Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 18

message: The section on foreign policy has several sentences regarding Chavez and statements he made regarding September 11th.  This section has several problems.  The link for the citation 140 does not work.  I was able to find on other sites the article cited, but it does not say anything about a 2006 letter to congress from Chavez.  The article itself includes the first quotation used, but attributes it to the Venezuela National Assembly, not Hugo Chavez.  Also, the wording that Chavez has expressed suspicions about the attacks is misleading.  It is entirely different to say that theories about September 11th are "not absurd" and should be investigated, and to say that he has suspicions that the attacks were planned by the US administration.  Also the use of "several times" is not backed up by the one article citing one time Chavez said this.  Reading this section leaves a person believing Hugo Chavez definitively believes the September 11th attacks were committed by the US, but without any citations that would prove this claim, it seems this part of the article should be removed or completely reworked.  RMLibrarian 05:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chavez and September 11th Claims 

message: I think the lead is presenting the controversy on Chávez as a dichotomy. Perhaps something like "ranging from vehement criticism to adulation" would stress these are not the only opinions but extremes in a continuum. JRSP 20:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno I personally find that the extremism on both sides is just passionate rethoric, not really needed to be present in an encyclopedia. Flanker 04:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the introduction is intentionally dichotomous in order to give the reader an idea of the intense controversy Chavez has created.  I'm sure that most readers understand that the introduction describes the extremes and not the whole spectrum. -- WGee 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My personal view is that this reflects more the situation in 2002 not the present situation. I agree extremism sells but I think the article should stress there are moderate opinions too (the majority IMO). JRSP 11:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Doesn't he? No one is ignoring him.You either love him or hate him. I dislike Chavez.
Dskzero 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vehement criticism and adulation

message: On August 15, 2007, Chavez called for an end to presidential term limits. He also proposed limiting central bank autonomy, strengthening state expropriation powers and providing for public control over international reserves as part of an overhaul of Venezuela's constitution. According to the 1999 Venezuelan constitution Chávez must first seek the approval of the Venezuelan public in a referendum, something right wing critics of the Venezuelan regime have been slow to acknowledge. Furthermore reforms proposed for amending of the current constitution were largely the result of a drive by the Chávez government across Venezuela to bring the public into the decision making process through the use of public forums and debates, another factor conveniently overlooked by critics of the president. Uhh... POV? 75.16.210.239 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is this a joke? He's an "evil" military officer? That's retarded. I'm removing it. Andy 07:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would you even bother cluttering up a talk page by brining up a rather boring example of vandalism? EvanCarroll 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably for the same reason you would bother replying to a superfluous comment from eight months ago. <eleland/talkedits> 01:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A career "evil" military officer? 

message: :In 1972, he came to the USA to formally endorse George McGovern for President. 
CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent questionalble add 

message: I'm sorry, because I'm posting this after only skimming the article, but is there absolutely no way to condense this huge article down? Surely some of the information is... superfluous? Can't it be summarized? It's just a little overwhelming on first look.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.151.167  (talk • contribs)  00:02, March 22, 2007 
:Sadly it is too controversial to condense. Flanker 20:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is too long, it has long been too long, and it should use summary style more effectively, to come into prose guidelines at WP:LENGTH.  The reason it doesn't is that some editors seem quite happy with the volumes of pro-Chavez POV it has long reflected.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been a few editors on both sides of the argument, who agree that the guideline for length should not be enforced. Flanker 16:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article should be lengthened. In my opinion, having struggled through it all, there is a lot of information which is not necessarily of great relevance. Maybe including less information in this general overview and elaborating in the corresponding wikipedia pages would help the problem (does that make sense???). I understand that Chavez is controversial and there has been a lot of information about him, but I think that in the interest of accessibility for the average reader, this really should be cut down. Quibbler321 02:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensed? 

message: Can you guess which country is Venezuela greatest commercial partner since 2003?  When people will learn to differentiate demagogues from true politicians?
Due to Venezuela's unability to even get close to autharchy and as it seems its following a gradual diminish in free-market capitalism thus still keeping capitalism. Venezuela, from a leftist-optimistic point of view, is "retreiving blood from the mosquito". 189.141.54.43 21:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugo Chávez and Corporate America 

message: The graphs shown in the economic section are misleading. They show GDP in Venezuelan Bolívares, however, the Bolívas has been devalued during Chavez. Perhaps it would be best to show information in an international, solid currency, like the US Dollar, or the Euro. Better yet, by Purchasing Power Parity? Hari Seldon 21:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The graphs show REAL bolivars, converting to a "solid currency" would be more deceiving than simply stating the relative growth compared to the real value of the local currency.Flanker 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic Policy

message: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061400486.html
Uhh...yep. I'd remove/replace it if I knew how. Cheezmeister 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note 64 is broken

message: The accusation of antisemitic propaganda is obviously overestimated by having it in the lead (including a several lines quote). First of all, Chavez himself denies any antisemitic tendencies, second of all the quotation is misleading by neglect context, third of all the prominent place this pure accusation has is totally POV. The quote itself shows the incoherent basis of the accusation: Chavez did never claim that "the jews" killed Jesus, this itself is an antisemitic propagandistic hypothesis, which is implicit taken as supported by Chavez by accusing his quotation as being of antisemitic content.83.180.91.165 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Even putting the reliability of the statement aside it has no place in the introduction never mind the first paragraph. --Joey Roe 21:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have gone ahead and removed the statement altogether. If he really said it, I'm sure somebody can re-insert the quote in a more relevant part of the article. --Joey Roe 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitic accusation in Lead 

message: "Venezuelan soldiers loyal to Chávez called for massive popular support for a counter-coup. These soldiers later stormed and retook the presidential palace."
There is no evidence that soldiers "stormed the palace", no source for this claim is provided in the wiki article.
There is however evidence for another scenario, as documented in the documentary "The revolution will not be televised":
Upon finding out via foreign media that Chavez had not resigned but was taken captive by the coupsters, Chavez supporters took to the streets in large numbers and marched on the palace. Upon seeing this strong popular support, the Palace guards who had remained loyal to Chavez, and who were present at the palace, took the opportunity to round up the coupsters and thereby retake the palace. 
Rpawn 11:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2002: Coup and strike/lockout 

message: The article downplays the current situation regarding inflation in Venezuela. It is impossible to valuate the Bolivar using normal currency metrics because so many prices are held artificially low. The Venezuelan government has pinned to the exchange rate between their limited supply of US Dollars to the Bolivar. They trade 1 USD for 2150 VEB, but in other markets, the VEB trades at around 4180 for 1 USD. Venezuela could be on the brink of economic collapse, due to declining oil production. Oil exploration and production is capital intensive, but Chavez has devoted the large profits of PDSVA, the state run oil company, to social projects, neglecting the reinvestment necessary to maintain their current oil production level.  With the integrated oil majors ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips abandoning the country, it is likely that PDSVA, which may already be on the brink of bankruptcy, will not be able to produce enough oil to support Chavez's regime. This could rationalize his recent scramble to convince other major producers to keep the price of oil high (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=ay2TE8iPHuPs&refer=energy).
Source for the currency data: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aAXxY.Po5b2E&refer=news
16:10, 29 June 2007
:This sounds to me like WP:OR. Sources please. (if you don't understand that takings sources for facts and linking them together in a way not done by the source is OR then please take the time to read the policy) Nil Einne 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Inflation 

message: We have to stop this stupid American custom of saying that one same person is two different Presidents! It just don't make sense. You have to put "Presidency", not "president", if you want to count both numbers. I just fix it for Nestor Kirchner.
--200.61.5.142 15:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  61 AND 64th president? 

message: The article says:
Between April 9 and 11, the government required all radio and TV stations to transmit numerous speeches by President Chávez, other government officials, and other programming favorable to the Government, even shutting off the signals of the stations who refused, in an attempt to block coverage of the demonstrations and ensuing violence.U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (March 31, 2003). Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2002. Accessed 4 Aug 2006.
Venezuela - 2002 World Press Freedom Review International Press Institute Accessed 14 August 2006. 
Venezuela - 2003 Annual Report Reporters Without Borders Accessed 29 May 2007
Attacks on the Press 2002 Committee to Protect Journalists Accessed 29 May 2007
The sources for this statement are the US DoS and three journalist organizations, neither one of them can be considered to have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight", and therefore must be replaced by a more neutral source or the paragraph must be deleted. One good source is better that four dubious ones. JRSP 12:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This paragraph requires a better source 

message: The graph clearly states that GDP per capita is based on year 2000 VEB. Comments on the influence of devaluation are original research unless that is supported by analisys from reliable sources. JRSP 02:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on graph in the "Economic policy" section

message: This addition is too specific for the lead. It could be put somewhere else but I'm not sure so I'll leave it here to see if some editor has an idea:
The Board of Supervisors of the City of San Francisco issued a unanimous resolution in August 2002 that commended Chavez's administration for "its commitment to democracy."August 12, 2002 Resolution No. 021415 http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=13564 
 
JRSP 10:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, I still prefer the article to be as devoid of praise and attacks as possible. Maybe in the often fabled "praise of Hugo Chavez" article to balance out the Criticism article.Flanker 16:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution from SF Board of Supervisors

message: From the main article about Hugo Chavez:   
    
:"Chávez was raised a Roman Catholic, although he has had a series of disputes with both the Venezuelan Catholic hierarchy and Protestant groups like the New Tribes Mission. He has traditionally kept his own faith a private matter, but over the course of his presidency, Chávez has become increasingly open to discussing his religious views, stating that both his faith and his interpretation of Jesus' personal life and ideology have had a profound impact on his left-wing and progressivist views. He often invokes God and asks for prayer in speeches, as he did when he asked Venezuelans to pray for Fidel Castro's health."   
    
I would like to know why an anti-religious (and possibly athiest) individual such as Hugo Chavez would ask the Venezuelan people to pray to God for an atheist's (Fidel Castro) health? Because of this obviously contradictory (and possibly false) statement, I think that the line "He often invokes God and asks for prayer in speeches, as he did when he asked Venezuelans to pray for Fidel Castro's health." should be removed from the article. 24.168.46.238 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is well sourced and relevant to the topic of Chávez's personal life. I don't think it should be deleted just because you think Chávez is anti-religious (source?). The source is Washington Post and it says  "From here, let's pray to God for Fidel and his recovery, and he's fighting a great battle," Chavez said in a televised speech from the eastern state of Anzoategui. Wikipedia is not for explaining why he said that, just for reporting he did. JRSP 12:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for not reverting, editing, or removing my comment, as you previously did on this discussion page. My source that Chavez is anti-religious is the fact that he has been extremely antagonistic with the Roman Catholic Church and the New Tribes Mission during his tenure as President. Besides, isn't the fact that he embraces Marxist philosophies (including atheism) proof that he is anti-religious? 24.168.46.238 13:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is not a source but original research. Anyway, that he asked to pray for Fidel's recovery is a plain fact, suported by reliable sources. JRSP 13:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text:  Being a socialist does not at all prove that he is not also Christian.. which I believe he is... wikipedia even has a page on christian socialism.. 71.16.211.2 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The line mentioned doesn't say whether Chavez is sincere, or whether he's a hypocrite, or whatever. It says that he often talks about God or prayer in his speeches, which is factual. If reliable published sources have made this criticism of Chavez, it may be suitable for inclusion in the article, perhaps alongside the information about his religiosity. If it's an undocumented personal opinion, it's not suitable, certainly not for a biography of a living person. Verifiability policy requires sources. Original research / synthesis policy forbids us to stich together disparate facts in order to prove a point, unless of course this has already been done by sources. Have you read this argument advanced in a newspaper, on a website, or anywhere like that? Eleland 16:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An item mentioned in the article that I would like to discuss

message: Anyone would like to help introduce into this article the Maletinazo? Maletinazo also needs some sources and cleanup.--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 20:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs here yet, Chavez denied involvement and it still hasn't been proven that the suitcase originated in Venezuela. Maybe if a source is found that indicates that the protest in Caracas that the scandal led to was significant, but I still wouldn't think it belongs here. Other opinions? Questioning81 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I was under the impression that media reports linking the two were just crude slander; whatever is going on, no evidence has been made public which might suggest anyone's culpability. Eleland 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since nothing has been clarified, I don't think the Maletinazo topic should be added into this article; the closest relationship is between Guido Antonini Wilson (the man behind "El Maletinazo" scandal) and Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). Recently, the man has been found in the United States and it's currently unknown if he will declare. It's a mediatic conspiration to me, since another scandal arose in Perú with tuna cans showing president Chávez and Ollanta Humala (political propaganda) just to bash the Venezuelan government. Isn't that much of a coincidence? Sorry for my bad english. I'm from Venezuela. EDIT: Oh, additionally, knowing the people of the opposition, the protest held in Caracas lacks of significancy, since its true purpose was mockery and it's nothing serious to be considered. Jale86 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maletinazo

message: Questioning81, please stop changing the citation method that has been used in this artilce for several years.  When an existing citation method is in place, other editors should follow it. There is no precedence here for your strange method of adding semi-colons after publisher name, and this will make ref cleanup and consistent formatting harder in the future.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be blind, because I don't see it. the ref i inserted was:
Guardian Business News (April 3, 2006)"Chávez seeks to peg oil at $50 a barrel" Retrieved August 21, 2007
Where is the semi-colon? I am asking partly because I want to learn the correct method, but mostly I am just confused. Thanks in advance for your help. Questioning81 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation method

message: Although the article is well sourced I find it lacking what I think you call controversial information, which is well known in Venezuela and internationally and easily verifiable. 
A perfect example is the software made by the Bolivarian Venezuelan Government "Maisanta" which is a record of people that signed for the referendum against Chavez meanwhile they claim this to be a process to avoid fraud, one can search any person, born Venezuelan or nationalized foreign, that signed for this referendum, since this database was established more and more Venezuelans are afraid to vote because of future retaliations; if one searches a person in this database it will show personal information as well as the person's political tendency. "Who was Maisanta"
Also, it should be included on the article the vocabulary that the President uses on his speeches, the call for persecution on the opposition and the division of the population. Due to these type of speeches there are families divided for years now, meanwhile we can't see positives changes in the country; on the contrary there is a complete anarchy, violence, corruption and death everywhere in the country as Venezuela has never seen before. 
One can claim that there are positive aspects of the socialist revolution, but are they really good? Let’s go see these missions one on one and not just write down what Mr. Chavez says because I AM living this everyday and I have been there and seen his revolution in the flesh and let me tell you that it is not as you write it. The quality of every single of the missions is zero (0) in a scale from 1 to 10, not to mention that you have to be part of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela to beneficiate from them (if one can call it benefit).
The government is imposing a single way of thinking in the whole society and invites everyone that doesn't like it to leave the country, something that I find extremely wrong, to me the duty of the government and president is to assure that all citizens have access to the most basic needs such as water, food, health, security, roads, and so on, something that since 1999 has not being achieved but instead declined all over the country. Instead of blaming people that with hard work has earned their house and savings for the poor conditions of others the government should provide these lower classes with the means of good services and benefits without affecting the rest of the population.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guggaman (talk • contribs) 20:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: From article, this paragraph is mainly supported by a site of dubious credibility:
Criticism has also come from many socialist groups and the left in general due to a number of incidents involving Venezuelan workers. In September 2007, one worker was shot whilst protesting for better conditions, and in 2006, 402 working-class citizens died violently in Venezuelan prisons. In addition, more than 60 leaders of trade union and neighbourhood groups were in court because of their participation in strikes, blockades and demonstrations to demand their rights.  El Libertario"Venezuela today: complexities and outright lies" Accessed 29 October 2007. Reuters"Venezuela sees oil workers contract after clashes" Accessed 29 October 2007.
JRSP 15:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verify credibility of www.nodo50.org 

message: Articles generally look more unstructured if people are looking "out of the page" We should try to find a picture of Hugo Chavez either looking to the left or straight forward for the main picture. Agree? I'm trying to find a free one now.. ThePhilosophicalZombie 08:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The article has a lot of info on poverty and the poverty measures issues. However i couldnt find a word about inequality rate. Did it drop or got higher?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leontolstoy2 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  poverty vs inequality 

message: I've removed the following sentences "In 2005, a group of US senators wrote to the ten biggest fuel companies in the US, asking them to donate some of their record profits as fuel for the disadvantaged. Only CITGO, the US subsidiary of the Venezuelan state oil company, replied."  This is irrelevant and unsourced. Hunttthetroll 17:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed irrelevant information