Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 24 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: 2 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.
	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: 2 months

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.

• 14:22, February 6, 2010 Rd232 (undo - produce just 1 (one) change towards what you think is NPOV which is disputed; or 1 (one) concrete example of POV, in sufficient detail that it may be addressed. That's all the tag requires!)
• 12:57, February 6, 2010 Student7 (Reverted 1 edit by Rd232; About half a dozen of us think it is pov, It is definitely on the talk page. You may not agree, but it is documented. Not allowing anything npovl is outrageous. (TW))
• 18:45, February 5, 2010 Rd232 (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))
• 18:40, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (reasons for tag provided on talk, you might not like them, but they're there, stop removing POV tag, pls)
• 18:33, February 5, 2010 The Four Deuces (Undid revision 342131491 by SandyGeorgia (talk) No reasons provided for tag - see talk page)
• 17:45, February 5, 2010 SandyGeorgia (Restore POV tag, as it most clearly is, see talk)
• 00:15, February 4, 2010 The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) (51,395 bytes) (Undid revision 341782676 by Drsmoo (talk) Please discuss on talk page)
• 23:43, February 3, 2010 Drsmoo (There are significant and persistent challenges to the even handedness of this article on the talkpage. NPOV dispute added)

The ownership and tendentious editing here make disucssion an unproductive use of one's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC) Amended to add latest reverts of POV tag, although clearly numerous editors find this article POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 6 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)

Watch your AGF there, Rd; who's done most of the article work on Venezuelan articles in the last week? I'm only one person :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've got to watch AGF? The bloody cheek! You barely miss an opportunity to accuse me of bad faith, implicitly or explicitly. (Also my statement didn't actually accuse you of bad faith.) In the amount of time/effort you've put into this thread and said nothing concrete you should easily have been able to say something substantive about what the BBC source is supposed to show. Rd232 00:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you research articles and article issues that quickly: I don't. When I work on an article, I build it as completely and correctly as possible, including researching all sources and cleaning up MoS and citations. And I don't see the point in trying to tag this article POV for the gazillionth time, knowing how fast it will be removed by the article owners. Nor do I see the utility in quoting the BBC profile back to you; you can read as well as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The utility in quoting parts of it would lie in identifying the bits you think significant! You're playing games here - this is like trying to extract information from a recalcitrant teenager. If you don't have time to explain now - fine, though giving some indication would seem at least a courtesy for the amount of time wasted on this issue so far. Come back when you feel you have time and inclination to properly explain your concerns in sufficient detail such that they may actually be understood and potentially addressed. Rd232 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for censorship

It has occurred to me that the reasoning for censorship is that Chavez plays the strutting popinjay for his Latin low class followers. A drunk might say that he is friends with Carlos, and admires Idi Amin. but hardly a sober person. His followers evidently find that amusing. This probably does not play as well to upper class Latins and plays very poorly to an Anglophone audience who got strutting popinjays out of their system so long ago that they can't remember when it was. Even Huey Long did not talk like that and certainly not Robert LaFollette. Joseph McCarthy may have come close occasionally, but he was an genuine alcoholic.

Therefore it gets censored, not because it isn't true or reportable, but because it shows him poorly to a literate (and Anglophone) audience. Student7 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

How necessary is this comment? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again: an NPOV tag is not a "bah, I don't like it" statement. It is to flag specific problems, which must be clear enough that someone can actually attempt to address them. Instead of edit warring about a tag without explaining, explain. Or better yet, try fixing, and see what happens. A dispute being sufficiently clear is a prerequisite for solving it, eg via WP:RFC or other WP:DR. Rd232 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Student7, please read WP:SOAP and WP:TALK; comments and discussion such as your post (and your post of an op-ed above, when scores of reliable sources say the same thing) do nothing to advance this article, and are offensive (not all of Chavez's "followers" are "Latin low class" and that's an offensive characterization even if it were true). Commentary on article talk pages should focus on improving article content using reliable sources, not polemics and hyperbole. There is plenty of work to be done on these articles, and I'm not interested in doing all the work myself. See Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Venezuela; there's lots of work there that needs to be done. Or you could get busy answering Rd232's query about why this article is POV, so I don't have to do everything. Or you could get busy cleaning up Economy of Venezuela, which needs a week's work just to make it readable, much less accurate and neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BBC profile of Chavez as one of many examples of this article's POV

I have presented the BBC profile of Chavez as but one of many examples of how biased this article is; it is merely a sample-- there are scores of reliable sources that are similar, and analyzing all of them would merely fill up this talk page with redundancy. Although the discrepancies between due weight of reliable sources and this article are abundant and easily apparent, the POV tag has (yet again) been edit warred away.

The current lead of this article contains not one single critical commentary of Chavez, although every mainstream reliable source one can read about Chavez contains pro, con and neutral commentary. It is unabashed and biased hagiography. All this lead says is:

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.

In other words, a whitewash under the vague term "controversy", as if the "vehement criticism" is in the same proportion as the "enthusiastic support" (ignoring the preponderance of reliable sources) and an implication that only the Bush administration has found fault with Chavez's administration (ignoring other fallouts with world leaders, e.g. "In November 2007 Mr Chavez fell out with Spain after a run-in with King Juan Carlos during the final session of Ibero-American summit in Santiago."). Focusing for now on the lead, which should (bold emphasis mine):

serve both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, ...

The current lead makes no attempt to give due weight to Chavez according to reliable sources.

Next, examining the BBC profile, we find balanced statements throughout that examine both sides, examples:

• ... inspired both adulation and loathing at home and abroad
• ... a majority say he speaks for the poor, while others say he has become increasingly autocratic (majority is no longer true, this is outdated, Chavez's popularity is at all time lows, both in Venezuela and abroad, but at least the BBC profile presents both)
• At the time, Mr Chavez said the proposed changes would return power to the people, but critics accused him of a power grab.
• Mr Chavez's government has implemented a number of "missions" or social programmes, including education and health services for all. But chronic poverty and unemployment are still widespread, despite the country's oil wealth. (Wiki has no mention whatsoever of his failed economic policies, or rampant crime and corruption-- those issues were well documented in the Criticism article, which disappeared.)

Next, we find very notable items completely missing from our lead:

• The former army paratrooper first came to prominence as a leader of a failed coup in 1992. (In articles that spend so much time on the "coup" against Chavez, one would expect to find mention that he himself led a coup attempt, and his followers led a second attempt while he was imprisoned).
• His time in office has proved equally dramatic. (ALL reliable sources discuss the rampant crime, corruption, and assault on democratic institutions and human rights; our lead doesn't.)
• ... he is eyeing staying in office beyond the end of his current term in 2012. The referendum win means he can run for office an unlimited number of times. Mr Chavez has said he needs another 10 years for what he calls Venezuela's socialist revolution to take root. (Wiki makes no mention of his frequent "President for life" aspirations, something that has been neglected according to due weight of reliable sources.)
• Church attacked, no mention in our article.

Further problems:

This statement is completely outdated (see the op-ed posted above by Student7, which contains commentary backed by numerous reliable sources:

Many other governments sympathize with his ideology or welcome his bilateral trade and reciprocal aid agreements.

and this commentary is misleading:

In 2005 and 2006 he was named one of Time magazine's 100 most influential people.

Time magazine's reasons for maing him influential weren't exactly ... ummmm ... positive; they were related to his "deep pocket" in spreading socialism, which has now been shown to have failed, and the amount of controversy he evokes-- that is missing from our lead.

And completely missing from our lead is any mention of the deterioration in human rights, control of the judiciary, consolidation of power, and numerous other issues well documented and sourced in daughter and other articles, and which should be included and expanded in this article, along with an analysis of the failed economic policies and rampant corruption and crime. Please don't pretend not to know where to find those sources; those who have admin tools can access the old Criticism article, whose content vanished, and I've added sources to many other articles which need not be repeated here.

That's one article only: same could be done with scores of others. That's the LEAD only. This article is POV, and does not give due weight to reliable sources. Please stop edit warring away the POV tag on a clearly POV article. And will the article owners please at least fix the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the introduction to this article and the BBC article is that both provide an equally balanced view. If anything, the BBC article's beginning is more favorable to Chavez. However, if you think there could be more balance in the lead, you should write a suggested lead and place it here so we can understand what you are talking about. In the meantime you are placing a POV tag on the article without explaining what specifically can be done to make it NPOV. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course that is your reading; now, let's deal with the preponderance of reliable sources and the plain fact that I have documented this article's POV, and numerous other editors also see it. And don't misrepresent: I have explained-- that you reject and edit war away a tag is a separate issue. And I'm not investing time in working on an article that is owned, and where my work will merely "disappear" as the Criticism article did. I suggest that some actual Wiki collaboration to neutralize this article would be more helpful and stop reverting a clearly justified POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Balance? I'm sure both article and lead can be improved, but most of the concrete points made are wrong. It surely can't be seriously argued that a single minor diplomatic incident (Spain) should have equal space in the lead with US-Venezuela relations. And whilst the lead doesn't mention the 92 coup, the article has 3 paragraphs on it - double the text of Foreign Policy and Economic Policy! There is no Domestic Policy section, which is where I suppose crime/justice would fall, but without Crime in Venezuela / Judiciary of Venezuela there's no daughter articles to link to, and surely no-one's suggesting that these subjects merit only a paragraph or two in the biography of the current President? In general, how about complaining less (and seeing bad faith everywhere) and making constructive suggestions/proposals more. Stop trying to prosecute fellow editors, and take WP:AGF as more than a mere acronym to quote when it suits. Rd232 17:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I am completely certain that you do not have a reading comprehension problem, Rd232; please stop obfuscating. Our article implies that his only differences are with Bush; that is not the case (hello, Columbia and Spain and others). I am not suggesting we add the King incident to the lead; I am pointing out that our article is biased and incomplete, and the King (and Uribe) are but a few examples among many. Um, there was a daughter article on crime-- it's gone. You have admin tools; you can resurrect that content before most of it was edited away. I am not going to invest time in building correctly an article that is owned, so that content can again disappear to where only admins can see it. Show us your neutrality; do some content work yourself-- I've already done plenty in the last two weeks. Meanwhile, the absence of content that was here once and disappeared, or the absence of daughter articles, is not an excuse for this article's bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

"there was a daughter article on crime"? What was that? I'm presuming you don't mean the Criticism article. Rd232 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The top section is perfectly neutral at the present time. The lead of Tony Blair and George W. Bush contains not a single line of critical commentary despite voluminous criticism at home and abroad, plus declining approval ratings, but all three articles do make clear that these individuals have received a large amount of criticism and serious controversies are described in the main body and elsewhere. One need only use the scroll function and left mouse button to learn more. Wikispan (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which is not a valid argument). Are you suggesting Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? And Wiki is not a reliable source; neither Bush nor Blair are featured articles, and Blair has a POV tag :) I suggest instead that you view John McCain, which is a featured article and has been vetted for neutrality. Please confine your discussion to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay Other stuff exists has no bearing on whether this lead is neutral or not (which I happen to believe it is). Do I dare suggest that Bush and Blair are as controversial as Chavez? The answer is an emphatic "Yes." Chavez has not launched an unprovoked invasion resulting in the excess deaths of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, plus the displacement of millions more. Chavez is certainly a controversial figure and has made plenty of errors and stupid decisions. These criticisms are described on this article and in various daughter articles. Wikispan (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Bush and Blair were more controversial than Chavez and in fact received far more extensive international news coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Offtopic and unrelated. If you want to make an "other stuff exists" argument, see John McCain, a featured article which has been vetted for neutrality and which does include controversy in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Further examples

From my local library (albeit a year outdated, Hugo Chavez, Source: Contemporary Hispanic Biography. Vol. 1. Gale Group, 2002. Updated: 08/12/2009),

The charismatic Hugo Chávez, elected president of Venezuela in 1998, is sometimes described by political pundits as Latin America's most controversial leader after Fidel Castro. Chávez has set this mineral- and resource-rich South American nation on a course of political, economic, and social reform he describes as a "Third Way" between a socialist and a free-market economy. In 2002, Chávez faced growing national discontent as his promised economic betterments were not forthcoming. His popularity was re-affirmed by the people of Venezuela in the recall election of August 2004, wherein he took 58 percent of the vote. However, in 2007, voters rejected a set of constitutional amendments that would have given him sweeping powers.

Note, we make no mention of "economic betterments" that weren't forthcoming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

From LexisNexis:

EuroNews - English, February 18, 2009, Wednesday Hugo: Profile of a political survivor

Hugo Chavez has waited a long time for this result. After failing in a first referendum in 2007, he has finally got what he wants - the possibility of staying in office indefinitely. ... Social programmes have been developed for the underprivileged. But the country's growth and economy are dependent on its oil wealth. And, as oil prices collapse under the global economic crisis, crippling Venezuela's finances, the leftist leader faces a slowing economy. His opponents condemn rampant corruption. Alongside violence and inflation, it is a regular target of anti-Chavez anger that has so far failed to sway loyalists of this political survivor.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note, we make no mention of his power grab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Either provide an alternative lead or stop wasting our time. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an ongoing, documented dispute about this article's neutrality, and resistance to neutralizing the article. Please stop removing the clearly justified tag, and engage in neutral editing. Removing a tag when there is a long-standing dispute about this article's neutrality is disruptive and tendentious (and such issues usually end up at WP:ANI). The person placing the tag is not obligated to do the re-write. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The person placing the tag should provide reasons why the tag is justified, which you have not done. Do you think that the lead is biased because it omits to mention that the (non-democratically-elected) King of Spain told Chavez to "shut up" after he called the former Falangist José María Aznar a fascist? The Four Deuces (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that question (above), and I've clearly provided reasons and examples. Stop removing the tag, which documents that there is a POV dispute. Engage the content instead: I've given you plenty to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You must be specific. I have no idea what changes you desire. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to document that there is a POV dispute, which I have done with specificity. Please read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fourth removal of the POV tag at WP:ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I listed in edit summary additional issues, but those (and dead links and reliable source tags) were reverted by User:The Four Deuces before I even had time to discuss those issues here. And THAT is why working on article content here can't progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You should discuss these issues here first. By the way, i would be agreeable to content dispute resolution for this article, but have no idea what changes you want made. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Those issues were discussed, and have been many times; that you reverted a well documented POV tag without allowing ten minutes to further explore them is a problem. And if you still "have no idea what changes" need to be made, after all the input above, then you further have no reason to remove a POV tag, when the POV dispute is documented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-adding pov tag

I have re-added the POV tag while I review this discussion. after a brief skim it seems as though the justification for removing the tag is that critical material was moved to other articles, which sounds very much like an unpleasant form of wp:POV fork, which would be unacceptable. please leave the tags on while I go through the arguments more carefully. --Ludwigs2 20:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwigs, the fork was only one of many problems. I created that fork when I was a novice editor, as a good faith effort to reduce the size of this article so we could begin working on it. Lo and behold, after I in good faith removed criticism first-- as a novice editor not understanding the implications-- as soon as I got the bulk of criticism out, other editors prevented further changes to the article, saying it was short enough. Later, that article was deleted, and the content was not merged, and prevailing mainstream viewpoints are no longer anywhere to be found on Wiki. However, that is only *one* of the problems with this article, as I detail above. It also fails to reflect mainstream reliable sources and accord them due weight, significant portions have not been updated, and crucial events and mainstream viewpoints are simply missing (not only here, but also in daughter articles). Further, the article has a cadre of protective editors that revert all attempts and assure that no amount of discussion can result in improving or neutralizing the article. In defense of the pro-Chavez editors, others frequently use this talk page as a soapbox rather than relying on Wiki policy and reliable sources to improve the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact SandyGerorgia has provided no mainstream sources and no explanation of why this article should be considered POV. Almost none of the critical information removed from the article was reliably sourced - it was mostly from op-eds in the Murdoch press and most of it was trivial, dated or turned out to be inaccurate. The fact that Pat Robertson wanted Chavez killed was part of the "Criticism of Chavez"! In what way does that make the article neutral? A man who writes a book saying the world is controlled by the "New World Order" and that God was behind 911 and the Haiti earthquake becomes a reliable source on Hugo Chavez? The Four Deuces (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If those sorts of edits occurred on the Criticism article, it was after I was chased off of these articles; it was very well sourced when I worked on it, and your characterization of the sources is completely inaccurate. At any rate, that work is now outdated; the content should be updated and included here, as I summarized in my unbalanced edit summaries which you removed (and would you remind restoring the dead link tag, please?). Reviewing the old Criticism article might not be helpful at this point because it's outdated, yet all of the criticism remains valid and needs to be reflected with newer sources. There is no mention of reliably sourced issues like escalating crime, the economic failures, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive and Chavez's control of the judiciary, press freedom and human rights concerns, etc. The end result here has been that all content reflecting mainstream reliable sources has been removed to daughter articles, from whence it then disappears and is rewritten to radical leftist sources, to the exclusion of mainstream souces (exhibits: Human rights in Venezuela, Media in Venezuela and Media representation of Hugo Chavez, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, Economy of Venezuela, Globovision and RCTV). Crime and corruption seems to have gone missing entirely. I cleaned up Manuel Rosales from the dismal BLP vio that is was, and made a dent in Raul Baduel, but the tendentious editing and overreliance on radical left sources here needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

@ FourDeuces: You may be right; I need to look over the material. however, the POV tags do no harm to the article and serve as a notice that there is a debate over the content. they should remain in place until the issue is resolved.

@ Sandy: it would help if you could go through the article histories on the daughter articles and provide some diffs of the specific criticisms and sources you want to re-include. --Ludwigs2 21:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2, I've got to promote FAC, and that often takes six to eight hours. At any rate, I'm not an admin, so can't access the deleted article, and I don't think going through edit histories will be helpful, because none of that content has been maintained or updated by the prevailing editors here. Better will be for me to list new sources as soon as I have time; the BBC profile above was only the first example of things that aren't even mentioned, or are glossed over, in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia states that there are valid sources for re-adding criticism. My view is that they should provide them. Rather than presenting their own view of Chavez, it would be more constructive to provide views from reliable sources. Whether or not the BBC profile is a good article, we should really use articles from academic journals. The peer-review process will help us in determining the weight to be given to various praise and criticism. My fear is that this article will begin to appear like a story from Glenn Beck's website. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Ludwigs2. Just to give you something to start on while I'm busy, if you go all the way back to Aug 2006, you can see some of the criticism that used to be in the (very poorly written even then) article, which had just lost featured status. The economic, crime, corruption, consolidation of power issues remain valid, and can be cited to updated reliable sources. Back to June 2006, more content, and May 2006. Admittedly, the article was as poorly written and cited then as it is now, but the substance of the missing content on crime, corruption, consolidation of power in the executive, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy debacles, economic issues, etc. remains valid, and can be sourced and updated. And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic, and that while editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis, they reject maintream reliable sources as "US" or "corporate" bias. Peer review, as suggested by The4D, is unlikely to be helpful; like all other Wiki processes, it is backlogged, sustained by a few core editors, and there are very few editors on Wiki who know Venezuela, its politics, and history and also speak Spanish and are willing to engage a controversial POV article. I was chased off of these articles years ago by the ownership and tendentious editing (it always amounts to three-against-one), as have most other editors who have tried to engage; the article is at last shorter, but all balance is gone. Further, because of its length, this article attempts to use summary style, but relies on poorly maintained and biased daughter articles, and doesn't summarize their content even at that (which has meant that in order to work on this article, I've needed to take boatloads of time to analyze the bias in the daughter articles first). This is not a chore that can be done by one editor, or quickly. IMO, the POV tag should remain until these editors engage in collaborative editing and writing a neutral article, reflecting mainstream sources, even if that means addressing the bias in the daughter articles or re-adding and updating content here. Reverting anything not pro-Chavez has been the preferred editing method here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Tangent: just thought I'd post this depressing upcoming Signpost article, to confirm the problems at Peer review, where three editors are doing all the work: Misplaced Pages:FCDW/Reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Google Scholar gives 15,100 hits for "Hugo Chavez". Questia has 106 books and 131 journal articles. So much for "And I'm sure The Four Deuces knows there is a paucity of academic journal info on the topic". The claim that "editors here embrace extreme leftist and state-controlled sources like Venezuelanalysis.com" is unfounded, unless Sandy is referring to the BBC. Just look at the footnotes in the article. Instead of making sweeping generalizations, it would be helpful to provide specific examples. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; now get those journal articles and stop relying on the biased Venezuelanalysis in all these articles. Several of the daughter articles rely heavily on them. At any rate, the problems remain; critical content is absent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't find anything recent in your Questia search, and Chavez is now far more controversial than he was, say, five years ago, and there is far more evidence of his failed policies. Do you know how to sort the Questia results by date? 2001, 2004 and before publications aren't going to be entirely relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And your google scholar search wasn't well delimited (maybe you need to add a Venezuela keyword), so that number is invalid. The first return is a dental article written by an H Chavez, "Assessment of oral implant mobility", and the second return is Exhibit I in my case, the Shifter article in Foreign Affairs that used to be cited but is no longer as far as I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) These are the two statements in the article that are sourced to Venezuelanalysis.com:

"Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." — Hugo Chávez, at a May 2009 socialist transformation workshop

After the coup, local cable channels, including RCTV, were also obliged to carry government programming, including Chavez's marathon speeches, which can last up to seven hours. RCTV could broadcast via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010 (also sourced to the New York Times.

In no sense can this be seen as "biased". The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please read what I write :) This article attempts to use Summary Style (but doesn't even do that), and several of the daughter articles that it relies on, and where issues have disappeared, are heavily sourced to Venezuelanalysis. And we still find an absence of Foreign Policy and Foreign Affairs scholarly sources here, for starters. Do you know how to sort the Questia data by date, so we can identify relevant, recent articles? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Although not all of the hits refer to President Hugo Chavez, the first ten hits include the following:

• 2. the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks to Marta Harnecker
• 3. In Search of Hugo Chávez
• 4. Hugo Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution
• 5. From bullets to ballots: The emergence of popular support for Hugo Chávez
• 6. Economic policy and the rise of Hugo Chavez
• 7. Empty Revolution-The Unfulfilled Promises of Hugo Chavez
• 9. Names and faces in the newspsu.edu
• 10. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez: Savior or Threat to Democracy

It may well be that many of the 15,100 hits do not provide relevant sources, but it does show that there are numerous sources available contrary to your statement about a "paucity of sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am reading what you write but you speak in vague generalities and all your claims have proved to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Um, no they haven't. One of my first complaints is the removal of Shifter, which you identify (In Search of Hugo Chavez, #3). #2 is self. Do you have dates on the others? And do you know how to sort the Questia data so we can determine if any of those articles are still relevant? Otherwise, those hits could turn out to be useful in writing a neutral article, including the missing issues, and reducing the overreliance in daughter articles on Venezuelanalysis, then summarizing neutral content back to here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Although Michael Shifter's article in Foreign Affairs is of much higher value than the various editorials from the the Washington Times and Fox News, the magazine is not peer-reviewed and is devoted to American foreign policy. Do you know if Shifter has published anything about Chavez in academic publications? Here is a link to his article. You can do advanced searches to get more helpful results on Google scholar. Certainly among all of them there must be something that can be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You pulled him up on Google scholar, and as I expected, you object because of the alleged "US bias". So what good is it going to do for me to put up sources here, when you reject anything on that basis, and yet we have daughter articles relying on a biased website, connected to Chavez, no journalist credentials, and no peer review whatsoever? The point is the same; whichever sources are provided are rejected, but content is still missing. (My area of editing is medical articles; I know how to evaluate academic and journal sources, and I also know cherrypicking.) Thanks for the link: I have his article, and many others, long buried in a file drawer when I gave up on these articles. I'm finished reading FAC, and will dig into this tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

fourdeuces - reliable sources do not need to be academic or scholarly sources. Journalistic sources with a good track record are perfectly acceptable, and sometimes preferred, depending on the topic. --Ludwigs2 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, and in this case (because events are still evolving) we don't have a lot of good scholarly sources, we have editors who object to some of them as "US biased", we have editors making unsubstantiated claims about so-and-so being a top-notch scholar when he's publishing under a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial, and at any rate, we should be considering a preponderance of reliable sources per WP:UNDUE and whether we have covered the issues, from whatever sources are most reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." But of course we do not need Shifter's article for facts because they can be reliably sourced anyway. And I would object to opinions expressed in the article being presented as fact. What do we balance these opinions with? Far better to use an academic source that explains the various opinions and the degree of their acceptance, and whose facts can be directly reported. Back to the major issue, however, what is there in Shifter's article that is required to make this article NPOV? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, the straw man; no one is proposing to use an op-ed to source anything. Second, you will reject Shifter out-of-hand because you'll claim "US foreign policy bias", which forces us back to journalistic accounts. You want academic sources; there are few, yet you reject google scholar sources and US-based newspapers. This is why editors give up here; circles, chasing our tails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, your comment "a regime that throw opponents in jail without a trial" doesn't sound like the more adecuate expression for an editor asking for neutrality. JRSP (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that I could have phrased it better for the benefit of those who don't know Venezuelan law and the problems with the judiciary (since these articles don't discuss them, that text is all gone, and articles discussing the judiciary in Venezuela haven't been written :) See the numerous human rights reports, well sourced on other articles (and expand my thought to include exile or being charged with a crime for political persecution). And for those not in the know here, unlike in the US, you can stay in jail in Venezuela (for a very long time) while you wait to be exonerated in a trial, if that occurs, since the judiciary is controlled and judges who let you out of jail are tried. See Trial of Eligio Cedeno, Arrest of Maria Lourdes Afiuni, Manuel Rosales, Leopoldo Lopez, Antonio Ledezma, Henrique Capriles Radonski, Raul Baduel, Enrique Mendoza and scores more that I've surely missed or whose articles aren't yet written. But yes, I should have phrased it more politely, as well-educated Venezuelans are wont to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the articles in Questia appear to come from Latin American Politics and Society, which is published by the "Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami". Does anyone object to using articles from this journal? (Incidentally the US also holds people in prison without trial (see: Guantanamo Bay detention camp ). The Four Deuces (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

For the fifth or sixth time, I'll ask you for dates. Much of the thinking, writing and awareness of Chavez and Venezuela has changed since about 2007, and for that reason, journalistic accounts are sometimes the best we can do. Yes, if you pull up old journal reports that don't reflect current reality and the preponderance of current sources, reasonable editors would object. Ten years ago, plenty of people hoped Chavez's socialism would work; now the results are in. And we still have missing content, regardless of sources used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, should I understand that the article has been tagged as not NPOV because it does not say that Chávez leads a regime that throws opponents in jail, controls the judiciary and his socialism is not working because the results are in? JRSP (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try again, JRSP :) That is the kind of logic, tail chasing and obfuscation that has resulted in article ownership here, and I'm not biting. The bottom line is that I'm going to expend an entire day providing sources that you all are going to reject, no matter how reliable they are, at the same time this article depends on daughter articles sourced to a partisan website that is funded by Chavez. Again, I think until/unless y'all decide to collaborate, the article should remain tagged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not biting you either, everyone has their bias but if we want to have a productive discussion on neutrality, personal bias must be kept on check. JRSP (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And I have acknowledged that my original post was poorly phrased and not very helpful. Chapter closed I hope (except that uninvolved editors might not know the laws and judiciary in Venezuela, so it did need to be explained, and the comparison with Guantanamo is ... well, all discussions end up at Hitler, right ?). Long day here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

More sources

(out) Here are some recent journal articles available on Questia:

• "The Missionary Politics of Hugo Chávez" Journal article by José Pedro Zúquete; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 50, 2008. (Chavez leadership style)
• "Iran & Venezuela: the "axis of Annoyance"" Journal article by Kavon "hak" Hakimzadeh; Military Review, Vol. 89, 2009. (Relationship between Iran and Venezuela)
• "Barrio Women and Popular Politics in Chávez's Venezuela" Journal article by Sujatha Fernandes; Latin American Politics and Society, Vol. 49, 2007. (Role of poor women in the new Venezuela)

I am sure that more articles can be found by going to a library. Speaking of Hitler, Shifter's article compares Chavez to Juan Peron, which is fine if you are trying to explain Chavez to a US foreign policy audience, but is an oversimplification.

The Four Deuces (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info; I'm very tired and will digest and prepare more tomorrow. (Curiously, the reason I first chose the BBC to show content that was missing was because I know you all consider US sources biased.) I don't think we'll be using Shifter to compare Chavez to Peron (I've also lived in Argentina :) I will be preparing in sandbox sources that cite specifically the issues I've raised that are missing here (crime, economic deterioration, corruption, consolidation of power, control of the judiciary, human rights, foreign policy). I'll review the old text that was removed and whatever sources were there before, although I suspect that's going to be a waste of my time, as newer sources are available. At first glance, the journal articles you've posted look good, but they also seem to be confined to very narrow topics, so we might not find them ultimately very useful for an overview article, although they could help build daughter articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PS, I've also queried User:Jbmurray ("I am an assistant professor in Latin American Studies at the University of British Columbia. Previously, I worked in the UK (where I am from), and I have a Ph.D from Duke University.") here (I know his work from multiple featured articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is very similar to the one above on Hugo Chavez and terrorism and Carlos the Jackal. Facts are shown, valid sources are cited, compliance with wikipedia policies is proved and what we get is a vehement opposition to adding the content by the same people that are doing the pro-chavez comments on this same post. I dont see why this quote made it to the main page "Every factory must be a school to educate, like Che Guevara said, to produce not only briquettes, steel, and aluminum, but also, above all, the new man and woman, the new society, the socialist society." and this other quote by Hugo Chavez pertaining his opinion on FARC can not make it:"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."--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason to include the FARC comment is to paint Chavez as a terrorist, which is how neoconservatives see the world: you are either pro-American or pro-terrorist. It is much better to get reliable sources that explain the relationship between the Venezuelan government and FARC which is probably more nuanced. Can you refer us to any good studies on this subject? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

wow - that's a bit extreme, isn't it? if Chavez overtly supports FARC and ELN, then the article should note that he overtly supports FARC and ELN - if that is a direct quote from Chavez present in a reliable source, there aren't many grounds for excluding it. Please don't judge edits on the intentions of the editors; judge edits on their quality and pertinence to the subject at hand. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what goes on here. Three editors gang up against one to keep out any mention of FARC (and anything unfavorable to Chavez), although numerous mainstream reliable sources mention the fallout between Colombia and Venezuela (long sister republics) as a significant part of Chavez's foreign policy failures. Every one knows it, but the burden is on me to gather sources that anyone can find, and then those sources are rejected as "US foreign policy bias". Ludwigs, I appreciate your waiting due to my busy-ness elsewhere on FAC, but I haven't yet been able to work on gathering sources today. I could slop a few up here, but I'd rather do it right. Do we have enough here to leave the POV tag in place 'til tomorrow, when I can do more work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Information should be presented in a neutral point of view. Consider what is written in the FARC article:

Other governments, including the Venezuelan government, are less hostile towards the FARC-EP. Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez publicly rejected their classification as "terrorists" in January 2008, considering them to be "real armies", and called on the Colombian and other governments to recognize the guerrillas as a “belligerent force”, arguing that this would then oblige them to renounce kidnappings and terror acts, and respect the Geneva Conventions.

You may believe that stating in the article that Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism is neutral, but it seems one-sided to me. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about the FARC article; we're talking about this article and Chavez' foreign policy, of which his falling out with Colombia (among others) over FARC and related issues is quite notable and worthy of exploration. Who has proposed adding "Chavez is an insane dictator who supports terrorism"? Stay on topic, without the strawmen, please. We have no discussion of his foreign policy alliances and failings. I realize this article is frequently hit with wacky unsourced IP edits from both sides, so that you all are accustomed to simply reverting, but I notice a predilection for quickly reverting only one side, and a failure to take into account that many additions could be sourced if editors here weren't so busy reverting away anything not pro-Chavez. In other words, biting IPs and owning the article, which chases off potential contributors rather than teaching them correct sourcing to issues that are clearly noteworthy and sourcable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) 4D: Unlike you, I do not believe that Chavez' rejection of the 'terrorist' label implies that he is "an insane dictator who supports terrorism." As the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter, and Chavez is perfectly entitled to assert that he believes FARC to be a proper military force. where are you getting this 'insane dictator' thing, anyway? that's nowhere in the source you've quoted.

wp:NPOV relies on a balance of perspectives; by trying to exclude perspectives that you think make Chavez look bad (rather than trying to include and balance them in the article), you may be the one violating the principles of NPOV. do you see what I mean? --Ludwigs2 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Template:Chatterbox

I do not know why Sandy says "both sides". The only side I see is trying to make the article sound like something one would find on a neoconservative website. Between total belief in that view and what Chavez says is a whole range of viewpoints. We don't make the article fair and balanced by quoting "both sides" but by presenting the opinions of reasonable unbiased sources. The "insane dictator" comes from the original reasons for this discussion above: Anyone object to mentioning his mental illness? and He is a dictator. Incidentally it is not that I wish to exclude the neoconservative perspective, just that I believe it should give greater weight to mainstream views. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

please read wp:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view, which explicitly contradicts what you'e said here. --Ludwigs2 23:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It says: "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." It does not say that we should give undue emphasis to fringe views. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, though, all of the daughter articles, upon which this article relies for summary style do exactly that-- give undue weight to the fringe, Chavez-funded, operated out of non-journalists homes, known to be pro-Chavez, website Venezuelanalysis.com. And, all content critical of Chavez was deleted, with the claim that it was poorly sourced, now documented untrue. I'm glad you understand our articles shouldn't overrely on a partisan, biased website that is associated with Chavez, because there is much cleanup to be done here. This article also fails to reflect mainstream sources or to contain any critical commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what other people think. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am less than a third of the way through the work of building a comprehensive list of sources; User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources is a work in progress, but it is unlikely I will be able to do more for at least a week. So far, I've only reconstructed the older deleted content, some of it outdated but all criticism still relevant today, and much worse; shown that The Four Deuces claim about poor sourcing in the deleted article was patently false; noted that Corruption in Venezuela did not see a full merge of content and went orphaned; and have only had time so far to search The Economist for sources. I still need to add many more mainstream reliable sources like the New York Times, BBC, LA Times, Foreign Policy, Foreign Affairs, and others. At any rate, the work I've done so far exhibits the extent to which all of these articles have been cleansed to a pro-Chavez hagiography with opposing viewpoints disappearing, and the number of reliable sources that have been ignored. I believe there is enough to justify the POV tag until I'm able to continue work here (or until editors here begin to work towards NPOV); I hope to find some progress the next time I look in here. Not only is the POV in this article-- it's in almost every single Venezuela article I've looked at-- and since this article relies on summary style, the cleanup of this and daughter will be difficult and time-consuming. I am dismayed that so much POV can overtake Wiki when one editor turns away for a few years and articles become owned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The essay on your user page explains American conservative and State Department explanations of various problems in Venezuela but does not provide explanations from independent sources or the Venezuelan government. Note that even though your opinion of Chavez may be the correct one, neurality requires us to present all significant views. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unhelpful, Four Deuces. It's not an essay, my "opinions" are expressed nowhere; it's merely the beginning of a collection of mainstream reliable sources, and very well sourced text that was summarily excised from all Venezuelan articles, as examples of missing content needed to present "all significant views". This article will be POV until some balance is presented. Doesn't mean all the old content needs to be resurrected, but those points do need to be addressed here and in daughter articles. Working collaboratively will lower talk page volume and speed up progress. Unhelpful commentary about "essays" doesn't advance anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that there is a difference between facts and analysis. While the facts in your collection are reliably sourced, the analysis presents a single point of view (even if it may be the correct one). The Four Deuces (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still missing the point; read the disclaimer I put at the top of it. It's only intended to show the relibly sourced issues missing in our coverage of Chavez. Of course balance is needed (and I'm only about a third finished in gathering sources). Now, we have no balance in any Wiki Chavez-related articles; we have an article that is exclusively favorable to Chavez with no critical content. And we have reliably sourced content that simply ... disappeared and never got merged, and some was orphaned. All of that content may not be necessary, but some mention and summary of the issues are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, the points she mentions need to be addressed to present a more neutral view on the current content available. The current Hugo Chavez's page presents a single point of view, mainly the point of view of pro-Chavez followers who seem to want to own the content of the page and dont allow for a constructive dialogue on how to incorporate these issues to the article.--Specialcontributor75 (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this article neutral?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Biographies Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

There is a dispute about whether or not this article which is a biography of a living person is neutral. Comments would be appreciated. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• This article is POV and one-sided, as are all the daughter articles it relies upon. See my work in progress at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, which so far is only an analysis of previously deleted text that was very well sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Wow, thats a big project you got going on there Sandy, articles about people like chavez are always like this, messy opinionated pov-ish really, the best thing to do is just to start at the top and work through it section by section, rewrite bits and take bits out, it is a bit long in my opinion, I tried to read it all and had to stop half way, I don't mind being the piggy in the middle. Thats what I would do, remove all the rubbish and weakly cited stuff and give the rest a small npov rewrite and then look at it again to see what is missing and can be added. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with that, but FourDeuces is being a bit of a mule about changes. I'd start doing revisions myself but (frankly) Latin American politics bores me silly, and I'm resisting wading into it. If someone else wants to start, I'll help out with the balancing in what minor ways I can stomach. --Ludwigs2 07:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  It is a bit boring, this RFC is already days old? Off2riorob (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

  There has been more than one "mule about changes"; the article has been owned and protected by three or four editors for several years, and no changes have been possible. Hence, I started a page where I will compile a complete list of sources, since they are also needed across all daughter articles. I'll continue work on that once I return home, but in the past, editing this article for neutrality hasn't been possible because of WP:BITE and WP:OWN. (Glad to see the mysteriously disappearing POV tags are back.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is unfair. I set up the RfC in order to attract wider interest, hardly what a biter or owner would do. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, um, you set up the RFC at a time you knew and we were discussing that I was working to gather sources that will be needed to neutralize all of the Chavez articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lead is not neutral. It addresses all kinds of things about his political positions that should be in their own section. WP:lead addresses this. I think the lead of the article should have just a couple sentences and all of that other stuff should be in it's own section. That would be the best way to avoid a conflict.Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally, the lead doesn't conform with WP:LEAD at all, but it's kind of hard to write a neutral lead summarizing a biased, POV, incomplete article, which is why it's usually best to leave the lead for last. The lead is merely a whitewash, while the article is glaringly incomplete and biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not explained why you think the lead and the article are biased. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think -- all the more so since US criticism was removed from the lead a few days ago -- the article does not do an adequate job of representing the international reception of Chavez. The United States are mentioned several times in the article, but always from Chavez' perspective. The widespread claim that Chavez is a dictator is not covered. Regardless of the truth of these allegations, they are notable and need to be presented. --JN466 16:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you looking for more? I did that probably too lightly, it was a kind of shallow edit, sorry about it, my intention was simply to remove anything anyone disputed, as I said a bit of a simple solution that would likely create more issues than it resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. It is just given the size and spread of this particular controversy we have to say something about it. --JN466 16:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I am not going to edit this article as there are multiple editors more informed and more skilled in the work it needs than me, best of luck. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

At the time the Criticism article was deleted there was talk of doing something around Public image of Hugo Chavez, a slightly broader topic than Media representation of Hugo Chavez (rename, perhaps). Anyway my point is that there should be more distinction between how different people see him and specific events (like RCTV license issue) which are used as evidence on and off-wiki to justify particular views. Rd232 17:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We could add a "Reception" section after the biography proper. --JN466 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reception" sounds to me suitable for events, rather than people. We already have a "Chávez and the media" section which is perhaps disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article; perhaps this can be reworked into a "Public image" section more clearly focussed on that. My concern would be the potential for WP:COATRACKery - X once said this; Y once said that, Z once said the other. It needs to be much higher-level summary than that in order to be properly encyclopedic. Quoting is often used on Misplaced Pages as a substitute for the hard work of appropriately summarising appropriately-focussed sources; over-use of media sources encourages that, since they're (almost always) intrinsically focussed on the immediate present of the day. (There ought to be an essay on this issue; perhaps there is.) Rd232 08:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate all y'all have tried to do here, but trying to fix a lead when the rest of the article is out of whack is very difficult. Working top down is hard, and it's usually better to do the lead last when it can be a proper summary per WP:LEAD, but fixing the lead temporarily is important because it's often the only thing readers read. I suggest we can live with this limited lead for now; it's not balanced yet, but at least it's no longer egregiously biased. I will try to catch up on other queries here later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

For now, though, I would suggest one alteration to the lead: moving the Time magazine mention to the body of the article. That information is now outdated (Chavez no longer enjoys broad support even in Latin America), and the reasons he was named aren't exactly "positive" for Chavez; we may be leaving an incorrect impression, that could be better explored in the body of the article (or a Reception section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave it for now. It may be a few years old, but it is quite significant in terms of showing "world status" at the time - being one of the "100 most influential people." I don't think it necessarily leaves a wrong impression, "influential" is not saying the influence is positive or negative. A broader rewrite might eventually find it unnecessary with the addition of other content elaborating the point, but I'd leave it for now. It's a sort of short-hand for a point that needs making. Previous Venezuelan presidents have not been noted for being well-known. Rd232 08:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the context for the Time bit again; it's a little bit suggestive with its placement after talking about the Missions. What did Time actually cite him as influential for? The missions may have featured, possibly, but I bet it was more about oil/international politics. It would be better placed after a sentence about that, eg revitalising OPEC. Rd232 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Time's rationale is here: . Chavez' oil-based influence in the region, his unusually high geopolitical profile for a South American leader, his anti-US stance, his flamboyance and the potential that he might turn into another Fidel Castro seem to have been the main points. --JN466 10:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that should be made clear, either explicitly ("Time named him because"), or implicitly by placing it after text talking about those things. Rd232 11:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We could say something like, His political influence in South America, his adversarial relationship with the United States and Venezuela's oil wealth have given him a comparatively high geopolitical profile, leading Time magazine to include him among their list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005 and 2006. By the way, this is the article that accompanied the 2006 inclusion. --JN466 14:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that "Venezuela's oil wealth" hasn't changed under Chavez. What's changed is Venezuela's role in strengthening OPEC, and its internal and external use of oil revenues. But... it's a start. Rd232 14:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. We could try it like this: His political influence in South America – partly due to his use of Venezuela's oil wealth – and his adversarial relationship with the United States have given him a comparatively high geopolitical profile, leading Time magazine to include him among their list of the world's 100 most influential people in 2005 and 2006. --JN466 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Rd232 20:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Much better ... I'll catch up on rest later. (PS, aside, and doesn't affect this text, but Venezuela's oil wealth has changed dramatically under Chavez, and their production potential was substantially damaged when he fired so many executives from what was formerly considered as the best state-run oil company in the world ... I used to work in the US petroleum industry ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yay!  Done --JN466 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where this RfC stands but it's my view that this article is highly biased and the NPOV tag is justified. I won't repeat all the issues, but the lead reads like a hagiography, even after recent changes. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• New:
  • For a partial listing of items presented incompletely here, see User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, in particular, User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources#.22Coup.22.2C general strike.2C recall referendum.2C Sumate, but also incomplete representations here on human rights, crime, corruption, economy, foreign policy, and many others. (JN, if you e-mail me, I will return to you more complete snips of the "Coup" article, but I have to avoid copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Affairs sources

I still haven't had time to catch up, but these sources just came through my inbox:

• Hugo Chávez: The Definitive Biography of Venezuela's Controversial President; Venezuela: Hugo Chávez's Revolution; Hugo Chávez: A Test for Foreign Policy
• The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela
• (We also need to add the Shifter article and the Rodriguez article from Foreign Affairs.)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Several books have been written about Chavez, but none of them appear to have the neutrality that sources should have. I would rather rely on academic journal articles. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Of which there are precious few, many outdated now, many written from the left. There is no valid reason to exclude Foreign Affairs and other mainstream reliable non-partisan sources from this article, when most of what is in print about Chavez is more recent than either books or journal articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism

I am wondering this article has no mention of Chavez's alleged antisemitism. There are plenty of references avaliable. Is it possible to start a subsection titled "Allegations of antisemitism" in the Political philosophy or Presidency (1999–present) section? I am not sure if this will violate BLP policies, this is why asking for other editors' opinion. We have this kind of information in other BLPs, for example see the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it has a section titled Allegations of Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. --Defender of torch (talk) 08:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have.

1. Michael Rowan and Douglas E. Schoen, Hugo Chavez And Anti-Semitism, Forbes.com
2. Revolutionary Anti-Semitism Wall Street Journal
3. Abraham H. Foxman, Chávez's Anti-Semitism, The Washington Post
4. The Chavez Regime: Fostering Anti-Semitism and Supporting Radical Islam Anti-Defamation League
5. FABIOLA SANCHEZ, Venezuela's Jews Fear More Attacks As Chavez' Anti-Israel Campaign Intensifies The Huffington Post
6. Ed Lasky, Democrats and the anti-Semitism of Hugo Chavez The American Thinker
7. Claudio Lomnitz and Rafael Sánchez, United By Hate: The uses of anti-Semitism in Chávez’s Venezuela Boston Review
8. DANIEL S. MARIASCHIN, A plague of anti-Semitism The Miami Herald
9. Sara Miller Llana, Latin American Jews contend with spike in anti-Semitism The Christian Science Monitor
10. Patrick Goodenough, Jewish Groups Say Hugo Chavez Is Creating A Climate for Attacks CNSNews.com
11. Irving Louis Horowitz, Cuba, Castro and Anti-Semitism, Current Psychology, "Israel is viewed as a nation without proper authority and one whose very right to exist is in grave question. It also accords with the strong adaptation of anti-Semitism as the official policy of Hugo Chavez and the oil-producing giant, Venezuela."
12. Anti-Semitism on Rise in Venezuela; Chavez Government "Fosters Hate" Toward Jews and Israel Anti-Defamation League

More references can be found if a little more time is invested. --Defender of torch (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is simplistic to speak of "Chavez' anti-semitism". From the Huffington Post article above: "Chavez has personally taken care not to criticize Israelis or Jews while accusing Israel's government of genocide against the Palestinians. He vehemently denies inciting religious intolerance, let alone violence. But Venezuela's Jewish leaders, the Organization of American States and the U.S. State Department say Chavez's harsh criticism has inspired a growing list of hate crimes, including a Jan. 30 invasion of Caracas' largest synagogue." You don't have to be an anti-Semite to criticise the policies of Israel's government.

Having said that, his stance on Israel and his links to Iran deserve mention. --JN466 10:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying to describe Chavez as an antisemite, I am saying to mention that some people accuse Chavez of antisemitism. --Defender of torch (talk) 10:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be opinion pieces, which generally would not be considered reliable sources for facts. When opinions are reported in WP articles they must be clearly mentioned as the opinions of the authors in the text. Whether they should be included depends on the notablity of the writers. The best sources are articles in peer-reviewed journals. If the claims are valid then there should be peer-reviewed articles about it. The Ahmadinejad article is different - there is no doubt he held the International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust which obviously received widespread comment. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you be all right with a wording that follows the model of the Huffington Post article, as quoted in my earlier reply above, to address this in the article? --JN466 10:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not when it is a reliable source? --Defender of torch (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces published in notable mainstream publications are notable enough to warrant inclusion, of course with proper attribution. There is a very significant person and expert on antisemitism who labels Chavez as antisemitic; he is Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ref 3). His view, which is published in a third party reliable mainstream source, definitely merits inclusion. There is a peer-reviewed journal article by academic (a sociologist) Irving Louis Horowitz, which says anti-Semitism is the official policy of Hugo Chavez (ref 11). I think there are enough reliable sources to include a paragraph titled "Allegations of antisemitism". --Defender of torch (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How about writing a paragraph on his stance towards Islam and Israel? Tthe sources above consider these related to each other. --JN466 11:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Please let's review Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government#Iran and Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government#Israel. This material would be best placed in the foreign policy section of this article, which is supposed to be a summary of Foreign_policy_of_the_Hugo_Chávez_government. --JN466 11:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The opinions of the ADL are notable, but Current Psychology is not peer-reviewed. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Current Psychology is a peer-reviewed journal. --Defender of torch (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It used to be peer-reviewed. Note that your list still says it is published by Transaction Publishers but it is now owned by Springer. If you review their website it is clear that articles are not peer-reviewed. (In fact, it is obvious from reading the article that it was not peer-reviewed.) The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong, it is a peer-reviewed journal. "Founded and originally published by Transaction Periodicals Consortium at Rutgers -- The State University. Now published by Springer and in its twenty-eighth year. Quarterly, international and peer-reviewed." --Defender of torch (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A latest reference to confirm it is peer-reviewed. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) I am aware of Transaction Publishers which is no longer associated with Rutgers and many of its publications have abandoned their peer-reviewed status. Please read the WP article about peer-review and compare it with Current Psychology's website (note there is no claim that it is peer-reviewed):

Current Psychology is an international forum for rapid dissemination of information at the cutting edge of psychology.

Manuscripts, in English, should be submitted to the Executive Editor by e-mail attachment:Dr. Jeffrey A. SchalerDepartment of Justice, Law and Society School of Public AffairsAmerican University4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20016-8043 U.S.A.e-mail: schaler@american.eduManuscripts should be checked for content and style (correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar; accuracy and consistency in the citation of figures, tables, and references; stylistic uniformity of entries in the References section; etc.), as the typesetter is instructed to follow (accepted) manuscripts as presented.

Notice that the Horowitz article has no footnotes, makes no reference to any other studies and provides the "Cuba press and broadcasts" as the only source. The WP article describes the peer-review process:

In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article. These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

Essentially the article is an opinion piece by a highly controversial writer. It is interesting that the editor of the journal holds highly controversal views on psychology (same as Scientologists). The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you have resorted to your personal opinion when you don't like a source. None of you claim provide reliable source. I have provided a RS which says it is peer-reviewed. When reliable sources are saying it is peer-reviewed, then who are you to dismiss it? Anyway, I think the best place to discuss it is RSN. --Defender of torch (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If we want to start or rewrite a section, my proposal would be to begin with mainstream, middle-of-the-road, "boring" sources that stay away from either extreme – mainstream scholars and media sources like Time Magazine, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, etc. If we start with biased or opinionated sources like Golinger or Horowitz, we will spend more time on discussing sources than writing articles. Sources like Golinger and Horowitz should be the cherry on top, not the bread and butter of the article. --JN466 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I've just realised I hadn't read the above carefully enough and came away thinking of the wrong Horowitz. Nevertheless, I think the idea is sound that we should not start with the most controversial statement we could introduce, but had better start with the middle ground. --JN466 23:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They are both controversial. Perhaps we could have a section about media coverage of Chavez - there should be reliable sources for that. His international image is important. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In absolute agreement with you here. There should be a reception section, covering both the praise and criticism he has received from other statesmen and -women, and media reporting. --JN466 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would try to distinguish such things as antisemitism (inciting ethnic hatred), anti-Israel (anti-state), and Anti-Zionism (anti-religion), but all such things are commonly described as simply "antisemitic", and the amount of sources above seems to justify describing Chaves as an antisemit.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All this discussion of one issue is disconcerting, when massive work is needed on the basics of the article. Why not roll the anti-semitism charges into the more general hate-inspired and racially-charged climate Chavez's rhetoric has inspired in Venezuela, for example, with the Bolivarian circles, class issues, and crime? (Yes, there are reliable sources for that, but I'm not going to dig them up if we're going to spin our wheels on one issue ... and some of them may already be in my list at User:SandyGeorgia/Venezuela articles User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, because it used to be in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Book sources

I am currently doing a survey of available literature on Chavez using WorldCat. WorldCat contains data on how many libraries hold a given book, giving some indication of these books' standing out there in the real world. Books are listed in descending order; so books that are held by most libraries are listed nearest the top. I would suggest we focus on these books first.

Looking at the present sourcing of the article, it is noteworthy that the three most widely held books (Marcano, Kozloff and Jones at the time of writing) are currently not cited at all. --JN466 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that looking at how widely held they are is only one part of the picture; several of them are too old to be useful, and we should really be looking at newer reliable sources for some info (at least 2008 and beyond). Also, most publications on Chavez are leftist (particularly the older ones, when he was viewed as the darling of the revolution that hasn't worked). We also should be questioning why reliable mainstream scholarly sources like Foreign Affairs are not used here at all; there are many. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

For a broader answer on the general question of WorldCat, see this response from DGG, an experienced Wiki editor and a librarian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What is going on ins this article?

I can't understand what is the objetice in this article. Here in Brazil Hugo Chavez is widely perceived as a president who is building up a dictatorship and almost every day there are news about human rights violations in Venezuela in here. Not only that, Chavez's actions throughout Latin America and beyond are also source of news in here: his steadfast advocacy of authoritarian regimes such as the ones in Cuba and Iran; his threats of war against Colombia; his involviment in internal affairs in Argentina (by giving money to Christina Kirshner's campaign), Honduras (supporting former president Zelaya's illegal moves to perpetuate himself in power); financing and supporting with weapons the Farc and others. Anyone who reads this article will believe that Chavez is not only just another president around the globe but also someone who fights for the poor. It is a romantic and unreal portrait of a man who is almost a quasi-dictator. --Lecen (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The short answer is: we're working on it. The long answer is: WP:SOAP and it will take a long time and much effort to clean up this, and other Ven, articles. We need to gather reliable sources to begin a complete rewrite. I have started gathering sources at User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources, but it's far from complete. If you have high-quality reliable sources to add, that would be helpful. You can leave sources here or at the talk page of that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't agree. I think this article has an anti-Chávez bias. If "we're working on it" means the anti-Chávez bias will be even more evident, then this is truly a sad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucky to be me (talk • contribs) 22:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If this article is anti-Chavez, I fear only imagining what would be one that is "pro-Chavez". Anyway, its is not a matter of being pro or against but only telling what happened. No more no less. But as I mentioned before, there is too less in here. --Lecen (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Poverty

The edits on poverty by User:Lucky to be me are misplaced here and misleading. The controversy over the changes to the poverty data implemented by the Chavez regime is too much to be explored in an overview bio, and belongs at Economy of Venezuela. Plenty of reliable sources state that poverty has increased, but the definition of poverty by the Chavez gov't changed, and good data is not supplied to external orgs. This info cannot be explored in an overview bio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Further, this statement is uncited, unattributed, and refuted by numerous reliable sources. See User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The stats come from the UN not the Venezuelan government. However there could be other reasons for the decrease in poverty, e.g., increased oil prices, or it could be argued that decreases in poverty are undesirable. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The UN can no longer gather valid data in Venezuela; as I said, the controversy is too much to explore in an overview bio, and needs to be explored in a daughter article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you document that, or is it just your word for it? Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if this will require a lot of reading on your part, but I already have. And more.User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. If you have already done it, then fine. Someone is tagging these articles and is saying only use User:SandyGeorgia/Chavez sources. That must be you. So if you are in charge, then have at it. Mr. Unsigned Not worth it (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment