Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 1

message: Since I'm uninvolved with this article and he's been very persistent about vandalizing this article over the course of almost a week, I decided to protect the page. 172 17:20, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you list it on wikipedia:protected page, then? I think Camembert has mentioned this to you before. Thanks. :) Martin 18:41, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying, but I couldn't access Wikipedia at the time. I was going offline and figured that I should spare those involved with the article, who aren't able to protect it due to their involvement, from having to revert the article over and over again, before leaving. 172 05:57, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cheers :) Martin 10:15, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

text: Blocking the IP might not work. He seems to have a shifting, dynamic address given the page history. God damn AOL!! So the best we can do is protect pages. And if that doesn't work, maybe we should send him off to Fred's refugee camp for Reaganite Wikipedians. But don't worry, I won't edit this page (although I've been following him with great interest for years) so that I can continue to be in the position to protect the article. 172 06:56, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Just FYI, here is a link to a page and petition arguing that this "documentary" is full of half-truths and outright deceptions:
* htttp://www.petitiononline.com/gusano03/
---------
I removed a sentence citing his approval rating. Since other users have already explained why the polling data might be unreliable, there is no need for me to bore everyone by reiterating the details. If we were to provide sufficient background on the debate of the polling data, we would have to stray off topic considerably. Backgrounding is essential, but we don't want to turn this into a media in Venezuela article. 172 09:29, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The force of 'pendejo' does vary from country to country, but I believe it is both strong and vulgar in Venezuela. We'd have to ask a Venezuelan or two. And in any case, GWB's Spanish is probably Mexican enough to take pendejo as fightin' words. Oh: and what Chávez said wasn't just 'pendejo' but 'muy pendejo' -- intensified! (FWIW, the literal meaning is "pubic hair".) –Hajor 02:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: A counter-link to ''The Revolution Will Not Be Televised''

message: Rough translation of this manuscript, allegedly drawn by Chavez himself while in custody, on April 13, 2002: 
"I, Hugo Chavez Frias, identity document number 4.258.228, before the facts that have happened in the country in the last days, and knowing that I have been deposed as President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, declare that I leave the post for which I was legitimally elected by the Venezuelan people, exercised by me since February 2, 1999."
"I also declare that I have, before the evidence of happenings, removed Diosdado Cabello, executive vice-president, from his post."
"Given in La Orchila, at April 13, 2002."
I agree with an earlier post regarding Chavez's conduct on April 11, 2002, which I quote:
1) During the day of 11 of April of 2002, the day of the coup, there is no mention of the fact that, before the deaths started, Chavez ordered an emergency broadcast and all the radio and television stations started transmitting his speech. When the shooting started, he did not mentioned anything; People on their homes did not know about the problems in Caracas downtown until the television stations decided to split the images and show, side by side, the speech and the events happening right next to the government palace. Even then, Chávez did not mention the events; as a matter of fact he tried to force the television stations to stop transmitting the events.
2) Also, there is no mention to the fact that Chavez tried to activate the so called "Avila Plan". This is an emergency procedure that orders the military to be deployed in Caracas, with loaded weapons, to contain public unrest. The last time the Avila plan was used by President Carlos Andrés Pérez in 1.989 to try to stop the rioting in Caracas, with more than 5,000 deaths. Cynics might point out that this was one of the motives that prompted Chavez to attempt his failed coup against Perez in 1.992.
No one knows for sure if he resigned that day or not.  If he did, then it wasn't a coup, as the 1999 Constitution foresees the resignation of the President. --216.72.94.36 18:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged evidence of his resignation as President 

message: In addition, after they initially took power, opposition figures publicly bragged about how they had engineered the coup. They stated that the organisers of the anti-Chávez march had deliberately re-routed the parade to bring it face to face with a pro-Chávez march. This, one coup leader said, was done as a deliberate act of provocation, given that both parades had previously agreed routes with the police to avoid coming face to face. One organiser of the anti-Chávez march told the film crew that the march was intended to be the start of the overthrow of Chávez and that violence could be expected, with agents provocateurs located at the intended meeting point to trigger gunfire and provoke an opposition-controlled police and army response, mass panic and deaths. (Though the phrasing was ambiguous, the anti-Chávez activist speaking after the event while the coup leaders were still in power appeared to suggest that the gunfire was to have been launched against its own supporters initially for which the military would then be blamed.)1
:This strikes me as rather dubious and poorly written. Can it please be re-written and better referenced before returned to the article? Thank you. Sam [Spade] 23:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  from article 

message: I have made a number of changes, and no longer think the neutrality (nor the grammer ;) of the article need be disputed. If I don't hear anything to convince me otherwise in the next few days, I'll remove the dispute header. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 00:08, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: Can anyone honestly take a good look at the first sentence and tell me that it isn't horribly POV!? I'll give a few days discussion before I change it.
Capone
The first sentence says, Hugo Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela (since 1999).  How is that POV?
Now, maybe you're referring to the second sentence, which says, He is a controversial figure whose policies have polarized broad sectors of Venezuelan society while winning him the support of many of the country's poor.  How is that POV?  Are you saying he isn't controversial?  That he didn't polarize broad sectors of the Venezuelan society?  That he didn't win the support of many of the country's poor?  Please point to what's POV.  RickK 19:50, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, the second sentence, sorry.  I changed it TO polarized FROM antagonized.  The word antagonized is the problem - its POV anyway you look at it.  Even 'polarized' could be said to be iffy, since, Chavez supporters or sympathizers could easily say "well no, it was his opposition that polarized/antagonized broad sectors . . ."
I put it as 'polarized' since saying antagonized is to say that he is an antagonist, whereas clearly this is POV whose opposite is protaganist.  Further, I see it has been changed back, who is doing this? I will change it again now . .
Capone 8-4-04
Capone
Also, what gives with the "controversial figure" rap?  This is already implied by the fact that he is a political figure.  Can anyone name a prominent political figure who isn't controversial?  Partisanship and controversy go hand in hand.  It seems redundant and brings to question the point of its mention. True, it isn't POV to say he's controversial, but its POV to mention it out of left field in the opening sentences when this tag is clearly missing from many other ostensibly controversial figures, which definitely shades this as POV.  Is there an agenda here?  I remember reading what Wiki is and isn't. 
I beg anyone to look at the George W. Bush entry.  Then look at Joseph Stalin.  There is no mention in the opening intro of either of them being 'controversial', whereas they (like many other countless political figures in history) are certainly  controversial.  I only ask that H Chavez or anyone else covered on Wikipedia be given the same treatment as George Bush or Joseph Stalin.  I will replace controversial with 'radical political' since that is a label that even chavez supporters and chavez himself would not shy from.  Radical political easily implies controversial without the slanderous shadings. Agreed?
Capone 8-4-04
Heres the new intro: " Hugo Chávez Frías (born July 28, 1954) is the President of Venezuela (since 1999).  He is a radical figure who has drawn much fire from the political right and business interests (whom he terms the oligarchy) and as much praise from the political left and social welfare interests, and has thus polarized Venezuelan society."
English isn't my first language but this my model of a NPOV intro.
Capone 8-4-04
:Disagree with "radical"; Chavez and his movement are part of mainstream Venezuelan politics at this point. I think the present intro is fine, really. Everyking 01:04, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that I think there is an implicit anti-Chavez bias in "radical". His opponents call him radical to discredit him, in the same breath as they accuse him of trying to model Venezuela on Cuba. I for one preferred the old intro, speaking as a supporter of Chavez; I cannot imagine where the "capitalist" POV was perceived. Everyking 19:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: This is starting to sound kind of funny. I criticized the change of intro on the grounds that I thought it had a subtle, perhaps accidental anti-Chavez bias, and now I'm being accused of actually being anti-Chavez myself. It seems obviously true to me that Chavez has antagonized certain sectors of Venezuelan society, primarily the wealthy elite. Would you argue that it is they instead who have antagonized him? Because clearly someone has been doing some antagonizing. If Chavez wasn't antagonizing some of those people, he wouldn't be doing his job properly. I didn't say the whole of the old intro was perfect -- perhaps "broad sectors" needed to be changed -- but I thought it was on balance better. Everyking 14:14, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Neutral 

message: This article needs to mention the claims of voting discrepancies between exit polls and final results and address the factual accuracy or inaccuracy of such claims. 64.7.89.54 06:30, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations of Fraud

message: Substituted at 20:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment