Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 13

message: Chávez was born on July 28, 1954 ...  attend high school at the Daniel Florencio O'Leary School, graduating with a science degree. [16] ... At age seventeen, [ ed note: that means 1971 ] Chávez enrolled at the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences. After graduating in 1975 as a sub-lieutenant with master's degrees in military science and engineering ...
We need to check the facts and terminology here, because the numbers don't add up.  First, graduating with a science degree from high school is a bit misleading, because a high school diploma is referred to as a bachiller en ciencias.  Can someone verify that this terminology just refers to a high school degree?  Next, if he enrolled in the Academy at 71, how did he have two master's degrees in 4 years, when a typical Bachelor's degree in Venezuela is 5 years? The reference for this section appears to be this which says, "graduándose de Bachiller en Ciencias" and "Licenciado en Ciencias y Artes Militares, Mención Terrestre, Especialidad Comunicaciones, en la Academia Militar de Venezuela," so where do we get two Master's degrees out of that, and there is no mention of engineering, rather a specialty in communications and military arts?
Chávez was raised with his five siblings , but the reference above says he had 3 siblings:  can someone clarify (stepsiblings, half siblings maybe?) ?
Methinks this whole article needs to be more thoroughly checked.  Can anyone clarify?  Sandy 20:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anon editor changed the son-in-law as being married to a different Chavez daughter, casting further doubt on the accuracy of this section.   Since it was an anon editor, we don't know the reason for the change.  Does anyone have any references to double check the accuracy of this entire section?  Sandy 14:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the first query on this a week and a half ago.  It would be spectacular if someone with access to resources in Venezuela could help resolve this.  In the meantime, I reworded or deleted the suspect text.  Sandy 23:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doublecheck wording and facts in Early life section 

message: The talk page has reached 210 KB, and some sections need to be archived.  I'm consolidating items left on lists here, so that we can archive upper sections of the talk page.
For reference:
*Last December 10 (Featured article) version
*Last version of Saravask (editor who brought article to FA) 17 March
*Pre-revert version of June 10
=== To Do (left over from my list after the revert) ===
*The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
*Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999,  Template:ChavezElections1998
**Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added.  Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ?  I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box.  Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG
*Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions.  This includes (at minimum):
**Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
**Update foreign policy secttion 2004 – present
**Update current events, for example, no mention of Caracas – LaGuaira autopista, no mention of North Korea
**Update domestic, economy and statistics
***Still need to address internal and external debt, inflation, devaluation, deterioration in health care, and failure to build enough housing, considering massive oil windfall
****Housing shortages are mentioned.  And if you're going to add all of those negative points, don't forget to include supporters' arguments.  Writing for the enemy is essential in this case. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated ToDo and POV lists 

message: *The Presidential info box at the top of the article still isn't working right.
*Deal with voter tally boxes Template:ChavezElections2004, Template:ChavezElections2000, Template:ChavezElections1999,  Template:ChavezElections1998
**Vote tallies are entirely unsourced, except for one I added.  Shouldn't there be a footnote reference as part of the box ?  I can't find any indication of a reference for these numbers, and I've seen other numbers elsewhere. (Found and added reference to 2000 box.  Added request for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela.) SG
*Merge Dec 10 and June 10 versions.  This includes (at minimum):
**Check for best use of pictures, including Fair Use and copyright issues
**Update foreign policy secttion 2004 – present
**Update current events, for example, no mention of Caracas – LaGuaira autopista, no mention of North Korea
**Update domestic, economy and statistics
***Still need to address internal and external debt, inflation, devaluation, deterioration in health care, and failure to build enough housing, considering massive oil windfall
****Housing shortages are mentioned.  And if you're going to add all of those negative points, don't forget to include supporters' arguments.  Writing for the enemy is essential in this case. -- WGee 17:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do (left over from my list after the revert) 

message: * Is there any discussion of the AD/COPEI corruption, which birthed Chávez?
* Seven Chávez speeches, no balance (overall balance problem in External links?)
* After a two-year imprisonment, Chávez was pardoned by President Rafael Caldera in 1994. Because?  By saying nothing, in context of previous paragraphs, it sounds like the issue was with Perez, not Chavez, and he never should have been imprisoned.
* No mention at all of calls for vote abstention, in protest votes.  No context for why abstention numbers are important.
* No significant mention of the damage done to oil industry, masked by rising oil prices. The entire section on the new constitution fails to explain how Chavez pulled it off, via extra-legal or extra-democratic means.  Need to explain in plain language what was done.
*During this same election, Chávez himself stood for reelection.  It hasn't been made clear to the unitiated that Chavez changed what was a single five-year Presidential term to two terms, in addition to wrangling another interim election, resulting in a possible 14-year term (and now he's talking about even more).
*No mention of violent take over of Coca-Cola plants to "feed the masses".
**That was in the article before, but since people failed to understand its significance, it was removed. -- WGee 17:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POVlist from SG 

message: Well we cannot have one side and not the other:
*Most issues of Human rights are not put in context, AI, and HRW detail only critiscism (that is what they are for) but compared to other countries it is not that relevant aside from the accusation (even sweeden check it out. ) and I would not even mention Colombia and the US itself 
**You argue for verifiability, not truth (I argue that it's better to aim for both :-)  Your discussion of AI and HRW context belongs in their articles. Sandy 14:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV list from Flanker 

message: Venezuela's rank on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, which measures the degree of capitalism in nations, should not be included in the article.  Firstly, to use Venezuela's low rank as criticism is to imply the POV that divergence from capitalism is a bad thing.  Secondly, it is universally known that Chavez has no intention of running a laissez-faire capitalist economy; accordingly, he (and other leftists) would see a lack of "economic freedom" as a positive thing.  -- WGee 03:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if you feel that criticism should only be aired if it accepts his own world view, but that is not in accordance with policy.  141.153.75.69 03:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe your missing my primary point: to use Venezuela's lack of laissez-faire capitalism as criticism is to imply the POV that divergence from capitalism is a bad thing.  That directly violates WP:NPOV. -- WGee 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV policy does not require that criticism adhere to the standards of the article subject.  That Heritage is pro-capitalism does not mean that their criticism of him pertaining to economics is irrelevant.  It is precisely a different perspective which should be represented.  This is a tortuous misrepresentation of policy.  141.153.75.69 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Electoral fraud, human rights violations, political repression, rampant corruption, and increased crime are universally accepted as "bad things".  Divergence from laissez-faire capitalism is not universally accepted as a "bad thing".  It is only your POV that it is a bad thing, and you are making that known by including the Index as criticism.  Include the Index as a non-critical observation of the degree of capitalism in Venezuela; but do not lump it together with criticism. -- WGee 03:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The arguments to avoid NPOVing this article are getting silly.  Sandy 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to assume good faith; I am not intentionally trying to avoid NPOV policy (I assume that you're referring to my arguments). -- WGee 03:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume anything about what I'm referring to.  Content additions with edit summaries that say they were added to make a point just got me up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and since we have SO much work to do, I find going back and forth over one sentence frustrating.  Sandy 03:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Index of Economic Freedom 

message: A 2006 survey found Venezuelans came in a close second of people most proud of their country. The government asserts that under Chávez “There’s been a real emphasis on rediscovering what it means to be Venezuelan,” MSNBC. (Associated Press 27 Jun 2006). America tops in national pride, survey finds Retrieved 27 Jun 2006
Flanker, can you please explain why you added this statement to "Focus on foreign relations"?  Can you provide context, name the survey and surveyors, and since there is no wikification of this survey (as there is for Index of Economic Freedom), explain there were only 34 countries surveyed, explain the bias that exists in the survey against other countries surveyed, indicate it wasn't democracy they were proud of (as in the case of USA, rather sports, science and arts -- perhaps their contributions to MLB?), clean it up, establish some relevance to Chavez, and put it in a place that flows and makes sense?  A user shouldn't have to click on the link to know what it is or why you added it, and the location in which you added it had no context and made little sense.  Thanks, Sandy 03:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping you will frame the sentence in a context similar to the Economic of Index Freedom.  It is a well-known index, there is a Wiki entry about it, including methodology and criticism, and readers are able to form an opinion about the index.  On the other hand, we know nothing about the survey you posted, its methodology, why it uses only 34 countries, what criticism there is, etc.  There isn't even mention of this survey on the website of those who did it, so there appears to be little encycloped value in adding the statement, as the reader can't determine what it means, beyond media reports. Sandy 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I put it in the 2004-present part, wanting a wikilink to a non-traditional poll is too much, this is not a ranking that is that relevant to get its own wikipage but it is still highly important this and the latinobarometro poll will show how Venezuelans view Chavez outside of elections.Flanker 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006 Survey 

message: Efforts to NPOV the article seem to have stalled, so rather than spinning wheels over work that isn't getting done, I'm ready to turn my attention to shortening the article.  With a more appropriately-sized article, it may be easier to see what work needs to be done.  I suggest shortening the longest chunks (which never get to the point anyway, and where the verbosity obfuscates the issues):
*1999: Economic crisis
*2002: Coup
*2003-4: Recall
*2004: Focus on frgn relations
*Impact: Frgn policy
My prose is, um, not the best.  If I'm going to do this work, I'll need help.  If someone else is going to do it, I'd like to get moving.  Sandy 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prose is, I'd say, a concern behind verifiability and neutrality, and much more easily rectified.  By all means, proceed. 141.153.75.69 15:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A proposal could you give me time to rewrite just the economic policy and post it here in the talk page? that is the way I want to proceed more slowly and with everything on the table, it is the sub-subject I know most about.Flanker 15:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS – I've cleaned up references as I could as I worked, but the Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez article needs MAJOR work on the references.  They are there, but haven't all been added correctly.  Can anyone help?  Sandy 17:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a big change and I may to read the article over than checking the spaguetti differentials. One question why add critiscism of Hugo Chavez so many times? I counted 7 wikilinks to the article 1 on the lead , 1 on the template way below, 1 on critiscism and 4 on the domestic policies.Flanker 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the Criticism link so that I could delete HUGE chunks of text from every section.  The article is too long.  I don't know what you mean about 4 wikilinks to criticism in Domestic policy.  I added in *all* of the daughter articles (including to the template, where some were missing), linked them, and am working may way through them.  Criticism was briefly summarized, using Summary Style, and is all referenced in the Criticism of Hugo Chávez article.  As much as some editors have objected to the criticism, I thought removing the detail would please them. Sandy 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I figured out what you meant (multiple references in Impact of Presidency – not Domestic Policy).  So, I took them out of the applicable sections, and put one at the top.  That makes it even more prominent.  Sandy 20:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also a LOT of the references were removed, I don't think the article would benefit with removing 50% of them almost, prose size is paramount article size itself trivial.Flanker 18:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Summary style.  The content is briefly summarized here, *all* of the references are in daughter articles.  That will help us (and future editors) recognize that content should be added to daughter articles, and briefly summarized back to the main article.  We cannot continue bloating a main article, which was already at 120 KB. I could have deleted the glowing top sections of the article, which you might not have liked.  Instead, I deleted mostly criticism, thinking that would please those who have objected to NPOVing the article. A lot of the Presidency section still needs to be deleted and summarized.  The article size was, and still is, absurd.  Sandy 19:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to shorten the article? 

message: I like it.  But, we need to tweak (or understand) these two points:
*Chávez's far-reaching political and economic reforms have evoked much controversy and media attention in Venezuela and abroad, receiving both scathing criticism and adulation.  For that sentence, you wikilink to the criticism article, which hasn't yet been balanced to include this "adulation".  Maybe you can solve that by only linking the criticism, and leaving adulation out of the linked text?
*Venezuelans are split between a majority who says he has empowered the poor ... Majority needs to be referenced: I've seen too many polls that say they're not happy either (don't know where to put my hands on them right now, but will do so if needed).  Sandy 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, that's pretty much a direct quote from a primary source :-)  I'll try to find the reference I saw to a recent poll, and see if it warrants any wordsmithing, without having to do the point-counterpoint mess.  The new lead looks good to me. Sandy 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: oops, we were editing at the same time.  No, no need to insert the reference, at least on my account, until/unless I come up with a solid refutation (and I don't know where I saw the data right now).  Sandy 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one:  need to track down the reference here to a 14% approval rating.    Don't know what the poll was. Sandy 22:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another "majority" view, from VenAnalysis.    Sandy 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: WGee, I, too, still have problems with the word "majority" in the lead.  Here is the third reference (which acknowledges that Chavez will likely win elections, but points out problems in approval):   says 70% of Venezuelans want a change, 41% manifiesta simpatía por el presidente frente a 47% que asegura lo contrario, dijo, 41% are in favor of Chavez, while 47% are not.  It also says, in terms of rejection of Chavez policies, En cuanto a los principales problemas que afectan a los venezolanos, los consultados mencionaron inseguridad (36%), corrupción (23%) y desempleo (13%), (biggest problem is crime), El 78% pidió mayor democracia, orden, unidad, eficacia, ética y equidad, 78% want more democracy, order, unity, etc.,  Mientras el 65% reprobó al equipo de gobierno de Chávez frente a un 21% que lo calificó de regular y 11% que lo aceptó, 65% disapproval rating, 11% in favor, El sondeo reveló que 84% de los venezolanos rechaza las confrontaciones que mantiene Venezuela con Estados Unidos, aunque la mayoría dijo valorar las posiciones soberanas del presidente ante otros países, a whopping 84% reject the anti-USA stance of Chavez administration, Asimismo, 77% rechazó las ayudas financieras que impulsa el Gobierno en el extranjero frente a un 12% que se mostró de acuerdo, 77% reject foreign financial assistance, etc.  That's three references, with little effort, that dispute the majority word:  let's avoid dueling references, and lose that one little not so important word. He won't win the elections on the strength of his approval rating:  he'll win them because the other side hasn't put forward a decent candidate. Sandy 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found an abbreviated version in English.  At the same time, found an English version of the abstention problem stemming from concern over voting machines and CNE partiality:   Sandy 18:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proceeded to re-insert the word "majority" because I was extremely sceptical of the 14% approval rating recorded by The Economist, and the anon IP did not justify his argument with sources.  The BBC article was also more up-to-date, and the organization enjoys a reputation for neutrality and accurate reporting.  But now that I see the El Universal polls, which seem more reasonable, reliable, and detailed than The Economist one, I'm willing to drop the disputed word "majority". -- WGee 19:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  The BBC's profile on Hugo Chavez and our article both have similar purposes: to educate the uninitiated. The BBC's generalization gives average readers the gist of the support and opposition's claims, which is also what we want to do in the lead. -- WGee 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Is it that you guys need with polls? Voter intention? approval? I can find a lot of them most of them recent even from opo pollsters (You might laugh at the questions asked though :))Flanker 23:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGee rewrite 

message: Well, somebody whacked out the references, and I can't figure out who, why, or how far back to revert to get them back.  Sandy 18:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that must have been me.  I edit using Mozilla Firefox with the Google Toolbar, and sometimes when editing in tabs, a bottom chunk of the article randomly gets deleted.  There's a little note about it in the edit window, but I'm not sure what they're doing to fix it.  Anyway, I'll replace the references. -- WGee 18:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird thing to me was I couldn't figure out where it happened or how to recover :-)) Sandy 20:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whacked references 

message: Can anyone teach me how to edit and fix categories?  Why is Sumate alphabeticized under C, and how does it get fixed in Category:Hugo Chávez ?  TIA, Sandy 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chavez category 

message: I really don't know why it is needed at all even in summary, the article lead IS the presidential lead, aside from the Coup 92, we remove that and we have the presidency lead. Why double introductions? Impact of presidency lacks one and it is not needed either IMHOFlanker 18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main article needs to flow and to have context.  You can't just lop off an entire lead, which provides transition and context, because it's in a daughter article.  Summary style means summarize in the main article what is in the daughter articles:  that doesn't mean to leave a choppy main article with no transition between topics.  The article content needs to be shortened:  not the transition and context.  And, as mentioned yesterday, I was waiting for other editors to catch up to the huge changes I made yesterday, before introducing further change. Sandy 21:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might take me months to catch up after that many changes :) I decided to just re-reading the article is easier.Flanker 22:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to re-read the article.  I worked from the bottom up, didn't even touch the top of the article (which still needs a major overhaul), and there was actually very little that I took out and summarized.  If you start at the bottom, it will be obvious. I summarized all of the new content very briefly, moving it all to the criticism article. You started at the top, which I didn't touch.  Sandy 01:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this will help.  This is the compare of everthing since I started consoldating.  Most of the changes in the top were yours:  I did not summarize or touch that section other than adding the sentence about the European Union.  I summarized the criticism using summary style, moved it all to the daughter article, linked in daughter articles, and moved some references to inline citations as you and I discussed earlier on the talk page, moving them out of general references.   Sandy 01:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidency lead 

message: Flanker, you were adamant in your content addition about politial prisoners, explaining that the allegations of treason against Carlos Ortega were based on statements he supposedly made about needing a long dictatorship to rescue the country.  Your addition was: Carlos Ortega, head of the union, CTV, fled to Costa Rica but returned in 2005 and was jailed. Officially charged with treason, evidence presented was an audiotape where he stated, "We are going to need about 10, 12 or 15 years of dictatorship to rescue the country, I have no problem with that."
Now you've added a long paragraph where Chavez allegedly says basically the same thing as a justification of his "President for life" ambitions: Chavez argued that this was necessary as the job of rebuilding Venezuela was so big that it could not be done in 5 years. At other times Chavez has said that this project will not be finished until 2021. Chavez has also said he will retire from politics in 2021. This has led many to conclude that Chavez wants to be President until 2021. Chavez has denied this, though. However he recently proposed a constitutionally binding referendum to allow for a third term.
Can you help me understand why it's treason when Carlos Ortega says it, but something else when Chavez says it in justification of a 25-year term ?  TIA, Sandy 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a quote about Chavez saying he will be president till 2021 (22 years not 25 the economist has it wrong again) then it will be added, the thing is that there is none. Chavez is a politician and even though he talks a LOT it has still not slipped tongue about ruling from the presidency till 2021, not to mention he has denied saying it explicitly. He has routinely said however that he will remain in politics till 2021 (maybe through puppets) something the oposition has claimed implicitly means running multiple times (itself irrational since the presidential elections are scheduled in 2006, 2012, 2018, 2024.). The only reference to actually removing term limits is fairly recent as a threat for the oposition to not boycott despite losing in almost every poll, and it was only about 2013 we can quote that if you like. Flanker 22:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't answer the question.  I'm not the one adding the content which implies that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.  Sandy 01:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I did not remove what the economist and oposition thought Chavez implied, I just added what Chavez says of the accusation. Aside from that I do not understand what you mean.Flanker 02:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort out "treason" contradiction 

message: Kinda helpful to have my teenager around the house for the summer.  "Blatino"?  He says, sure, that's a black latino.  He says there's also blackanese, and others.  <shrug> ??  Not really sure what to do with that one. He says it's not a slur, but he's a kid.  Sandy 01:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS – the category was just created, so we may be the first to notice it.  Sandy 01:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm a teenager, and I've never heard of it (and I used to live in the most multicultural city in the world)  :-)  It sounds offensive (though not as offensive as "blackanese"), it's not very encyclopedic, and I doubt the people to which the term applies would refer to themselves in such a way.  Wouldn't the term Afro-Latin American be more appropriate for an encyclopedia? -- WGee 01:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ummm, and when I search for "Blatino". . . I don't get the most pleasant results. -- WGee 01:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: . . .And this might be why:  -- WGee 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would explain why my son has heard it.  His schoolmates fit the description to a tee.   Sandy 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I definitely don't know how to nominate a category for deletion:  in fact, I'm still trying to learn how to nominate an article for deletion.  Anyone?  Sandy 01:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You echo my exact thoughts Sandy, but I was rather hoping someone else would go to the trouble. Someone please delete the category, immediately. It's one of my editing areas but I'm rather stranded in Cuba at the moment grappling with biogs of Castro's council of ministers. The wiki-bureaucracy drives me crazy. --Zleitzen 02:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: List it at Categories for discussion.  I'll endorse the nomination if you want to start it. -- WGee 02:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I'll do it. -- WGee 02:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!  I'm still stuck in the "who wrote the user manual for this thing, anyway" phase.  I found a reference here while I was trying to figure out on what basis to nominate for deletion.  Sandy 02:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatino 

message: Isn't this a bit excesive?
Bronstein, H. (June 14, 2006), "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life". Washington Post. Accessed 22 June 2006.Amnesty International (2006), "AI Report 2006: Venezuela". Accessed 22 June 2006.The Economist (Feb 16, 2006), Venezuela: Mission Impossible. The Economist. Retrieved 22 June 2006.Logan, S. (February 6, 2006).  "The Kalashnikov threat in Venezuela". International Relations and Security Network (ISN). Accessed 27 June 2006.The Economist (Mar 30 2006), "Venezuela:  The sickly stench of corruption".  The Economist.  Accessed 19 June 2006.The Economist, (April 20, 2006), "Venezuela: Crimes and misdemeanours. The Economist. Accessed 26 June 2006.Goodman, J. AP, "Coca Production Increases in Colombia". Washington Post (June 20, 2006). Accessed 24 June 2006.Heritage Foundation (2006), "2006 Index of Economic Freedom:  Venezuela". Accessed 27 June 2006.Reel, M.  "Crime Brings Venezuelans Into Streets". Washington Post (May 10, 2006), p. A17. Accessed 24 June 2006. Flanker 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Flanker, did you see the discussion of this two topics up?  Sheesh.  Sandy 17:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not necessarely. It certainly does not increase the burden on the reader. Loisel 17:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly I haven't been up to date recently, but are they ALL needed? For example the first article from the Wash post was mostly an article about immigration and then the economics bit was found in one paragraph. My critique is not about sources or how many, I am for the most sources possible, but they have to fit the article not just add everything found to date. Flanker 18:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't checked any of them. Which is why I said "not necessarely." If they're off-topic, they're obviously  "too much". Loisel 07:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critiscism references 

message: Proposed introduction
Economic policy under Chavez is constantly evolving and hard to label, neither following the strict socialist path of Cuba nor the strict capitalist path of Mexico or Chile, it seeks to strike a balance. It does however borrow from other international expirience, Fiscal and monetary policy is keynisian in nature. Enterprenuership is heavily promoted but of a social co-operative variety borrowing from the Vasque community. Government direct investment follows neither import substitution nor a globalization path, seeking instead to meet internal, regional, and lastly global south demand. The private investment is encouraged but not at the expense of other priorities such as oil control and land redistribution. Most of the initiatives are at the mercy of a high budget costs forcing the government to expand its two pillars of traditional income: Tax collection has been revamped leading to fewer evasions. Oil policy was rerouted from production centric goals, to profit centric ones
Rest of changes found here Hugo Chávez/Sandbox
Changes
*I did not adecuately referrenced all that I added (It will take me a while to do so) so I did not meassure article size, will put current size if asked.
*I added an introduction so we can better understand what Chavez economically proposes, even though Oil dominates the economy it really is not within his version of the economy. It could be argued that it is only a cash cow and nothing else wanting to limit its percentage of GDP.
*I removed the 25% drop, and comparisons with the previous administrations, the first deals with an politically motivated number the oposition wants to blame the government with a nonexistant production drop (in a way contradicting since oil revenue is used to put down economic growth) if readded then a lot of unbiased independant sources must be added to counteract, the latter which adherence with OPEC quotas, Venezuela under Caldera produced almost 500,000 barrels above them.
*Added operating contract switch that was fairly recent.
*Added emphasis on the relation between political stability and economic performance. If anything it is underdeveloped in 1999 he inhereted a deep recesiion, there was moderate growth (3.2% if I recall) in 2000 and 2001 each, only to enter deep recession again after the first paro/lockout/strike of Dec 2001.
*Changed the date of the Datos link it is more like from 2004 till 2006.
*Readded the World Bank to provide a number + reference that is not official therefore not politically cooked in favor, maybe even impartial.
Comments
I know that most of it will be viewed as controversial since it is one of the most heavily edited sub-section so we might take a while here. I know that Sandy changed it from the more link centric version even removing the Heritage foundation link but this is more or less how I have viewed it, from expirience.Flanker 20:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out 20 KB from the bloated article, removing almost all of the criticism to a sub-article, and all you note is that the Heritage Foundation link is also gone?  How ungrateful :-)  Flanker, we have a sandbox.  Can we please use it, instead of extracting entire chunks of text here, which are already viewable in the article? Hugo Chávez/Sandbox  I'm not impressed with the new lead, and I can't work on large chunks of text in a talk page.  Sandy 20:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Flanker repeated and proposed text to Hugo Chávez/Sandbox, to avoid bloating the talk page.  Sandy 21:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But in the sandbox it would work very differently It would be impossible to track changes, or look at archives (EDIT I see you can, how did you manage to delete previous changes?) I thought the same way with the lead would work perfectly, but oh well. The first paragraph is as good as an encyclopedia will get at understanding economic chavismo IMHumbleO. Here is a link to an archived version in case of emergency Special:PermanentLink/61586623#REWRITE:Economic PolicyFlanker 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Anyone?Flanker 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "put the proposed intro on the talk page again", do you mean the sandbox?  I'm not crazy about that rewrite, and I'm holding off for input from WGee, Loisel, anon and others on all of the consolidating I did this week, before introducing other changes.  If we can all stay on the same page, we'll have less chance of another drastic revert at some point in our future :-) Sandy 00:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving this thing to the bottom maybe people missed it.Flanker 19:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of the changes made by WGee.  A good portion of what you've written seems unsourced, and bordering on original research.  Sandy 19:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I can source it... All I want to see if people want anything in particular sourced, if not it is removed. That simple.Flanker 21:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I told Sandy that you had a good idea in attempting to outline the goals and ideology of Chavez's economic policies.  But before I could even consider accepting your proposal, I would have to see all the sources from which it is derived. -- WGee 22:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But if I source ALL of it might be a waste of time if say just a third make it through. Think of it this way imagine that you found it in wikipedia, and then add  where you want a source and I will find it. Guys/Gals I am not putting it up right now, we can do it slowly but I do want progress, it is frustrating to see my contributions stagnating in the talk page while the article itself changes constantly. It appears being bold applies to everyone but me.Flanker 00:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just list your sources here so we can look at them, and get beyond the original research issue.  You've put forward a proposal that is completely unreferenced, so we have no means of making a determination.  I also wouldn't say anyone else is being particularly bold.  We are working slowly, methodically, with consensus, and with references. Sandy 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't have them this instant, look I have followed this issue for a while, all that I have proposed is from memory, it is not original research for one simple reason: if there is a single  left and I cannot source it then that statement will not be added, that is how this article started you know, people wanted to write something in wikipedia and they source it. As for being bold I certainly feel on the sidelines again, every small step we take to reach concensus  here first is again dashed by 30 edits from when I last checked.(some are just copy edits which is not my forte but then again others are not)Flanker 00:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went through it on the sandbox, did a pretty significant copy edit (but didn't get everything), tagged the new sentences (every one of them would need a reference), and put some inline comments on some sentences that just don't seem to reflect the facts as I know them.  A couple of statements in particular were very POV.  I hope that's a start.  I also hope I've made it clear that I'm not really into working on a given paragraph before we reduce the article size and deal with the daughter articles, so I'm sorry not to have given this sufficient attention.  I've had a bit of work on my hands just keeping the references in the right place, and am trying to proceed slowly, working with consensus. Sandy 00:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I will get on it, BTW the two pillars are taxation (around 55%) and the rest is petroleum related reveneue (taxes, royalties, PDVSA etc) Flanker 01:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REWRITE:Economic Policy 

message: WGee, we *must* shorten this article.  Yes or no? Do you think we can cut enough from the top, to get it to at least 50 KB prose, or are you going to add everything back in there, too <smile> ?  It seems to me that the only cuts that have been made so far are of criticism, which is leading us back to an unbalanced, NPOV article, and opening us to criticism of a POV fork.  Sandy 22:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, I don't believe that making the criticism section more concise has led or will lead to an unbalanced article, at least not in Chavez's favour (there still aren't any rebuttals).  Secondly, I only support making further cuts to the presidency section; the rest of the sections are appropriate sizes.  Moreover, I have no clue how much text is incorporated into 50 KB, which is why I'd prefer we judge the article size visually rather than through the use of arbitrary technical targets. -- WGee 22:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you go about measuring the technical size of just the prose, anyway? -- WGee 23:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pain in the neck: see here.  One of the Wiki articles (either WP:SS or WP:SIZE) gives good explanations and correlations of article size KB with printable pages, explains why 50 KB prose is an outside limit, and why we should use Summary Style.  I was most impressed when my spouse refused to even look at 22 printed pages of text about Chavez, proving Wiki's point.  We aren't writing a book:  we're writing an encyclopedic entry.  As soon as an article gets too long, it has to branch and summarize.  There is a complete article on Bolivarian Missions (Domestic Policy) and Foreign Policy:  we need to give the reader a brief overview, and let them go to the daughter articles for more detail in the areas that interest them.  We are doing too much in this article.  I know there is resistance to dealing with the daughter articles, but it has to be done. Sandy 23:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, since you had me check, I realized you're supposed to use the printable version (I was using the full version, and chopping everything out, include pics, which was way more work).  Doing it the way he explained to me, I get that we are now at 60 KB prose.  Sandy 23:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See prose size here (probably, when I wasn't using the printable version, the size was getting hit with the references even though they didn't show in the text when I deleted Notes, so this is the correct way to do it).  Sandy 23:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's aim for 50 KB then.  I suggest we shorten the Presidency section first, and then see how far that goes. I still believe, though, that the Domestic Policy and Foreign Policy sections are appropriate sizes considering the length of their daughter articles.  And, even after reading the SS article, I don't agree with the idea that all the references should be in the daughter articles.  To keep them here would contribute to the article's stablity and allow for easier access to pertinent references.  One of the consequences is the long list of references at the bottom of the article, but that's not an issue for most people. -- WGee 01:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Allright, how about if I try to sort through the references and see if I can avoid bringing over those massive lists?  Perhaps I can bring only a few.  And, give me some time to catch up and finish that before we start reducing the Presidency section:  I got distracted by a very exciting Emmy nomination, and had to create the article :-))  Sandy 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that I know we're at 60 KB, I'm confident we can get what we need in reductions from the Presidency section only.  I think we're OK on the Impact section.  Presidency should do it.  Sheesh, but I haven't reviewed the ToDO/POV list for days <sigh>.Sandy 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WGee: article size 

message: Here is Flanker's summary, which he added to the Sumate entry under controversy:
On July 7 2006 opinion writer, government critic and presidential candidate Teodoro Petkoff labelled Sumate as authoritarian based on their demands that an oposition primary be held on their terms without the input of presidential candidates. Comparing such demands to The Carmona Decree.[10]
Here is the more complete story, which I added:
Based on a procedure recommended by Súmate for a presidential primary prior to the December 2006 presidential elections, candidate Teodoro Petkoff, an ex-guerrilla and communist, said that their procedure was authoritarian, and similar in style to The Carmona Decree.Globovision (7 July 2006).  Teodoro Petkoff: No me inscribiré ni participaré en ese proceso Retrieved 7 July 2006.   Nine other candidates agreed to the terms for holding a primary to select the opposition candidate, confirming their desire to allow the citizens to choose the opposition candidate.  The primaries will be held on August 13, 2006.El Universal (7 July 2006).   Súmate: Las primarias se realizarán el 13 de agosto.  Another candidate condemned Petkoff's remarks against Súmate, saying that his statements don't help the country, and explaining that the conditions had been previously discussed between all of the candidates, including Petkoff.El Universal (7 July 2006).  Froilán Barrios condenó expresiones de Petkoff.
Interesting good faith edit, Flanker.  Sandy 04:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Teodoro is Chavez's #1 critic I would dare you to find one ranked higher, and his action is perfectly logical really, after Sumate met Bush they became Bush's candidate in the eyes of Venezuelan people anything that comes from their primaries is tainted and easily labelled as Bush's candidate more or less a death knell even if the Chavez administration is hit by catastrophy like a major corruption scandal. Teodoro knows reality, the only reason I do not support him was his disaster running Venezuela's economy in 96-99. However he knows why there so much rejection against the oposition and sumate is part of that. That or occams razor that he saw the polls and him losing the primaries ;).Flanker 15:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know very well who Teodoro is.  That's not the point.  The point is, you added a completely tendentious edit, tellling one side of the story in a completely unfair way, when the headlines easily available to you tell the whole story, which is quite different.  I've taken note, considering all the good faith I've shown towards telling both sides of the story and helping work out your edits.  Sandy 15:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well labelling him something he admits being a mistake and rejects as a principle is not fair either ;) Although In my defense it was breaking news, I am sure their reaction would be forthcoming and I support the balance added.Flanker 15:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to refrain from adding "breaking news" to Wikipedia, until you've verified the whole story and the validity of the information presented by the sources you prefer.  A similar situation occurred when you added an MSNBC report about some survey, for which no other information is available, even on the site of the people doing the survey, rendering it not a particularly encyclopedic entry.  Sandy 15:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both stories are verified trust me given the standard for Verification it seems to be a mainstream source, that said if you want to hold off on adding breaking news until the dust settles and we can add balance then I guess I agree then.Flanker 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The primaries will be held 

message: Flanker, you are once again bloating the article with point and counterpoint arguments and additions.  Many days ago, I removed almost all of the criticism from the article, summarizing it as briefly as possible.  Now you're bringing back entire arguments.  Perhaps I should stop arguing that we should use Summary Style, and simply bring back the entire Criticism article, to achieve balance in this article?  You don't appear to be willing to allow for a brief summary of issues, with further detail in daughter articles.  Sandy 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The version I fixed was not a summary actually it was the old Version with the Fair link and US government stance removed clearly POV, if we are going to summarize it lets make it neutral.Flanker 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  The entire article isn't neutral, since I removed all the criticism to a daughter article. The point of Summary Style is that the article refers to daughter articles for detail.  I'll be happy to bring all the criticism back (including domestic, economy and foreign policy) and forget about Summary Style, if you want to continue with obstructive edits.  Sandy 17:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith, I just don't think the current critiscism summary is balanced, perhaps we should return it to the previous hodgepodge version we had been working on until we can start summarizing it in a balanced way.Flanker 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fine time to come to the conclusion that a summary, which was written many days ago, is not balanced.  Have you not read all the discussion on the talk page over the last few days, which has included a massive effort on my part to move references back and forth between articles, per consensus?  Do you think it's good faith to wait for me to do all that work, and then decide you don't want to use Summary Style or don't like the summary?  Sandy 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I probably missed all of the details, the terrorism link was in another paragraph, so I apologize for not providing my opinion earlier. The section stills needs to be better summarized in a neutral manner rather than just summarize all of the claims against. And deleting the counter points.Flanker 17:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest that you wait for someone who has a capacity for neutrality to summarize it to your satisfaction, since you don't like my summary, rather than bloating the text by again bringing back point and counterpoint hodgepodge.  Sandy 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess you consider Wiki policies and recommendations are secondary to your preferences.  See WP:SS and WP:SIZE.  If consensus is for a book, that will eliminate any possibility of re-applying for FA, which WGee expressed as his interest.  If that is the way it is decided to go, I can bring back all the content from the daughter articles, and when we finish the top of the article plus the 2006 elections, we may have a record length for any article I've encountered on Wiki.  It's interesting that you haven't contributed to all of the work over the last few weeks, and now have opinions that go contrary to Wiki style, recommendations, FA criteria, and policies. Sandy 18:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been an editor on this site for over three years. I have helped in the forming of some of these "policies" and "recommendations." They are not written in stone. While getting certain articles down to an arbitrary limit of 50 KB or 32 KB or whatever may be a good rule of tumb for avoiding repetition, rambling, and off-topic tangents, for certain subjects-- this article being a classic example-- a long article is appropriate. Some subjects inherently require longer articles than others. 172 | Talk 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism summary objections 

message: Please don't edit to prove a point, I learned the lesson of wikistress.Flanker 19:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I don't see the problem with Sandy's additions here , though I removed a couple of excessive pictures. What I don't understand is the obsession with shortening the article. A long article is fine, given the international interest in the topic. 172 | Talk 19:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I do apologize for not reading all of the changes but I did become worried for a second and decided to restart from where I left it, I disagree with the oil card quote move though, (read the oil card subtopic on the talk page) Suffice to say it was quoted out of context by the Washington Post. As for the article size I am not opposed to it, what I do agree with Sandy that a summary of a particular event is better than a "he said she said", that said such a summary has to be balanced too.Flanker 19:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle a summary is of course better than a "he said she said." Still, I'm not seeing much of the "he said she said" to which Sandy is referring in the article. I hate to say it-- I think Sandy has sort of a habit of making a big deal out of nothing. 172 | Talk 19:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Sandy's feelings about the subject are way to passionate to allow him/her to edit calmly. I find it really odd that Sandy is still so discontent with the state of the article, which is better written than the vast majority of Wikipedia entries on controversial political figures. It also baffles me that Sandy still feels the article has a 'pro-Chavez bias.' The article may not have all the mud and dirt on Chavez one can dig up, but it's getting close. 172 | Talk 19:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not making a personal attack. I was commenting on Flanker's remark, "Sandy please calm down." If you think that my suggestion that you calm down is "bordering on personal attack," then I really suggest even more stongly that you calm down. 172 | Talk 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's not calm?  Perhaps I can just edit faster than some others: speed in multi-tasking doesn't equal a lack of calmness.  Sandy 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take this as an offense. Perhaps what I'm about to say is the effect of your ability to edit at a fast pace and "speed in multi-tasking." Regardless of whether or not it's your intent, you seem to be asserting ownership over this article, much like User:Polaris999 on Che Guevara. 172 | Talk 20:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that I am asserting ownership when we have proceeded so slowly and carefully, always according to consensus (until Flanker's edits of today) – and when I have done and undone work a number of times in accordance with the wishes of other editors – is absurd.  It appears you really haven't been following this article, and are drawing hasty conclusions.  Sandy 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy I know I may have triggered your wikisress and I apologize for doing so, but wholesale changes done to prove a point against me are not conducive to the quality of wikipedia, I agree with summarization but disagree on the way it is implemented.Flanker 20:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be silly, Flanker :-)  Wikipedia is not something to "stress" over:  it's a collection of ACSII characters.  When two editors are objecting to Summary Style, as you and 172 were, against one who supports it, that's consensus.  You didn't "trigger" anything.  I merely complied with what you both wanted, and it took very little effort.  I restored all of my pre-summary content and additions that have been made to daughter articles since I summarized.  If it is decided to change it later, I gave above the last version we can revert to, which is where we had consensus. I suggest waiting to see what other editors have to say: maybe others prefer this version to the POV fork to criticism. Sandy 20:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you are taking it well, I will take a break for today, hopefully tomorrow clearer heads can prevail.Flanker 21:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article looks fine now, and so do Sandy's additions. (As for the current events, I would've favored more content on Mercosur and ALBA and a little less on the Peruvian election. However, I acknowledge that this matter is hardly clear-cut. On one hand, the recent trade agreements will likely have much more far-reaching consequences on the Venezuelan economy than the series of barbs exchanged between Alan Garcia and Hugo Chavez in the lead up to Peru's presidential election. On the other hand, the Peruvian presidential election might have generated more international media coverage, and in that sense it might warrant more coverage than recent developments in Mercosur. Both views are reasonable, so I'll refrain from changing the balance of coverage on current events.) The article is much better written than most Wikipedia entries on controversial world leaders. The partisan references from Z-Mag, Venezuelaanalysis.com, etc. are largely gone. The article is reasonably comprehensive and up-to-date. I think it's time to start holding off on major revisions and let the page stabilize for a while. 172 | Talk 21:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that your conclusions are a remarkable leap for someone who hasn't been involved in the article, and I defer to those who have.  We have yet to hear from most of them. I remain happy to do the work, regardless of the decision, as long as it is based on consensus.  Again, I respect the fact that WGee indicated at one point that he wanted to preserve FA possibility, and I do not believe 80 KB of prose (which is where this will end up after we complete updates and the POV list) will get there.  I don't think that we can even remotely argue that this article, in this state, meets criteria 5) It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it uses summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any 'daughter' articles.  You also imply that the article hasn't been stable, which I disagree with.  We have proceeded slowly, methodically, and with consensus, while attempting to preserve prose and make sure everything is referenced.  I can't imagine a more stable approach to editing, considering the extreme controversy surrounding the "subject". Sandy 22:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: I suggest that your conclusions are a remarkable leap for someone who hasn't been involved in the article, and I defer to those who have. I think that statement sums up what I've been saying about article ownership. As for FA, I think it's a lost cause. Chavez may be a far more controversial figure today than he was only six months ago, when the article was featured, following his rows with the Mexican and Peruvian presidents, his backing of Iran in its nuclear standoff with the U.S., and his backing of Bolivia's nationalization of the natural gas industry. Dealing with such a controversial subject, it's tough to imagine everyone being sufficiently pleased with the article for it to pass a FA review. 172 | Talk 22:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is being edited too harshly 

message: The age old question of who is a terrorist and if so how they should be labelled, I did not include the two ex militares democraticos as terrorists because even though their intent was to terrorize they were not as competent( no deaths 4 injuries), but labelled Posada as one, if he is not are the FARC and ELN terrorist too? Frankly I want to hear opinions from other editors specially annon.Flanker 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're on the right track. It's probably best to err on the side of caution in this case. I'd shy away from using the term unless necessary, avoiding it in the case of both FARC and ELN and the militares democraticos. 172 | Talk 05:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what about Posada? The FARC and ELN are labelled terrorists on the critiscism section although indirectly.Flanker 15:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the word terrorist 

message: I agree with Sandy that critiscism can be added here, however there is a deep unbalance in prose,the first 3 paragraphs are summarized and describe the positives on single sentences however the last 7 paragraphs are very verbose and negative where they could be easily summarized in the same manner, and that is after removing the economic duplication.Flanker 16:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we've all been waiting a long time for someone (like you) to summarize and better describe his domestic policies.  The fact that it hasn't been done is not a reason to delete the other side of the story.  If you don't do it soon, I will go through all of the articles I have found recently, and attempt to do it myself, but I am growing weary of working on this article only to have everything reverted, and suggest that some others here should start sharing in the workload. No one yet has written the most glaring omission from this article, which is the environment that brought Chavez to power, and the brilliance of how he has stayed in power.  Foreign Policy wrote it, Foreign Affairs wrote it, the US State Dept wrote it, but no, not Wiki.  Instead, we have editors arguing against a concise summary, and a hodgepodge of adulation and criticism based on local press. Flanker, please stop reverting referenced content just because you haven't read the sources.  There is no requirement on Wiki that sources be available on the internet, and if there were, we'd have to delete an awful lot of Saravask's content, which is based on books.  Sandy 16:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow below books are very different, opinion Journal and Foreign Policy are online and linkable, books are linked to amazon and google books. as for reverting work well that is wikipedia, my work has been reverted many times by you as well, I gave good reason for my changes but you reverted without justifying all of it.Flanker 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide an example of *any* revert I made without an explanation.  A simple Google search reveals a site for the source you  have repeatedly deleted. The article is not available online, except for a fee. I have done the work of finding it for you:  . I understand that you may not have access to an English-language library which carries these publications, but I suggest that you do your homework before deleting referenced content. Sandy 16:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what you view as a revert I view as a change and vice versa, remember the 53rd president link? you wanted to delete all the work I did (and may have done so since I lost my internet connection then) based on a single technicality, I did not open my browser and note your changes and just decided to revert, I checked every differential and changed what I thought was not appropiate and left what I thought should be added although better (domestic policy). You later reverted all my work again on a single event that I later agreed to but still reverted all my work again. As for the link I always believe the burden of proof is on he who posits, therfore he who adds to wikipedia.Flanker 17:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW if you have access to pay for material, could you please quote the excerpt you are referring to under ref? speifically as to why their labell of militarism should be added as how he somehow claims he is?Flanker 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, the amount of criticism in the section was unacceptable.  You can't blame others for not adding enough explanation of his domestic policies; I could just as easily blame you for adding too much criticism.  And just because we're not following your Summary Style recommendation, you are not entitled to add as much criticism as you like without regard to its effect on the article.  If you want to add this new criticism, you must also ensure that it is balanced; you shouldn't leave that responsiblity to everyone else. -- WGee 18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try and summarize what Sandy added later today, Heritage, Transperancy, crime, etc can all be summarized easily, there is no need to be marathonic.Flanker 18:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wgee, please provide a more clear summary explaining to exactly which version you reverted, so that we can tell what needs to be reconstructed.  Flanker, if you add anything, you are beyond the 3 revert rule, as you have already deleted my edits three times.  Please stop edit warring and use the talk page to discuss edits you disagree with. Also, please stop with the ancient history:  I myself carefully reconstructed every one of your edits in the incident you mentioned, which happened very long ago. If you want every addition that is not available online to be specifically quoted in the footnote, we've got an AWFUL lot of work to do in the references, including translating all of the Spanish articles.  Your request, when I am referencing an easily available and well know US publication (Foreign Affairs) is unreasonable.  WGee, please stop expecting me to do all the heavy lifting here, when you also have access to these articles.  It isn't logical to ask me to do all the work when Flanker reverts everything I add. Sandy 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestic policy summary