Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 24

Another example of cherrypicking quotes from sources, and not presenting all sides of what is presented in the very sources used:

Chávez has a Twitter account with more than 720,000 followers as of August 2010, with about 2000 joining every day. ^[1][2] Chávez's Twitter account has been described as a way for people to bypass bureaucracy and contact the president directly. There is a team of 200 people to sort through suggestions and comments sent via Twitter. Chávez has said Twitter is "another mechanism for contact with the public, to evaluate many things and to help many people."^[3]

If so much space (in a grossly deficient article) is to be given to the Twitter account, then by all means, please present what the source says, for example, about the alleged team of 200 people, and his previous attacks on Twitter. This is typical of the issues that occur in this article, resulting in unbalance and undue. And why on earth spend so much time on Twitter, when so much else is lacking from the article, without establishing the context of his use of Twitter? Didn't someone recently delete text about Chavez's speaking style, and yet this very source speaks to that ? When using reliable sources, pls don't cherrypick from them to present one side only. Why does unbalanced text like this, which does not fully reflect what the sources say, stay in the article unchallenged, while anything else is endlessly nitpicked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think his twitter account is worthy of inclusion at all in this article, and even in an article about media in Venezuela, I would say that it only warrants a sentence or two. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it *is* worthy of inclusion, when placed in the context of his views about using the internet to further his "revolution"-- there is context for his use of media and the internet, and multiple reliable sources speak to that, but here we have multiple sentences devoted to making him look good, without mentioning all sides of the issues. Context! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, or having it removed completely. I mean, should we add how many Facebook friends he has? Unless it's a record for a world leader or something, it's pure trivia. But, if it's presented in context to his view on the Internet, etc, then it may make sense.

Personally, I don't think using Twitter to "further his revolution" and promote social change makes him "look bad" -- most major news organizations also use social networking sites to promote their ideology. Whatever you think of him, he would be a fool not to communicate about what is happening in Venezuela using any means available. So if anything, using the internet to communicate makes him look reasonable. Nor do I think that everything was presented to "make him look good" -- what made you feel this way? Please assume good faith on the part of editors -- not everyone who doesn't include everything you would have included is some one-sided propagandist who is just out to "take things out of context" and "make Chavez look good". Maybe they were just trying to improve the article. But, anyhow, if you feel like it's worthy of inclusion, and as long as we stick to facts, I won't argue. But I do think it should be short, and I don't feel that editors should get to selectively remove anything that they feel is there to make him "look good", while "balancing it out" by replacing it with negative opinions from the corporate press. By the way, note how much space the White House has gotten discussing it's Facebook page, for instance (a single external link, which is about what I think this warrants) ... why is Chavez's twitter page so significant that it warrants a whole paragraph? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I want to again point out that the Media section is a daughter section to the Human Rights section. It needs to be moved elsewhere if it's not going to be solely about HR-related press issues.JoelWhy (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- I don't think twitter or the new movie studio belong in this section. Just like we have a "Foreign Policy", "Economics", and "Human rights" section, perhaps it would be better to move this sort of think to a "Culture" section, and describe music, film, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If placed in context, the Twitter account is not trivia. He has made numerous statements about using the internet to further his "revolution", while simultaneously trying to shut down or criticize others who do same (see the very sources given in that passage, as well as numerous others), and his use of/control of the media and the internet is an oft-mentioned in reliable sources part of his strategy-- this needs to be placed in the context, and the content added re: Twitter clearly cherrypicked from that source for the most favorable presentation. On the other hand, I have NO idea why the movie house was added-- that is pure trivia, as far as relates to other reliable sources and due weight. Why so much focus here on trivia, when no one bothers to make any attempt to balance foreign policy, human rights, economic policy, the lead, and so forth? Priorities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

By all means remove anything with a pro-Chavez bias. But do not use its presense to balance it with anti-Chavez bias. Bias does not belong in the article. TFD (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When *one* source (as in this example) presents both sides, the balance is already given in the source. In this case, quotes were cherrypicked to present only one side, and context has not been given. Chavez's use of/control of the media is context given in multiple reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"cherrypicking" implies dishonesty; please remember to assume good faith. People with different views will always see different things as important, and especially in haste may end up highlighting quite different things from any given source. That is precisely why the Wikipedia process of people with different views collaborating is supposed to be a good thing - it's a sort of constant peer review process. But just as in academic peer review you're not supposed to say (or imply) "ha! you cherrypicking bastard...", so we're better off assuming good faith here. (That doesn't make criticism impossible, it just means avoiding implications of intentional bias.) Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

So we should say something like "Chavez uses Twitter to communicate with people and imposes strict censorship on all media"? BTW, were you aware of the TV station Globovision? I looked at their website and it appears that the censors have so far missed them. TFD (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, a recent study reported that Venezuela was ranked 3rd according to twitter penetration and mentioned Chávez account as a possible factor for this high rank. JRSP (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that it was already unusually high before Chavez' account. Rd232 ^talk 08:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WARNING: I have just begun a complete overhaul of ALL references. I am scrapping the citation templates and using the style employed at Why Socialism?. The new style looks like the first five citations in the references list. I know that some of you will be upset and say I should have gone to the talk page. Tough. I already put up a section at WT: VEN but not many responded. Per WP:BOLD I am taking bold action to force editors to reformat ALL citations. Thanks and have a great day!--Schwindtd (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as a computer programmer, I prefer the citation templates, because they can be easily parsed by automated tools. I think you should have waited and discussed this change before forcing it on everyone. I do appreciate your willingness to do tedious work like that, to improve the article -- I just think you should have talked about it first. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I did try and discuss it. I invited several active editors (including yourself) on the Hugo Chavez page to the discussion at WT:VEN. Only two responded, and as such I felt that a bold edit would force everybody to look at the issue. Hopefully I have succeeded in pushing others to discuss, just as you were pushed to respond to my edits. I regret nothing. Now we can discuss while I postpone the changes indefinitely. If you want to make your views heard please see WT:VEN. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would have reminded people that there was a conversation going on, and waited until more people had responded. There has been fairly constant battling here for quite some time now, and I totally forgot about the citation discussion that you mentioned earlier. I didn't feel that there was really any rush to fixate on a certain citation style while the article was still developing. But, I don't really care about it, I suppose. I just don't see any rationale for using anything other than citation templates (The only argument I've heard against them is that they're "complicated", but if people can include a link or section headings, then citation templates aren't any more difficult than those -- and it's much more difficult to learn how to write/format/punctuate a citation manually than having an automated computer tool do it for you), and there are plenty of benefits to the templates (automated parsing, reformatting automatically rather than having to manually format each citation individually, prevents users from having to learn how to do punctuation/etc. within citations, etc. etc.). Anyhow, looks like the decision has already been made, and I won't be making any effort to go through and change them ... so be it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand your anger and probably the frustration you feel (I'm just guessing here from your tone.) but I would like to say that I DID invite you. I thought that no one responded either because they were uninterested or because they just agreed with whatever. To suggest that I, without any knowledge, should have known that you had forgotten and not just been ambivalent or unconcerned is kind of a stretch. Besides, I got your attention, didn't I? I can gladly change the cite style back (I don't mind changing the cites) if you and the others decide that templates are the word. I admit that I should have reminded you and the others, for that I apologize. But from my action perhaps a discussion can emerge, so it is hard for me to regret my unilateral action. I do wish you to pardom me, though. I hope you aren't too cross. I will re-extend my invitation to the debate at WT:VEN to all the active editors. Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Frustrated, very, very, slightly. Angry, not at all. I understand that you invited me, and I already responded to this above. I'm not asking you to regret anything, and I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. And not only have you done nothing to beg my pardon, but I am in no position to be pardoning anyone in the first place. I'm not cross -- there are much more serious concerns that I've got with the page right now. This is extremely minor in comparison. Again, I was just making a suggestion to wait, and explaining my reasons for preferring templates. I am not upset with you -- as I said above, I appreciate what you are doing. I was just asking that you slow down, and perhaps try one more time to stimulate discussion on it. But if you feel that you want to go ahead and convert them all, go ahead -- I really am not that attached to the issue one way or the other (although I'm personally going to continue to use templates so I don't have to constantly refer to the guidelines to remind myself how to do punctuation and formatting). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, sorry for the noobishness, but what are the choices we can choose from? ValenShephard (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and, more generally WP:CITE. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am also wondering why we would pick one over the other? Are there pros and cons? ValenShephard (talk) 06:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No to citation templates, please. They are not simpler to use; you need to know the fieldnames, plus the result is much harder to scan and looks offputtingly like programming source code. They make wikitext much harder to read, especially if there are a lot - check out this old version of Taner Akcam - try editing the second section!! You'll see why it took me two hours to convert to list-defined references which at least hides the hard-to-read mess at the end of the article. The "you don't need to learn the rules" argument doesn't hold water - it's easy enough to follow existing styles, within the article or without; whilst you do need to learn the fieldnames! They also create a harmful sense of "this must be stylistically exactly right" which puts potential editors off. Consistency of style is vastly over-rated anyway (as long as the info is there, who cares?). We have much more important problems than consistency of style, notably keeping articles up-to-date: and citation templates make articles less likely to be updated because they undoubtedly put casual editors off editing because after clicking on Edit the wikitext is that much scarier and harder to read. In sum, I think citation templates are actively harmful and should be discouraged wherever possible. Rd232 ^talk 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are much bigger issues here than citation consistency; citation consistency matters when an article approaches the WP:GA or WP:FA level, which this article is very far from and not likely to approach in the current WP:BATTLEGROUND. I dislike citation templates generally (for the same reasons as Rd), but my concern is that establishing a citation style across all Ven/Chavez articles would make it easier on new editors, to transport citations across articles, and the cite templates are the most common. I support the use of citation templates in this series of articles only because we need a common standard. But I don't feel strongly one way or another, as GAs and FAs are unlikely in the Ven articles, and agree that these articles are a long ways from high-quality assessments, that require citation consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Schwindt, my other concern is that if you are going to work on upgrading the citations here (most welcome work!), it should be done correctly, or it's not worth the effort; regardless of style used, newspapers, periodicals and journals should be in WP:ITALICS, and plural page ranges should use pp. and an WP:ENDASH. I'm glad you're willing to do this work, but if you're doing it, it should be consistent and correct, or not worth the effort you're putting in to it! The last diff represents your changing a correctly formatted citation template, to an incorrectly formatted manual citation, and that goes against WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm also uncertain why did this? Quotations in sources to back up text are standard, while chunking up text with quotes isn't always desirable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should not remove citation templates in the absence of consensus, per WP:CITE. Unfortunately, until we get some sort of consensus here, you can improve citations, but not change the style. Several of your improvements are good, but until we get consensus on this, we're stuck with mixed citation styles, since I believe the style originally used in this article is outdated (but I will go back and check that, soon). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we all agree with this edit, that es icons are better placed at the beginning? I support that because they allow a reader to easily scan the article for non-English sources, and to make sure they've all been identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but with a space between the es template and the ref. Incidentally, I tend to use {{es}}, which is much the same. Actually, {{es}} redirects to {{es icon}} so it's exactly the same - minus a slightly confounding reference to a non-existent icon. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed a whole batch of new errors; curly quotes, incorrect italics, quotationns, uppercase, and more. This is why I support the use of citation templates here-- at least they get it right, and we have too many editors adding citations who don't know guidelines. Rd, are you aware that there is a script that allows you to read text minus the templates? I'm not sure where to find it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is such a script and it actually works well (there are various WYSIWIG tools I've tried and not made friends with), that would be great to see. But such tools are obviously not installed by casual editors or anonymous editors. I hope one day the references will be stored entirely separately... Rd232 ^talk 23:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you guys would debate (especially you Sandy) on WT:VEN. I put that page up just for this debate (on your suggestion Sandy) and posting there would allow everyone to get on the same page, literally. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But we have citation errors being introduced here that are independent of the ultimate decision style, and would be errors in any style. It might be wise to hold off on citation cleanup until you thoroughly understand citation guidelines-- at least, don't remove accurate citation templates to replace them with incorrectly formatted citations-- I left all the examples here where they are occurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Slow down. First, I am just saying to move discussion to WT:VEN for reasons I have already delivered on your talk page. Second, I have read WP:CITE, I understand the guidelines and the principles. Third, what errors are you talking about? (errors I have committed or errors in sources being added or what?). Fourth, I offered you guys to discuss first (remember?) but since very few replied I decided that a unilateral edit was necessary to force editors to face the issue. You seem to hide behind WP:CON and WP:CITE. My actions were necessary, regardless of building consensus, to force you to action because inviting editors to discuss clearly did not get very far. --Schwindtd (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Is The Guardian a hard-print source (I'm unaware)? Is Green Left Weekly a published hard-print periodical or journal? Unsure. Bloomberg is not, so shouldn't be in italics. Italics are used for books and hard-print journals, periodicals, and newspapers, so I'm not sure if you're getting it right yet. There are lots of errors-- italics, curly quotes, are we using p. pp. or page, etc. I'm unsure if those errors were yours-- I just corrected what I found. Are you able to step back through my diffs and see the corrections I made? Additionally, I've linked the original style used here, and we shouldn't change it without consensus, and gaining consensus with few editors participating isn't going to be easy, so we should only cleanup, not change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that WP:CITE merely states "typically includes." By no means is any one form required. Hence, italics formatting should be consistent. You could italicize every publisher whether it be online or in print. Or change WHAT is italicized. Any style can be used. You could make your own style (as I have)! That being said, I did make errors when formatting some of them. But the errors were not disastrous, in general the changes I made made the section look more uniform and neat, whereas before (even with templates) it looked like a yard overgrown with weeds. --Schwindtd (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I only edited up to cite 28 (I think) even then I did not touch some of the cites. I'm fine with a "clean up" (what that means when different styles are being used, beats me). I just don't want to edit content b/c that is such a bombshell! I do appreciate your help. --Schwindtd (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard has removed the photo of the opposition march twice now, and I've re-added it each time. I think that it is a very important and historically significant photo that clearly applies to the topic at hand. It should absolutely remain in the article.

However, I do understand his concerns. Having it as the most prominent photo of the "Presidency" section is a bit slanted. I would by no means say that this is any more representative of his presidency than, say, a photo of doctors giving people free medical treatment or a photo of a community planning meeting. There would be no end to cries of "pro-Chavez" propaganda if such an image were included there, yet people feel comfortable with a photo of an opposition march being the first and most prominent photo in that section.

I think that a good way to remedy this would be to have a section on the Venezuelan opposition. It is significant enough, and has received enough press that I think it is a major sub-topic in it's own right. We could discuss the major organizations (like Sumate, for instance) and their platforms, their allegations of persecution, their most notable actions, and their most common/notable complaints about Chavez. And we could discuss the millions of dollars in U.S. funding to these organizations, their alleged ties to Miami terrorist organizations, etc. The image of the march could go in this section, and something more balanced. Maybe just a photo of Chavez at an ALBA meeting or something, could go in the presidency section. When we write a section on social programs, we could include things like photos of Barrio Adentro, etc.

That way, opposition photos would be in the opposition section, photos of social programs would be in the "Social programs" section, and something we could all agree on as neutral could be the first photo in the presidency section.

Does this seem at all reasonable? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(By the way, I'm about to be off Wiki for a few days, so if I don't respond, that's why) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove that image; if balancing images are desired, one can search Flickr for Commons licensed images that can be uploaded to Commons. (I don't do images-- Wiki's image policy scares me, so I leave it to the experts!) But we don't delete a correctly licensed important and historical image because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, Jrtayloriv and ValenShephard are editwarring over this image (I'm glad Jr brought it to talk), and once again, it doesn't appear that ValenShephard reviewed the article history and edit summaries-- please do so before editwarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I explained myself in edit summaries, it was a clearly being removed for nothing other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and was an extremely informative and important historical photograph. I don't think that my actions violate the spirit of WP:Edit warring at all. Anyhow, I've really got to step out now for a bit, but Sandy -- I was really wondering if you, especially, had any ideas for an opposition section, how it might be structured, where it might be placed, it's content, etc. I'm sure you've got plenty to contribute in this area. I'd like to keep this on topic, and not focus as much on the removal/readdition of the image, but more on generating ideas for a new "Opposition" section (or reasons why such a section shouldn't exist). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about your idea, because there is much that has not been said about the opposition (in particular, how ineffective they have been, and how they contributed to the decline in democracy in Venezuela with particularly stupid actions-- these are covered in reliable sources). However, creating a separate section for that could lead to the same problems that occur when Criticism or Controversy sections are created-- they are inherently POV. It might be better to structure the article differently and work opposition content in across the board -- but I'm still thinking about this. Thanks for asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I definitely don't want this to devolve into a "Criticism and controversy" section. I meant something focusing on opposition organizations and organizing and organizers -- not a generic "reasons to oppose Chavez" section. Anyhow, I'm really going to step out now :) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hugo_Ch.C3.A1vez_again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No mention whatsoever of issues mentioned by multiple reliable sources that led to the private media opposition to Chavez: abuse of the Enabling Act, abuse of cadenas, and meddling with PDVSA, among others. These issues are in multiple reliable sources-- many listed in my sources page-- the section is POV (and not the only one, but perhaps we can work on one thing at a time). This is in addition to the section above, discussing missing info about Chavez's use of and control of the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this in Media representation of Hugo Chavez -- this section is not the place to go over the media's opinions on Chavez. If you have reliable sources discussing their justifications for all of this, go ahead and include them there, but make sure not to give them undue weight and present them in a neutral manner, not stating their opinions as fact. This article does not present these things as fact -- it merely says that this is what the government claimed when they rejected the renewal of its license, so there is no reason to include an off-topic, POV rant about why this claim is incorrect -- there is already ample discussion of the oppositions stance on the shutdown, anyway. We are already giving too much weight in this article to RCTV as it is. We don't need to turn it into a "Revocation of RCTV license, and why the media hates Chavez so much" section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Why are we editing daughter articles by proxy? Media representation of Hugo Chávez has just a one-line intro. if we make a neutral summary intro there that should be usable here - and any such summary will have space within the body to go into more detail. Rd232 ^talk 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the daughter articles should be nuetralized as well, but when this (the main article) presents only one side of an issue, the problem is here and needs to be fixed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Daughter articles first is clearly a less stressful and more productive approach in the circumstances. But I seem to be alone in seeing that. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And now, back on topic. The article presents one side only already, so taking it to another article won't address that. I've provided numerous sources already-- have you read any of them? The issue of Chavez and the media is more important, and accords more due weight, than just the RCTV issue, and that is missing. The private media turned against him for well-documented reasons, and if you mention one side, we need to cover it all. Jr, improving your tone would help advance the article; work on the issues, not talk page diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This I've got to take issue with: "The private media turned against him for well-documented reasons..." The private media was a hair short of calling him the Anti-Christ before he was even elected, and turned even more virulently against him before he'd really done anything apart from the 1999 Constitution. Rd232 ^talk 17:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on topic, please be civil. This article does not "present one side only" -- there are two paragraphs containing criticism. Please take a look at the article before making accustations about bias, etc. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you have trouble finding the criticism I'm talking about -- I know it's a really long section:

Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[120] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[121] While protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[122] Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses. Though the opposition cites this incident as "the end of pluralism", Chavez has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[123] ... The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations.[108][127][128][129]

Now could you please explain to me how this is "one-sided" pro-Chavez propaganda? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Jr, I'm developing the impression that you don't read what is written to you-- please try to take some time to contemplate posts and try to work in a collaborative and consensual mode, rather than launching into diatribes without (possibly) really taking time to understand the issue. Our aim isn't to balance, only, the amount of "praise" and "criticism"-- it is to explain issues neutrally and with due weight. We have said the private media was against him, but we haven't given both sides of the story or explained why, in spite of numerous mentions and due weight in reliable sources. We aren't only talking about RCTV-- we're talking about media and press issues in general in this section (but I've already said that, haven't I? :) If you will consider the issues more clearly, and read what is written, we can perhaps make some progress on this article, which is still quite POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jr, I'm developing the impression that you don't read what is written to you-- please try to take some time to contemplate posts and try to work in a collaborative and consensual mode, rather than launching into diatribes without (possibly) really taking time to understand the issue. -- Again, please stop attempting to derail the conversation by making personal attacks and making claims that I am not staying on topic or reading your posts (I don't even know why you'd lie about this, when people can see what I'm responding to right above). I responded to everything you said, so I obviously read your posts. On the other hand, you've responded to almost nothing that I've said. And considering that you've been tendentiously edit warring here for years, I find it interesting that you would ask me to work in a "collaborative and consensual mode" ...
• Our aim isn't to balance, only, the amount of "praise" and "criticism"-- it is to explain issues neutrally and with due weight. -- Which we have, and which you have given no evidence of yet, other than repeatedly claiming that it is unbalanced.
• We have said the private media was against him -- Where?
• but we haven't given both sides of the story or explained why, in spite of numerous mentions and due weight in reliable sources. -- Please see my post above, where I already responded to this.
• We aren't only talking about RCTV-- we're talking about media and press issues in general in this section -- Actually, we are only supposed to be talking about RCTV, since that's what the section is about. We should not be including a bunch of off-topic opinion about why the media is opposed to Chavez. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The title of this section is "RCTV and Media imbalance". I think that's a pretty good argument against us "only supposed to be talking about RCTV."

In any case, the RCTV section is one of the most glaring examples of POV. There is good reason to believe (and substantial evidence to support the conclusion) that Chavez had this station shut down because he did not like the editorial content. Period. You can come to the opposite conclusion and include sources to support this belief. However, as it is currently presented, no objective reader could possibly reach this conclusion. The only logical conclusion is that Chavez failed to renew the TV station's expiring license because it was actively working to overthrow the government. That's a nice narrative. But, it's far from objective.JoelWhy (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The section is called "Revocation of RCTV license" -- I meant the section we are discussing, not the section on the talk page that we are having the discussion in. And as I said, if you feel that something is left out of the current section about the shutdown, and have reliable sources, please include it, giving care not to present opinions as fact or to give undue weight to these opinions. I was just opposed to SandyGeorgia's suggestion that we launch into an off-topic discussion of why the Venezuelan media is opposed to Chavez, in general. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've stated this numerous times, but I think it needs repeating. The issue is as much about what is included as it is about what is missing. Simply adding 'the other side of the story' to what already exists isn't sufficient. What exists now needs to be edited to provide a neutral, objective history.JoelWhy (talk) 18:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And you can state it many more times, if you wish, but it won't make any difference until you provide specifics about what is missing, and reliable sources to back it up. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, what the heck is going on with this RCTV stuff. I just got back from two days away and this section :Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[120] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[121] While protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[122] Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses. Though the opposition cites this incident as "the end of pluralism", Chavez has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[123] ... The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations.[108][127][128][129] is completely altered so that the last two thirds are gone! I want to know why because that paragraph balanced viewpoints and had credible sources. WHile I know that I wrote most of that paragraph I feel that the information was important and that rather than eviscerate it, it should have been modified to people's liking. I will not reinsert the info, but I DO want to know why it was removed. --Schwindtd (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No answer, I see. Could you identify the diffs that altered the text? I'm having a hard time tracking all the POV editing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The current rendering breaks up that paragraph into two slices. Someone must have moved a sentence to break it up. This is how it looks:

Upon hearing of Chávez' decision, thousands of people marched in the streets of Caracas in support of RCTV the following Saturday,[121] with further protests on May 27, just hours before the revocation was to go into effect.[122] Protesters labeled the decision as "a deliberate attempt to silence opposition to the government",[123]

RCTV was transmitted via cable and satellite and was widely viewable in Venezuela until January 24, 2010, when it was excluded by cable companies in response to an order of National Commission of Telecommunications.[124][125][126] The failure to renew its terrestrial broadcast license had been condemned by a multitude of international organizations, many of whom have claimed that the closure was politically motivated, and was intended to silence government critics.[109][127][128][129] and others have cited this incident as "the end of pluralism". However, Chavez supporters asserted that the government has the power to grant broadcasting licenses, and has "left untouched the operations of other private broadcasters who were also critical of him", though those stations did alter their editorial policies after the 2002 coup.[130]

I have bolded the sentences as they were originally written. Notice there is a sentence that breaks them up, rendering the second half almost redundant while leaving two broken clauses (the ones bolded). Its just sloppy stuff. I don't know why anyone changed it! It seems the cure might have been more harmful than the disease! --Schwindtd (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add this sentence to the list of things that ought to be changed in this section: "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) questioned whether, in the event a television station openly supported and collaborated with coup leaders, the station in question would not be subject to even more serious consequences in the United States or any other Western nation.[115]"
There are two things wrong with this. First, it is basically a hypothetical posed by FAIR. Does that make it fact? Are all hypothetical musings factual? Second, regardless of yoru political viewpoint this sentence clearly has another motive. For one, it implies criticism of the US and other nations, not a relevant topic on this page unless it comes from Chavez. The impetus behind such criticism is to push a POV. The purpose of the sentence then is to refute claims, thereby establishing the supremacy of its POV, not impart information.
That being said, I do not call for its deletion. Deletion ought to be a last resort. when editing we should answer two questions. First, Does this sentence add relevant and insightful information about Hugo Chavez? If the answer is no it should be deleted or revised so that the answers becomes yes. If yes go to question 2. Second, How can this sentence be rewritten to make it NPOV?If we pose those questions while we edit, then perhaps the Hugo Chavez page will be sorted out, removing bias from the left and the right.--Schwindtd (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

with increasing majorities and voter turnouts.

1998:56.2% with 54.0 turnout; 2000: 59.76%/56.31% turnout; 2006: 62.84% with 74.69% turnout.

Folks, this text is the definition of original research, which has no place in the article, much less the lead. If we want to add similar text somewhere in the article, it needs to be cited to a reliable source and placed into the context of multiple reliable sources that mention his declining popularity and his recent defeat on other items-- that is, this statement also implies his popularity in increasing, when it's not, and is unbalanced because it doesn't mention other defeats. Reliable sources will and do discuss these issues and place them in context, which is why we should not be adding original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't imply that his popularity is increasing. How did you come to that conclusion? What it implies to me is that voter turnout and percentage of vote received is increasing (because that's what it says...). By the way, my first Google search turned up secondary sources that were applicable, such as . Anyhow, I'll find more and add them to the article. I think ValenShephard's addition should remain in the lead, and that we should elaborate on voter turnout, etc. more in the Presidency section. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a source; whatever you do add, please remember to add context of high voter absention (when Venezuelans shot themselves in the foot by refusing to even go to the polls, which altered the data), and his declining popularity, in order to end up with neutral balanced text. In particular, the lead is growing too long, while not yet mentioning key points, and if this is added to the lead, it needs to be balanced by his declining popularity so as not to mislead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead is a complete mess - it's not even proper paragraphs. As part of an unmessing, a short but clear description of his popularity trajectory might find space to mention the majority/turnout thing (in the 3 presidential elections to 2006, though I think the 04 referendum fits the pattern too). If not, it could probably be part of a slightly longer body text description. It is a notable part of the story, but only part; it needs more context about contemporary politics (eg 02 coup and strike; legislative and regional elections; PSUV creation) and continuing trajectory past 2006. Also an overemphasis on elections isn't really appropriate in the context of the intended new participatory democracy, which is an attempt to go beyond representative democracy's conception of democracy as occasional trips to the ballot box. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I added that information because I think, although its not ideal in the lead, information about the turnouts and vote majorities is conspicuously missing. Its a pretty interesting and informative statistic. On that note, I think we should expand secitons dealing with Chavez's election wins and further information on the 1999 constitution which was central to Chavez's policy in his first term and he spoke of it as central to his political philosophy. ValenShephard (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That information, which I think Jrtayloriv added at the start of this talk, should be included in the article. ValenShephard (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with rd232 that we shouldnt overemphasise the elections, as like he says, the most interesting part of Chavez's democratic policy are councils and the rest. ValenShephard (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that the lead is a complete mess, loaded up with unbalanced trivia, missing key items, and poorly structured. It would be helpful if some here would read WP:LEAD. However, the text added-- regardless of where it is eventually placed-- is lopsided and unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Care to explain how? Or we will just make constant and unexplained accusations? ValenShephard (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Already explained above (also still original research). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In response to this tag removal, please read the page WP:OR, specifically:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

and the rest of the page. It is important that you understand policy before removing tage. Unless a WP:RS has drawn those conclusions, we cannot string together primary source data to draw our own conclusions-- this is the essense of original research. Almost every reliable source that discusses his election results will also discuss his declining popularity and election defeats, so the text is also unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

These two edits removed well justified tags, with an invalid reason.

On the second, the entire thing was a WP:BLP violation, so I've removed the text.

On the first, the text mentions that OAS observors didn't even come to Venezuela, with no mention of reasons why (Chavez refused them access )-- clearly unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you change it then instead? TFD (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, but this is one example only-- there are scores of same, and I can't do it all. If tags are removed when issues aren't corrected, trying to work on this article is pointless. It is not up to the editor placing a tag to resolve it; it is up to an editor removing a well-justified tag to do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like the way you proliferate tags everywhere (instead of fixing/discussing). In this particular case, the last sentence of that para says "Venezuela has said it will not accept an IACHR/OAS visit as long as Santiago Cantón remains its Executive Secretary, unless the IACHR apologizes for what he describes as its support of the 2002 coup." So it's already said there, at worst it needs copyediting, not willy-nilly tagging. And asking for 1RR - overkill much? Rd232 ^talk 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think 1RR would be overkill at all-- as things stand now, the article is changing so fast that it's difficult to stop the bleeding. Cited text is being removed faster than one can keep up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then ask for protection (maybe 2 weeks), and have everyone work on a collective sub-page draft of the article to redevelop it properly, one section/issue/problem at a time. The status quo clearly isn't working, but 1RR isn't the answer. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Alternate viewpoint-- protection stops work for even productive editors, while 1RR targets the disruptive editors only, which is better IMO. Two-week protection won't do it, either-- until a collaborative environment develops here, we won't make any progress in sandbox, and all I can do until such time is check in periodically to flag obvious errors and POV edits. Working on the article isn't going to happen until all recognize that the article has to be balanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Working on the article isn't going to happen until all recognize that the article has to be balanced." - where do you come up with this stuff? Everyone wants the article balanced, they just (a) disagree with what a final balanced version might look like (b) have different priorities in terms of what to focus on. When was the last time a sandbox draft was tried? Let's AGF and have a bit of hope that it might move things forwards. What's the worst that can happen? You can still make stylistic and other improvements in the sandbox for later reincorporation. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

One cannot simply say an article is POV to justify a tag and not explain what text is POV and why. Other editors would have no way of knowing what corrections were necessary. TFD (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

POV was well justified in February, and hasn't been corrected since. Resolving a tag means locating the sources and citing them correctly (which in this case, was broken, and I fixed); tags call attention to our readers that items need fixing, and it's unreasonable to expect me to be the one to do all the research, format all the citations, and correct all the issues here. I tag 'em as I see 'em, work on them as I have time. Point is, removing them is improper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but I'm growing very tired of seeing this statement again and again: "one cannot simply say an article is POV to justify a tag and not explain what text is POV". After all the times we've pointed to specific examples, the POV tag is indisputably warranted.JoelWhy (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no. I agree with TFD. I am becoming frustrated by the fact that tags, which as you can clearly see are very controversial and there is wide disagreement, are being added without discussion. There is maybe one or two editors, mostly SandyGeorgia who has taken up this single minded mission without discussion or support from even the majority of editors, let alone consensus. It is clear that SandyGeorgia only attacks and tries to tag sources he/she doesn't agree with, for their reliability. This has to change. Make the article better, dont just try to damage and discredit as much of it as you can. Unbelievably disruptive and dishonest behaviour. ValenShephard (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Sandy is trying to bring the article up to Wiki standards. Right now, it's not even close. This has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with the sources -- it's about relying on reputable, unbiased sources. The only "single minded mission" Sandy has demonstrated is to try to either fix this article or, at the very least, add the POV tag to warn readers that what is currently presented should not be relied upon.JoelWhy (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

When examples of bias have been mentioned they have been addressed. Please state what is left. TFD (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Second TFD. We are wasting our time here. We discuss in theory what is wrong with the article, very rarely specifics. ValenShephard (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The human rights section has become bloated and overly detailed again. The only reason I can think of why this detail has been missed out on the approproate article and stuffed into the Chavez article is an attempt to damage Chavez. This needs to be rectified. The detail, like there was basically consensus on a few weeks ago, should be moved to the appropriate article and a short, concise summary presented here. Undue weight, people (SandyGeorgia). ValenShephard (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Per due weight, human rights are a big issue wrt Chavez, and the article should reflect that. But I do agree the section needs a lot of work-- many issues are entirely missing, while others (Afiuni) take up too much space. All in all, the section probably needs to grow to cover missing issues, but some pieces of it that are there now need to be trimmed. Also, please avoid personalizing issues on talk. Have you read WP:AGF? It is taken very seriously by WP:ARBCOM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge you were one of the most active editors in expanding those sections. Anyway, in a previous discussion 2-3 other editors agreed with me that those sections needed summarising, and they carried it out, only for it to be reverted vehemently later without consensus. I want to see what other editors have to say. ValenShephard (talk) 02:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Your memory is quite different than mine; diffs would be helpful when you point fingers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Even so, this wasn't my main point. Do you dispute that 2-3 other editors agreed to cut down this section before it was bloated again? ValenShephard (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And you've got at least 2 editors who disagree with your assessment.JoelWhy (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A newspaper in Venezuela has been censored. In my country (Brazil) that is called "dictatorship". I believe Chavez-lovers around here will say that that is nothing. Although the article is in Portuguese, you don't need it to understand the issue. Click the link and see the picture. It will be enough (In here: ) --Lecen (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thats creepy! Banning violent, gory imagery from front pages for 4 weeks is not exactly the work of Stalin. According to an article I read about this in the Guardian, there are arguments over whether this constitutes censorship. And dictatorship is something different from censoring the media. Unless you want to start the old "Chavez is a dictator" rambling. And please do not make personal attacks by describing some of the editors here as "Chavez-lovers". I am thinking of refering this to an admin. ValenShephard (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lecen, this sort of post isn't helpful and furthers the negative environment on talk. Perhaps you can refactor or rephrase? And honestly-- Chavez's censorship of gory images is the least of the problems we should concern ourselves with on this article :) If the goal is to improve the article, this sort of post is not the way to go about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Second SandyGeorgia, this is definately something we don't need at this time, Lecen. ValenShephard (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case, this was a tribunal order, not a Chávez decree JRSP (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted, JRSP, that helps to get some perspective. ValenShephard (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, separation of powers and all that, but this is a sideshow, IMO, to the more major issues discussed in reliable sources about press freedom, so I don't see a place for this topic in this article. It does go, at least, in El Nacional, since "The editorial aim of the photo was to shock people so that in some way they react to the situation, since the government does nothing," and probably in the Media articles about Chavez and the media, and to that extent, it is related to the Chavez administration, but not enough for inclusion here, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"International press watchdog Reporters Without Borders said the morgue photograph was shocking and that its use raised questions about the newspaper's "sense of responsibility," even if it was not a publication aimed at young people." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67H5ZN20100818

Just an interesting note, but its right that this is a sideshow. ValenShephard (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The source I gave also shows how this was ordered by the tribunal, not by Chavez personally. So the link between this policy and him is weak again. ValenShephard (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it still should be noted that there is limited, if any, separation of power in Venezuela; until/unless reliable sources link this to Chavez, it has no place here, and even when/if they do, it's still a minor issue in comparison to other press freedom issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

but it still should be noted that there is limited, if any, separation of power in Venezuela That's a strong assertion. Do you think that Chávez controls all judges in Venezuela? JRSP (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What I think has no place here; a multitude of reliable sources discuss the lack of separation of powers and deteriorating democratic institutions under the Chavez administration. We may see this issue (increasing censorship of the press) crop up in a reliable source, linked to Chavez-- I still think it's a minor sideshow for this article, but does have a place in the media articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And here is an article in the state TV website discussing the censorship of the picture. In dictatorships, the state media generally do not question censorship by the government. TFD (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The only 'evidence' I have seen for Chavez 'controlling' the judiciary is firing one judge on corruption charges, which is actually within the law. How has he taken control of the judiciary? I have looked at some of SandyGeorgia's sources on that and all they do is talk about there being no independant judiciary, not how they came to that conclusion. If I made an assertion like that here, without explaining how I came to that conclusion (through sources) then it would be quickly and rightly deleted. ValenShephard (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been told by several admins when I first joined up that making any controversial changes, and their example was tagging, must be discussed and consensus reached first before they are implemented. Why is this not happening? The people who are adding tags, don't you realise that because they are being removed, there must be some disagreement so you cannot add them whenever you feel the need? Discuss. This is simply wasting time when we could be adding to the article or improving it. Your tags don't breed discussion, you yourself don't discuss, and the only thing which gets discussed are these silly taggings! ValenShephard (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding well justified tags is not "controversial"; I don't know who told you that, but perhaps you misunderstood or took it out of context. Tags alert our editors to problems that need to be fixed, and alert our readers where problems exist. On the other hand, repeatedly removing tags is disruptive editing and could get you blocked; see {{uw-tdel4}} (you are already at the fourth warning level). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That is insane. Don't you realise (either that or you are not being honest deliberatly) that "well justified" is subjective and not agreed upon? Your argument is useless. How can we know what to do when we see a tag, when it hasnt been explained and discussed? It may seem obvious to your POV, but not guaranteed to others. Stop throwing threats around also, its not very becoming. ValenShephard (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Hugo_Chávez#Original_research, and please read the warning and recognize that you should resolve (or at least understand) an issue before removing a tag. You might also peruse WP:NPA and WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am not "throwing threats around"; I am pointing out Wiki procedures and policies to you so that you won't get blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That discussion is pointing to a piece of information which is sourced. I am going to look for more sources for it now. And by the way, so I can add any tag I want as long as I claim its "justifiable" without really explaining. That discussion didnt explain why, it just said. ValenShephard (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Valen, you will help yourself (and the article) if you will understand policy and not personalize discussions. Original research is explained very well, and you seem to be the only one so far who doesn't understand-- no one else disputes that it is original research. There is a difference between drawing our own conclusions about primary source data, and reporting what secondary sources say about that data. This is all explained at WP:OR. No, you can't place any tag you want if you don't understand policy; that would be disruptive, and they'd likely be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Valen, you seem to be still misunderstanding the problem. With this edit, you are not sourcing the text, which is

Chávez won both elections with increasing majorities, with voter turnout increasing in both elections

A record turnout does not source that he has increasing majorities; we need a reliable source that says that, or the text should be adjusted accordingly. Further, it doesn't belong in the lead. Further, it is unbalanced as long as it doesn't mention his subsequent defeats and declining popularity. We can't just source primary data and then draw our own conclusions from the data-- the conclusion being drawn here is that Chavez has increasing majorities over three elections-- that leaves out other issues, and you need a reliable source that draws this conclusion. The problem has not been corrected, and the source does not cite the text. There's also a matter of missing context, because of voter abstention in the first election, so the text is misleading-- of course turnout increase-- voters refused to go to the polls before ! That is why you need a reliable source to put the numbers in context and draw the conclusions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was sourcing the statement that turnouts have increased. ValenShephard (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't yet understood the original research problem; this doesn't source the text either. If you want to say there was a historic turnout at X election, that source would cite it. The bigger problem is that, until you understand Wiki policy, you shouldn't remove tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, you're being quite aggressive with a relatively inexperienced editor. You're also wrong - the turnout/majority thing surely falls under Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations and is fine as far as it goes - which as I said above, is not far enough, it needs contextualising. In the time spent arguing about it, you could easily have slapped in some context. PS Valen may be inexperienced but has been around long enough that you ought to apply WP:DTTR and provide a personalised message. Rd232 ^talk 07:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He's already been (recently) blocked for edit warring, and returned immediately to same, and he doesn't seem to be reading the article talk page or edit summaries, or digesting Wiki policies and guidelines. It's unclear how to get through to him; I did supply a very personalized message, but also linked the standard template, in the hopes he will digest). But kudos for doing the right thing, and a note about how messy changing citation style can get, which is another concern we're working on here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it was only 1 block and it was for violating 1RR on an unrelated topic. And the previous message from you that I see was not exactly worded in a friendly way (which is the point of using a personal message instead of a template); perhaps you just don't see it, and I'm certainly not saying it's intentional, but it can look like bullying and I wish you'd try harder to make everyone feel that you are assuming good faith, because not doing so sufficiently contributes to an uncollaborative, polarised atmosphere in which everybody says things and thereby reinforces the others' feelings that AGF is unwarranted. Basically, "can't we all just get along"? Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about the 1RR, so perhaps he will heed the message that he needs to slow down and read before editing and removing tags (which is the common theme with the 1RR block-- there was a notice in place). I not only justified those tags on talk-- I linked to them in the edit summary, in the hopes he would see/read the section before removing tags again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags was not the reason for my block. ValenShephard (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's clear, if you look at the set of articles around Chavez, that there's a missing article - Political career of Hugo Chávez. There is "early life of", "military career of" and "presidency of", but nothing covering his political trajectory. The two major weaknesses from this gap are not covering the 1994-1998 period properly (I just corrected a glaring chronological error in Hugo Chavez); and not covering the political aspects of the presidency properly (cf the Political Development section in this article). A comparable article might be Political career of Silvio Berlusconi. However in view of the need to incorporate a lot of material about political development / political philosophy, there might be a better alternative name for the article, if anyone has any suggestions. Rd232 ^talk 13:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would be an important addition, but where would you start it? When did his political career "begin"? Would you include the political motivations behind the 1992 coup attempt as part of it? (I would)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as the coup attempt was an attempt to seize political power for political reasons - yes, it should be included! As should the MBR history, since it had political objectives from the beginning. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that the coup attempt and MBR had political objectives, but I just was wondering if you also would include them in the term "career", or if you would only include things where he was a full-time politician (after his release from prison). Anyhow, I agree with you that the coup/MBR should be included. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hence the naming issue I identified. I think "career" will do at a stretch, if we can't find anything better. Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What about something more general, along the lines of Politics of Hugo Chávez? This could include his political career, with a discussion of how his political philosophy has evolved along the way. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. ValenShephard (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree on the article scope, but I'm not sure about "Politics of..." Articles of this type are mostly "Politics of Place X". I can't find a better alternative; there are a couple of "X's political views" (eg Noam Chomsky's political views), but that's a pretty awful ahistorical format which is particularly inappropriate in this case. In the end it's not that important, but I'd vote for "political career" over "Politics of". Rd232 ^talk 19:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with either one, honestly. I think that titles of other similar articles make for good guidelines, but I don't think they force us to follow suit if it's not appropriate in a particular case. However, I'm not dead set on either one, and if you create the article, I'll work on it, whatever it's called. If there are ever conflicts over the scope of the article, we can deal with them as they come up. I'd be fine with Political career of Hugo Chávez for now.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be renamed later. I do feel it would make a better starting point at least, suggesting a better structure within the article, treating actions and views as an organic, historical whole. Rd232 ^talk 19:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But Burlesconi had a notable career outside politics, while Chavez, like most politicians, did not. There is an article, the Military career of Hugo Chávez but it is not as if the main article devotes a lot of attention to that part of his career. (See: Hugo Chávez#Military career). TFD (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. But you agree there's a gap in covering his political development up to the presidency (1982 - 1998) and subsequently? There is a naming issue here, as already said. Got a suggestion? Rd232 ^talk 17:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez' activities prior to his presidency might not have been notable 20 years ago, but are notable now, as far as being extensively discussed in reliable sources, which is all that matters as far as WP:Notability is concerned. His political career has some overlap with his military career, but there is also a significant disjoint portion. And even those portions which overlap would receive a heavier focus on politics in the "Political career" article. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone want to start this? Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All editors should be mindful of the sources used for this article. While newspapers are certainly valid sources for facts, they are not valid sources for opinions. We really need to use academic journals and books, rather than news flashes to get a neutral article that properly balances the various informed views on the subject. TFD (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The sources provided are partisan opinion pieces paraded as analysis or serious, neutral and fair journalism. Yes the papers and editorials are respected, but that doesn't mean their content is immeditaly suitable for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

I would agree that where scholarly sources are available, we should generally use those in preference to news sources and non-academic books. However, since much of this topic is centered around "current events", it is going to be impossible to find scholarly work on a large and important segment of it. For these, I think that high-quality news sources and books are appropriate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It should not be based on current events for someone who has been a president for over a decade. There should not be any late-breaking opinions on Chavez either. TFD (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we risk recentism. And I've been told its alwaus better till predictions and 'rumours' are proven or disproven. What about the fact that many of these articles are subscription only? I saw some editors somewhere saying they are not strictly off limit, but what is the official policy on this? I don't like trusting a source which can only be verified by a few people, for example the person interpreting it. ValenShephard (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as policy on subscription-only sources, see WP:PAYWALL. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that for the most part, things of importance from 10 or more years ago will often be adequately covered in the scholarly literature and high-quality books. But the same cannot be said for things that occured within the past few years. We can't just leave everything that has not yet been covered in the scholarly literature out of the article any more than we could for say, Barack Obama. I'm not saying that we should include factually inaccurate op-eds, or that we should give sensationalist news stories an immense amount of weight. I'm just saying that this is an enormous topic (a person's entire life and the political and economic situation of an entire nation) -- there simply aren't enough Venezuela scholars to cover it all. That doesn't mean we should only cover those parts that they've had time to get to (although what they have chosen to give priority to could provide guidance on what experts consider to be of importance). There is nothing in WP:RS that says that academic sources are the only sources we can use. Only that they are generally consider more reliable than non-scholarly sources. If we don't have scholarly sources, we fall back on high-quality non-scholarly sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it seems all the new sources provided are the type of non-scholarly sources which you say are not really acceptable. So we haven't progressed. ValenShephard (talk) 23:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that non-scholarly sources are not acceptable. I said they are acceptable. What I said was that we should generally give preference to scholarly sources over these sources. Where scholarly sources don't exist, we should rely on non-scholarly sources written by experts (for example, Venezuela scholars writing in a newspaper or a book from a non-academic publisher). Where these don't exist, we can carefully include information published in reliable news sources, if the subject is important. On the other hand, I think we should very rarely use op-eds or articles which are deliberately manipulating statistics to mislead readers, such as Pearson's Washington Post article discussed earlier. That is, if we do use a news source to back an assertion, it should be an informative piece rather than a purely polemical piece, it should be backed by factual data which can be verified, and it should provide context to the reader rather than leaving things out to mislead them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake. What I meant to say is that the sources that were recently provided are not the kind which, like you say, are backed up by factual data and can be verified. I guess we will have to sidestep their faults and try to extract something balanced and useful from inside them? ValenShephard (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that many of the sources provided have been of very low quality. But if a news article, written by a non-academic journalist is simply polemical (i.e. doesn't back its claims with data), is deliberately misleading (e.g. Pearson), and/or includes false information (e.g. "poverty has increased"), I don't think it should be included at all. I don't think we should try to "pick the good parts out of it". I think we should toss it altogether and find a better source that is informative and doesn't mislead or lie to the reader. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Alot of those need to be tossed then. What is your opinion on what we should do with them? How will we agree on which ones are acceptable to use? ValenShephard (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should deal with each source individually and discuss them here. I don't think any generalized statements can be made. For instance, it's clearly the case that we shouldn't use Pearson's Washington Post article. But we obviously can't make the blanket statement that no Washington Post articles should be included. We decide whether a source is reliable within a certain context, not in general. I agree that a lot of news sources will ultimately need to be tossed as we find higher-quality academic sources and books. But we need to deal with each of these as a separate case, not all at once. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it wasn't a good idea, but I wrote some statements underneath some of the sources. Would that be a possible route to go down, for deciding which to use etc.? ValenShephard (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant that we should go through the article, and for each assertion (1) determine whether the information is relevant and worthy of inclusion and then (2) look at the sources used to back that assertion and see if there are higher quality sources, and if so replace the lower-quality source with the higher-quality source. I did not mean that we should, generally, look at sources here and determine whether they are reliable (although in cases like Pearson's article, we should). In most cases, we determine the reliability of a source for a particular assertion in a particular context. For some assertions, a source might be reliable, and for others it's not. And then there are sources that aren't reliable at all, anywhere (such as blogs from non-notable individuals). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make sense, thanks for the explanations. ValenShephard (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather the article give a terse account of Chavez's life rather than rely on biased sources. If one considers the readers they want to know key information - where and when he was born, the date he came to power, the name of his political party etc. If people want to know what the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal or venezuelanalysis have to say then they can use Google or go to their favorite websites. TFD (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are basically right. I wouldn't totally discount the input of venezuelaanalysis however. But true, we should deal more with his life than with just his government and its performance. ValenShephard (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD -- The opinions of the Wall Street Journal or of Venezuelanalysis probably aren't worthy of inclusion here in most cases. However, factual information from either of them is useful and satisfies WP:RS. Academic sources are preferable, but where they don't exist, we can use news media sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cannon's Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution: Populism and Democracy in a Globalised Age, Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7772-2, is excellent. I have used this book for economic statistics, and, as far as I know, it is one of the few academic works written about the Chávez administration.Lucky to be me (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good source - published by a university press this year. TFD (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I too think this clearly qualifies as a reliable source and would be preferable to news sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Barry Cannon's writing show a rather clear bias, at odds with numerous other accounts. We don't choose biased sources over others, rather according to WP:NPOV, we represent all mainstream views-- Cannon should not be used to the exclusion of other sources that disagree with his bias. I'm seeing some misstatements above avout how we achieve NPOV:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". ... Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

We don't achieve a neutral article by ignoring mainstream views, published by scores of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL you are funny sometimes Sandy. On the basis of Cannon positively reviewing Eva Golinger's book about her FOIA-derived evidence for US support for the Venezuelan opposition, you want to declare that his writing shows "a rather clear bias", and in particular damn his own book about Venezuela? Er, no. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that really all the source has on Cannon? I assumed there would be more than that. It seems a very tenuous connection to make a big assumption about his bias from. ValenShephard (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The source Sandy gave is the Book Review section of Bulletin of Latin American Research, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 284–323, 2009. Cannon's name appears in it once, as the author of the review I mentioned. Rd232 ^talk 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can pretty much disregard it then. It doesnt show anything clearly, let alone a bias. ValenShephard (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

All books about Chavez will express a point of view. But academic books will be fact-checked and will explain the prevalence of different views about the subject. As I mentioned about, I would not object to any reliable sources based on the viewpoint of the writers. What I do object to is polemical writing published outside the academic mainstream. So far SandyGeorgia has not presented any academic sources. TFD (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, Wiki neutrality requires that we represent all mainstream reliably sourced views according to due weight. There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years. And academic sources I have supplied have been scrubbed in the past; when that stops, I'll be glad to do the work again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources you presented were academic, they were op-eds. Neutrality by the way is presenting "proportionately... all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". If you believe those sources are biased then that is your hard luck, you will have to wait until academic consensus changes. TFD (talk) 02:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Won't fact checked academic sources be much more useful for the article? ValenShephard (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitively yes. WP:NPOV must not be applied in isolation but in conjunction with WP:V and WP:RS so high quality academic sources are not to be "balanced" with op-eds. JRSP (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly asserting that I consider opeds as reliable sources is approaching the territory of casting of aspersions "to routinely accuse others of misbehavior without reasonable cause in an attempt to besmirch their reputations". Please cease and desist, so collaborative editing can begin here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not accusing you of misbehavior, the point in discussion is quality of sources; criticizing the sources you have presented is not criticizing you and does not imply any assumption of bad faith. JRSP (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No, the point in discussion is the repeated assertion that I consider opeds reliable sources. Once again, I encourage a post to WP:RSN for those who consider the sources I have presented as examples of the lack of due weight attention to all points of view to be unreliable, or undue. Short of that, the attacks on my character and mischaracterizations of my editing should cease and desist, so the article can advance and we can avoid time-consuming dispute resolution. Wiki articles present all mainstream reliable points of view, according to due weight-- not just those chosen to represent one point of view. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think thats the case. I don't think you consider opeds as your primary go to source, or as very reliable, and JRSP is also saying that that wasn't his meaning. ValenShephard (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's focus on the point of quality of sources. If there is any concern about editors' behavior it can be discussed in other places. What I am trying to say is that a high quality academic source possible bias should be balanced with sources of similar quality. JRSP (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right of course, I just wanted to point out that not all editors are making accusations against Sandy. ValenShephard (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There actually are anti-Chavez articles and books that could be used, such as The Unraveling of Representative Democracy in Venezuela (JHU Press, 2006). But as serious writing they do not portray Chavez in the same black and white terms as many op-eds do. Although they believe Chavez's reforms will prove ineffective, they also find fault in previous Venezuelan governments, the elites and U.S. TFD (talk) 05:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just start working on the article and examine sources as they come in? ValenShephard (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This whole discussion is a waste of time. WP:RS is clear about what is generally a reliable source, but ultimate determinations of reliability depend on context (what assertion the source is backing, in which article, quality of other sources, disagreement w/ other sources, etc.). There is no sense in trying to make generalized blanket decisions on reliability here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I used to do that myself until you explained it to me, now I agree with you. We should try to add to the article, if something isn't appropriate then we will deal with it as it happens. ValenShephard (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that there is consensus in academic literature that the government before Chavez was elitist, corrupt, undemocratic, and ineffective and failed to improve living standards, and that they were encouraged by U.S. foreign policy. Also that the elites attempted to overthrow Chavez in 2002, and Chavez reacted by consolidating power in the executive, weakening relations with the U.S. and attempting to build a coalition of anti-U.S. forces. There is agreement that Venezuela poses no serious risk to the security of any other other nation or to U.S. business interests, and that reforms are necessary in order to improve living standards and economic development. Since that is all noncontentious, it could be put into the article. The main liberal criticism of Chavez is that his reforms are unsustainable, that they have had limited effect on the lives of ordinary people and that he has not addressed the issues of corruption and human rights, which existed before his presidency began, and that his anti-U.S. stance has harmed his country and its relations with other S. American countries. Those criticisms should be in the article along with reliable sources that defend his record. TFD (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a pretty fair analysis. I think that should indeed be included. When Chavez is criticised in this article, we rarely get any background for these issues, and its too easy for the reader to assume that these are unique to his administration. We need to give the background, when dealing with things like crime, corruption and human rights (as TFD points out) that these were in a dire state before Chavez was elected. ValenShephard (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section on crime, based on neutral reliable sources. TFD (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you did a pretty good job. Giving some background and context is always much better than just throwing out some big shot statements. Without the context, it's hard for the reader to grasp the causes and the factors that went into whatever thing is happening. Are we still not going to hear from the Bolivarian Police's director? ValenShephard (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks pretty well cleansed of all reliably sourced criticism to me. POV continues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What "criticism" was removed exactly? I recall (haven't the diff open now, got to go) removal of various excessive details; besides the crime rate issue I mentioned below, what is your concern? PS POV does indeed continue on one level. The Bolivarian Missions get ... wait for it... wait for it.... 1 sentence. Crime gets 3 paragraphs, the revocation of the RCTV licence fully 5 paragraphs! The whole page needs radical WP:WEIGHT surgery. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, relevant diff here. I think overall it's better (shorter, clearer), but crime rates would be better than absolute numbers for comparability. It could also be clearer about being a media issue, both nationally and internationally - which rests substantially on comparisons. Finally, some of what was removed as excessive detail here (eg Colombian paramilitaries' contribution to Venezuela crime rates in western states) would be relevant for a Crime in Venezuela article. Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked/fixed/improved it, but have to go now. There are more details in National Commission on Police Reform and also List of countries by homicide rate has rate data. Rd232 ^talk 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I sense frustration. Information about the party of a president (outside of maybe a US president where their parties are so well known) is a very important piece of information. Having the largest political bloc in a country is a very notable thing, which can definitely stay in the lead. I am going to move it back soon. ValenShephard (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you still need to find a place for the information that the party numbers are being pumped up by gov't pressure, which you removed (take care with deleting well sourced text, please), instead of moving. If you insist that info belongs in the lead, you need to balance the lead-- which is why it may be better explored within the text. Please stop editing via revert and delete, rather than correcting issues according to policy-- deleting well-sourced text for no good reason is problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitive party numbers, the very notable statement that the party is the largest political bloc, is much more notable than a statement from a partisan source (which you are against including elsewhere) that there might be some pressuring, is not notable enough, or a strong enough statement, to be included alongside. I did not delete anything (please try to stay on top of what happens), I moved it. ValenShephard (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

really? Apply the same logic you're using at Villa del Cine; if it's so notable, how many reliable sources mention it? Right now you've got nothing but a brief mention in a left-wing publication, so how does that make it worthy of inclusion in the lead? I suggest you find stronger sources for info you want to include in the lead, to avoid trivia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case you have no argument. That information is very useful and very important, trvia it is not. Having the largest political bloc in a country with so many very competative parties, is a very critically important thing. The source is reliable. Even if it is left wing, which I am not convinced of, that doesn't stop you using right wing and virulent sources. ValenShephard (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a case of WP:UNDUE. You can find reported PSUV party numbers in multiple reliable independent sources while ILO opinion is less reported; in any case, balancing fact with opinion is not a good thing. Additionally, it smells like WP:SYN. Perhaps, noting that votes for PSUV-backed proposition in 2007 referendum were less than party members and votes in 2009 were not many more than PSUV members would be better for balance. JRSP (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to use the ILO report for this article any more that I see the need to add the U.S. section (which lists truly horrific abuses) into the article on recent U.S. presidents. TFD (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If we want to talk about increases in crime then we need reliable sources that explain how it relates to the Chavez administration. If we just mention the fact then there is an implied synthesis that he is responsible. We may as well state that the average temperature and the price of oil have increased under his administration. Could SandyGeorgia please provide a source that connects him to the rate of crime. I notice that the two model neoliberal states in South American, Columbia and Mexico, have higher crime rates. TFD (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We need a well-sourced Crime in Venezuela article to deal with this topic adequately here (i.e. to be able to craft a brief neutral context-respecting summary which points to that article for more details). In the mean time there is Law enforcement in Venezuela and Law of Venezuela. At least now there is the new Bolivarian National Police which seems actually to be a model that works, but is taking time to rollout nationally. Rd232 ^talk 07:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Rd232; TFD, please read the sources I've already supplied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Crime fighting has several steps: 1. Prevention/repression 2. Investigation. 3. Accusation 4. Judgment 5. Prison. Only steps 1 and 5 depend on the executive, 2 and 3 depend on the General Attorney and 4 is judicial power. Also high crimes rates predate Chávez presidency by at least 10 years. JRSP (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1) Consolidation of power in Venezuela, and lack of independence in the judiciary (see reliable sources), 2) Caracas was not the murder capital of the world pre-Chavez, and 3) meddling with the police. These items are mentioned in reliable sources, so we don't need to do original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So provide us with a serious source that explains this. Pretend you are writing an academic paper or an article for an encyclopedia and think about types of sources should be used. TFD (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I will reply to Schwindtd's comments on crime here. Neoconservatism describes the opinions that you believe are required to make the article neutral. They have a manichean view of the world where the U.S. is good and any alternative approach is evil. Because of this irrational view, their analyses have always been wrong, from Gorbachev to Saddam Hussein. All of SG's sources have expressed neoconservative opinions and are therefore probably wrong. Nonetheless if you can find anything that they have submitted to academic scrutiny then I would be happy to include it.

I mentioned neoliberalism not to show that it causes crime but to show that one should not draw connections without sources that specifically make the connection. I find it interesting however that you would blame crime in Venezuela on their government, but not in Colombia. And why are you bringing up Naomi Klein? I have not suggested that her opinions be included, in fact I am suggesting that the article needs a higher level of sources than you do.

When it comes to newspapers, the facts expressed in them are considered to be reliable but the opinions expressed are not and in fact are usually not even notable. I am sure I can cherry pick my way through them and find pro-Chavez articles. I choose not to however because the purpose of WP articles is not to praise or criticize but to explain what reasoned opinion has to say about the subject. Please read and follow WP:NPOV.

TFD (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

@ TFD. First, I do not support neoconservatism, just as I don't support socialism. My comment does not mean that I hold such views. My critique is of your use of the word neocon. While you're understanding of neocon philosophy (at least basically) is correct, your application is not. The new york times is NOT neoconservative. Does it advocate the use of US resources to spread democracy and neo-liberalism aggressively? (if you looked at Neoconservatism you would see that that is their basic policy- a derivative of old cold war mentality/ philosophies.) Criticism of chavez is NOT only a neocon trait. Is Amnesty International neoconservative? No. By using charged words you expose your failure to understand that lumping criticism of Chavez under the umbrella of neocon is inaccurate. I don't wish to provoke a fight. But I have a sneaking suspicion that you have a POV that, though you do not intend to push, seeps through nevertheless.

Second, I do not blame the Venezuelan gov't for crime (as of yet I have not looked up evidence). But if crime IS rising, then the gov't has not been doing a very good job, has it? But that all depends on evidence and as I do not have that I have given no claims on either side. Third, you consistently attack the newspapers for their bias, but let me warn you that criticism of chavez is real, just as praise is also real. I fear that just as you blanket all critics with the exhausted term neocon, you also blanket sources under terms like biased. Beware of generalizations. You will never find a "disinterested" or omniscient voice in the academic world when it comes to Chavez. He is controversial. On the left you have academics like Weisbrot who are in academia and whose papers are no doubt reviewed by the community, but he also is biased. On the right those academics also have bias. Just where, I would like to know, are you going to find these "reasoned" opinions? (you seem to contradict yourself- you say facts are good, opinions expressed aren't, but then you talk about "reasoned" opinions?) Are they from academic angels who have no bias? Did god send them unto us mortals to endow us with the wisdom of Yahweh? How will we mere mortals determine these "reasoned opinions"? Editors here can't even agree on cite style, something so trivial and inconsequential! I suspect that even your sources under close inspection would not hold nearly as much water as you believe. I trust your academic journals and my newspapers as much as I trust the criminally insane! Also, "please look and follow WP:NPOV?!" My good sir, I have made more edits on the talk page than on the actual page! And most of those were just cite changes! I don't really care what the content is, actually. I know that eventually it will all sort itself out. I would say that I am more "disinterested" and "reasoned" than most of the sources in the article! --Schwindtd (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion on the Chavez administration, although I have doubts about neoconservative analysis. Gorbachev was not re-starting the cold war, Saddam Hussein was not able to attack the US with WMDs with 30 minutes lead time. If you want their theories to be presented in the article please provide peer-reviewed articles they have written defending their views. I have never questioned the facts presented in U. S, newspapers, merely the opinions that they present. If you want opinions to be presented in the article please provide reliable sources for them and I will support their inclusion. Incidentally what does socialism have to do with this? Many of the opponents of Chavez are socialist and so was Uribe. BTW we use academic sources rather than op-eds because there are requirements for how the opinions are presented and we can see the degree of acceptance they have received. Please provide reliable sources that present the POV you wish to see in the article. TFD (talk) 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I am not a neocon! Those aren't my views! I was commenting on your use of the word neocon, NOT defending neocons. The socialism thing was just a rhetorical device used to demonstrate that I support neither right nor left. Also, I wasn't talking about op-eds. I was talking about news articles, very different. I don't want to insert opinions or anything. Not a bit. I actually don't intend on being very active when it comes to content. My responses have only been to discourage throwing labels like neocon around. That's all. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While news sources are reliable for news they are not good sources for opinions. I did not say you were a neoconservative, merely that you are arguing for the inclusion of neoconservative views on Hugo Chavez. While I have no objections to including these views, they should be taken from serious articles, not op-eds or cherry picked from newspapers. Please provide a journal article defending the views you wish to see presented. TFD (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, ok, this is the final time I will say this: I do not want to include any opinions, at all. I don't want any neocon opinions or socialist opinions or anything opinions! I am only trying to "discourage throwing labels around!" That is all I have to say. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that is basically how the article is now. However, if we want to include commentary on the perceived failure or success of the Chavez government, then we would be including opinions. And we would need to follow neutrality in including them. TFD (talk) 02:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to say anything else, but I've just seen this excellent analysis of exactly this issue and it's worth mentioning here. Sandy will disapprove of the source of course, but the article is chock full of useful links, and the analysis is spot on. Rd232 ^talk 14:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The causes of crime anywhere is a complex and controversial issue and for us to state, or worse merely imply, that Chavez's policies have caused the increased crime rates would be pure bias. Scholars are still arguing about why American crime rates peaked in the early 90s before going into decline. If anyone can point to a study about crime and the Chavez government however it might be helpful. TFD (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

So what do editors wanting to include crime want to be written? Should we just say that crime is very high and rising? Maybe that would appear that it is rising because of Chavez, as a simple presumption, seeing as its in the Chavez article. But it would be unacceptable to try to link crime to Chavez himself or his administration. I have still to see a source which explains how this link can be made. ValenShephard (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And, I'm assuming you are also advocating for us to edit the section on the country's economy, because it would be unacceptable to try to link improvements in the economy to the Chavez himself or his administration. Right?JoelWhy (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Although this is off topic I will answer it. It is Chavez and his parties' policy which is responsible for alot of the economic gain (unlike with crime). For example they are the ones who decided to increase spending on social issues etc. ValenShephard (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can not seriously be arguing that Chavez is responsible for the economy, but blameless for the crime rate. Well, maybe you are arguing that, but it's a silly argument.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, its not as black and white as your simple perception of the issues. Chavez and his ministers have direct control over spending their budget, but they do not have direct control over people doing crime. ValenShephard (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears you have no conception of the nature of a Latin American police force. (Think of the worst, most corrupt police force in the US, and multiply by mystery factor X.) Hence the need for the new Policía Nacional Bolivariana - to start from scratch with a new structure, new personnel and new institutional culture. Rd232 ^talk 16:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the police force have to do with this? Breaking endemic corruption in a police force is not an easy task for any party or individual. All I was saying is that Chavez has more direct control over economics than crime. He can rule over a corrupt police force and maybe try to solve it, but it is not himself and his ministers directly who guide the actions of these police officers. They dont control their consciousness and free will, but in a state economy they have direct control over spending, investment etc in some industries. Emphasis is on direct. His government guides the actions of the police, but they are not as direct and responsive as a choice on spending or investment.ValenShephard (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because it sounds like you're trying to disagree and not succeeding. :) Rd232 ^talk 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And more importantly, this is devolving into a forum, with original research and personal opinion being cited, instead of reliable sources. Rd232 is the only person who has provided a reliable source to back up what he has said ...-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right, noted. ValenShephard (talk)

Just wondering: Where is all this crime stuff going? What section? Will it get its own section? --Schwindtd (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could move this entire section to Talk:Crime in Venezuela. Bold move when the article doesn't exist yet, but it might motivate someone to act! Rd232 ^talk 17:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What crime stuff? There is no agreement on what to add, if anything, yet. ValenShephard (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The analysis which Rd232 linked to is very good, like he says. It explains how there is selective reporting on crime rate for political purposes, like in the case of Venezuela, but not in the case of Colombia (which ironically enough has more crime generally, than Vene.), a western backed regime (or it was). Very convincing argument, and not partisan at all, which should dispel alot of the issues here. ValenShephard (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't really compare the crime rates, can you? Colombia and Venezuela have different histories. Colombia has a high crime rate b/c of the drug trade which is used by the FARC. In fact, crime in colombia has decreased over the past decade. i suggest that we look at the overarching trend toward crime. it doesn't matter what happens in colombia, its about Venezuela. Also, which country is selectively reporting its crime rate? Venezuela or colombia? im afraid i don't understand. --Schwindtd (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

A section on crime is very simple. We list the facts (i.e. Crime rate spiking over the past 11 years.) We state what Chavez has said about crime. We list what 3rd parties have to say about crime, and Chavez's action (or inaction). End of story. Trying to bury the statistics because you don't like them is simply not going to fly.JoelWhy (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I reiterate: We need a well-sourced Crime in Venezuela article to deal with this topic adequately here (i.e. to be able to craft a brief neutral context-respecting summary which points to that article for more details). And by the by, comparisons with Colombia are irrelevant on fact (different circumstances, as you say) but relevant on media coverage (because dead Colombians are no less dead than dead Venezuelans, regardless of circumstances). Also crime has been rising throughout Latin America for several decades; I believe PAHO has statistics. Rd232 ^talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was arguing about the coverage of crime, not the circumstances or historical factors. I agree with Rd232, we can't make a useful summary without an article dealing with crime in Venezuela first. ValenShephard (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

From a March 2010 article in Reuters: "Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez's 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization." From a Dec. 2009 article in TIME "Venezuela, which now has the western hemisphere's highest kidnapping rate to add to its exploding violent-crime epidemic. (Caracas suffers some 40 murders each weekend.) There are as many as five abductions each day in the capital alone — and an estimated 4 out of 10 kidnapping cases across the country are never reported because, as in so many other Latin American countries, locals fear their corrupt police forces themselves are often involved in the crimes. Sources inside Venezuela's federal crime-investigation agency, known as the CICPC, concede that police have been involved in kidnappings, adding that even two officers from the CICPC's anti-extortion and -kidnapping unit are under investigation." There are plenty of more articles all reaching the same conclusion -- crime has spiked dramatically since Chavez became President.

That being said, I am not implying we should say "Chavez is the reason crime has skyrocketed." The wiki article should point out the numbers and indicate his response to crime (i.e. he continues to blame the previous administration for the crime wave -- not even Chavez says that the President isn't ultimately responsible for crime levels in the country.) and his actions (e.g. creating centralized police force.) And, we should indicate some 3rd party perspectives.JoelWhy (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

If we say that crime has gone up under Chavez then the implication is that it is a result of his actions. We need a source that explains why crime has gone up. TFD (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Several sources (including, I believe, the ones I mentioned above, but I will have to double check to verify) say that Chavez largely ignored the crime problem up until the past couple of years. It would be disingenuous to say Chavez did little about crime and this caused crime to spike. However, what should be added is something along the lines of 'Violent crime has risen considerably since Chavez took power. Chavez was criticized by X, Y, and Z for not doing more to combat crime. In 2008 (or whenever) Chavez created a centralized police force...' (This is obviously just off the top of my head, but the general sentiment is supported by the numerous articles I found on the topic.)JoelWhy (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

While the sources show some opinions that crime has risen because Chavez has politicized the police force, reducing its professionalness and therefore effectiveness (which is a plausible explanation), we have no sources that he has in fact done this or any notable opinions that points to this cause. It is equally plausible that demographic change and increased prosperity are causes. But this is an encyclopedia, not a place for speculation, and we really need good sources. TFD (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in my post. I am not at all saying we should state here that Chavez has caused violent crime to spike. That would be completely inappropriate and unsupported by the evidence (AFAIK). What we should include are the facts; under Chavez, violent crime has spiked. Chavez was largely silent on crime (including in his weekly TV addresses, etc) until the past couple of years. He has been criticized by X, Y, and Z for this (or whatever.) Chavez blames the previous administration's economic policies for the increase in crime. Chavez has instituted X, Y, and Z policies to combat crime.

We should also include something about police corruption -- Not because Chavez caused the corruption (which existed prior to his taking office) but because he has implemented policies to reduce police corruption. (Police corruption could be a separate issue altogether, but it seems to me that it would make sense to include it w/ a section on crime.)

In any case, what we can't do is simply ignore the significant increase in crime simply because there's not a study that says "Chavez caused the spike in crime because of such and such."JoelWhy (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I second Rd232's call for an independent article on crime in venezuela, lets create one and then once that is done we can put a summary of the section here. I think that would kill two birds with one stone. Thanks! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I second that too. Independant article, then summary here with Chavez's personal role in it. ValenShephard (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

And User: SandyGeorgia says we can't agree on anything! Well I think we have matured quite a bit, kudos to all! --Schwindtd (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

JoelWhy do you not think that it would be helpful to provide sources that explore the topic in a serious way? This article is after all about Chavez, not Venezuela, and all the information in it should somehow relate to the subject. Following your logic, what do we write: the rate of crime continued to rise under Chavez, crime rates in Venezuela are similar to those of other Latin American countries, crime is high by Latin American standards, but lower than Colombia and Puerto Rico? Sources say all these things and they are all true but provide a different spin. We need a source to interpret this. If you wish to contribute, it would be helpful if you could find a paper. I have looked but found nothing specific to Venezuela. TFD (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll provide more sources when I have time. But, for now, here's the Reuter's article, which starts with "Homicides in Venezuela have quadrupled during President Hugo Chavez's 11 years in power, with two people murdered every hour, according to new figures from a non-governmental organization.": http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A44A20100311 JoelWhy (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So does anyone have the time and inclination to start Crime in Venezuela? I will back that effort up, help with adding sources etc. ValenShephard (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have both of those, but I will have to do research. At this moment I am not quite prepared. Perhaps you could start it off? I promise to join you and any others in creating it. --Schwindtd (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I might give it a try if someone doesn't before me, I'll link you guys to it. I am a little disheartened though with the criticism and tagging the article Villa del Cine which I started got, that has kind of put me off. ValenShephard (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I encourage you to try. Don't let such things get you down. Its just an article. I know you feel like its your baby, but sometimes you have to let go. You must lift your spirits. You will have support!--Schwindtd (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the crime section. One of the news sources (Colombia Reports) isn't necessarily a great source, but since I only used it for direct quotes from Chavez in a national speech, I don't think it's too big a problem. However, if necessary, I'm sure we can find the same quote from some other source. Please post thoughts, etc here.JoelWhy (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Valen, enough is enough. Suddenly The Guardian isn't a reliable source? PC magazine has pretty much the exact same information. And Joystiq. And Gamepolitics. And more if you're interested. I went with The Guardian because it IS a reputable source, per Wiki policy.JoelWhy (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian is a great and supremely reliable source, but not its Blogs, which are written on the side by editors. Editors who write fact checked articles also write opinion pieces in the form of Blogs. That is the format of the Guardian. It allows readers to get the writers opinion outside of his serious writing on the issue. That's what I said, that the blog is unreliable, not the Guardian per se. Those sources again, would not be very reliable for an article on a political leader. ValenShephard (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the MSNBC source, and please provide some evidence to support your claim. Otherwise, we abide by Wiki policy, not your personal opinion. Also, the article was just used for direct quotes from Chavez, not any type of analysis.JoelWhy (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading correctly, this source is the reason for the new edit war. There is nothing in that blog that can't be located in other reliable sources, so why are we even having this discussion? The text can be sourced to other sources-- that doesn't mean the text needs to be removed or reverted, because Chavez quotes are not a BLP vio. You can tag the source as "verify credibility" as JRSP did, and request that it be replaced by a better source. These never-ending wars over trivia are exhausting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realise the information could be found elsewhere. But even so, the user has added another source which cannot really be disputed. You are right that this was trivial. ValenShephard (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, What is "Crime" doing in the "Foreign policy" section? JRSP (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean he si not even included in that article (66.43.238.115 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC))

Because it's not true. Next presidential election is December 2012. The only difference is that following the Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2009 Chavez is allowed to run again. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

IP 66, perhaps your query would be better phrased as "shouldn't it be more prominent that consolidation of power in the executive, erosion of democratic institutions, and government by presidential decree" are significant issues under Chavez's administration? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Consolidation" and "erosion" are matters of opinion but what do you mean by "government by decree"?

cf Enabling Act#In Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Both enabling acts had a limited scope in matter and time. Last one expired more than two years ago. JRSP (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

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 ^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have scoured the comments by SandyGeorgia (Talk but have failed to find any substance warranting a POV tag or any change to the article. -- 98.108.202.144 (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

There has been a group of editors who have complained about POV here. If you would like to open that can of worms then be my guest. Be warned. Schwindtd (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)