wikipedia policy to back me, however it is simply a stylistic standard that is set throught the article, essentialy prose will need to be solid if it is ever to return to FA status. Any other quote can be sumarized without the need to fill the article with needless quotes.Flanker 20:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we concur on the Garcia quote:  I included it here so that we discuss it, and so that the anon editor wouldn't feel overlooked.  I agree that we don't want to grow the article again, with point and counterpoint quotes, and don't feel that Garcia's response to Chavez does much to illuminate the topic.  We need an overall summary of Chavez's foreign relations gaffes, not a detailed analysis of each. I was just curious about your sweeping statement about "no quotes other than from Chavez himself", and I generally don't support that policy (unless it's a Wiki policy).  Sandy 21:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sigh... look I am not going to argue to death something that is not policy, if you want to change the style then fine I relent, just please make sure you state who is being quoted.Flanker 04:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well but from my part it has mostly been reactive, you made changes that did not meet consensus here (the ICC way is in my humble opinion the best way to deal with changes), the economy part in particular is deeply misleading, yes oil prices helped but the strikes, coup, oil strikes sabotaged the economy on purpose to drive Chavez out. Then there is the 90% irrelevant quote from 2002. Severe critiscism from human right orgs, etc. Most of what you have added is not approved by consensus while a LOT of what I have added I have tried to reach consensus in the talk page first: ICC, Comunal council laws(well sort of), Mudslides.Flanker 04:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Flanker, but I must stridently disagree with your entire statement above.  As just one small example, you cannot just say there has been no criticism from human rights orgs, in spite of multiple references provided, just as you can't just say there is freedom of the press in Venezuela, in spite of multiple references.  You seem to be editing from opinion rather than Wiki policy. And I stridently disagree that you have worked towards consensus. You have put up unreasonable obstacles, based on no Wiki policies you can cite, to every referenced statement introduced into the article.  Sandy 04:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flanker objection to direct quotes

message: I'd like to archive TOC items 1 - 19 above, as all of these items have been addressed, or are detailed later in the talk page.  (Mudslides were resolved, POV issues are detailed later in the talk page, consensus about which version to use was established, ICC ruling was resolved, 53 Pres and IPA were addressed.  All of Flanker's reverted edits are listed on the ToDo list, as is the need to review pictures.  Before archiving these sections, we need to resolve the Titles and Honors section, and 172 needs to review my changes to his edits during the revert.  I would carry forward the Article Size discussion, as I'm not sure that is resolved.  Please let me know if you disagree with archive.  Sandy 13:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived TOC 1 - 20 (included the Sandbox, since no one is using it).  If anyone still disputes that the article size needs to be reduced, please carry forward the discussion.  Sandy 23:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive talk page