Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:When I first saw both images, I noticed that one of the differences was to show Chávez either as a civilian or as a military. Since that was his career, I think the latter is more conveniente. There might be other similar images with better quality. --] (]) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
:When I first saw both images, I noticed that one of the differences was to show Chávez either as a civilian or as a military. Since that was his career, I think the latter is more conveniente. There might be other similar images with better quality. --] (]) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
::Although Hugo Chávez was a career military man, the highest position he achieved was the position of president, which is a civilian position. There have been other long-term presidents who were formerly military (Eisenhower, Nasser, Grant, Al Sisi ...) and they appear in their infoboxes in a suit and not in uniform, so I think that what they did before should not condition the photo of the infobox.Also, the photo is too small. I consider a photo in which your face is more visible to be more appropriate. --] (]) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Revision as of 15:59, 8 May 2020
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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
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 is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America 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.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas 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.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas
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:
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
U.S.–Venezuela relations
@Flickotown: Per your edit wars here and here please explain your reasoning. How can this be "undue and not in keeping with the tone and point of the paragraph"? You are obviously wikihounding by reverting my edits across several Misplaced Pages articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
The material you included is clearly undue and therefore violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view but your ignorance makes sense given your edit-warring on this article and history of consistently including similarly one-sided, point-of-view-material on other articles. You will note that the paragraph consists wholly in outlining his ideological orientation and policy directions - this makes sense because it is just giving a general description of foreign policy positions. Not his opinion on some specific event that you discovered overnight and then arbitrarily decided was important because you have a political agenda to cram and/or because you have a desperate urgency to claw out some kind of false balance in the paragraph. I will remind you that the current foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your WP:BATTLEGROUND pov-material so the obligation really is on you and anybody else to justify why it belongs. I will also remind you that you have an established track record of edit warring with other users on a whole host of other articles for the same reason that you are edit-warring on this article (injecting highly non-neutral material), but for the sake of assuming good faith I will urge that you do not restore this undue material. There are other places where that kind of stuff can go (like a personal blog) but on here? No that just isn't going to fly. Flickotown (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Flickotown:, Chávez has been known for his anti-American rhetoric and the anti-Americanism had a prominent place in his foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq was the most controversial U.S. foreign policy decision in recent history. The intervention in Libya was also controversial. I see no reasonable argument here to remove these informative additions. I just don't like it doesn't count. I agree with RichardWeiss. My additions are sourced, relevant and the consensus is against you. Please read WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Also read WP:BATTLEGROUND, I see you are wikihounding by reverting some of my edits on multiple pages. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Chávez has been known for his anti-American rhetoric and the anti-Americanism had a prominent place in his foreign policy. That is already reflected in the paragraph. It is your right to expand on that part of the section (as I would expect given your WP:BATTLEGROUND history) but bear in mind that the section as a whole is meant to provide just a synopsis of Chavez's foreign policy not some paranoid focus on America (or any other country). So it would be best to do general descriptions and not this coatracky material of yours.
The invasion of Iraq was the most controversial U.S. foreign policy decision in recent history. The intervention in Libya was also controversial. That is irrelevant to the discussion and yet another example of your WP:POVPUSH. This article (let alone the paragraph) is dealing with Chavez not American foreign policy, let alone your interpretation of what foreign policy event is or isn't controversial.
I see no reasonable argument here to remove these informative additions. I just don't like it doesn't count. There is. You have already been told what they are. You just don't like it because you have an agenda to push (as your edit-warring on this article and history of consistently including similarly one-sided, point-of-view-material on other articles indicate).
I agree with RichardWeiss. My additions are sourced, relevant and the consensus is against you. No no there is no "consensus." Numbers-wise it is a deadlock as another editor has reverted you (User:Jamez42). Everything still stands: the current foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your WP:BATTLEGROUND pov-material so the obligation really is on you and anybody else to justify why it belongs. You do not get to overturn years of consensus on the paragraph just because you want to Flickotown (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Paranoid focus on America as you put it @Flickotown: sounds very like Chávez' opinion on the US. This paragraph is well-sourced, relevant, not undue sand should remain. Seems several editors disagree with you so please desist from reverting, while continuing to seek a consensus here. ♫ RichardWeisstalkcontribs19:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Treating opinions as fact
How is an opinion expressed by a South Korean newspaper due inclusion in the lede in Misplaced Pages's voice? Especially for the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that a robust public sector caused the economic crisis as opposed to over a decade of economic warfare from the US in the form of trade sanctions, manipulative alliances and sponsoring massive smuggling over the Colombian border? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
While BTI may have more due relevancy than the original source, it still cannot be communicated using Misplaced Pages's voice. They're clearly a strongly POV source; they are explicitly anti-socialist so their views need to be contextualized. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Wow. Can you provide sources about how there has been "decade of economic warfare from the US in the form of trade sanctions, manipulative alliances and sponsoring massive smuggling over the Colombian border"? References on other claims have been included before and those are bold statements. Can you quote how the BTI is "explicitly anti-socialist"? Truth be told, is WP:DUE the problem, the sources used or just the content added? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As I'm not putting that statement in article space I am not required to. We can consider it common knowledge. With regard to BTI being explicitly anti-socialist, I went to their "about" page. That's pretty clear on the matter. With regard to the WP:DUE problem the new source (BTI) is slightly different from the old source (the Korean newspaper). As a think tank or NGO, BTI's opinion may be due where some random daily is not. However the statement still represents BTI's opinion so, while it may be due in the lede, it must be accredited to BTI. And in this case, BTI expresses a specific mission to forward "transition to... market economy" - which means they are an organization which explicitly opposes socialist practice. As such, the accreditation must contextualize their opinion as being one which comes from a group that wishes to undo socialism notwithstanding the specifics of Venezuela's economy.Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Would the person who claimed that accrediting the org who made the statement as the org who made the statement is unrelated synth care to explain themself? Because it really looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not taking the side of either the IP nor Jamez42 as I see both sets of edits as being full of WP:WEASEL problems and both as being used for either a pro or anti-Maduro WP:POVPUSH. But I'm getting pretty tired of IPs and SPAs edit warring in Venezuela articles to make Misplaced Pages into a WP:SOAPBOX for their preferred opinions and I'm half tempted to ask Arbcomm to implement a restrictive sanctions regime here. I suggest you two avoid edit warring, go to talk and also consider editing other areas of Misplaced Pages once in a while. I'm tired of this. And it's getting worse, not better. Everybody stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I currently don't have the time to answer properly to every discussion, but I will repeat that the latest changes made by the IP were unreferenced in violation of WP:VERIFY. I'll repeat that I have not introduced any new wording, allegedly "anti-Maduro", and that this is in accordance to WP:BRD. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If you edited articles outside of those to do with Venezuela current affairs, you'd likely see why I view your edits as being as WP:POVPUSH as those of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your point, but each edit should me examined individually, and looking at the edit history this should be clear. Having the article in my watchlist isn't related, and I hope you're not assuming bad faith over previous editorial disagreements. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How would I possibly know what's in your watchlist? All I can go by is your user contributions - which are effectively, from what I saw, either edits to pages about Venezuela or contributions to wikispace discussions of Venezuela. Again, if you thought I could see your watchlist, this is an indicator that you should probably broaden your understanding of Misplaced Pages culture by contributing outside the area of one highly contentious political dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Another bad faith assumption, and if I may add, a mistaken one. This is becoming off topic, I continued the discussion in your talk page. Returning to the issue and like I have said before, not only weasel wording has been added, but unreferenced claims have been added or have replaced important ones, like suggestion that the poverty improvements have not been temporary, that these changes have stagnated rather than reversed, and arguing foreign sanctions are responsible for the crisis, not to mention that the category "Democratic socialists" was removed without explaination. It seems that these changes were not reviewed properly before being restored. I have pinged the IP that added the content, to no avail. If there aren't any policy based reasons to maintain these changes, I will restore the original version per WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Chávez did affirm at the very least once in the National Assembly that he considered himself a Marxist, but in another speech he claimed he wasn't. Maybe we could fix this?. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
@Baprow: Seeing that once again you have reverted the image, can you explain in the talk page? It appears that it is not the first time that you edit war over an infobox image. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The image that you propose is not suitable for the infobox. For another place in the article, yes, but not for the infobox. It is too small and when you enlarge it the quality is not too good. There are many better images. In which I propose the president's face is perfectly visible without the need for extensions and its quality is better. --Baprow (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
When I first saw both images, I noticed that one of the differences was to show Chávez either as a civilian or as a military. Since that was his career, I think the latter is more conveniente. There might be other similar images with better quality. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Although Hugo Chávez was a career military man, the highest position he achieved was the position of president, which is a civilian position. There have been other long-term presidents who were formerly military (Eisenhower, Nasser, Grant, Al Sisi ...) and they appear in their infoboxes in a suit and not in uniform, so I think that what they did before should not condition the photo of the infobox.Also, the photo is too small. I consider a photo in which your face is more visible to be more appropriate. --Baprow (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
