Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 12

message: Should this be added to the article? Is it too recent?  Here is a read.Flanker 17:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's premature.  We don't know how newsworthy the issue will turn out to be yet, and we still need to shorten the article.  Sandy 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela seeking a UNSC seat 

message: Private television stations hostile to Chavez released pictures purportedly showing Chavistas firing from a bridge on anti-Chavez demonstrators below. However Irish filmmakers later realeased footage showing that there were in-fact no people below the bridge, and they were actually firing on snipers in adjacent buildings (http://trinicenter.com/cgi-bin/selfnews/viewnews.cgi?newsid1019109396,77031,.shtml) and (Venanalysis).
Maxrspct, several concerns with this passage:
*This again introduces references from the biased sources mentioned in the FARC, which we are working to reduce.  Do you have a more reliable source supporting these statements?
*Have you checked the daughter articles?  We are working on the size of the article, and I believe this discussion is covered in two other articles, Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 and The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary).  
*There is a full debunking on those articles of the accuracy of this "documentary", so introducing the controversy into the main article doesn't seem helpful.  If it is to be included here, then the entire rebuttal from the daughter articles will need to be included or summarized.  I'm not sure what is accomplished by introducing a level of disputed detail to the main article which is included in daughter articles.
Sandy 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old article had a very big accusation but not the counter claim that is heavy POV right there almost like excluding the Dodd report.Flanker 20:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then propose a fix to the old article, rather than adding more content that is already covered in daughter articles.  Sandy 21:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Irish Documentary"

message: I have again corrected the lead, and am not happy that I have had to add more references (not the direction we should be headed, particularly in the lead), so that valid statements from reliable sources can be reflected.  Flanker, you continue to delete  the fact that Chavez has been criticized by far more than just the "Venezuelan middle and upper classes", so I've been forced to add what I consider to be unnecessary references.  I have deleted the word "severely" from the original text, trying to address your concerns, even though I believe the word to be accurate in all cases.  Will the deletion of the word "severely" settle the issue for you?  If so, perhaps we can also delete the extra references. It is disingenous to state that criticism has not come from many sectors other than the Venezuelan upper and middle classes, and if you continue to insist upon that, should I then include dozens of references to criticism from many different sectors? Sandy 16:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting the severe is enough for the HR orgs, but other leaders is misleading since it is only Garcia and he is president elect. I will just remove that portion. The other thing would be fixing the order the oposition is first (I will find a citation) Pres Bush 2nd and HR orgs third.Flanker 20:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree on the order:  it can be argued that HR orgs are more impartial than the Bush administration, and that their criticism is more important.  Further, Bush was much too slow to wake up to Venezuela, and has been criticized domestically for not paying attention and for abandoning Venezuela, so I don't think he ranks above HR orgs in criticism.  But I don't care how they are ordered, as long as the article no longer implies that the only criticism is coming from wealthy Venezuelans, because that's inaccurate.  Garcia is not the only foreign leader:  do you want me to have to add twenty more references, in order to keep content verifiably true?  It's sad to see the lead carry a string of references to substantiate common knowledge, because you are disagreeing with brief and reasonable content revisions.  Sandy 21:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's the pre-revert version , detailing at minimum diplomatic disputes and criticism from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia.  The problem with the Netherlands over Aruba hasn't even been mentioned.  I'll add back in other foreign leaders.  If you don't want a few words added to the lead, we can instead add back in all the laborious detail, with all the references, into the foreign policy section.  The U.S. is not the only country having Chavez problems.  Sandy 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lead

message: Flanker, if you can tell me what you're trying to do here, I might be able to help.  Your change deleted an important piece of information from the reference (the page number:  an article which references books or long articles without page numbers would not make an FA).  I can help, if you let me know what you're trying to do:  the change undid a correctly-done reference, and lost the page number.  The first inline citation was correctly cited, referencing the cite in the References section.   And, there's now an error at the bottom of the refs, so something is still wrong.Sandy 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its frankly been a mess and I see what you were claiming before, the two reference vs notes is a disaster, only books should have references not pdfs since a page number can be added easily and a link is more important than a page.Flanker 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's tricky, but it makes sense now.  I'm sorry to revert, but I'm afraid you were heading down the wrong path without realizing it -- you were deleting references, converting them to inline citations.  Articles or books which are general references -- used many times -- are cited as References, and inline citations (Notes) can refer back to those references, particularly when page numbers are needed.  I think the way they are done now is correct:  I was careful to leave all Saravask's references, and refer back to them on the inline citations.  There has been a discussion on featured articles that don't include page numbers, so I know it has become an issue.  When we have page numbers, we should keep them. Hope this helps, Sandy 22:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very well.Flanker 22:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flanker, was it your aim to get the Carter references into the inline citations Notes), rather than as References?  I've now learned how to do that, including page numbers, if that's what you want done.  Let me know, and I can do it if you want.  Sandy 15:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be very helpfull, every single reference creates a new note making it more burdensome to find a link, only books should be done this way IMHO not websites or PDFs.Flanker 20:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Before working on the change, I want to make sure we're understanding each other.  Anything that lists a specific page number (which includes PDFs as well as books) should retain the page number.  Any page numbers we have should be retained:  this is being more strictly enforced on future FAs.  If I make the change, the *first* time a certain reference is used, it will include the link and the full info and the page number, but subsequent entries from the same reference would just say something like McCoy and Neuman (2001), p. 73.  That's the correct way of referencing.  Is that what you want me to do?  The only thing it will change is it will move the *first* instance of a reference from the References section to the Notes section, but all subsequent entries from the same source would stay the same. I would suggest doing this only for the Carter Center reports, because the books should remain listed as Saravask's general references for the article (that's the difference between inline citations - Notes - and References.) Sandy 22:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing references

message: Flanker, I deleted your statement about a six-point drop, because it referenced one month's worth of data, rather than annual data.  Instead, I provided another source, which does substantiate a 10-point drop since 2003. (The Economist)
Fine remove the uppermost reference, I just found it insane how a 6% drop in poverty is somehow negative.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10% is here, on the PDF I did point out the page -> 8 there what Datos considers the poorest sectors of society -> E had their incomes double in nominal terms the past two years.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mind removing the Orlando Urdaneta but the link should remain for what Shapiro said. I will find a CAP link.Flanker 20:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look at those refs as soon as I get a chance: I'm sorry I mssed the page 8.  I don't object to leaving Urdaneta, I just wish we had a way to convey his significance to people who don't know Venezuela.  (In other words, it would be great if someone would create Orlando Urdaneta on Wiki :-) I don't know that much about him, other than hearing the name all the time. Also, the 6% drop in poverty is not negative:  it's accuracy is suspect, since it uses a new definition. Sandy 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done ! (Thanks to Caracas1830) Sandy 16:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy section, references needed

message: Here is a preliminary outline for reorganizing Criticism of Hugo Chávez.  I don't want to begin moving text around over there until others concur: please help me out with organization and headings.  TIA, Sandy 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary outline for organizing criticism

message: I put up the complete reorganization of the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article, which at this stage, is just a compilation of all of the criticism from the several different articles.  It still needs a lot of tweaking and work, there are large gaps of criticism that have never been covered anywhere, it has some overlap, is missing sources, is unbalanced;  but it gives us everything in one place, so that we can hopefully all work on the same page, and then bring whatever is needed back to the main article, in summary style.  Sandy 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New criticism article

message: 172, your deletion of photos was premature, since those sections of text have yet to be updated from the pre-revert.  The discussion of the Peru problem has not yet been updated, it's a significant example of Chavez foreign policy, nor has the media section.  When the text is updated, the photos are the best for illustration.  Sorry. Too much to do all at once.  Sandy 00:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature photo deletion

message: I checked the article size in several stages, to see what generates the most KB.
*Current overall size:  104KB
*Delete templates at top of article, Categories, Interwikis, Commons, and See other:  102KB
*Delete External links:  99KB
*Delete Images and daughter article links:  95KB
*Delete Templates (voter tally and Bol. Missions):  95KB
*Delete Notes and References:  89 KB
I was surprised that the templates add very little, while the External Links add 3 KB ??
Current prose size is 89KB, vs. recommended max of 50KB. Sandy 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article size check

message: WGee, regarding two recent edits:
*We do need to somehow reference that his use of the word "Bolivarian" is by his interpretation and is disputed, since his views differ radically from those of Bolivar in many areas, and are influenced by Marxism and other ideologies.  This was covered in the old talk pages, and was raised again in the last month .  This was dealt with in the FA version by using the "he terms" or "he refers to" wording.  Some wording to that effect needs to be included:  we can't just wholesale claim anything Chavez professes would be supported by Bolivar.  It is pointed out later in the article that most of his followers really refer to chavismo.  Bolivarianism was an effective PR ploy Chavez used to sell himself to those who might not be scholars of Bolivar.  
::That's not a problem; I just didn't like the way the sentence sounded.  Didn't mean to diminish the implications of the sentence. -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, can you reword that one in the lead, re-introducing something?  Your prose is superior to mine :-)  Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the term "Bolivarian Revolution" was coined by Chavez, and it refers precisely to the massive social reforms initiated by him, doesn't it?  I think there is a distinction between the Bolivarian Revolution (which was invented/led by Chavez) and Bolivarianism (the ideology invented by Bolivar that Chavez merely claims to embody). -- WGee 02:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In both cases, the words have little to do with the eponym, Bolivar.  Is that made clear yet in the article?  Sandy 18:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that he was criticized by his own army comrades is appropriately articulated, I feel.  I understand that you want that to be emphasized more in the text, but to do so would be to imply that criticism from one's aquaintances is particularly important and bears added weight.  I disagree with that notion, however. -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it's worded appropriately now, we can leave it.  Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Even if we come to a consensus, there could be numerous NPOV disputes raised by newcomers who refute the criticisms (and who haven't bothered to read the criticism section).  Because the critique is rather hefty, and to promote stability, it might be appropriate to keep the citations (though maybe one for each point, rather than two or three). -- WGee 16:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, maybe we could combine all the references at the end of the entire sentence, so that the sentence is not so cluttered ? I'll do that now, to see how it looks. Sandy 17:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked it better as it was before, to be honest.  The current arrangement of the references makes it difficult for readers to associate the notes with their respective allegations. -- WGee 17:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll revert (and take out that wayward comma).  Sandy
My issue with critiscism is that it is heavily unbalanced, the governemnt constantly reminds people that they are not all powerfull and despite what Sandy said above they did not control all branches of govenrment since the begining the Supreme Court ruled many times against them the Assembly was near 50% and many regional and mayors were oposition controlled, only today can the be assumed to have considerable control over all branches of government to be found liable of what rogue cops and the like do.Flanker 23:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working on wording and prose

message: Chávez was born on July 28, 1954 ...  attend high school at the Daniel Florencio O'Leary School, graduating with a science degree. [16] ... At age seventeen, [ ed note: that means 1971 ] Chávez enrolled at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences. After graduating in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with master's degrees in military science and engineering ...  
We need to check the facts and terminology here, because the numbers don't add up.  First, graduating with a science degree from high school is a bit misleading, because a high school diploma is referred to as a bachiller en ciencias.  Can someone verify that this terminology just refers to a high school degree?  Next, if he enrolled in the Academy at 71, how did he have two master's degrees in 4 years, when a typical Bachelor's degree in Venezuela is 5 years? The reference for this section appears to be this which says, "graduándose de Bachiller en Ciencias" and "Licenciado en Ciencias y Artes Militares, Mención Terrestre, Especialidad Comunicaciones, en la Academia Militar de Venezuela," so where do we get two Master's degrees out of that, and there is no mention of engineering, rather a specialty in communications and military arts?
Chávez was raised with his five siblings , but the reference above says he had 3 siblings:  can someone clarify (stepsiblings, half siblings maybe?) ?
Methinks this whole article needs to be more thoroughly checked.  Can anyone clarify?  Sandy 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon editor changed the son-in-law as being married to a different Chavez daughter, casting further doubt on the accuracy of this section.   Since it was an anon editor, we don't know the reason for the change.  Does anyone have any references to double check the accuracy of this entire section?  Sandy 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doublecheck wording and facts in Early life section

message: Some of the instances of chavista are capitalized, and others aren't.  I believe it is correctly uncapitalized:  can someone verify which is correct Spanish?  Sandy 17:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are few things that are capitalized by convention venezuelan for one is lower case all of it.Flanker 22:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought.  So, do we confuse English-speaking readers by following Spanish-language custom of not capitalizing, or do we capitalize??? Venezuelan is capitalized in English, so do we capitalize Chavista?  Is there a Wiki policy on this ??  Sandy 22:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Spanish a demonym should be uncapitalized (as well as days and months). In English is exactly the opposite. Words such as "Venezuelan" should remain capitalized, because it's being translated. However, IMO "chavista" should remain uncapitalized, because we're taking the exact same word from Spanish. If we find a translation for chavista (e.g. Chavist, but that is very wrong :-D) then that would be capitalized. I could be wrong though, I'm no translation expert. --Enano275 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable to me:  that when we're using the word actually in Spanish, we follow the Spanish-speaking customs (chavista).  Sandy 02:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization of ''chavista''

message: WGee, have you looked at Bolivarian Missions?  Caracas1830 has done a lot of work over there, and this seems to be another area where we have too much overlapping content.  I just don't see how we can really fix this article without addressing the daughter articles.  That article is also unbalanced, as the criticism is being added here, and there is almost none there.  (There is also a glaringly misleading graphic of unemployment that needs to be deleted: it uses a common means of overemphasizing and distorting statistics, by the scale chosen for the graph.)   Are we going to describe his programs here or there, and are we going to add criticism here or there, and then how do avoid ending up with overlap of criticism in 3 places (here, the Criticism article, and the Missions article)?  Sandy 12:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixing up all of these daughter articles first is quite a daunting task, but it's not a major priority of mine; an overlapping of criticism is something I can live with for now.  And as for the unemployment graphic, it points out the context of the unemployment, something that Flanker and I both feel is necessary to mention.  Unemployment caused by opposition-led strikes and coups is not a reflection of Chavez's economic management skills, despite how the Economic Policy section makes it seem that way. -- WGee 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missions article

message: I expanded a previous mention of Chavez's relationships with Castro and Morales to form a new paragraph.  Do people support the inclusion of such a paragraph? -- WGee 04:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Right wing"?  Hardly.  Some editors need to reflect more deeply on what NPOV means.  141.153.125.31 04:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Flanker removed it before I saw it, and with all the dangling sentences and other things I was cleaning up this morning, and the changes back and forth, I really had a hard time deciphering what was what.  I tried to return it to something akin to the latest, better version, but I'm not sure I succeeded.  I do support some mention of something about his troubled relationships in Latin America, since he *supposedly* stands for "Latin American integration and cooperation":  I do agree it's important to point out his record in that area is not impressive.  I'm sorry if I reverted back to the wrong version, or left anything out, but I liked the prior version much more than Flanker's. Sandy 15:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS - given the ongoing talk page discussions (above and here) about work on the lead, I wish you would favor consensus over "boldness", but that's just my own editing predilection.  Sandy 16:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Peru is not the only exception.  WGee and I discussed (see above) whether the lead was burdened by the references, and decided to leave it as is (for now):  again, when consensus has been established, I tend to favor consensus over boldness.  I again suggest working on the substantive issues in the article before getting bogged down in details that can be cleaned up when we're closer to a finished product.  Sandy 21:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it can hold on for now it is just sad to see it grow when it is a simple introduction that can be summarized as: local regional and continental or somesuch, as for the pronunciations they are mostly election circusses the only one with potential to be hostile in the long run is Peru.Flanker 21:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: explanation of regional diplomatic relations 

message: Some editors here have been very careless in their changes and reverts or apparently do not feel that they are bound by policies and guidelines in writing credible, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia articles.
First of all, the claim staked in the article is that he "is known for" his governance.  He can not be known for democratic governance when his commitment to democracy is itself disputed.  This is elementary.  There is no incrementalist distinction made between "democratic socialist" and "socialist"; the common denominator is they they are socialist.  Articles do not need to have leads which stake out claims on the leaders' avowed democratic principles.  This is a selective attribution to Chavez which highlights a POV issue.  If he claims to be a democrat (which he does) then the article should say that this is his claim.  That is a self-reference.  It is highly inappropriate, for such a contentious issue, for this encyclopedia to bolster his self-references.
As for classes, this is another mode of analysis which Hugo himself supports.  He is a man of the poor and the people who oppose him, oppose him because they are wealthy.  The source given does not verify this, it merely asserts that "many" such people do oppose him.  This is true, but it is quite distinct from saying that "many Venezuelans of upper and middle classes" oppose him.  This attempts to define out those who are poor and oppose him and to label opposition as having the necessary causation of socioeconomic status.  That is an egregious NPOV violation and is unnecessary.
The wording on "left" and "right" governments effects much the same tone - leftists should be inclined to give support whereas those who do not are naturally on the right.  This is not true.  The most recent and notable backlash comes from a figure who is a man of the (moderate) left.  This is not "cautious support", which in many cases merely amounts to the continuation of friendly relations; it is outright opposition.  It is not accurate to say that by virtue of not actively opposing Chavez that one is cautiously supporting him.  This is true of most of the unnamed moderate leftists in the region.  Hence the change is unnecessary and inaccurate.
I also reinstated the fleshed out account of the terrorism issue.  This version is much more precise about what is accused and in what context.  SuperFlanker initially conflated the issue of direct material support to "links to terrorism".  He corrected himself on this, but upon an examination of my insertion on what US policy-makers actually hold in this regard, he claims that it is tit-for-tat.  No, it is not.  It is a source, and a concise statement for, what the assertions are in the first place.
I reworded a section which talked about Chavez's "emotional bond" and spoke in euphemisms of Chavez's effective purge of the military of opposition members and sympathizers.  The section was even modified recently and yet nobody saw that speaking of an "emotional bond" is inappropriate language and subtext for an ostensibly neutral encyclopedia article.
These sort of problems are sporadically littered throughout the article and need addressed, not ignored and exacerbated with new and similarly problematic contributions.  It is good that the issue of sourcing is being seriously undertaken by some editors, and I hope this effort continues.  But that is very clearly not the only problem with this article.  151.205.56.147 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good description of the problems, of which there are many more than you describe.  We have again become distracted by tit for tat wording edits, when the entire tone of the article is still a promotion of Chavez's self claims and a glowing campaign ad in his favor. The overall POV of the article is still an issue, and if we don't get busy fixing it, we should change the unbalanced tag to a POV tag.  Work has been much too slow on correcting the imbalance.  Sandy 12:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not another unreferenced jpeg on someone's personal website :-) The way the statements that were changed by 151.205.56.147 were worded was not supported by this data, especially not for a lead. Some Venezuleans of all classes have criticized him, just as some Venezuelans of all classes have supported him.  Generally, he is criticized by Venezuelans, period.  It may be appropriate somewhere in the text to mention that he has more support from certain classes, and less from others:  it would be ridiculous to deny that he has more support among the poorest sectors, but that is not what the statement in the lead said.  Further, it is patently ridiculous to call someone who has done so much damage to democratic institutions a "democrat".  Sandy 17:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not understand how this article could possibly have a pro-Chavez bias when there is so much unbalanced criticism in the article.  Also, what "promotion of Chavez's self claims" and "glowing campaign ads" are you referring to?  I've already pointed out that in the Domestic Policy section there is more criticism of his policies than explanation of them, and in the Criticism section there are no rebuttals.  The critics' point of view is well-presented, while the supporters' point of view is glossed over. -- WGee 18:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The anon editor (above) gave examples.  I haven't begun to work on other sections yet, as there has been too much to do.  The Domestic Policy section is just about the only one I've worked on, so it's not a good example of the overall tone of the article.  Almost every other section needs to be NPOV'd, by presenting both sides, as has been done in Domestic Policy.  Again, if his domestic policies, and support for them, have not been adequately explained, I'm not the best person to fix that.  Sandy 18:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the examples?  Then I wouldn't be too worried about this article becoming a campaign ad for Chavez anytime soon :-) -- WGee 19:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I feel more comfortable on the campaign ad scale, now that the lead is neutral.  I was asked for detailed POV list several times (rather than the few examples I had given), when I had what I thought was other time-consuming work to do on the article.  As you saw, when I put my mind to generating the entire list, it wasn't a small one :-)  You don't really want more lists from me, do you? :-)  In terms of the lists I've still got to finish (above), if we could stop going back and forth over minor wording in a few small sections, I might be able to pound out what's left on my list and be in position to remove tags.  I've also been working on re-structuring the Criticism article, as mentioned above, so we'll have a place to move some of the content.  But, I'm noticing that the problem there will be the same as here:  that article is tagged as unbalanced, but I'm not seeing any content coming forward to balance the verifible, reliable criticism.  Sandy 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But the lead is not neutral either there are a lot of accusations that go unchallenged, if anything it might increase further, and the upper and middle classes should return as it is unrealistic and unverified without it. The point that I have been trying to reach at since the begining of this saga is that given that he is a public and controversial figure he WILL be critiscized and every single critiscism will have a counter, to ignore the latter would be POV. The critiscism article I am hoping to fix later.Flanker 20:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV issues

message: George Walker Bush (born July 6 1946) is the 43rd President of the United States of America, elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004, and presently serving his second term in office. Bush formerly served as the 46th Governor of Texas from 1994 to 2001. A Republican, he belongs to one of the most politically influential American families, being the son of former president George H. W. Bush and elder brother of Jeb Bush, the present Governor of Florida.
An entrepreneur in the oil industry in Texas, Bush was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978. After working on his father's 1988 presidential campaign, he purchased and managed the Texas Rangers baseball team, and in 1994 he was elected Governor of Texas. As Governor, Bush worked on education reform, school finance, tort reform and sponsored the largest tax cut program in Texas history. Re-elected in 1998, he was one of the most popular governors in the nation. Winning the nomination of the Republican Party, Bush won the 2000 presidential election in a close and controversial contest, despite losing the popular vote. As president, Bush has pushed through a $1.3 trillion tax cut program, the No Child Left Behind Act and efforts to reform Medicare and social security. Bush has also pushed for socially conservative efforts such as the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, faith-based welfare initiatives and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment to not recognize same-sex marriage. 
Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush declared a global war on terrorism, and ordered the invasion of Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and rooting out Al Qaeda. Following failed diplomatic efforts to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq and following the overthrow of the regime, committed the U.S. to establish democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as across the Middle East. Bush won re-election in 2004 after an intense and heated election campaign, becoming the first candidate to win a majority vote in 16 years, as well as the largest tally of votes for any presidential candidate. However, Bush has received heated criticism over his management of the war and domestic issues, and his popularity has declined over the continuation of the war in Iraq. 
Summarized and non specific. That article is protected from changes BTWFlanker 20:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Compared to the smoother GWB lead

message: http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-hurricane-bush020905.htm
Should a website named "In Defense of Marxism" be used as a source for unbiased information? JNighthawk 09:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We still have that source, and all told at least two dozen statements sourced from Znet, VenAnalysis, and now RedOrbit (don't know what it is, but assume title is descriptive), and that's without mentioning The Guardian.  It has been mentioned for over a month now that it should not be hard to reference the article from sources such as CNN, BBC, AP, and others, but that hasn't happened, probably because many claims reported by the sources used in the article may not be reported in other media (e.g.; the Madsen claim -- most reputable sources check out who is making the claim before printing it).  I again suggest that a faster route to NPOVing this article would be to chop a huge portion of it, and then see what's left that is verifiable and reliable. Sandy 12:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But then you add the economist, april 11 and militares democraticos that is virulently against Chavez. There is no policy for removing biased sources, they are allowed what was claimed was for FA status which is a different animal. It is better to achieve neutrality than feature status as Sandy has stated more than once. However I do support removing biased sources with more neutral ones IF THEY CAN BE FOUND (I supported the change for the CAP assasination ref, since a more neutral source was found). I do not subscribe to the theory that ALL of them can be replaced. BTW the marxism site reprints what is found here Flanker 17:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Handsoffvenezuela, more of the same.  My concern is that work to replace those which can be replaced seems to have stopped, and new VenAnalysis sources continue to be added.  Also, there is almost nothing referenced to The Economist that can't be found in numerous other publications, and I've also added the Washington Post (not known for being Republican or Bush-friendly), the Chicago Times, the BBC, Forbes, and many others.  The sources supporting my edits are numerous and varied.  Militares democraticos was a necessary addition to counter your claim that opposition came almost exclusively from the middle and upper classes, which is simply not true. Sandy 17:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Washington Post is also virulently anti Chavez Diehl is notorious for his personal hatred (read his link), you claim the BBC is biased on the side of the government but there is no comparing the editorial with what the BBC produces. Militares are also upper classes they were officers not rank and file that still side with the government.Flanker 19:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marxism website as a source?