Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:45, 5 February 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugo Chávez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Hugo Chávez. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Hugo Chávez at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Socialism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Venezuela This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / South America This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force South American military history task force

	Hugo Chávez is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 14, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted June 15, 2006 Featured article review Demoted August 13, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hugo Chávez article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29Auto-archiving period: 3 months

very bad wiki article

Did chavez's propaganda office write this article? There is absolutely no balance in this piece; in fact, if a person read this article without knowing who Chavez is, they would probably think he's the next messiah. This guy is one of the most ruthless autocrats of our times and yet there is no mention of any of his many abuses. Misplaced Pages has allowed a small army of blatantly subjective editors with clear individual motivations ruin its core mission. This article needs to be deleted and redone; and everyone that was associated with putting together the current version needs to be banned ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.235.182 (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

whitewash

As it stands this page is a complete whitewash of Mr. Chavez, a puff piece, incredibly biased and NPOV in favor of him. Something needs to be done about it; this page is one of the thousands of examples of why Misplaced Pages got a reputation for being somewhat dodgy on the issue of accuracy and fairness. This talk page is another good example. George Bush negotiated with Osama bin Laden? When? He never did. Yet apparently some believe this, and believe that it is justification for hiding under the rug Mr. Chavez's deep connections to that collection of brutal war criminals known as FARC. The section on the media is completely biased towards Chavez; someone with no knowledge of the situation whose only source of information was this page would believe that the media outlets Chavez has shut down or tried to shut down deserved it because they were participating in a coup against Chavez, according to some, none of whom are exactly neutral observers. RCTV probably was, but that doesn't mean all the outlets Chavez has gone after were, or that his repression of media is justified.

No kidding, this is rediculous. It doesnt mention ANY of the contraversy that is associated with him, and there is a ton, nor does it mention any of the naked power grabs he's done to systematically shut down opponents and jail or exile them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This page needs cleaned up, as I said it's an example of how Misplaced Pages has fallen from its peak when it did really seem that it would become a respectable source of reliable information. That didn't happen, Misplaced Pages does not exactly have a good rep for reliability, and pages like this are why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

How come there's no mention here to Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC? Rd232? JRSP? Or will we pretend it never happened?Alekboyd (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please check WP:WTA#Words_that_label, using terms as "narcoterrorist" is not NPOV. Said that, the US government concerns about Chávez-FARC relations are already mentioned in the "criticism" section. JRSP (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FARC is considered as a terrorist organization by all European countries, Canada and the USA.Alekboyd (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And? Is there a problem with that? Didn't Bush negotiate with Osama Bin Ladden? Isn't Obama and the actual US, killing people in Irak, Afganistan and Palestine? Obilivion (Sith Holocron) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC).

The issue here is Hugo Chavez relationship with FARC. Whatever Bush did with Bin Laden has got nothing to do with the fact that Chavez has a relationship with a narcoterrorist organization. As per NPOV JRSP, a visit to your contribution page shows how hollow your mentions to NPOV are.Alekboyd (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite right on the need to discuss the FARC. It is quite incredible that the foreign policy section says notion about his relationship to the FARC. Recall that Interpol judged the files captured from Reyes to be genuine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051504153.html (Cerberus (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC))

They should be a heading on main page of Hugo's support of terrorism and his human rights violations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannim1 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The administrator of this page has a biased view of the topic, Misplaced Pages needs to review this. The content lacks the following verifiable data about Hugo Chavez:

- Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine:

- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."

There is also few information on the dramatic economic situation of Venezuela in 2009:

- Leftist President Hugo Chavez called on Venezuelans on Wednesday to stop singing in the shower and to wash in three minutes because the oil-exporting nation is having problems supplying water and electricity. Venezuela has suffered several serious blackouts in the past year because of rapidly growing demand and under-investment, which has been aggravated by a drop in water levels in hydroelectric dams that provide most of its energy.

- Hugo Chavez has shown poor math skills. In a speech, he claimed that 7X8 = 52 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagcKHmFoW4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the 'criticism of Hugo Chávez' section?

The original page suffered an overhaul and an entire section devoted to criticism of Hugo Chávez policies and approaches was apparently deleted. I couldn't find it anywhere. Is Misplaced Pages going to close its eyes to the verifiable, sizeable portion of people who do not support him or his policies, and should have their accounts published for the world to see? Or is it, a work of pseudo-intelectuals, left-wing sympatizers who'd rather delete this material instead of keeping a really objective approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabreu (talk • contribs) 14:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

^ THIS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.8.122 (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. Where is that section?--Andrewire (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I checked waybackmachine for the old material that was deleted. There isn't anything listed for this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/Hugo_chavez. Unless someone can provide the old url for Hugo Chavez, the best course would be to re-create the section. I must assume the URL was changed causing the waybackmachine not to find the page? There is so much negative material on Chavez but the whole article hardly mentions that he has almost completed making himself dictator for life of Venezuela. --Ftsmallwood (talk) 03:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly add that material, now :-) Be careful, though - it would be "critics claim" or some similar wording for the "dictator for life" thingie (I assume you're referring to that referendum a couple of years back). Xavexgoem (talk) 03:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A separate section for criticism (and/or praise) is not the best idea, see WP:STRUCTURE. Please keep in mind the WP:BLP policy, particularly WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. Well sourced, relevant and properly attributed criticism/praise should better be added in the relevant section (or daughter article): presidency, foreign policy, economical policy, etc. JRSP (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be a section including arresting political opponents, closing down media and inteferings in several nations internal affairs.Tannim1 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have located the separate page under "Criticism of Hugo Chavez": it was deleted because it was empty. Essentially: A "criticism" section was created because there was too much information, and the resulting page was so negative for Mr. Chavez image it was deemed biased (what did they expect from a 'Criticism' page for Mr. Chavez?), and apparently they moved the relevant criticism to separate articles -leaving just an empty page- and there doesn't seem to be any way of checking what it said. In the process, they transformed Mr. Chavez in a modern Robin Hood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Au leon (talk • contribs) 01:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The valid criticisms were merged into the various articles about Chavez. However most of the detail in the article was unhelpful and basically was all sourced to neoconservative opinion pieces. What is needed is informed criticism of the Chavez regime from reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think The Four Deuces should be allowed anywhere near Misplaced Pages articles regarding Hugo Chavez, the fact that the "Criticism" section is still nowhere is unacceptable, as is his explanation that "valid criticisms were merged into various articles about Chavez." This is dishonest, criticism of the man should be available on the page about him, not on other pages. I will be contacting the appropriate parties here at Misplaced Pages about how you have been behaving in regards to Chavez. There are absolutely no links on Chavez's page to criticisms of him; in fact, the word "criticism" only appears once, in the introduction part of the article, a perfect opportunity to link to such criticisms, but apparently that opportunity was passed up. Perhaps because criticisms of Hugo Chavez are not on a single page, but scattered around? Perhaps in a deliberate effort to make them hard to find? How odd that there are no links whatsoever to any other Misplaced Pages pages criticizing him on his own page. Just where are these valid criticisms? Link them please, since you are asserting that they do in fact exist somewhere here at Misplaced Pages.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Huge Chavez of black Venezuelan Descent?

Where is the evidence, which is not in the article, of Hugo Chavez's African descent, and is it just a claim by him, or is there a black ancestor to prove it? JohnHistory (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

If there is no evidence and it is not in the article then it is not an issue. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Chavez is tri-racial. Having Spanish, Indigenous, and African ancestry. You will find that many Latin Americans are very mixed in terms of race. 71.180.84.156 (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez is pushing the Jews out of Venezuela

This Israeli site: tells that Hugo Chavez's policies are pushing the Jews out of Venezuela.Agre22 (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22

- Citing your source, it look's quite differently...: " Venezuelan Jews say that as citizens of a state in which many have lost faith in the police and judicial system, they fear random violence far more than anti-Semitic attacks. They consistently cite crime as their main source of anxiety." So this entry should just be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.102.57 (talk) 18:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Past Medical History

Under the "1992 coup" heading, the text describes how Chavez became blind in one eye because of a "carnosity" which, according some sites from an internet search, are "a fleshy excrescence." However, this term is not an accepted medical term. A search of "carnosity" at www.emedicine.com, a respected reference source authored by the medical community, returns no items. Similarly, neither a search in Merriam-Webster's online dictionary nor medical dictionary have listings for this word. It is possible that "carnosity" is an older medical term that is no longer used. Since "carnosity" is no longer found on a respected professional medical reference site, it is not a label which is used in the medical community for either communication or medical documentation. Therefore, I recommend that, at least, it be replaced with "eye disease." (My theory is that Chavez had a pinquecula that developed into a pterygium.)Crucifiedego (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the word is used because it appears in the source. If you do not like the use of the term you should find a source that gives an accepted medical term. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Relation with Carlos the Jackal

In a well-known address, published throughout the world in dozens, if not hundreds of sources, came the following blurb, rv by the censors trying to clean up Chavez' image. Chavez, however, had plenty of time to refute this and refused to do so. So he either said it or he did not say it. What is the position of the censors on this one. Did he do/say this or not?

"Chavez is known to have had a sporadic correspondence with convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal from the latter's prison cell. Chávez replied, with a letter in which he addresses Carlos as a "distinguished compatriot". On June 1, 2006, Chávez referred to him as his "good friend" during a meeting of OPEC countries held in Caracas.

On 20 November, 2009, Chávez publicly defended Carlos, saying that "he is wrongly considered to be a bad guy and is to be praised as a key revolutionary fighter, instead.""

If, of course, it was a matter of obtaining the "proper" footnote, it could have been left their for a few minutes or days or even weeks until one was obtained. If it is false, of course, deleting it was the proper thing to do. Since it was censored out of hand with no time given to furnish a proper citation, I am assuming that the censor's position is that the report is false. That would be the only excuse for removing material that is generally thought to be accurate while temporarily lacking a valid citation. Student7 (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

And, oh, what paper, television or website would you accept as a WP:RS to support this statement? Student7 (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the other censored portion was on Amin, etc. Also made national headlines around the world, but "isn't worth reporting here."

"Comments on Mugabe, Ahmadinejad, and Amin

In a speech in which he praised Carlos the Jackal on November 20, 2009, Chavez hailed Presidents Robert Mugabe and Ahmadinejad as "brothers", and praised former president of Uganda, Idi Amin as a "nationalist, a great patriot.""

At least this censor did not deny that he said it. What this censor questioned was whether every comment he ever made on everybody should be in his bio? That is a valid question. The answer is no, unless that person is extremely famous or, infamous, as in this case and secondly, that it received headlines around the world which was in shock.

I can appreciate that this is highly embarrassing for someone trying to defend his bio in Misplaced Pages. You either think that this is a great man and support everything he says or you don't. If you do not, then perhaps you should allow people to publish the truth when it takes up international headlines. Politicians often make off-the-cuff remarks which they regret and withdraw later. I agree that these off-the-cuff remarks should not be reported. But this was not the case here. Chavez had the opportunity to retract them and declined to do so.

If however, you accept your man, then why can't you accept everything that he says? Everything that he says should be reportable. If you are ashamed of it, why are you trying to delete it, when everyone else thinks that it is important? Student7 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in WP is determining what weight if any to give to current events. While these statements perhaps should be notable, they do not appear to have attracted any attention beyond being reported when they were first made. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are defending only one of the entries. The other was deleted for (supposedly) WP:RS. If not that, of course, something else.

Also, few people make worldwide news and then not have anything in their articles, and the bios then just quote in-house press releases? Come on! Student7 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the media are not reporting the story beyond the original incident. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs etc. are saying nothing, let alone MSM. So it is unimportant. If you think this issue is important you should phone them and ask why they are not discussing it. Who got to them? I would like to know. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean with the Media? you only mention right wing media in the US. Misplaced Pages, English version, is not an US entity, is a worldwide entity. This incident was reported on Le Monde and in the New York Times . The Four Deuces, you need to be neutral on this and you are not being neutral, how many people need to report it to be qualified as "important" by you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.103.169 (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not accuse other editors of not being neutral and remember to sign your posts. Hundreds or even thousands of articles have been written about Hugo Chavez and there is not enough room in the article to mention all of them. How do we determine which stories to record here? If there is any reaction to the stories beyond the initial reporting and the story is kept alive by continuing media interest then we report it. If the story is reported when it happens and attracts no further attention then we ignore it. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The "relation" is basically a letter in 1999, and a couple of comments in 2006 and 2009. I think those isolated facts hardly deserve a mention, even less a whole section devoted to this. JRSP (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which Chavez has not denied nor repudiated. Not too many "world leaders" with an open friendship with a convicted terrorist. For this, the Venezuelan ambassador was summoned on the carpet in Paris by the French government. I don't know how often the (say), American ambassador is summoned and an explanation demanded. Either so often, it is ignored, or so seldom, I can't remember the last time! BTW, the French did not receive an acceptable explanation. This will make the textbooks in diplomatic history books, but we are not going to report it here? !!! Why not? Student7 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JRSP that we should not create a whole section with the title "Carlos the Jackal". However, this is not an isolated fact and should be included on the "Hugo Chavez and terrorism" section proposed above. We could name the section "Hugo Chavez relationships/opinion with/on terrorists, terrorism organizations and countries on the sponsors of terrorism list" or something like that. On this section we can include the Jackal content, and talk about Chavez and FARC, ELN, Cuba, Iran... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We cannot talk of an "open friendship", both men have never met, their only contact was a letter and its reply. If I wrote Chávez a letter, I would get a reply too; Venezuelan public servants are bound by law to reply to all citizen's written requests. Regarding the summoning of the ambassador, I understand that France stated their point of view, Chávez reiterated his own point of view and that's all; there has not been any notable consequence on the relations between both countries. JRSP (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Student7 commented: "This will make the textbooks in diplomatic history books, but we are not going to report it here? !!! " Well it has now been 10 years since the letter was written (1999-2009), so the textbooks would have been written by now. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, his support was recently announced, along with his support of others (Amin, etc.). It was that incident that precipitated the recent demand for an explanation by France. France was not referring to old correspondence but to current public support. It is the recent incident that will be in the diplomatic histories. Also, one may perceive that France takes words seriously when made by heads of state, as do most nations. They are not "simply words" to be stated today and forgotten tomorrow.

Also, the correspondence was ongoing. One letter may be public, but the reports refer to an "ongoing" correspondence. so probably more than one letter.

If Chavez supports his statements and stands by them, what is the problem here? If you like Chavez, you would certainly want to see the words published that he uttered. If you don't like him, and disagree with him, I can understand why you might not want words that he stands by, omitted. Student7 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that neutrality and weight apply. A story that does not receive extended coverage is not notable, and we should not include or exclude material based on whether we support or oppose him. I neither support nor oppose Chavez so those arguments do not mean anything to me. If you feel that this story is underreported in the media then you should contact them and complain. The Four Deuces (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: Please review Misplaced Pages's pollicy on this matter:

- "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." . There are well documented-reliable sources on this topic(Le Monde and The New York Times are named above). They also talk about it in Foreign Policy Magazine , The Guardian , NPR . Also, the Jackal letter is here http://www.analitica.com/bitblio/hchavez/carta_chacal.asp - Your point about not having enough room is kind of weird. I could not find a mention on space limits for articles on Misplaced Pages's guidelines. This is not print media. If you look at other biographies, like Tiger Woods, you will find more content than in this one.

JRSP: I agree, we should not talk about an "open friendship". What the sources describe is the opinion of Hugo Chavez on Carlos the Jackal, which seems to be similar to his opinion of FARC. Also, your "notable consequence" argument is just your point of view. We should stick to the facts that can be supported by reliable sources. So I suggest presenting the content like this:

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

Hugo Chavez has expressed his opinion on the following terrorists(persons and organizations):

Carlos the Jackal In 2009, in a speech to international socialist politicians, Mr Chavez said Carlos, a Venezuelan, was not a terrorist but a key revolutionary fighter. He said he believed Carlos had been unfairly convicted, and called him "one of the great fighters of the Palestine Liberation Organisation".The Venezuelan leader has previously called Carlos a friend, and is reported to have exchanged letters with him in the past. , The French government reacted by summoning the Venezuelan embassador in Paris and demanding explanations

Idi Amin Mr. Chavez has also expressed his opinion on Idi Amin. He said "We thought he was a cannibal.. I don't know, maybe he was a great nationalist, a patriot." Idi Amin seized power in 1971. About 300,000 people were killed during his eight-year rule

Farc - Chávez's support for the FARC has been known and tolerated for some time. Indeed, Venezuela has been harboring the group's leaders, who have operated openly within Venezuela's borders. Chávez's ban on overflights by U.S. planes participating in antinarcotics operations in Colombia and his government's refusal to cooperate with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration have also benefited the FARC immeasurably. It is no coincidence that during Chávez's presidency, Venezuela has turned into a major conduit for the transshipment of cocaine

- In 2008 Chavez asked Europe to take FARC off the list of terrorist organizations: He argued, "I say this even though somebody might be bothered by it: the FARC and the ELN are not terrorist groups. They are armies, real armies ... that occupy a space in Colombia." He added that the two groups' "insurgent forces" have a goal, "a project," that is "Bolivarian" and that "we respect."

-Later on in 2008, Chavez urged Farc to end their rebellion "The guerrilla war is history," he said. "At this moment in Latin America, an armed guerrilla movement is out of place.". This was considered a surprise comment. Colombian Interior minister Carlos Holguin said the statement from Mr Chavez, a "great ally" of the rebels, was a "surprising". statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specialcontributor75 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, there are hundreds or even thousands of stories about Chavez that have been published through the years and the problem is determining which ones to include and how much coverage to provide. Basically stories that get a lot of coverage beyond the initial story should be reported but if we were to cover them all this article would be too long. (It is already 49 KB). If you believe this story is important then you should contact news media and complain that they are not providing sufficient coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources it has a place on the article according to[REDACTED] guidelines. Major news organizations in most western countries have covered the incident. If you do an online search, there is even mention of this in Bangladeshi and Chinese media. Also, this has been widely covered in Latin American and Spanish media. Should we request mediation for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.17.253.46 (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The mere mention of an incident in the press is a necessary condition (verifiability) but not sufficient for inclusion in wikipedia, this applies particularly to recent events. Notability is not temporary and the long term importance of this event is difficult to assess at this moment. Anyway, WP is an encyclopedia, not a news wire and articles do not have a time limit so we can wait and see how important this event can be. In the meantime, there are lots of material about the subject to work with, including books and scholarly papers that are better suited than news reports for the purpose of writing an encyclopedic article. JRSP (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is from a story reported this week in The Epoch Times: "Venezuela is bringing in thousands of Russian missiles, rocket launchers, and tanks as part of a massive military buildup against Colombia. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced the move on state television this week amid growing tensions between the two South American countries." This is an important story and there are stories of equal or greater stories about Chavez published all the time. But we cannot add all the Chavez stories to the article but must wait until we see how notable they become. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We need mediation on this. Your definition of "notable" is your personal opinion. You first argued that the opinion of Hugo Chavez on the Jackal was not being covered by the media. Now that we listed all the sources you are changing your argument. The facts about the Jackal, Idi Amin and FARC are verifiable and notable as we can see from the global coverage of the issue. The example you bring about the military build up should also be on the article, if it isnt already.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My "personal opinion" is that we should follow the guideline for notability. If you want to include the two stories already mentioned, what about these, all of which occured recently:

• "Chavez critics say the president is using prosecutors as pawns to bring trumped up criminal charges against his opponents".
• "Hugo Chavez, is battling against power cuts and water shortages by telling people to stop singing in the showers."
• "Brazilian senators postponed... the vote on Venezuela's incorporation to Mercosur following a heated debate... when the opposition strongly criticized Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez".

If you go back over the years, you will find hundreds more stories of equal notability: Chavez calls Bush the Devil, calls Obama an ingnoramus, threatens to free Hondurus, etc. You really need to read books or academic papers about Chavez to determine what is notable. Otherwise the article becomes a long list of news events. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW your remark "You first argued that the opinion of Hugo Chavez on the Jackal was not being covered by the media" is incorrect and your conclusions on your misunderstanding may be seen as a personal attack. Please assume good faith. My first comment above was: "The problem is that the media are not reporting the story beyond the original incident". Yes it was covered by the media. No that does not establish notability. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Carlos story, as opposed to the Idi Amin support, does indeed 'have legs." It has been ongoing as long as Mr. Chavez has wanted it. The US media has a short attention span and Venezuela is not at the top of it's interests (lots of noise - no effect). It is not Iran nor North Korea. Just because it is not in the US papers daily does not mean that it is not notable. It is not a one-time story. A bit ironic, if it is in the US papers then we are accused of being anti-Chavez and it can't be reported; if it isn't in the US papers, then it isn't notable; nevermind that both mindsets give Misplaced Pages a US-centric POV. Student7 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is notable then you should have no problem in finding discussion of the relationship in high quality reliable sources, viz., books and academic journals. BTW here is what BBC said: "Chavez addressed Carlos as a distinguished compatriot and defended the letter by saying it showed human solidarity not political support." The Four Deuces (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced an article documenting Prince Charles' letters stating "human solidarity" with Charles Manson, or stating Barack Obamas solidarity with Idi Amin. Perhaps you can help? Student7 (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can avoid asking obviously tendentious questions involving completely invalid comparisons? Rd232 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear. Responsible elected leaders in real democracies do not say anything quotable for concern they might not be representing the thoughts of everyone. An appointed Secretary was fired in the US for saying that a Board he controlled was comprised, for diversity, "of a Jew, a cripple and a black." This was accurate but was considered too blunt and offensive.

Megalomanics do not worry about this sort of trivialities and say anything they like whenever they feel like it. They are not concerned with niceties only "the truth" (as they see it, of course). Their supporters realize this discontinuity and try to cover for them, but it is vital information that researchers are exposed to bluntness, lack of sensitivity, support for the unsupportable.

People who control the ballot box do not need to worry about getting reelected and talk like Saddam Hussein, Muamur Quadafi, Idi Amin, etc. Quotes from true democracies do not sound like these folks. But let the quotes fall where they may and let the researcher decide. Covering it up makes Misplaced Pages less credible. Student7 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually Chavez was democratically elected to his office. And some leaders in democratic societies do say stupid things. Just consider the last US president. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I refute it thus: Silvio Berlusconi. Rd232 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with those picked-up phrases is that they easily lead to guilt by association. I can praise Hitler's oratorical skills and that does not make me a Nazi but if someone reported in a newspaper that I "praised Hitler" a lot of people would think that I sympathize with the Nazis. Chávez praised Amin nationalism, so we have two alternatives here: either we report precisely what Chávez said or we do not report anything at all but a vague phrase like "Chávez praised Amin" is unacceptable. But of course, going into the details of an isolated event is not a good idea for an encyclopedic article; if we had a good academic paper on "Chávez praising monsters" or "Chávez praising nationalism" that would be a different story.
Same thing applies to Carlos, just reporting a "relation" does not take into account for instance the most basic of facts: Carlos is a Venezuelan citizen and Chávez is the President and any Venezuelan citizen has the right to ask for government assistance when in legal problems in a foreign country. JRSP (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that Chavez praising Carlos the Jackal in a way that makes it very clear that Chavez approves of what the man did is in fact noteworthy for a section concerning Chavez and terrorism. The Four Deuces is simply employing sophistry to argue in favor of not adding a noteworthy remark. Chavez has a long-standing and noteworthy record of praising war criminals like Carlos the Jackal and organizations like the FARC; if you are worried about Chavez looking bad, perhaps he shouldn't have said it? After all, according to The Four Deuces the previous President of the USA said plenty of stupid things, I'm sure having a healthy amount of them available for people to read would be appropriate, so why not Chavez's remarks about Carlos the Jackal? Because they make Chavez look bad. That's it. No other reason. You're defending Chavez without reason or cause and you're using sophistry to do it. You should be ashamed of yourself for lecturing people about good faith, you aren't acting with it at all. —Preceding 24.131.26.194 comment added by 24.131.26.194 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

IP, you cannot simply pick examples to prove a contention that "Chavez has a long-standing and noteworthy record of praising war criminals (sic) like Carlos the Jackal and organizations like the FARC" which is original research. Instead you should look for reliable sources to see whether or not your conclusion is widely accepted. You cannot develop a good article by simply adding news stories. You must read books and articles in academic journals. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

At least we seem to agree that Chavez' remarks were "stupid". What we don't seem to agree on is that they should be presented instead of withheld from the encylopedia audience to allow them to make their own determination. Protecting Chavez from this analysis is what the discussion is about. Whether his remarks require WP:CENSORing or not. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. We should not run through the hundreds of comments that Chavez has made and select those that support our view of him. Instead, we must go to reliable sources that provide critical, balanced analysis. Since you mention WP:Censorship, it states, "Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Misplaced Pages policies (especially neutral point of view)... will also be removed". The Four Deuces (talk)

You are the one missing the point. Like I said, I will be contacting the appropriate parties at Misplaced Pages regarding you and the Hugo Chavez page. I will also soon be reconstructing the criticism section and putting it back up, on this page, where it will remain. If you take it down, I will put it back up. Your little tyranny here is over. 24.131.26.194 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of those comments are uncivil, and appear to include a threat not to collaborate with others, which won't get you very far. Please review the Misplaced Pages policies WP:Consensus, WP:NPOV, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If by "contacting the appropriate parties" you meant using appropriate dispute resolution, at least you got that right. Rd232 06:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Leaving personal attacks aside, I think there is consensus that the topic "Hugo Chavez opinion on terrorism" should be added, including his comments on the FARC and the Jackal. These comply with all the Misplaced Pages guidelines as shown above. Maybe The Four Deuces would want to write the content? That way we can end this discussion and move on to other topics.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such consensus; you were referred to dispute resolution. You could also work on a userspace draft to clarify what you want to include and how well it is sourced, which would assist in a WP:RFC for instance. On such a topic in a biography of a living person, some generally agreeable text should certainly be drafted before adding to the article. Rd232 10:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Chávez's oratorical style

Mr Chávez appreciates direct televised interaction and has been known to place bugs and interact visibly through broadcast tv with certain individuals. Broadcast interception and surrepticious insertion of other programs in lieu of the standard is/was not unusual.(Fractalhints (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

You need reliable sources in order to edit the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Does being there count as reliable or must you have a phd to be an expert witness?(Fractalhints (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

If by "being there" you mean being a personal witness, that would be original research, not allowed by policy; this applies to experts and non experts. As The Four Deuces said, what you need is secondary reliable sources. JRSP (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia - a compendium of established knowledge, based on bringing together information published in reliable, secondary sources. For your own experiences or opinions, try Wikinews or start a blog. Rd232 18:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

JRSP, PSTS,

are you two presuming to say that wikipedia accepts premasticated opinion from newsmedia? Those opinions where the secondary sources are unknown and kept secret due journalistic privelege? A personal witness never classifies as original research, even when there are secondary witnesses. Besides, all the scientific facts due einstein etc, being original research, would exclude their entry. Do attempt to change some regulations, original research should be verifiable research, which is what the four deuces was implying. Lot´s of subjects in[REDACTED] are not verifiable, they are conglomerate standardized opinions, from experts, whom sweat blood the moment a verifiable theory arrives that contradicts their pet project. Accepted premasticated factoids due publicly printed opinion.[REDACTED] is no exception and not a leprachaun vault for -quote- established -unquote- knowledge. Differenciate what is scientific fact from non-scientific -quote- fact -unquote- and I would have accepted your expert opinion. However, PSTS, heckler tactics are not becomming, any activism in your curriculum, perhaps a surname such as mandrake in your circle of acquaintances?

PS, changes in[REDACTED] are now and then used to bother certain individuals under investigation by a long list of secret service individuals. You wouldn´t happen to have a handy list with the level of security clearance of all the meriat individuals making changes, do you?. Thought so, too bad really.

PSS, you have my publicly private wiki address, let´s try to keep this of the public boards, shall we. There you are welcome to flame away, that´s what differenciates the public from the private.(Fractalhints (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

WP:No original research is one of wikipedia's core policies and it's accepted by the WP community an a standard to follow. If you want to discuss about the policy, you must do it at the policy talk page. JRSP (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does in fact accept accept "premasticated opinion from newsmedia". If you do not like that policy either lobby to change the policy or edit another wiki that does something different. The Four Deuces (talk)

I noted that JRSP is an EX-Venezuelan and that both of you might not be as nuetral as should be. Only in regards to this particular subject mind you. I would be delighted if JSRP would provide an email and offcourse, both of you are invited to visit Venezuela to find out for yourself. However, that would be original research and original research is not allowed in[REDACTED] (Laissez Fair speach not allowable, a fine policy indeed). It is known by both national and international residents that information from sources - counter to the media that is counter -to ´El Presidente´ of ´El Regime´ should be met with distrust. Perhaps one or both of you are located in Miami, Florida, well known for harashment tactics of any viewpoint or individual that might have a positive aspect or tint in regards to that particular Venezuelan citizen. No discussion, just the facts.

PS: I do not have a habit of lobbying in either the house or the senate so that would be out of the question. However, I thank you for your recommendation and do believe that[REDACTED] will give lobbying it´s due consideration for next years donations. Is ´Four Deuces´ a sublimal poker innuendo regarding 4 zeros in regard to this topic? Just asking.(Fractalhints (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Actually deuces is a term for twos, not zeros. The Joker is the zero. Four twos is a pretty good hand. Mind you four jokers is better because then you have five of a kind that beats a royal flush. The problem with this article is that no one ever provides high quality reliable sources just the Chavez story of the week. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"the ... story of the week" - yes, that's the problem with most articles about subjects and people of current political significance: WP:Recentism. Rd232 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature

What local consensus? Connormah (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a talk page discussion in the archives, but I recall that some time in 2009 there was an edit war about including the signature, driven by one editor who wanted it, with a few others considering it had no encyclopedic value. The end result was that it was not included. Rd232 10:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not being a biography specialist, I find it hard to understand why it is so important. There are holes in most Venezuelan articles. I would rather fill those omissions than concern ourselves with signatures just now. But maybe that is naive. Student7 (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no reason to include it, we should exclude it. Otherwise we swamp the stuff which we do understand why it's important, and do the reader no service at all. Rd232 22:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a real reason to exclude it? If not, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Stinging Swarm 05:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I just argued that the default should be to exclude content unless there's a reason for inclusion, because including unnecessary content dilutes the good stuff. You've stated the opposite view without making any argument for it. Rd232 10:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saying, it's usually standard to include the signature. Most articles do include it if it's available. I mean, I don't think it dilutes the good stuff in any way. Swarm 21:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't recall seeing it anywhere else. I'm not about to go around campaigning for it to be removed elsewhere, but I don't want it added. And since the reader has a limited amount of attention, throwing an irrelevant visual at him/her is in general a bad thing. Signature is not encyclopedic content, so it's a useless distraction. Rd232 09:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, are we talking about the same concept of "signature", here? There's a small place for the signature in the infobox. Off the top of my head: George Washington, Adolph Hitler, Henry VIII of England, Louis XIV of France, Mahatma Gandhi, Winston Churchill, Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Benito Mussolini, Abraham Lincoln. What makes you think signature isn't encyclopedic content? It's not a distraction at all. Readers aren't going to "get distracted" by something like that. Swarm 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think it is encyclopedic? The burden of proof is on the inclusion of content, not exclusion (or do you want to have explain why images of pets are not encyclopedic? or a million more like that which could all theoretically go in the infobox?). There is an RFC on removing the parameter from the infobox: Template_talk:Infobox_officeholder#Proposal_to_delete_signature_parameter. And in fact a handwritten scrawl (the signature) sticks out like a sore thumb in the page of normal type, especially when the reader is scanning (as web users do; see web usability studies as at eg www.useit.com). And a signature conveys no useful information, any more than a picture of the officeholder's pet would. In the few instances a signature is actually significant, it should be in the body, not the infobox. Rd232 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If adding a signature violates a certain policy, that's one thing. The RfC is "no consensus" at best, with a large majority of users opposing the removal of the parameter, so that shows us that there is no consensus that signatures aren't encyclopedic. The argument that it would distract from the article just doesn't make sense. Maybe it would. Maybe it wouldn't.

Regardless, including a signature does not violate any policy or go against any consensus that I know of, hence there's no reason not to include it. The claim that content would take away from the good stuff is not an argument to exclude the addition of that content. In other words, the content can be added. Note that there are many articles that have made it to Featured Article status that have included signatures.--Swarm 10:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is about removing the infobox parameter; and per WP:NOTAVOTE the nearly complete failure to address the arguments made shouldn't matter to the outcome. Regardless: make an actual argument why this particular signature should be included. (Would you include it in the body text, and if so, why?) Or start drafting arguments on why we should not include images of pets, shoe sizes, and other miscellaneous trivia in the infobox. Rd232 13:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

PS Featured Articles are like sausages - you do not want to see one getting made. Rd232 13:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look. Personally, I would rather see a signature in the article if possible. While I don't think it harms the article, it isn't necessary. I don't understand such apparent vehement opposition to its inclusion. I think it's such a small detail in the infobox, it doesn't make a difference one way or another. But this isn't even over a proposal to add the signature, this is over "What local consensus?". I can see this discussion turning into an incredibly long debate over a minor issue if we both keep pushing it, and I don't have passionate opinion regarding this as you do, so I'm just going to let it go, seeing as there's no discussion to actually add the sig. Swarm 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness?

Per WP:DUCK this guy is pretty obviously insane. I'm sure it'd be quite easy to find sources to confirm this and recent events shouldn't even make that necessary. TheGoodLocust (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't nuts, you are`. --TIAYN (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti and is friends with Sean Penn - that's pretty conclusive evidence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

To qualify somebody as "insane" in an Misplaced Pages article, you must show reliable sources explicitly supporting that, editors' inferences are original research and therefore, not allowed. These policies are particularly strict when dealing with living persons. JRSP (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he is insane, just stupid, you need reliable sources to qualify him as "nuts". --TIAYN (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, here is a source, in it Chavez's psychiatrist says he is capable of self-immolation, a couple opposition parties (too small to do it by themselves) want to get him checked out mentally, they say many members of Hugo's own party think he is mental and talks about a few other delusions. Remember, this guy is a dictator who controls the media and who a lot of people are afraid of. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In the newsweek article, the only persons claiming that Chávez is mentally ill are opposition politicians. What I read in the article is that in 2001 a group from a political party devised a procedure for applying Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution for forcing him out of office before his term end. Source does not support your claim. JRSP (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with JRSP. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

His own psychiatrist said Chavez is capable of setting himself on fire. Chavez says crazy crap all the time like how Bush/Obama are Satan and how we used an Earthquake Weapon on Haiti - this guy is obviously not right in the head. The opposition party really thinks he is crazy and say even his own party thinks so - but are too afraid to confront him. This parallels many other insane dicators like Hitler. I have no idea why you guys are defending him so strongly. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

According to this several psychiatrists have diagnosed him as having NPD - this is not surprising and would explain his inventiveness with the truth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy requires that we work with reliable sources. Your last source is not considered reliable; for further information, check this mediation case. JRSP (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My website is not a reliable source. 'Neocon' newspapers are not a reliable source. Media outlets that merely report what the insanely deranged president of Venezuela says are not reliable either. But Venezuelanalysis, financed by the Chavez regime, registered by a Venezuelan official, and run by somebody who is married to a Venezuelan official is, in JRSP and his chums' opinion, a reliable source. Great going guys, we must all thank you for showing the true meaning of chavista objectivity.--Alekboyd (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It said it can be used as long as Venezuala Analysis is also being used (and it is - many times), in order to balance the biased nature of that website. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of what you are saying is pure nonesence... an example being that Chávez is not a dictator. --TIAYN (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

lol yeah right, I guess he is just "president for life" with the occasional mock election who will imprison anyone who publically criticizes him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He has never called himself, or given himself or been given the title President for Life. This is just as stupid as calling Palin "nuts" because she saw Russia from her house. I'm seriously not going to listen to this Republican/American bias of yours. --TIAYN (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, this is getting very tedious. This is an abuse of the talk page, especially considering this is a BLP. Please stop. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please asume good faith, we could say the same to you and your position on Hugo Chavez and terrorism.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a chat room. Your first source does not support your claim, your second source is not reliable and WP:BLP applies. JRSP (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin never said she saw Russia from her house - you are repeating what a comic said who was imitating her. Chavez however did abolish term limits and that action has been referred to in several sources as a way to make him "president for life."TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The guy said the US used an earthquake weapon on Haiti. Not according to this Venezuelan blogger he didn't. Wikispan (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

lol, they have it on tape! This guy says really crazy stuff all the time like breaking out into song when giving speeches, telling people how long to shower and other weird stuff. We go with real news sources, not Venezuelan bloggers - the country is well known for being suppressed (as my sources have shown) and any media coming out of that country is inherently untrustworthy due to Chavez's influence. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

they have it on tape! Are you certain of this? The footage I saw had no connection to this story whatsoever. Wikispan (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

by the by, he doesn't, generally, break into any old song like he's having a karaoke session, he sings (or quotes) Alí Primera songs, which have an enormous cultural and political significance for the part of the population who repeatedly voted for him. Singing/quoting from them is a political statement. Rd232 11:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Early Life

Why would two schoolteachers be living in a mud hut? Clivemacd (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a dictator

not mentioning this obvious fact is one of the reasons why[REDACTED] has such a bad rap. Here are just a few, of a huge number, of sources that refer to him as such:

He controls the press, arrests political opponents, changes the laws to keep him in power in many ways, has abolished term limits so he can be "president for life," has disbanded congress on more than one occasion, and many others things. I have no idea why you guys don't think he is a dictator, but sources and actions confirm it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources even sais the people voted to abolish the term limits and for changing the laws. Some of those sources are unreliable, and i cannot see anything about arresting political opponents. GU --TIAYN (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some are unreliable? Perhaps, but certainly not all of them. I also have a source that says people voted to get rid of term limits because they were afraid of what he'd do to them if they voted "no." A construction worker said he voted yes just because he was afriad he'd lose his job. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

From the telegraph, "Cesar Perez, the governor of Tachira state, told The Sunday Telegraph that the military had already disarmed his police of most weapons bar handguns, and taken control of airports and highways.

"The political opposition is constantly persecuted here," he said. "We are turning into an authoritarian state where democratic rights are lost. Chavez has threatened me publicly with jail several times. I have one foot on the governor's office and the other in prison." "

From the Miami Herald, "In this deeply polarized country, the climate of fear could be seen in the answer of Nestor Moreno, a 58-year-old construction worker, when asked how he voted.

I voted yes because I didn't want to face reprisals for voting no, said Moreno. People lose jobs because they don't agree with the Chavez regimen.

Chavez is very authoritarian, Moreno added. He needs to be more democratic. Things have to be done his way or the highway."TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Both articles present different opinions for and against Chávez. You cannot just pick the opinions you like and present those opinions as facts. (not-signed by JSRP or something)

lol, there is no[REDACTED] policy that says we have to quote everything in an article or nothing from it! This article has serious problems and has in the RfC been shown to use biased, government-influenced sources, throughout the article - don't cry out about poor standards and "fairness" when this article appears to have been written by Chavez's own internet goons. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a policy called WP:NPOV with states that we must distinguish opinions from facts and, when presenting opinions, fairly represent all parties. JRSP (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And what makes you think I'm not? I haven't proposed any additions. If anything we should say that he has been described at a dictator by the sources and his mental competence has been questioned by his political opponents and the various psychologists in the sources - saying nothing is certainly not NPOV. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And you don't think it is relevant that most of the world thinks he is a dictator? TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And the article would be improved by mentioning the questions about his mental health and his status as a dictator. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? The Four Deuces (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For the same reason that the Hitler article mentions that he was a dictator and that he was mentally erratic (possibly due to syphillus) - it is the truth, it is verifiable and it improves the article. This isn't meant to be a whitewashed article - he has the Venezualan media to do that for him. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

These articles are supposed to be written in an intelligent way with a neutral point of view sourced to reliable sources. Extremist and fringe views of topics, especially those that are from the perspective of any one country, should not be included. Instead of using Google to find sources that confirm what you believe, you should find serious source material for the article. Why did Chavez become president? Why was he able to survive the coup attempt? Why is he unpopular in the US? Is he a reformer or just the lastest demagogue? Will his reforms help his country or are they misguided? These are the types of questions readers want answered. They are not really interested that 10 years ago a political opponent called him mentally ill or that an American DJ calls him a dictator. Ten years from now he might be America's greatest ally in South America and Fox News viewers will be fighting to remove any criticism from this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well from looking at the past disputes relating to the article, the fringe viewpoint seems to be winning and that is the viewpoint that this is some great man, when the reality of the situation is that he is developing a cult of personality like many dictators have done in the present (Kim Jong Il) and the past (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc). TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The significance and nature of Chavez' personal leadership ("cult of personality" as you put it) is something that conceivably good relevant sources exist on - preferably decent academic ones, so that they're appropriately substantive, and not some ignorant media commentator's personal opinion. "Dictator" is irretrievably opinion in the present circumstances of Venezuela. (Incidentally, do you have the faintest idea about communal councils in the Venezuelan context? You kinda should - and if you have to ask why, that speaks volumes.) Rd232 23:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

And scene, per Godwin's law. Rd232 11:14, 25 Januar 2010 (UTC)

Oh please, we are talking about a dictator and comparing one dicator with alleged mental problems to another dictator with the same allegations is comparing apples to apples. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and for posterity (and the links it contains), here is a link to last diff of the AN thread about this subject.TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

These articles require at least the standards that your community college requires for essays. When you submit your opinions, ask yourself whether it would qualify for essays that you submitted in community college. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not matter

We want to think what we write here is important and what get censored/allowed is important. It is. But only to us. Just as in America, where a left-wing press is often ignored. Try this on for size http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402379.html Note the sinking levels of Chavez support. I guess Venezuelans aren't reading this article. Or, if they are, they don't believe it. People have a way of educating themselves. Censorship may exist here but not everywhere. Venezuelans will get the truth from somewhere, if not from us. Student7 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Op-eds are not reliable sources for biographies of living persons. And the neo-conservative writer Jackson Diehl was wrong about Iraq. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to cite an op-ed - and a really bad op-ed at that - allow me to link a detailed response showing just how bad it is. (And that response doesn't even find space to note that the power cuts are largely due to drought affecting the country's hydroelectricity, not due to recession as implied.) Rd232 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wasington Post is a good op-ed, but has no place on Wiki. See WP:SOAP: Wiki article talk pages are for discussing article improvement, based on reliable sources. I suggest that Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Venezuela is the place for other discussions. This is another issue affecting Venezuelan articles (editors who don't use reliable sources, and expend time on polemics ... there are plenty of reliable sources saying the same thing as that op-ed: use them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

An editor has tagged this article for lack of neutrality but has provided no reason for placing the template. Please provide clear reasons for the tag. In the meantime, I will remove it. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

One just needs to read the talk page to see the reasons of the lack of neutrality. You were involved with removing the criticism section and now removed the tag?--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged into other articles. NPOV tags need to be clearly explained such that an attempt may be made to address the problem. Rd232 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The criticism page was merged out of existence: content disappeared from the Wiki. That this article is blatantly POV needs little justification, but one example would be to compare it to the BBC profile of Chavez, and attempt to introduce some balance to this article. Alternately, dozens of examples of the POV in this article could be provided, but I doubt that is helpful or necessary. Working towards a more balanced account like the BBC profile would be a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page disappeared, the substantive content did not: that's what "merged" means. If you want to see the deleted page to check if stuff was missed, any admin should userfy it for you temporarily on request. As for the BBC profile (which is not an encyclopedia article and not to be taken as a model): as far as I can see none of the points in it are omitted from the much longer Misplaced Pages article; it's not clear what you mean by "balance". And by the by it refers to Chavez "making a huge territorial claim on Guyana"; AFAIK that Venezuelan territorial claim goes back to at least the 60s (Betancourt?) and the claim isn't just on Guyanan territory. Rd232 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, for the neutrality tag to remain it needs to be justified properly: either by there being clearly disputed content (eg two different versions), or by clearly explaining specific issues in sufficient detail that the problem may be addressed. Without that, the tag should be removed. Rd232 18:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to see the deleted page; I was tricked into moving most of it out of this article, where it was originally, to that article, so it could disappear. I know its content very well. You can go back and find the version of this article before I collaborated in good faith by first moving out criticism, at which time, further changes to this article were shut down. I was a novice editor then; I fell for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Then you should also know that the content, insofar as it had any actual encyclopedic merit rather than being merely opinion, was moved to subject articles like Economy of Venezuela. Rd232 18:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Only some parts that hadn't already disappeared when I stopped following these articles. But that brings up another point: another reason this article is POV is that it relies on daughter articles which are all, also, POV (except the Early life and Military career daughter articles, which I think are OK, but I haven't dug into sources to check yet). And where did the crime, human rights, and other criticism go? Gone, as far as I've been able to tell so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The crime bits were, AFAIR, misleading junk. But creation of Crime in Venezuela and Judiciary of Venezuela has been recommended repeatedly recently, always falling on curiously deaf ears given the interest in those topics. It's almost like a neutral attempt to discuss those issues in a standalone article doesn't fit some contributors' motivation of Chavez-bashing! (Perish the thought.) Rd232 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality requires "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." In order to challenge the neutrality of this article, reasons must be provided explaining specifically why this standard has not been met. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Um, I don't write "misleading junk", Rd232 :) And I don't think that has fallen on deaf ears, rather all Venezuela/Chavez articles are straining under WP:BITE and WP:OWN, there's too much to do, and editors give up. Fact is, as a novice editor, I fell for it, created a POV fork, and the end result is that mainstream, well-sourced material that is critical of Chavez is now gone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Deuces, you've aready got one concrete example (the BBC profile); we can fill up the page with dozens more, but again, I doubt that would be a productive use of our time, since there are plenty of editors here who will simply remove the POV tag no matter how much evidence is given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) the content is largely not gone (merged), and any not merged that you want to retrieve you can. (b) the BBC profile is only an example if you explain exactly how it relates to your claim that an NPOV tag is required. Otherwise, it's just a link. Rd232 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) SandyGeorgia, could you tell us what is in the BBC profile that is missing from this article causing it to be POV? Unless you provide reasons for your opinion about this article, how do you expect anyone to guess what you want done? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Four Dueces, I'm sure you can read; I've typed it above several times already. There is not a single critical statement in the Wiki lead; contrast that to the BBC profile. But, we have the usual pattern here, of the familiar cast of characters owning the article and removing a POV tag, which is why few will take the time to substantiate it, knowing it will be removed no matter how much discussion or evidence is provided.

• (cur) (prev) 18:45, February 5, 2010 Rd232 (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (undo - clear reasons NOT provided, please do not re-add until provided (leaving tag in without clear reasons gives the wrong incentive to clarify sufficiently to enable fixing)) (rollback | undo)
• (cur) (prev) 18:40, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (51,423 bytes) (reasons for tag provided on talk, you might not like them, but they're there, stop removing POV tag, pls) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 18:33, February 5, 2010 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (Undid revision 342131491 by SandyGeorgia (talk) No reasons provided for tag - see talk page) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 17:45, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) (51,423 bytes) (Restore POV tag, as it most clearly is, see talk) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 00:15, February 4, 2010 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (Undid revision 341782676 by Drsmoo (talk) Please discuss on talk page) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 23:43, February 3, 2010 Drsmoo (talk | contribs) (51,423 bytes) (There are significant and persistent challenges to the even handedness of this article on the talkpage. NPOV dispute added) (undo)

The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The article lead says this:

Chávez's policies have evoked controversy in Venezuela and abroad, receiving everything from vehement criticism to enthusiastic support. During the presidency of George W. Bush the government of the United States stated at various points that Chávez was a threat to democracy in Latin America.

The beginning of the BBC article says this:

Hugo Chavez came to power in 1999, and has inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad ever since. Venezuelans are split on their president: a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic.

The WP article appears to be harsher on Chavez than the BBC profile.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting analysis, confined to one sentence of the BBC profile. At any rate, this article is owned, I have many other duties on Wiki, and little time for tendentious debates with editors who have reverted POV tags on this article for years. Perhaps other editors will take the time that is required to neutralize this article; I'm not particularly concerned, since Chavez is doing enough harm to himself anyway, and I doubt that anyone who knows anything about anything will take this article seriously anyway, since it's so clearly biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as at WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis, you think you should get your way by voicing your opinion loudly enough and frequently enough, and accusing any who disagree of all manner of bad faith. Actually producing evidence to support your arguments is too much like hard work, is it? Rd232 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/07/14/the-farc-narco-terrorism-and-hugo-chavez.html
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/01/11/chavez.farc/
3. http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/-/1068/675588/-/t2cmln/-/index.html
4. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,569223,00.html?test=latestnews
5. Carta de Hugo Chávez a Ilich Ramírez Sánchez alias «El Chacal».
6. Blanco y Negro - secundaria.
7. La familia de Carlos ``El Chacal'' espera más gestos de Chávez.
8. Nacional y Política - eluniversal.com.
9. "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez defends 'Carlos the Jackal",] BBC News, 21 November 2009
10. "Venezuela's Hugo Chavez defends 'Carlos the Jackal'". BBC News. 2009-11-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)
11. http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=1107254
12. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/americas/22venezweb.html
13. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources
14. http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/29/drawing_the_line_on_hugo_chavez
15. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2001/oct/22/globalrecession.venezuela
16. http://topics.npr.org/article/02N09y70Kpgil
17. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8372250.stm
18. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/world/americas/22venezweb.html
19. http://www.france24.com/en/node/4935740
20. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8372250.stm
21. http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/07/14/the-farc-narco-terrorism-and-hugo-chavez.html
22. http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/01/11/chavez.farc/
23. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7443080.stm

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class socialism articles
• High-importance socialism articles
• WikiProject Socialism articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Venezuela articles
• Unknown-importance Venezuela articles
• Venezuela articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class biography (military) articles
• Military biography work group articles
• B-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists