Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 4

message: There seems to be a lot of redundency in the "early years" section, particularly concerning the failed 1992 coup.  I made a small edit to avoid giving the lead-in and date for that coup twice, but it still needs a lot more work...  several things, like the causes of the social turmoil that lead to the coup, are repeated twice in different ways, while Chávez's incarceration and release are described, by my count, three times.  Worst of all, most of these redundant sections contain slightly different information or tone, so we can't easily just choose one and remove the others.  Some things will probably have to be deleted, and several others have to be re-arranged and rephrased slightly to flow properly and make sense.  I don't want to do it myself because this is a controversal topic and I don't know too much about it, but I suppose I could try some obvious corrections if nobody else steps up to the plate.
Comments?  Am I just seeing double?  Did all these events in fact take place twice? Aquillion 00:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right. That first "early years" section goes over the same events approx. 2½ times each. Someone should fix it... –Hajor 04:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Department of redundency department

message: :Venezuela has uncovered plans for a US-led invasion and is preparing to defend the country against invading forces if necessary, President Hugo Chavez said in a report carried by the state-run news agency. (smh.com.au)
bogdan | Talk 22:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US invasion plans 

message: Is there some standard how to handle POV in links? Mark them as pro or contra maybe? But the problem with some links is not POV itself, but over-the-top delivery: From vcrisis
"Neo-socialism is not underway in Venezuela which currently experiences a non-democratic fascist state under Chavez."
From publiuspundit.com
"Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez’s casual murders of young people [...]
It’s also a legacy of Chavez’s willingness to shoot demonstrators, something that has damped protest rallies, this knowledge that one execution by Chavez goons will be carried out every time a group of people take to the streets." Looking at other entries of that blog, it frequently calls Chavez a dictator. But extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
So, anyone against removing those 2? Especially given that two other linked blogs that are Anti-Chavez seem to be slightly less crass in their wording. I mean The Devil's Excrement and Venezuela News and Views --R.H. 06:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed now.--R.H. 16:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links section

message: I find the credibility of the 47% approval rating reported by the VOA to be a little bit lacking; at the very least, it should be attributed.  The pollster, according to the article, is Keller and Associates.  Keller is an anti-Chavez partisan .  Or, see this interview with Keller.  Also, the VOA article doesn't make clear what the actual question was that received a 47% response. DanKeshet 16:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading the Narco News article, I think we should remove all references to Datanalisis and Keller polls (both the 71.8% and 47% figures). Judging from the descriptions in the piece of sampling biased towards middle and elite class neighborhoods, their polling methodology seems wholly fraudulant. I remember that in 2004, days before the referendum, their polls were indicating something like a 60-40 split against Chavez — almost exactly opposite of the Carter Center vetted results. Any thoughts from others? Saravask 04:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  credibility of the polls 

message: This is the only page with justified text I've seen in Wikipedia so far. The html tag < div style="font-size: 100%; text-align:justify" > should be removed. GhePeU 15:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who placed those tags there. I just removed them after seeing DanKeshet's remarks about them on the Bolivarian Missions talk page, after which I saw your comment. Weird coincidence! Saravask 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is the text of this page justified?

message: The following is an excerpt from the talk page of Fidel Castro. It should give a justification of why I believe "Fidel Castro and his totalitarian regime" is a vague and POV statement, and does not belong in the lead paragraph. I was going to move the remark to another paragraph or remove it, but someone else beat me to it. Saravask 17:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than asserting this can you be more specific?  If there is a tiny minority that classify him as totalitarian, how do they define it, and does Cuba have the defined characteristics?   Do the majority agree with the characteristics, and just contest the label/definition, or do they contest that Castro's Cuba has those characteristics?  As you know from the past, I am not wedded to a mere term, as long as the true character of Castro's regime is prominent in the article, and not shoved off to a nether corner while the summary/intro white washes the issues. --Silverback 19:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind the how different the social sciences are in practice from the natural sciences. There are many competing definitions/conceptualizations of the term in the literature. Even scholars who share the same definition will disagree on whether or not the a particular case has the expected characteristics... If you are not wedded to a mere term, as you say you are, please use language that is not particular to certain kinds of perspectives. Instead, describe Castro's regime as a single-party state or a Communist state, which one cannot deny that Cuba falls under. 172 | Talk 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, thanx for putting in the communist party led wikilink to communist state.  I'm surprised that you are the first one here willing to compromise and not act as if the  clique means you don't have to consider compromise.--Silverback 19:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I do not know if that was my intent. I always favor the more accurate and precise language, regardless of the personalities involved in the editing. 172 | Talk 19:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Totalitarian" Castro in the lead? 

message: Recent growth has been strong, but fueled primarily by high oil prices, per capita GDP down by over 5% from Q1 1998 to present according to World Bank numbers. Also, poverty figures are misleading as Venezuela recently changed the way it calculates “official poverty”. Comparisons on poverty rates are impossible to make, as standards are different.  
The lead paragraph did not adequately convey this. TDC 23:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your contributions to the Hugo Chavez article. I searched the World Bank, CIA World Factbook, and the INE (Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas)  websites for the data on unemployment, GDP per-capita, and inflation. On the World Bank  website, I was only able to find GDP data, while I found all three types on both the CIA and INE websites. GDP per-capita in fact plunged over 25% (not the 5% that you stated), while unployment did rise from around 16.5% in Jan 1999 (when Chavez started) to more than 19% at the end of 2004 (thus a rise over Chavez's term up to 2004). However, the official INE data shows that, since 2004, unemployment rate has throughout 2005 and up to the present remained significantly lower than 1998 levels (before Chavez), with the current September 2005 estimate of 11.5%. Hence the justification for the statement that unemployment dropped, as stated in the inline cite that was deleted; I have thus removed your statements on unemployment and inflation, while correcting your statement on GDP per-capita drop. Please provide links/sources in the article (as inline cites) if you decide you need to reinsert the unemployment/inflation statements again, and thanks for the interesting GDP data. Saravask 11:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Changes to opening

message: Figures such as Hugo Chavez become controversial when their actions make them heroes and villains at the same time.  Chavez is hated and loved at the same time and there are valid reasons for each side that go beyond simplistic 'class war' explations.  While his progressive discourse and commitment to social programs make him worthy of appreaciation by the destitute and the international left.  His critics also have legitimous reasons given Chavez' authoritarian practices and the failure of the government to address inflation and unemployment, inspite of record oil prices.
In my own research I have had great difficulty in finding balanced accounts on Hugo Chavez.  Both, the left and the right are equally likely to bend their description of events in an effort to simplify a story that requires a complex analysis.  Every statistic, every news article and every report on Venezuela seems to be slanted in one way or another.  
Wikipedia, I trust you to be unique and do your best in finding the equilibrium in a topic where noone seems to holds an unbiased perspective.
:Many of us have had the same experience. Most of the news articles and sources used to build this article skew Chavez one way or the other. They seem to either idolize Chavez with unctious praise, ignoring many of his authoritarian tendencies (like the draconian new censorship legislation pointed out in the Human Rights Violations section) and lack of universal (and at many times, less than majority) support, while others villanize him, ignoring the democratic elections — all like you said. This is unfortunate. Most of the articles cited in this piece seem to be fact-based, but are overwhelmingly mawkish in their pro-Chavez tone (e.g. Venezuelanalysis). We are trying to build more content on his failings to connect with groups of poor people, as well as the relative flat-lining of the unemployment (given the wild fluctuations, the "drop" so far can almost be considered statistically insignificant). It is sad that we do not have more contributors who are critical of Chavez, to help accomplish these goals. Saravask 17:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep Chavez discussion Neutral 

message: If this a biography, what does the list of the Venezuelan cabinet do here? And the list of all the 'misiones? and such a detailed description of the government policies? I thought this would be an article about the man and not about everything realted to recent Venezuelan politics.
I find the article extremely long. I think it goes beyond telling Chavez life. Instead it talks at lenght about his policies and the political developments of Venezuela in recent years. I think it is best to split things and keep this article into a real biography, leaving those other parts for articles on Chavismo and Recent Venezuelan History (perhaps an article named 'Venezuelan Politics Under Chavez'). Anagnorisis 09:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree the cabinet list is out of place in a biography. It is also outdated ( e.g. Infrastructure Ministry holder) and inaccurate ( most of the ministers did not take office in 2002, Prosecutor General is not a member of the cabinet). I think the list should be deleted. JRSP 19:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. The cabinet comment is just one example. There is too much in the article of what goes on in an out. Almost like a blog. I guess people loose perspective because he is in the news so much (for better or worse). But yes, this is far from your good standard bio. Anagnorisis 01:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your comments are appreciated. However, I must respectfully disagree. I refer you guys to the George W. Bush and Bill Clinton articles for examples where cabinet lists, detailed policy descriptions, social programs, etc. are laid out in the article. Since Chavez is a president, and his presidency has lasted about as long as theirs, why should we treat him any differently? But we could put the cabinet and policy stuff in daughter articles. Would that be OK? Saravask 02:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is an important difference with the Clinton and G.W. Bush articles: According to Venezuelan Constitution the President is free to change the cabinet members and even create or remove ministries at will. Changes in the cabinet are frequent so the list is difficult to mantain. Also, as I poinded above, the Prosecutor General is not a member of the cabinet, not even a member of the executive branch but the citizen's branch (poder ciudadano). JRSP 05:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not know this. I just removed the Cabinet table from the article and put it in its own daughter (linked) article. I will correct the information according to what you said. Saravask 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Saravask, do not try to shoot down my point with a very bad comparison (sorry but it is true). It is not a matter of Bush versus Chavez -one is president and the other one too, one one has been president longer than the other, so then he can get a longer bio? Is that your point? That is ridiculous (sorry). If you say that the bio of Bush is as long or longer than Chavez', well then Bush bio is also way too long. I am not comparing. I am just saying that this is absurdly long. And things like a cabinet do not belong in a bio. Your argument for saying the Chavez bio is not long cuz Bush is also long is like saying that it is ok to beat your wife because your neighboor does it. You do not excuse a wrong with another wrong. I haven't read Bush bio, but if it has also his cabinet there, well, then it is also wrong there. And if it is too long, well then it should also be dealt with. As to daughter articles, I do not know what a daughter article is. But if you mean a separate linked article, then I say yes, I agree with you. Cheers. Anagnorisis 05:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I agree. You guys are absolutely correct, and I put back the verylong boilerplate. Feel free to remove any content you need to from the Chavez article. I just ask that the content that you remove goes somewhere — into a daughter article (a daughter article is , as you said, just a linked article), a new article, etc. Please don't just delete content without first putting a copy of it in some other article. If you do the deletions, I'll back you guys up in case you are accused of vandalism or are reverted. Have fun. Saravask 15:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anagnorisis, I just moved the notes, references, etc. to their own templates in order to cut down the article's size. Anyone can edit these by following the header links that are right above the lists. Also, Anagnorisis, I saw you removed some material from the elections section; was this accidental or intentional, and what is your rationale? Thanks. Saravask 18:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio or Events Narrative

message: This article says Chavez is president No 61. However the article in the Spanish Wiki says he is 53. I do not care which number he is, but obviously he cannot be both. Either this article or that one is wrong. I suggest someone that cares about it, either change it here (if wrong) or tell those guys there that they are wrong so that they can change the article there. Anagnorisis 07:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Accordingly to this list  he was No 52. Noting the "1999-2004" period, this must be a pre-1999 constitution list. If we accept this list as valid, Chavez was No 52 (1999-2000) and is now No 53 (2000-2006). Pedro Carmona and Diosdado Cabello do not count: The former was not officially president and the latter was only temporary president. JRSP 10:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is quite ridiculous. I am the one who came up with the "61st" figure, by counted the distinct number of contiguous terms occupied by one individual. The means that if the first president was ousted and replaced by someone else (the 2nd president), but the first guy later returns and retakes the presidency, I would count the first guy as both the first AND third presidents. It sounds stupid, but it is the numbering system they use in the U.S. (Grover Cleveland is counted as BOTH the 22nd and 24th president of the U.S., even thought he is only one individual). If you don't like this quite strange U.S.-style numbering, feel free to just change it. Regards, Saravask 16:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  To make things worse, this list  says he's No 45 but at least they state their criteria . They only list presidents that lasted at least a couple of months and give a single number for consecutive terms. There are still some oddities such as a shared No 3.JRSP 21:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text:  Saravask, let me try to see if I understand. You mean that in the USA they count the terms and not the man? I take this from your Grover Cleveland example. So each time a president is reelected he moves on notch up: before he was say the 34th and then he becomes the 35th? I am just asking to make sure I understood. Anyway, I think it will be intersting to clear this with the guys from the Spanish Wiki to see what they say (I asked there already). --Anagnorisis 05:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you are correct. This U.S. system numbers different terms separately, even if the same guy fills them. So Hugo Chavez is not the 61st distinct president. In fact, under the U.S. system, Hugo Chavez is both the 58th AND 61st president of Venezuela, Pérez is both the 52nd AND 55th president, etc. This is the numbering following in the Wikipedia article List of Presidents of Venezuela. Saravask 07:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Saravask, as most people that read the Wiki more likely are not from the USA, and may not be familiar with that counting system, why not say that Chavez is the 53rd person to serve as president of Venezuela and that he is serving now the 61st term. Just a thought.--Anagnorisis 17:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the 61 ordering figure and put in 53 instead. Salu2, Saravask 23:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 53 o 61?

message: Does anyone have access to or know where to find a picture of a young Chavez? This would add much to the article. Like when he was in his teens or younger? I tried an image search on Google but, alas, nothing. Thanks. Saravask 04:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo of Hugo Chavez as baby /child / teenager? 

message: Someone by the username of "Kirstengosch" eliminated about 90-95% of the content on 01 Nov 2005, replacing it with three very poorly written paragraphs. Whatever that user's intentions were, such mass deletion are unfortunately considered vandalism (see Wikipedia:Vandalism for more). If anyone is going to help shorten the article, please use summary-style (see Wikipedia:Summary style). Please do the deletions in the manner that Anagnorisis is doing it, by placing all eliminated material in some related article. Thank you. Saravask 23:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How *NOT* to shorten this article 

message: The early life section of this article should be about ... you guessed it! The early life of Chavez. It seems that any time there is a chance to do it the writers like to digress and expand into other topics. Chavez's early life should not be an excuse to jump talk about "Bolivarianism." There is already an article about that. Why not include all this in that article? I fear that next someone will mention Chavez jumping on a plane to go on a trip, he will use that as an excuse to talk about the history of aviation in Venezuela. I wouldn't be surprised. Take out this below from Chavez's early life. It is not about his early life. 
:Chávez's version of Bolivarianism, although drawing heavily from Bolivar's ideals, was also strongly influenced by the writings of Marxist historian Federico Brito Figueroa. Chávez was also thoroughly steeped in the South American tradition of socialism and communism, such as that practiced by Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, and Salvador Allende. These streams of influence would later become strongly manifest in his political philosophy and governance.
:The central points of Chávez's Bolivarianism were:
:1. Venezuelan economic and political sovereignty (anti-imperialism).
:2. Grassroots political participation of the population via popular votes and referenda (participatory democracy).
:3. Economic self-sufficiency (in food, consumer durables, et cetera).
:4. Instilling in people a national ethic of patriotic service.
:5. Equitable distribution of Venezuela's vast oil revenues.
:6. Eliminating corruption.
Arggghhhh .... I guess I will have to do it. --Anagnorisis 06:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Saravask 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early life?

message: You will think I am pulling your leg, because after complaining things are too long, now I tell you about something that is short ;-) I think that with Chavez having spent so many years in the military, maybe there could be something to add in that section (without talking about the financing contracts for the factories that made the tanks he commanded). No, no, please do not get upset, do not hit me :-) Cheers.
:Anagnorisis, did you notice the "For more details on this topic, see Military career of Hugo Chávez" link at the top of that section? If not, please concretely specify what else you want added to the "Military career" section. Only a few days ago, I added much content after doing some web research. Also, I was going to subject you to an extended rant on why Bolivarianism should be clearly defined and discussed in the Hugo Chavez article (just as Thatcherism is clearly defined and discussed in the Margaret Thatcher article (iand in the second lead paragraph, no less), which is after all only a Featured Article). Maybe I'll put my reasoning below, for future reference. Thank you. Saravask 10:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: By the way ...

message: The article says Chavez won the election .... by 56.2% of the vote, by the largest margin won by any candidate in over four decades ....  Is that right? I do not know. But I am not sure we are using the right terms. Isn't margin really the difference over the following candidate, the one that came second? Was it the largest vote, or the largest margin or both? In any case, is 56.2% the margin over the following guy or his total % vote out of the total. I am a bit confused with the terminology. Just asking to make sure we are geting it right. Thanks. --Anagnorisis 17:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented out that statement until it can be verified. Saravask 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about the election and the largest margin

message: Saravask - if you're responsible for the vast improvements to this article over the last few months, I'd like to register my appreciation. And so too for everyone else who has helped get it on a more neutral and even-handed footing. I used to use this page as an example of negative bias against an individual that a small group of Wikipedia contributors can create. This is no longer the case (although it is obviously a work-in-progress), and for such an important political figure, it is to be applauded.
Trxi 09:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the appreciation. Most of the work on this article was done by others, though. I only came along recently to help organize wwhat was already there. Saravask 23:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Applause

message: To be quite honest, I do not find Chavez' human rights abuses any worse than George W. Bush's human rights abuses--may I say Abu Ghraib, for one, and Guantanamo Bay for the second, and the Patriot Act the third? The US treated the Nazis better at Nuremberg than we have treated any Iraqis in our custody.
As to Chavez' forces reportedly killing people, as tragic as that is, Bush has killed 2,000 (and counting) of his own people in Iraq over WMD's that were never there in the first place, and when it became clear they would not be found, all of a sudden we were giving our soldier's lives helping the Iraqis be "free and democratic."  
Bush was questionably elected in BOTH elections. Bush has also tried to suppress bad press (the photos of coffins returning from Iraq)or any press that says anything against him. He calls those against him "conspiracy theorists" or "unpatriotic," and apparently, has gone to lengths (through those nearest and dearest to him) to discredit those who do not agree with them (CIA outing of Valerie Plame).   Chavez' complaints about 'US imperialism' are not unfounded. Bush uses his religion as a foundation for "manifest destiny" in that he believes "God wants him to be President," so therefore, God wants him to spread Christianity and the American way all over the world. If I were president of any other country outside the US and had oil wells, and the country coming to get my oil wells had a war in Iraq that was going badly, I guess I'd feel a little frightened about a superpower trying to arm wrestle me into an agreement that would favour the US overwhelmingly as well.
I still find this article trying to make Chavez out to be this "bad guy" because he doesn't like the US, while Bush's article makes it seem like he's got the right to do as he likes simply because he's the President of the good old USA.
: ... errr... I think you got confused and wrote comments about the the wrong article. THIS article is about Hugo Chavez, you know that guy who is president of that cute country named Venezuela. George W. Bush got lucky and got his own article. If you go to (I am gonna be nice and give you the link) George W. Bush, then you can read the article there and then AFTER you have read it, then you could contribute to the discussion with your comments about what is wrong WITH THE ARTICLE (that one, not this one - and the article, not the man) and how you may wish to improve it (again that article, not this one). No need to thank me. You are very welcome. --Anagnorisis 04:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Bush's human rights abuses? 

message: Saravak, note the reply I gave (just above) to someone who came here to discuss Bush. If you add comments like "Go put this notice on the Mahatma Gandhi, George W. Bush (both of which are longer than this one) if you feel like making a statement" -as you just did- when explaing why you made an edit. It takes away from your coolness and it becomes obvious that you are biased. I did not put that template there (I had in the past, but things are improving), but the point is that one should discuss the merits of a position based on the facts themselves and not by comparison to others (those could also be wrong). If you think that Gandhi's and Bush's articles are long, then you should go put that template there. But reacting to somebody else doing it with that statement does not help make the case for this article standing on its own on its own merits (it has improved since earlier days - still could do better in some areas). If you show that you are biased in such an obvious way, you will attract attention and someone may come to put a NPOV template -and I bet you don't want that. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 05:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the crass comment, but I was outraged that people insist on putting those sort of notices on this page and not the many others that are much longer than this one. I don't know what the politics of that user was (nor do I care), but I felt that this was a double standard for that user to put that notice here and not on the Mahatma Gandhi page (which is 83 kilobytes long, while the Chavez article is only 72 kb). For now, I just put the notice back because I just cannot argue anymore. Saravask 07:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to put it back if you really think the article is fine in lenght. I mean, do not base your decision in an argument with somebody else. Just do what you think is right. However, regarding your comment about comparing the articles, how do you, or any of us for that matter, know that those people who put the template here have read the others articles? We don't know, then we cannot accuse him of double standards. In the absence of other evidence we are to assume always good faith from all the contributors. We cannot use as justification for a wrong thing that there is another than is even wronger -that is a weak defense. If I am reading through Wiki, I make edits as I come accross the pages. I do not decide to wait and look for other instances where things may be worse. If that was the case, every time anyome thought an article was too long (relative to its own quality) people would never end looking for a longer article. There would always be the doubt. Anyway, the article was way too long IMO before (weeks ago), but it is improving. Funny, enough, I think some things deserve expanding while others still could benefit by some portions being moved to daughter articles. But we are making good progress. One thing is for sure, this is a better article than the one in the Spanish wiki. That one is really long. Cheers --Anagnorisis 08:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I just checked and the article about George Bush is listed in Wikipedia:Longpages. Notice what that page says about long articles: Long pages are generally good, indicating in-depth and interesting content. However, it can also indicate that several topics have been lumped together. Consideration should be given to splitting them up into more concise medium-sized articles. See Wikipedia:Article size for advice. See? It says long pages are generally good. Splitting up an article into smaller ones and reducing the size does not have a negative connotiation per se. Better not be on the defensive assuming bad faith. Some of the articles in that list are very good articles.
--Anagnorisis 08:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gandhi and Bush?

message: In older versions of the article there used to be more external links. I think those that discuss Chavez should be brought back. Anyone looking for info on him should be able to go to other sources; both of supporters and of critics. People then should come by themselves to their own conclusion after reading from all types of sources. I will check back and add some of those links (as long as they are relevant in light of the article). --Anagnorisis 05:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. Feel free to put them back. I guess I will put them back, since I took them out. I considered those links that didn't deal directly and exclusively with Chavez as link spam (both the pro and anti Chavez sites). The rules against linkspam are rigorously enforced on the medical and biology related pages, but not so much in politics pages. I thought that those links should go into the media of Venezuela page or somewhere else, but not here. Saravask 07:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't check each link. I agree with you that if those links take the reader to pages where he/she can not read more about Chavez or things related to what is discussed at lenght in the article, then they should not be here. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 08:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External links