Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 15

message: To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased.  Perhaps the phrase "unassailable lead" is a bit strong to some, but it is enclosed in quotation marks and attributed to the BBC, a reputable organization renowned for its factually accurate reporting.  Given the organization's history and reputability, there is no reason for us to believe that the BBC is exaggerating the truth when it says that Chavez's lead in incontestible and clear-cut.  If contradictory opinion polls are found, they can be certainly be included; until then, we should assume that the BBC's interpretation of the opinion polls is neutral and factually accurate.
Nor is it redundant to state the findings of the opinion polls, for the opinions and observations of Time are distinct to opinion polls conducted on the ground in Venezuela.  Polls are much more neutral and credible than the speculation of news organizations, and, in this case, they serve to vindicate the findings of Time magazine.
-- WGee 19:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though I do not like putting opinion on the article, even if that opinion is verifiable, it is evident that most of the added criticism is negative OPINION quoted and slapped in. I would personally just put the facts (ie pre-election poll numbers) and let the reader decide, but what is good for the goose should be good for the gardner.Flanker 21:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To state the findings of opinion polls is not biased. I sorta disagree with this statement. As they say, one can use statistics to prove anything that's even remotely true. Which polls and stats one chooses to incorporate into a discussion can (and in fact almost always does) arise from bias. To rephrase: the point that HC is -- so far -- probably going to be re-elected is made by the Time reference. Even including that reflects a bit of bias (as it is information of a speculative nature), but doesn't seem out of line as it is a concise and relevant fact. Buttressing it up with another ref, contending that HC's lead is 'unassailable' is superfluous, and for that reason suggests bias by the principle: What is superfluous w/r/t fact has a (non fact-oriented) reason for being included Mateo LeFou 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True that is why I differentiate between facts that can be itnterpreted as positive or negative (I plan to add a whole subsection about public perception with multiple polls and who does the polls), I also question the additions of a few economic indicators that are pretty irrelevant to an encyclopedia, the standard bearers have always been, Unemployment, GDP, inflation and poverty. Ironically all positive. But I will not argue for their removal and not for opinion polls they are facts afterall.Flanker 22:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is superfluous w/r/t fact has a (non fact-oriented) reason for being included  I am not pushing for the inclusion of the BBC report in order to favour Chavez, if that's what you're saying.  I'm trying to incorporate some sort of preliminary opinion poll into the section because most readers would rather trust a poll than Time magazine's speculation.  Although the BBC is a secondary source that has interpreted the opinion polls, it should be noted that Wikipedia favours secondary sources over primary sources.  Further, the BBC's interpretation can be trusted, because, as I've said, it is widely regarded as one of the most neutral and accurate mainstream news organizations in the West.  That Chavez is leading the opinion polls is not necessarily favourable to him, either; nor is it opinion.  I therefore see no reason why opinion polls should not be mentioned alongside, or even instead of, speculation, even if they are interpreted by secondary sources. -- WGee 02:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chavez's "unassailable lead" in 2006 opinion polls 

message: I am really, really for it I described in my user page my definition and difference so that Sandy can see that it is not some arbitrary definition ;) Granted what Mateo is doing is modifying the prose so that is neutrally worded as oposed to POV loaded, which is in itself a very positive step. Flanker 21:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think it adds anything beyond what the Time ref says. Sounds like 'he's going to win, he's going to win, he's really popular. Mateo LeFou 21:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We can discuss this later, Mateo.  Leave the sentence by now and do some more edits in the article. Be Bold, perhaps we will understand better your point with a wider view of how you think the article should look JRSP 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you can catalog all of the POV prose and we can compare and contrast.Flanker 22:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: These are good ideas; hopefully I'll have some time tomorrow. Mateo LeFou 23:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't think it adds anything beyond what the Time ref says.  But I do, and that is where we fundamentally disagree.  An opinion poll is a credible first-hand indication of public opinion, whereas a prediction, albiet an informed one, is meaningless in comparison.  I understand your concern that we don't need to overemphasize the fact that Chavez has the bulk of the public's support (as indicated by the polls), but I don't think that two sentences on the subject are over-doing it.  If you insist, we could remove the Time reference, but I maintain that the BBC reference should stay. -- WGee 03:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I wouldn't insist. My preference would be that one or the other appear, but not both. As long as you see the area of contention (namely, turning citations into persuasions) I can let this go. Mateo LeFou 05:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are concerned about "turning citations into persuasions", I suggest you analyze the Criticism of Hugo Chavez article rather than muse over this one added sentence of mine.  The overwhelmingly negative citations in that article would surely persuade one to dislike Chavez. -- WGee 07:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per the title of that article, I'd expect the citations to be overwhelmingly negative. Mateo LeFou 14:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But certainly not the prose accompanying the citations.Flanker 15:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV policy requires that all sides of the debate are represented appropriately.  If the citations are overwhelmingly negative, you have a biased article; the criticism must be balanced by praise.  Further, the criticism article is an example of Sandy using whichever citations she can find  to bolster her stated thesis that Chavez is dictatorial and economically irresponsible. -- WGee 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this article were balanced, the Criticism article wouldn't exist.  Remember, it exists at your insistence; as a POV fork insisted upoon by you (all).  Please stop referring to "my thesis", unless I have a thesis which is not supported by numerous reliable sources, per Wiki policy.    Sandy 21:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've stated numerous times that there is nothing wrong with having a Criticism article.  As long as the criticism article includes both negative and favourable sources, and is summarized to an extent in the main article, there is no POV fork.  Your referring to the article as a POV fork suggests that you don't know what one is. -- WGee 19:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The removal of verifiable opinion from the article 

message: Will add here as many as I can find, all updated(check detailed poll results in the lower part):
*Datanalisis (oposition) 59% voter intention
Institute for Data Analysis (don't know) gives him 60% excellent and good and 80% if you add average to good approval rating 
*Hinterlaces (oposition) 55% voter intention 
*CECA (oposition) 42.6% voter intention similar for rejection 
*Consultores 21 (oposition) 51.5% voter intention
The only big name oposition pollsters I am missing is Datos and Alejandro and Sejias. Will add more as I find them.Flanker 03:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection of public opinion polls 

message: The following comment was origanally posted on Talk:Israel-Venezuela relations:
Preferably, I would like to see all biased secondary sources removed from the all of these Hugo Chavez–related articles, unless they are used to relay statistics or quotations from a primary source.  Academic publications (such as International Affairs by the Chatham House ) and similarly reputable sources are the only things that should be cited.  Academic essays are peer reviewed; have reasonable, rational criticisms; and do not resort to sensational language to convey their theses.  Further, academic essays are selected for publication usually because they are deemed to be vitally important to their fields; thus, they tend analyze the broad picture and ignore superfluous details and statistics.  Other sources are acceptable as well, as long as they are not overtly biased.
So, in essence, I would like to see only non-biased sources in these articles.  That would not mean an absence of criticism, however, because more or less neutral sources (e.g., Amnesty and the Chatham House) do discuss criticisms.  The difference is that these neutral sources focus on deep, broad and intriguing criticisms, rather than on sensationally-phrased accusations regarding specific news events.  If, however, it is absolutely necessary to refer to a biased news agency (like The Economst, for example) in order to gain the critics' POV on a particular event, make sure that their assertion is  recapitulated in encyclopedic language.
 
-- WGee 04:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I agree, it is not about criticism it is about forcing that criticism on the article, for example on Israel-Ven they quote the most convinient stuff in order to introduce POV. Prime example is the source about people comparing Chavez with Nasarrallah, there are plenty of positve quotes (I am opposed to them as well on principle of NPOV) in that article but whoever wrote it chose the most inflamatory in order to introduce POV, it is a long and ardous battle trying to fight opinion criticism (he is this, that etc) as opposed to factual criticism (crime rates have increased X ammount). Have a look at my user page for something I am trying to change. Flanker 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Hmmm .... maybe it is time for me to get actively involved once more with this article ... just like I did last year around November - December .... Oh! But that was when both pro-Chavez and anti-Chavez editors worked together to bring the article to FA status. If pro and anti Chavez editors could then agree on an article that became FA, it should even be easier to agree now when it is not even a FAC. Just a thought. ;-) Anagnorisis 16:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe I fought for it to stay as a FA ;). I would gladly welcome a peer review from your part. What might it take for it to reach FA again? Also note a few things also changed sucha as WP:BLP becoming policy, a few things that are disallowed are unsourced criticism, poorly source criticism, guilt by association, and critics overwhelming the article, as for the latter please read my user page for more details on how we can be in harmony with this policy and  WP:NPOV. Flanker 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict:  I wish you *would* get involved, but I have understood your reluctance.  A read-through of the old talk pages shows remarkable consensual work.  That environment prevailed here until the end of June, when there was a dramatic downturn after a revert of six-months' worth of work, with no prior talk page discussion.  I continue to advocate for summarizing and trimming of both articles, in a consensual process, and those efforts continue to be blocked.  It appears that the block is due to a refusal to allow the main article to incorporate balance.  I regret that the extensive good faith work I had done to reduce Criticism back in June,  when we were working towards Summary Style after the revert, was rejected by the majority here. My mistake was to start working to trim from the bottom:  as soon as I trimmed criticism, editors refused to allow any other summarization of the article, creating in effect an article that is too large, has no room for badly-needed updates, as well as a POV fork, resulting in two unbalanced articles.  I suggest that this time, we start from the top, trim the fat to daughter articles, incorporating balance along the way.  Saravask had trimmed the article before he quit it, but the revert took us back to the longer version.  I have made this offer multiple times, but am hesitant to do the work myself, since I had done almost all of the work in May and June, in a consensual process which was later rejected.  It is ridiculous that work on these articles has now been stalled for two months, when there is so much to be done. (Edit conflict, adding on note about Flanker's persistent misunderstanding of BLP, as pointed out to him by multiple editors and admins.) Sandy 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything was trimmed initially Sandy as you can see the version before WGee made the bold edit, I am not against factual criticism being added (again why don't you readd the crime explosion statistics in a NPOV sentence?) as a matter of fact I am for it However filling the article with the verbose opinion criticism found in criticism of Hugo Chavez is not really a good option, how many more times can you repackage "he is a dictator because I say so"? Again criticism balances praise, the article is almost devoid of the latter because of the good faith and encyclopedic value from almost all editors.: Flanker 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Another edit conflict:I agree with your assessment of the former article, and don't think it was ever FA quality.  Fortunately, FA standards have risen significantly, but the quality of this article has also risen.  We also have everything very well referenced now, so summarizing and trimming should be easier.  But, I still believe we need to summarize, balance, and trim.  An article this long, with a POV fork, will not likely pass FA, and the article is badly out of date.  I continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded:  that is one example of work that needs to be done to bring the article to date.  Because the revert took us back to Dec 2005, we are still working with outdated text.  Sandy 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The original article had considerable limitations (I guess I ended up agreeing with Sandy) but for the opposite reasons ;). I certainly enjoy reading other people's POV and that may be a reason I am attracted to controversial subjects as opposed to the normal type. Flanker 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But you are talking on the level of content dispute, and we are a long ways from that level.  We have, besides POV and content disputes, misinterpretation of WP:BLP, use of non-reliable sources, and a POV fork, because editors won't allow a balance of criticism in this article.  When you actually look at the level of wording of individual sentences, we don't often disagree (except for the times when Flanker introduces errors, which required drawn-out time-consuming discussions, such as here and here.) In other words, unless editors become committed to working towards balance, according to Wiki policies, it's going to be slow going.  Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working together

message: What might it take for it to reach FA again?
*1a) prose, we're not in bad shape, but it is a constant chore to keep the grammar, spelling and punctuation correct.  It would be time saving if some changes were proposed first on the talk page.
*1b) comprehensive, we're not even close.  The article is seriously outdated, and any FAC reviewer will question why the article doesn't even touch on the items they see in the daily headlines, and have seen for at least six months.  When Saravask got this through FA, many people weren't hearing about Chavez in their daily news.  Now they are, and what they are hearing isn't even touched upon in this article. Foreign policy needs a complete overhaul, for example.
*1c) Factually accurate.  The older parts of the article are not up to current standards for inline citations, which have gotten significantly tougher since this article was FA.  Further, the article relies heavily on a biased source, Venezuelanalysis, which doesn't comply with WP:RS, and that doesn't fly on FA.  FAC is much harder than when Saravask got the POV old version through.  To solve the lack of references in the older text, I have long suggested that we cut a lot of it to the daughter articles, so that we have less retro-referencing work to do.  Poor referencing is almost a guaranteed Object on FAC these days.  I believe this could be fixed easily, if editors would commit to it.
*1d) Neutral.  Never, and NPOV is a guaranteed no-no on FAC.  And, savvy reviewers these days look at the talk page history.  The sooner editors here decide to work together to combat POV, the sooner the talk page will reflect that.
*1e) Stable, we seem to be much better now on that score, and think it would pass FAC.
*2a) Lead, very good shape.  Complies with FAC.
*2b) Headings, very good shape.
*2c) TOC, very good shape.
*3) Images, a big problem, and they'll never get past Jkelly, who always checks them on FACs.  Almost all of the images used in these articles have dubious to inaccurate Fair Use rationale, and need to be deleted from Wiki.  Although 172 uploaded most of them, you can't lift images from the BBC, AP, and Reuters.  You just can't do that.  All of our images should be from Commons, or at least, there should be very few that are Fair Use.  Among us, the person who best understands Commons, IMO, is Enano275.  
*4) Length, Summary Style.  We're not even close.  I've been asking that we do it for months, the group here has resisted.  Savvy reviewers on FAC now know how to compare overall and prose size, and check carefully for use of Summary Style.  We are in very bad shape here, but this deficiency is easily corrected.
Sorry for answering a question you asked of Anagnorisis, Flanker, but since I'm a very active reviewer at both FAR and FAC, I felt qualified.  Sandy 20:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an accurate description:  FA encompasses policy, describing what *all* articles should strive for.  It is not more invasive or arbitrary:  it is policy in a nutshell.  Of course, it would force you to use real sources and remove POV and images which violate copyright, so you might not be interested in pursuing it, but that's another story.  Sandy 04:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I could argue that it is not what Wikipedia is since it migrated from Nupedia, meaning creating an encyclopedia tha anyone can edit, frankly i am not opposed to peer review, but a real one, not incredibly supperficial peer reviews that can remove FA status without consensus and without any real merit. Flanker 17:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA status

message: Copied from above:
 continue to believe that Foreign policy should be realigned according to area of policy focus, and expanded: Could you expand on this? Flanker 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article currently devotes a lot of space to ancient history (Argentina, Latin American integration), and then gives a few examples of foreign relations "gaffes".  It makes no attempt to present a comprehensive overview of his current foreign policy.  The whole Latin American integration thing could be one paragraph, history, and then his current policies, by area of focus, should be included.  It is not accurate to cover his foreign policy by geographical region:  his relations with Mexico, Peru and Brazil, for example, are not the same as with Argentina and Brazil, are not the same as Colombia, are not the same as Cuba.  His relations with Iran, Libya, Syria are not the same as Saudi Arabia/Iraq.  His policy wrt OPEC should be touced upon, and then there's Russia/arms, China, whatever with North Korea, that needs to be covered, along with his anti-"imperialism", anti-US/Europe/Israel thing.  We need to find a definition of his foreign policy objectives/accomplishments, and update/re-do everything, IMO.  I don't know how to label each of these areas of foreign policy focus, but I've seen articles covering them.  We can't just fail to cover items which make headlines daily, and have for months;  the article currently ignores major topics, and fails to be comprehensive.  Sandy 20:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I agree with you that the section is not comprehensive enough, we cannot began to expand it while still retaining extraneous details about Chavez's controversial sound bites, a kidnapping, a hurricane relief subsidy, and other news headlines that fail to really explain Chavez's foreign policy.  Let's begin to explain motives, goals, and causes in Chavez's foreign policy, rather than popular media episodes.  I just got a subscription to International Affairs (by the Chatham House) and Foreign Affairs; perhaps I can search their archives for some meaningful information. -- WGee 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never thought Katrina was relevant, and each "sound bite gaffe" should be covered in the daughter article, and summarized back to this article in, maybe, two or three sentences.  Yes, we need to aim for the big picture, rather than these momentary news headlines.  Sandy 01:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Katrina and the subsidized oil is crucial in understanding that his stated goal is opposition to the US government rather than the people of the US which he constantly referrs to as "brothers" whether you agree as honest or not. Flanker 04:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable source, please, because right now, the text doesn't say anything close to that, I've never seen a reference which says that, and because it doesn't say anything like that, there is no context and the text doesn't fit.  Sandy 04:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: OT since I am currently in Mexico their episode only shows that the left will always be attacked as non-democratic but the right can do what it pleases without any sort of international condemnation. If Venezuelan elections where only a tenth as ilegitimate you would never see such a lackadaisical support from the mum MSM. Flanker 17:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign policy

message: There is a couple of very short articles (not marked as stubs): Chavismo and Chavista. Please check these articles, perhaps they could be merged in some other place JRSP 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take the liberty of redirecting Chavista to Chavismo. Any objections? --Zleitzen 15:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I left a note for Anagnoris, as he was very involved in that article.  Sandy 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles should certainly be merged as per policy. But it is not a priority. I redirected it to save the bother of a protrated session where the articles will inevitably be merged anyway. --Zleitzen 21:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they can be merged if the complete text is merged;  we just should make sure that all involved editors are on board, since there has already been so much contentious editing.  Sandy 22:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anagnorisis concurred with the redirect, as long as no text is lost, so I'll re-do it.  Sandy 00:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chavismo and Chavista

message: The Guardian: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/August2006/300806Ch%E1vez.htm " US accused of bid to oust Chávez with secret funds"] --Striver 23:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, Duncan Campbell, The Guardian, Eva Golinger, and if we follow the path, it will probably also turn up Wayne Madsen, who notoriously fueled the "US Navy ship in the coup" story published, also, by The Guardian.  Let's see what the New York Times, the BBC, the Washington Post, the LA Times, or the Boston Globe say.  Sandy 01:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Guardian is a RS JRSP 02:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  That doesn't mean we should rush to add every Madsen-ish claim to the article, until we have established due weight.  It is not surprising that The Guardian would be the publisher of this kind of story.  Sandy 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify Israel-ven article and criticism rely on using the most critical sources in verbose statements to higlight problems sometimes using the worst quotes available, just keeping it real. Flanker 04:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny:  I read dozens of sources there saying exactly the same thing. Sandy 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That only proves that he has PLENTY of enemies, a subsection about anti-semetism or authoritarianism can easily be handled in a NPOV approach instead it is finding the most vicious critics and RS and putting a bullhorn on their quotes. Flanker 17:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Same point as above: there is a story here, and there is news here. Is it not possible to include the facts and leave out the interpretations of Golinger et. al.? Mateo LeFou 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  Even nicer would be if we hashed out the text here on the talk page, so we don't have to do fourteen copy edits.  I personally think it's not a very interesting story (that the US pushes for democracy and opposes autocratic militaristic regimes is not really a big surprise, so I expect the text will be somewhat dull) - just more headline-grabbing from Chavez's very effective PR machine.  Maybe a sentence, at most two, but not the sensationalist angle which (not surprisingly) comes from The Guardian.  Zleitzen and WGee seem particularly good at achieving neutrality in text and working it into context.   Sandy 21:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we need any more sources about the United States' aid to anti-Chavez groups.  The United States already admits to funding groups that eventually participated in the mutiny.  The controversy is whether or not the US did so with the intention of ousting Chavez, and that controversy is already well documented, albeit with verbosity and tendentious statements.  All in all, the sources are OK; we just need to better synthesize their assertions. -- WGee 05:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if we decide to use any of the new material (above), it should be put into the larger context:  the reason it's coming up is that Chavez is trying to push through a new law which would (I may not have the right wording on the legalities) make it illegal for any organization to receive any outside funding.  This hasn't been well covered in the articles or in the English-speaking press, but is better covered in the Spanish-language press.  It is part of a series of laws which will restrict/have restricted any means of opposing or campaigning against him.  Sandy 12:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: News?

message: Unless anyone disagrees, I'd like to archive Table of Contents 1 - 30.  I will leave the POV list in archives, so it will no longer show on the talk page, but we know where it is.  Sandy 04:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Sandy 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: Brain dead and brainwashed oppressed people unable to elevate their minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.48.144.3 (talk • contribs) 
:Obviously this is an encyclopedia and not a place to level respect or praise. Please there are plenty of forums for this. Flanker 17:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just spent time reading your recent posts of today, and they were also message board chat, original research, and opinion, having no relevance to completing work on the article.  Please stay on topic, and respond with information from reliable sources and per Wiki policies, so that the rest of us don't have to spend so much time reviewing chatty talk page entries.  Thanks, Sandy 17:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Because of Chavez I can't respect Latin American Socialists

message: First, I apologize for putting this photograph up without giving this page more consideration given the controversial subject.  I put this image up not as a partisan--As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out with Chavez--but as someone who went to go see a free circus on Coney Island on Labor Day.  Circus Amok--see Jennifer Miller--is an award-winning production that has received grants for its work.  In their act, they were illustrating the differences between the South American Presidents, and our own.  Our own President's record did not look as favorable as the South Americans, at least for in terms of what they attempt to do for their own people.  That's besides the point.  I think it is relevant to this page because of of a high-profile act and that Chavez is obviously influencing artistic expression (that is government-funded, mind you).  That's relevant.  Besides, it's an interesting photograph that I make a bet people would find interesting to view, and this is great page to do so. It adds dimension that simple figurative photographs do not, on their own.  I request it be resurrected, please. You all will note I took pains to write a neutral caption. --DavidShankBone 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could fit in Media representation of Hugo Chávez (not sure) but you'll need to add some text to the article to provide some context for the image. JRSP 17:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Context for other editors: we are discussing the relevance of this imageChavez Homage by David Shankbone.jpg to the article JRSP 18:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case we're still discussing it, I can't see any valid reason for adding these photos to any Chavez article:  maybe they belong in Jennifer Miller, although I'm surprised that entry achieves notability.  Sandy 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Circus Amok Photograph Depicting Chavez

message: Here is a great site for historical inflation 
, (the 31% was correct it just lacked historical and political turmoil) The data can be verified with central bank press releases.Flanker 00:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could debate how far back, the data should match up since I believe it is the same source. Flanker 01:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inflation

message: Instead of showing percentage growth perhaps the actual GDP using local currency and constant prices is best, this is actually really good Database  just give me the years you want, (be warned 2006 and 07 are predictions and the IMF is notorious for flawed predictions before 06 are observations which are accurate) Thet predicted 6% for 06 but through the first half it is closer to 10%.Flanker 00:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The UN database also matches up with the IMF and the Central Bank (the latter is the information the UN audits), Poverty can also be obtained from the INE as well. Flanker 01:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GDP now in year 2000 VEB. Loisel 02:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GDP

message: The only detailed source is the INE which is the government's survey "branch", here is their data for the whole period (the website does not track data prior to 99) (tasa de desocupacion) User:Saravask created a similar graph and uploaded it, but I cannot find it. Flanker 01:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have it? could you link to it? (my mistake I thought you were talking about poverty I saw the xls)Flanker 02:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WDI is behind a subscription password thing. Most universities have access to it via their libraries. If you connect from a university IP, you should be able to get it. The database is here: http://devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline/ Loisel 02:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unemployment

message: What statistic on Oil would be interesting, where do we get it? (Preferably vetted by an NGO.) Oil revenue per year? Oil production per year? Loisel 02:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil production is a highly controversial issue, from what I have seen the best production statistics are these  (page 18) It includes conventional, heavy oil, Orimulsion and NGLs (all part of OPECs quota). Granted it is from 2001 however it includes the most controversial period which was from 2002 till now.Flanker 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How are these numbers controversial? The IEA sounds like the ultimate authority on this stuff. Loisel 05:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Venezuela's oil production numbers are controversial because many industry sources believe Venezuela is exaggerating its production, and that its production is much lower than stated.   There are no reliable numbers, only guesstimates from reliable sources.  Sandy 23:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You have to beware in knowing what the graphs say, although the last one is pretty good since it remains apples and apples, Venezuela produces almost 3 million barrels in: conventional oil + synthetic oil (both around 2.5 mmbd) + Orimulsion + NGL and condensates (500,000) all of these are part of the quota (OPEC is not stupid and Orimulsion was thought to be a way around them, a horrible waste of money), Venezuela produced in all 4 around 3,5 mmbds before Chavez. Flanker 17:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should find a way to create the graph Loisel found,  it is very detailed and the context can be added in the label. Flanker 19:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the graphs I gave, what kinds of oil are included? Is it documented in the larger IEA oil report? Loisel 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes check the IEA report Page 18, check the lower table for New basis: Total Venezuelan crude is the average of the graph you give, wheras Total Venezuelan oil includes Orimulsion and NGLs + condensates. Flanker 16:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I'm understanding it right. If the IEA and OPEC count OPEC Crude the same way, then  says to me that Venezuela could be producing more OPEC Crude. Is this not the case? If they don't count it the same way, then what the hell is the IEA trying to do? Loisel 17:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite complicated really, I guess the short answer is that Venezuela is unique AND it wanted to skirt around OPEC during previous govs but they saw through it, We are the only country that produces Orimulsion which was a way to try to sell Bitumen as coal (incurring mayor potential loses at the current price), we also produce  synthetic oil From that very heavy oil, which esentially the oil producing future of Venezuela (from the faja of Orinoco). Almost all other OPEC countries produce conventional oil and some NGL+condensates. OPEC counts total oil (they want to avoid cheating) wheras the IEA counts total crude (they really don't care), so the graph you link is indeed apples and oranges.Flanker 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but there must be some sort of reasonable explanation why the IEA cares about "OPEC Crude", which OPEC itself does not care about. Is "OPEC Crude" more economically important, more easily refined, or something like that? Loisel 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil stuff

message: Here is a great table about nominal income growth 98-06 from an oposition pollster (Datanalisis), it is broken down like this: AB are the upper classes (around 4% of the population) saw an average 194% increase in income, C are the upper-middle classes (15% of the population) saw an average 236% rise in income, D (23%) are the middle-lower class saw a 346% increase, E (58%) are the lower classes seeing 445% increase. The CPI for this period increased by 3.66 times (266% using the WDI statistics) meaning ABC 19% of the population) had lower real income, DE is higher. This includes income and missiones but only on the recieving end. Mercal, Barrio Adentro and other social programs on the consumption side are not included. Social stratus are defined by how they live and not by income (ie quality of housing, cars etc.) Which has remained pretty static over the years. Flanker 16:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record: the WDI database has similar data for the year 2000, but nothing else. It also has the GINI index (a measure of income disparity) for 1996 (49), 1998 (50) and 2000 (44). (0) would mean perfectly equal income distribution while (100) would mean perfectly inequal income distribution. Loisel 17:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Median Income for the 4 social stratus

message: We cannot just have a series of tiny, unrelated paragraphs lumped together to form one section; there should be one subsection for each event, similar to the Tony Blair article.  If it is not possible to write a whole subsection on a particular event, then the event is nothing more than a ratings-magnet and should not be mentioned.  If there are no objections, I'd like to move the section to the talk page and begin work on a proper section: something more than a collection of media headlines. -- WGee 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but we may have to wait until the article stabilizes. Flanker 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: there should be one subsection for each event, No, the article is currently organized as a timeline, with timeline sections defined according to broad themes.  Broad themes also apply to 2006, with some clear policies and trends.  There's no reason to handle 2006 any differently from other time periods:  it needs to be summarized as other periods are.  Each event doesn't need a section.   The year has a theme, even though Flanker may be reluctant to call a spade a spade.  Sandy 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Confused about why you posted this here:  there are dozens of news references today for that content, and anyone can easily add the ref - take your pick.  I suggest we wait until the hubbub and excitement from today dies down, and then clean up and reference accurate material, while staying on top of deleting the vandalism, POV, and blatantly wrong insertions.  Sandy 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I know that it's true—that's why I didn't outrightly delete it.  But until it is actually sourced (which should be an easy task, as you say), it should not be included in the article.  I'd love to do it myself, but I'm very busy with my studies, and referencing all that would be quite tedious. -- WGee 02:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of my proposition above?  Would you care to assist with something like that, or are you content with the current state of the section? -- WGee 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait for the dust to settle, and add something concise and referenced.  What proposition?  (Sorry, I've also been busy ... ??? )  Sandy 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the prop at the top of this section?  Well, I'm pretty sure that's what I've been suggesting for months :-)  We need to write 2006 from the point of view of the items Chavez has emphasized in 2006; examples, the UN Sec council seat, the Iran/anti-US push, the situation in Mexico, elections, etc.  Right now, they aren't woven into the context of his 2006 policy objectives, which although Flanker won't admit it, are netamente anti-US. Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, content must be sourced, and it needs to be NPOV'd a bit.   You might try proposed rewording here on this page.    Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#2006_Current|''2006 Current'']] needs to be revamped 

message: In a speech at the United Nations Assembly in New York on September 20, 2006, Chavez blasted the United States administration and called U.S President George W. Bush "The Devil" while criticizing its system as "worthless". While holding up a copy of Hegemony or Survival by Noam Chomsky, he also attack the country saying that the U.S was trying to dominate the whole world and quote it as "the American Empire". The senior US officals to the UN boycotted Chavez's speech, along with those of his iranian counterpart. 
During the same speech he attack the Security Council's and its five permanent members of being "anti-democratic". He also mentioned about a  veto cast by U.S Ambassador to the U.N John Bolton during the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon.
:Confused about why you posted this here:  there are dozens of news references today for that content, and anyone can easily add the ref - take your pick.  I suggest we wait until the hubbub and excitement from today dies down, and then clean up and reference accurate material, while staying on top of deleting the vandalism, POV, and blatantly wrong insertions.  Sandy 01:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I know that it's true—that's why I didn't outrightly delete it.  But until it is actually sourced (which should be an easy task, as you say), it should not be included in the article.  I'd love to do it myself, but I'm very busy with my studies, and referencing all that would be quite tedious. -- WGee 02:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of my proposition above?  Would you care to assist with something like that, or are you content with the current state of the section? -- WGee 02:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait for the dust to settle, and add something concise and referenced.  What proposition?  (Sorry, I've also been busy ... ??? )  Sandy 02:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, the prop at the top of this section?  Well, I'm pretty sure that's what I've been suggesting for months :-)  We need to write 2006 from the point of view of the items Chavez has emphasized in 2006; examples, the UN Sec council seat, the Iran/anti-US push, the situation in Mexico, elections, etc.  Right now, they aren't woven into the context of his 2006 policy objectives, which although Flanker won't admit it, are netamente anti-US. Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, content must be sourced, and it needs to be NPOV'd a bit.   You might try proposed rewording here on this page.    Sandy 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced content

message: Did anyone else hear him use the term "inshallah" at the end of his speech? I hear it in each replay, but the translator does not translate it, most likely since it isn't a Spanish word. I find it quite strange for the Venezuelan head of state to use an Arabic term. Anyone else think so? Cereal Killer 05:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, unless a reliable source mentions and discusses it, there's nothing to report.  Sandy 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speech to the UN

message: Can someone explain via the article or otherwise exactly why Chavez compares himself to Simon Bolivar? Bolivar, according the wiki article on him was an ardent free-market Adam Smith disciple, also somewhat Jeffersonian, with some pro-U.S. leanings, granted times have changed, but ideologically, the two men appear polar opposites...
:Because he knows it's good PR.  Sandy 19:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps there is original research on that article :) will have to check it out. Bolivar was really known intelectually for his Latin American integration initiatives. His economic theories never gained much traction.Flanker 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolivarianism? 

message: There are non-registered users abusing of this article's edition, putting lines like "Corrupt", "Communist", etc, which is different from reality.
I'm requesting this article to be edited by registered members only to avoid vandalism (User's IP: 82.113.6.19)
(Jale86 21:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandalism is not to a level which we can't handle, or requiring semi-protection.  After everyone finishes adding their OR, POV, and unsourced edits to multiple sections, we can easily clean it up.  Sandy 21:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Amazon.com rankings have been determined as unsuitable for incluson in other articles, so I removed a recently-added mention. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had just mentioned it above:  really not a fit for this article.  Sandy 01:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was planning on adding it to the book article (it is #1 now) why are Amazon rankings unreliable? Flanker 15:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazon.com 

message: Fun.  The bogus, invented number 53, based on original research and US-centric counting of non-existing presidential succession, which needs to be cleansed from Wiki, is now in the infobox.  Sandy 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just put it in there (as a newcomer to the article cleaning up the infobox). That's what I saw in the article. Feel free to change it as you see fit. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's too many important reverts needed considering the headlines:  I'll leave clean up til later.  It's always helpful if newcomers not make structural changes without knowing the history:  we've had long discussions on several other articles about the need to completely remove the invalid 53 number, and just haven't gotten around to doing it.  It would be great if you'd undo your changes yourself.  Thanks, Sandy 01:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Very sorry for causing you undue stress! is "February 2, 1999 (excepting coup attempt of April 12-13 2002)" in infobox bad as well? Jpe|ob 01:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you asked:  all of your changes are problematic and should be rolled back.  They've been established, and based on a fragile consensus, for a long time.  JRSP, Anagnorisis, and myself have discussed the beginnings of a proposal to fix List of Presidents of Venezuela (which includes one editor's counting and accounting of presidential succession, based on original research and US-centric succession notions), but it all got put off because, at least in my case, I was too busy to take on such a big change affecting so many articles.  The types of edits you just made caused another editor to be blocked on another article:  not the sort of thing we should be taking on in the midst of vandalism and new editors with the UN news.  You might help us with some ideas for sorting that out, once the dust of the UN speech settles.  Sandy 01:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No worries. I just reverted it back to how it was. I'd be happy to take a part in civil discussions as to how to improve the article. Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Jpeob - we need to gather a lot of people and we have a lot of work to do to fix the problem with the List, as well as how to deal with a number of "irregular" situations in Venezuela's succession history, similar and different to the Carmona situation.  When we all get together to work on it, we'll keep you in the loop.  Sandy 01:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  53rd pres 

message: Just so we'll have them all in one place:
*Hudson, Saul.  Reuters.  Venezuelan Chavez wants to be world's anti-US voice.  Scotsman.com (22 September 2006).
* Chavez: Bush 'devil;' U.S. 'on the way down'. CNN (20 September 2006).  
* Lynch, Colum.  Chavez savages Bush in speech: Diplomats at U.N. applaud his attack on U.S. policy.  San Francisco Chronicle (21 September 2006).
*Padgett, Tim.  The Devil and Hugo Chavez. Time Magazine (20 September 2006).
*James, Ian.  Associated Press.  Chavez launches Bush broadside at U.N. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006).
* Chavez Catches Hell For 'Devil' Slam: Democrats Take A Break From Criticizing President Bush To Defend Him. CBS News (21 September 2006)
* Democrats warn Chavez: Don't bash Bush. CNN (21 September 2006)
* James, Ian.  Chavez Vows to Discount Oil for Poor. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006). 
* Transcript: Hugo Chavez Delivers Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly . Fox News (21 September 2006).
* Chavez Repeats 'Devil' Comment at Harlem Event. Fox News (21 September 2006).
* Associated Press Chavez Calls Bush ‘The Devil’. New York Times (20 September 2006).
* CONG. RANGEL CONDEMNS CHAVEZ'S ATTACK ON BUSH. Accessed 21 September 2006.
* Leading Bush critic at home calls Chavez a "thug". Reuters (21 September 2006)
* New York reacts: calls Chavez “oil pimp” and UN “cheap bordello”. MercoSur.  Accessed 21 September 2006.
* James, Ian. Associated Press.  Democrats, Republicans criticize Chavez. Houston Chronicle (22 September 2006).
Sandy 17:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UN Speech sources

message: *Adams, Glenn.  Maine Repubs Say No to Chavez Oil Deal. Houston Chronicle (21 September 2006).
* Venezuela oil pimp can have UN. New York Daily News (21 September 2006).
** The above is an editorial - need to deal with that in the article, if we keep content, find a better source.
*Adams, David.  Is oil offer kind or cunning?  St. Petersburg Times (24 November 2005).
Sandy 17:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oil deal

message: After his comments on the floor of the UN, many have suggested Hugo Chavez is running for the DNC nomination for the 2008 presidential election. Mantion 06:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rumours are not to be propagated on Wikipedia. -- WGee 16:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rummors of '08  

message: Reviewing this page again, I spotted an opinion about the Carlos Andrés Pérez administration sourced to what appears to be a piece by Saul Landau. Now in my opinion, Saul Landau is not the most reliable source on Latin American subjects, (I've stated this about Landau on other pages in the past) I reckon if I dug around a bit we could find where he has muddled various pieces of information - taken vague truths at face value and generally carried a very skewered view of events. Is it possible that we could find another source that reviews the Perez years - even if it says the same thing as Landau? Any thoughts?--Zleitzen 00:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A cluestick for the passage in question would help :-))  Sandy 00:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the ref - it may seem inconsequential but the sight of Landau in the list of citations gets my goat.--Zleitzen 00:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - the text is accurate, but the Saul Landau source was Venezuelanalysis, which is not a reliable source anyway - glad you lessened the long list of references that eventually need to be fixed. Sandy 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saul Landau

message: JRSP, I don't understand this edit: there may have been one exit poll (not certain of that), but there are several other studies, reports, and reasons for the fraud claims.  I thought the statement covered them all, not just the poll ??  Sandy 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the only documents are the Súmate exit poll and and the Súmate-comissioned and not peer reviewed Hausmann tech report JRSP 01:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Liberal use of the word "Sumate" doesn't give more weight to your answer.  :-)  There are the numerous reliably-sourced accounts of all of the other problems, the reasons impartial observers refused to participate, the problems with the (non-) audit, etc.  In other words, the current wording isn't comprehensive - there was more than one basis for the fraud claim. I do agree the word "true" was POV.  Sandy 01:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And many documents don't give more weight to the fraud claim. The fact is that all those documents couldn't even convince the US DoS. "Documents" is a weasel word as it does not give any clue of their plausibility JRSP 01:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recall vote

message: JRSP, what is your point here?  No one credibly believes the march was less than hundreds of thousands, as demonstrated by the pictures.  (For the uninitiated, we're talking about a multiple lane freeway as far as the eye can see.)  What is your point in reverting a number which I can just go and cite to any other number of sources?  Your revert doesn't appear to be in good faith:  anyone familiar with Venezuela's history knows that there are multiple sources, and there is no reason to object to the DOS. I've seen Metropolitan Police estimates, and since I did the work of finding a RELIABLE source once already, I'll let someone else look for more sources for now:  in the meantime, I find it hard to understand this as a good faith revert.  Sandy 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No personal attacks please, AGF, I just changed an unsourced figure for a sourced one. Estimating by pictures is original research, we must work with reliable sources JRSP 00:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was/is no personal attack:  you reverted sourced data, which is further validated by your picture.  Please reinsert.  You and every Venezuelan knows the number is true, and that I can find many sources.  Sandy 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was initially unsourced . When you reverted this, you provided a source that, in my opinion, in more biased than the one I provided. Anyway, I welcome a discussion based on reliable sources, not on original research. BTW, beware of the Policia Metropolitana figures as they were a party of the events. JRSP 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JRSP, where was there original research?  Sandy 01:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly looked more like 500,000. "Hundreds of thousands" with a footnote explaining the various sourced figures (from the BBC upwards) would be good in my view.--Zleitzen 00:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the BBC in English knows how to count better than the Spanish version: "Venezuela's president said opposition leaders had led hundreds of thousands of marchers to the presidential palace looking for deaths to justify the coup against him."    Sandy 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's another one, this time from the Guardian By Thursday hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans were marching against the president through the streets of Caracas. 
--Zleitzen 01:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned, if the Guardian and the US Dept of State are singing from the same hymnsheet then there is no real dispute here. I've arranged the sources so they are both  accessible alongside the Beeb piece, hopefully this is satisfactory.--Zleitzen 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC says the same - see above.  I can't fathom why JRSP found one clearly inaccurate source to support something that most Venezuelans saw with their own eyes.  Thanks, Zleitzen. Sandy 01:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not what I saw with my own eyes, but what sources say, I'm not an expert in estimating march sizes anyway. The Guardian is a RS the "hundred" figure is better supported  now. JRSP 01:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, your comments toward JRSP are quite harsh.  There's no need to be uncivil, though, because the result of JRSP's objections is a more reliable article.  Also, please remember to assume good faith: don't say that JRSP's revert "doesn't appear to be in good faith." -- WGee 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of march 

message: A user named Tannim is now continuing the work of banned user MagicKirin by repeatedly entering this rather unenlightened edit to the page and reverting anyone who changes this. 
:"Chavex has associated with the rouge states of North Korea, Iran and Cuba"
It is spelt Chevex in each edit by the way. Users please ensure that this doesn't keep sneaking back in. Thanks.--Zleitzen 12:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First you need a source, then you need to ensure that the source is reliable, then you need to ensure that your material is presented in a neutral fashion and not stated as fact but attributed to a point of view, then you'd need to justify why such a point of view is relevant, then you need to ensure that your sentence is spelled correctly. "Chavex" is a region in New Mexico. "Rouge" is red powder applied to women's cheeks. --Zleitzen 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A more recent edit by Tannim  not only restored the POV sentence but also removed a wikilink and changed the spelling of "Chávez" in a couple of places. This is going beyond a mere POV issue JRSP 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it really tests my ability to AGF.  I left a message for Tannim on his userpage, in case he wants to start backing things up. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV edit