Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 8

Saravask 17:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

In this site belonging to a government entity is a pic of Chavez when he surrendered on Feb. 4. This could be an interesting pic for the article -for a change from so many similar pics: [3] There is even a link there to hear what he actually said when surrendering (that could be an interesting link to have at the bottom of the article. Anagnorisis 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I was reading one of the sub-articles and perhaps it is time that once we are done with this after the FA date, some of us spend some time correcting in those some of the same type of early mistakes that were present here early on -like the undue relevance some things are given in the articles when compared to the local reality. Any of you guys candidate for continuing doing some work on those?
• Question: Do you still want more of that random information I have supplied at times? Or it is a bit later and perhaps better not start including new material so close to FA date? Please let me know; I could go fish for some more. Anagnorisis 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it its time to clean them up of their whitewashing, undue focus, and POV. Yes, we could always use more info. I'm putting your's into the "early life" article right now. We could also always make the "

Early life of Hugo Chavez" article into an FA, and make it appear on the main page so that Anagnorisis's work is displayed. Thanks. Saravask

11:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an interesting thing to show ir regard to what Chavez says of his petro-diplomacy -perhaps in the foreign policy section: Chavez told the Argentine newspaper Clarin last month that Venezuela has "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" He said, "It is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States." It comes from the Washington Post. Here is the source [4]

I converted the source to ref/note format. Saravask 11:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Early life? Or perhaps good for the 1992 coup sub-article (we do have such a subarticle, right?). I am not sure some of this info below could perhaps going into the "early life" sub-article. Some of it maybe, but other may be too specific to the military coup attempt of 1992. Perhaps we can use some of it in that sub-article. the info is from the same Marcano book I have mentioned before.

• By 1986 - 1987 it was clear that Chavez and Francisco Arias were the leaders of subversive organization they had formed earlier: Bolivarian Revolutionary Army - 200. It was already then that they decided to go ahead with a coup attempt half way through the next government (regardless of who would win the elections). The reason they said was because mid-term governments were at the lowest popularity level. Page 98.
• Leaders of extreme left party Causa R, like Pablo Median, started meeting regularly with Chavez from 1985. Page 98.
• Medina says in their meeting Chavez was a person who was always jovial, but spoke little. He didn't have his own opinions. he was like a sponge absorving information. He always asked for a copy of all documensts that were shown. Page 99
• In 1987 Chavez now with the rank of mayor is sent to work as an aide to Miraflores Palace (the building where the president's and his staff offices are). Page 99.

• Er, you mean "major", right? Saravask 09:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• In 1989 during the Caracas riots, one of the four officers that founded the Bolivarian Army movement died. As Chavez was sick at the time, he didn't participate in helping put down the riots. Page 100
• Chavez didn't participate in an strange episode of what appeared to be at the time a timid attempt at rebelion: in late 1988 while president Lusinche was travelling a group of tanks without aithroization surrounded the Ministry of the Interior and for a while didn't allow the Minister (who at the time had some of the duties today assigned to the vicepresident) to get out. The situation was resolved with some calls, but there was never a throrough investigation. page 101.
• By late 1989 the Bolivarian Army changes its name to Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario, the word "movement" replacing "army" to show that civilians had joined the group. Page 101.
• In december 6 1989 Chavez is detained in Miraflores and taken away. All the officers involved in the movement are also detained, with the exception of Francisco Arias, under suspicion of conspiring. They were too many officers and most were among the best in their respective classes. That added to lack of proofs resulted in not one being charged formally. 101-102
• Douglas Bravo an former guerrilla fighter from the 60s and 70s meet Chavez for many years without the knowledge of the other officers. Bravo says that Chavez didn't trust civilians and for this reason what was to be a civilian and military rebelion, ended up becoming only a military one when Chavez left them cold and out of their plans a few days before Feb. 4 1992. Pages 104-105
• In 1991 Chavez is made promoted to the rank of commander and the coup attempt plan is activated under the name Plan Zamora (after Venezuelan XIX century general Ezequiel Zamora). However he feels insulted when he is given a desk job in the small city of Cumana. Luck is on his side when another commander in charge of a paratroopers batallion in the city of Maracay (near Caracas) leaves the army and Chavez is sent to replace him. This takes place despite a detailed report about Chavez subversive activities -strangely enough, the mayor who wrote the report on Chavez was ordered to undergo psychiatric examination. page 105
• All along the years they have been ploting, the officers have never discussed what would really be done once they are in power in terms of forming a new government. So far they have only been concerned about how to overthrow the elected government. It is only towards the very end of 1991 that they decide to start thinking about the legal framework ko their government. Page 106.
• Several dates are considered for the coup attempt in december 1991. Some captains wanted to go ahead as soon as possible and threatened to go ahead on their own without the higher ranked commanders. Chavez told many nothing would be done without him. They would have to wait. page 107.
• Towards the end of January 1992 Chavez knows there is not much time left. The coup has to take place before Feb. 15 as he knows afterwards he wont be able to participate as he is to be transferred to a small town near the Colombian border. They all meet in Caracas one last time and decide to be alert for Perez return from his trip to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland. Page 109.
• Perez arrived to Caracas very late on Feb 3 and went to bed. At the same time Chavez was leaving the city of Maracay with a group of just over 460 soldiers and officers in rented buses. The drivers and the 440 enlisted men had been told they were going to conduct some exercises in the state of Cojedes. The soldiers have no idea that soon the officers are going to ask of them to risk their lives on a rebelion they know nothing about. A few minutes after leaving the city Chavez orders the drivers to go to Caracas instead. When the drivers and others protest, he lies to them telling them that there has been a change of orders. That there are riots in the capital and they have been asked to go there to help quiet things down. Pages 112-113.
• Perez is waken up just before midnight with news of a rebelion starting in several military bases. He decides to get up and go to Miraflores. A few minutes later Chavez and a few men arrive to the Military History Museum near Miraflores. Surprise is of the essence for the plan to succeed. However it is Chavez who is surprised when upon arrival he and the first 5 men going with him are greeted with automatic gun fire. He then tells the soldiers guarding the museum that they have arrived to reinforce them. He convinces them. page 114-115.
• In the meantime the fight goes on in other places. In the presidential residence Perez's wife joins her security detail to fire back at the rebels. At Miraflores armed vehicles are trying to break down the entrance door. Perez then escapes in a single car with a few other people and decides to go to a TV station. Page 115.
• Chavez and the other comanders in the coup are expecting that anytime soon their comrades sent to take over the government's TV station will be broadcasting the message they have recorded in a VHS tape. However, although the station has been taken over, Chavez men do not know how to air the message. Furthermore, they are told that the format of the tape is not compatible with the station equipment. They take they explanation at face value. But then to the surprise of the rebels, perez comes to the air from the studios of the private TV station he went to. It is know the loyal soldiers at the museum realize the have been tricked by Chavez, who by chance at this very moment gets reinforced and then ask the soldiers at the museum to surrender their weapons or they would be killed right there. page 116-117.
• By 1.15am, Arias controls Maracaibo and had arrested the governor of Zulia. Other commanders are doing well in Valencia and Maracay. Another has taken over the small air force base in Caracas and taken prisoner the head of the air force. Only Chavez men have not achieved their objectives. Everywhere else things are going according to plan. 118.
• In the meantime Perez gets support from other heads of state. Castro sends a warm telegram to Perez telling him of his concerns. Chavez mother doesn't have a clue about his son involvement in the coup. By 4am Chaves starts to feel lost. Tha assult on Miraflores failed. Chavez said at the time he felt like a "tiger in a cage, not knowing how to lead and how to tackle the situation." page 118-119.
• By early morning Perez contemplated bombing the museum but decided against it. Instead he sends loyal officers to ask Chavez to surrender. They arrive at the museum at 7:45 am and talk to Chavez who asks for guarantees on his life. Chavez surrenders and is escorted to the offices of the Defense Ministry. page 121-122.
• When Chavez surrenders, his comrade commanders are holding control of their positions in Maracaibo, Valencia, Maracay and the air force quarters and its airport base in the center of Caracas. By now the high command knows exactly how many people have participated in the coup: 5 lieutenant colonels, 14 mayors, 54 captains, 67 lieutenants, 65 sub-officers, 101 sargeants and 2.056 enlisted soldiers. In total 2,367 military personnel from 10 different army batallions. Still the country doesn't know who led the coup. Soon Chavez unwillingly and unkowingly would score a great publicity stunt. page 123-124
• In order to speed up the surrender of the other rebel commanders, the high command decides to put Chavez on live TV. Contrary to Perez instructions who said to tape his announcements and edit it, they decide to go live for the sake of speed. It is then (10:30am) that Chavez comes on live TV saying that "for now" they have not achieved their goals and ask his comrades to surrender.
• All the other commanders are furious at Chavez. But slowly they all surrender. The last one is Arias in Maracaibo -later he became elected governor of Zulia state, where Maracaibo (second largest city) is. All of Chavez comrades had achieved success. All except Chavez. Ironically, being the one to fail is what would put him on live TV and made him a famous and known figure. He becomes the face behind the rebellion. He is the face that says the country needs to change. page 127.
• Later, Chavez has tried contrary to all other reports by government, the media and the others commanders involved, to try changing the sequence of events, claiming that when he surrendered others had done it already. All reports -with the exception of Chavez own account- state that nobody else had surrendered before Chavez out on TV.
• The coup senior officers spent 17 days in isolation in the headquearters of the Directorate of Military Inteligence. While they could not talk to each other, except a sentence or two when they were moved around, all the others had negative comments toward Chavez and looked down on him not understanding how he had failed so badly. Commander Urdaneta -the last one to surrender- told Chavez in a very ironic tone that it was great how fast he had surrendered. To this Chavez replied "I felt lonely" and Urdaneta then said "I also was alone with my men. You had your batallion and your officers. What is it you wanted?" And Chavez answered "well, I felt lonely." Later in prison one day Arias asked him "Hugo, what happened to you?" and he said "Fuck, I was left alone, without being able to communicate ... I missed you." pages 128 - 129.
• Chavez mentor during his childhood and adolescence (Jose Ruiz), the man in which residence Chavez read all the books about communism and socialism thinks that Feb 4. was a total disaster. He didn't went to visit him while in prison and instead sent him a message: "I told him I was not going to visit him because I was not going to forgive him, that after having arrived to Miraflores and having power at his hands, he took off. He should had gone in all the way, even if that killed him." page 129-130.
• Ok, that is it for now. More will follow later. Let me know if you want more details on something -like a full name (I know in some cases I only gave last names). Anagnorisis 03:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

We have a 1992 coup article at

Venezuelan coup attempt of 1992 that could use a lot of expansion, yes. -Silence

03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Anagnorisis. I'll put these in now. Saravask 05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил!

Totally. --Descendall 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting. A while back, Anagnorisis was pushing for two additions:

1. That Chavez's father admired Rafael Caldera, and thus his middle name "Rafael"
2. That there are exactly 75 people in Chavez's graduating class.

I want to know *exactly* where these came from, and *what their sources are* to corroborate these. The objector has picked up on these two things, oddly enough, as currently unsourced. If no sources are provided, I will need to delete these. Thanks. ← SARAVASK — 14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just move them to the Talk page until a source is found for 'em. They're not vital details, and it's easy to re-add them anytime, easier than re-nominating for FAC. -Silence 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Such well known facts .... sources are plenty. Just to mention one, the Marcano book. By the way, what could be the big deal with his class? Does this guy want more info? Like how many guys started and how many ended up graduating? The 75 figure is based on those that graduated. If he wants the figure of those who started, let me know. Bollocks! As to being and admirer of Caldera, the father went much further than just liking the guy, he even registered member in the party and got close enough that even got a sweet job in a Copei government just for being a simpatizer (ok, maybe not fair to say "just" for that ... but certainly helped). Obviously the guy doesn't know much details, or else he would be asking for more interesting info. Those are well known facts -at least here. Let me know what details you need *exactly* --Anagnorisis 23:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, he just changed his vote to support. No big deal now. ← SARAVASK — 00:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Last week in Venezuela (in the city of Puntofijo, Falcón State to be more accurate) an agreement was reached between Hugo Chávez and colombian president, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, for the construction of a binational gas pipeline (the cost will be around three hundred million dollars paid wholly with venezuelan resources), with which Venezuela will provide gas to Colombia in a very favorable deal for Colombia; it's apparently an attempt by Chavéz to "help a brother country". Maybe you'll like to include this on the "Foreing Policy" section of the article.Rosameliamartinez 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

True. But besides the recency effect, I do not think it is that relevant. There are always all kind of agreements with other countries. From a diplomatic standpoint, more interesting to mention could be the delegation of US congresmen that a few days ago after landing at the airport, going on an official visit to meet even Chavez, were not let out of the plane -which was in the tarmac for about 2 hours- after which time the occupants got tired and bored and left. --Anagnorisis 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Last week in Venezuela (in the city of Puntofijo, Falcón State to be more accurate) an agreement was reached between Hugo Chávez and colombian president, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, for the construction of a binational gas pipeline (the cost will be around three hundred million dollars paid wholly with venezuelan resources), with which Venezuela will provide gas to Colombia in a very favorable deal for Colombia; it's apparently an attempt by Chavéz to "help a brother country". Maybe you'll like to include this on the "Foreing Policy" section of the article.Rosameliamartinez 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You can find more information about this here:

http://eltiempo.terra.com.co/economia/2005-11-25/ARTICULO-WEB-_NOTA_INTERIOR-2626010.html

It's in spanish though...Rosameliamartinez 04:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I put it in. Thanks. ← SARAVASK — 08:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand it may be hard to find sources in english, and that a NPOV is desired, but I fear that the zero sum game of pointing out one detraction for every claim creates a lot of imprecision. To compound it some of the accusations themselves are not well documented and the sources are non NPOV weblogs with little evidence therein. I understand accusations from politicians to be more valid (even if unsubstantiated) however a ranking of relevance is also needed (eg a deputy mayor accusing him of genocide should not be added).

For example:

The claim of political prisoners, included in the list are individuals that are not being held for the classical definition of political crimes, such as Carlos Ortega he is being held for eluding arrest and having forged documents. Just because they are politicians and they are in prison does not make them political prisoners.

Another "However, the opposition called the results fraudulent, citing documents which indicated that the true results were the complete opposite of the reported ones."

This was an early version of the fraud theory that circulated inmediately after the referendum in order to rationalize defeat to the constituents and themselves, it was very knee jerkish in nature and under close scrutiny it fell apart, a good way to disprove it is looking at district tallies if it was the "complete oposite" (ie if every SI counted as a NO and viceversa) it would imply that opposition strongholds should have voted for Chavez, the results from Baruta (one such district) show that the SI won by 80% http://www.cne.gov.ve/referendum_presidencial2004/ Today the main accusation of fraud is more arcane and thought out, should the list of accusations be added to add context? or are they not on trial ;-)

The 25% reduction of GDP per capita is also not well referenced (even if it is the CIA factbook) not to mention catastrophic if true, the gross number is not accurate but the percentage growth is if memory serves me, perhaps the figure can be extrapolated if needed.

GDP 1998 $194.5 billion -1% 1999 $182.8 billion -7.2% (first year) 2000 $146.2 billion +3.2% 2001 $146.2 billion +2.7% 2002 $132.8 billion -8.9% 2003 $117.9 billion -9.2% 2004 $145.2 billion +16.8% 2005 Expected 9% growth

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1999/306.htm#econ http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2000/ve.html#Econ http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2001/ http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2002/ve.html http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/ve.html http://www.geoplace.com/hottopics/CIAwfb/factbook/geos/ve.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html#Econ http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh31049_2005-11-18_00-49-41_n17702015_newsml

PS Sorry if badly formated SuperFlanker 04:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you. No, there's no problem with the formatting. Well, for your concern about having the initial opposition fraud claim in the article, yes indeed it is suspect as per numerous Carter Center documents and studies linked in the "Notes" section. But nevertheless, that claim was made. We are not concerned with its factual accuracy as long as it is tagged as a claim. For example, if Bush were to begin to go on national television every night for two weeks and flatly claim that "the Earth is flat", why then news outlets would still report that because of the political weight and notability of the claimant. Again, whether or not Bush's claims are true would not determine whether the claims are covered. We cannot deny that the fraud claim took place, so at least that is a fact, and it must be reported here ...

• As for your figures, you must realize one thing about percentages: if there was a 50% contraction in a nation's economy in a given year, then how much growth would it take in the subsequent year to return to previous levels of (nominal) economic output. Most people would naively claim 50% growth is needed. They are wrong; it would take 100% growth. So if lay people saw 50% contraction one year followed by 100% expansion the next, they would likely by left with he impression that that economy on average boomed over those two years, whereas the reality is that the economy just stood still (it likely even lost ground due to inflation). I suspect a similar phenomenon is at work in your figures. ← SARAVASK — 05:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand the fact that a claim is more than enough, however not every claim should be added for some attempt at NPOV, with the example of GWB Michael Moore called him a ficticious president, but we might both agree that it should not be added as one of the 2000 election criticisms. Again that claim of fraud was uncermoniously dropped because it was knee jerkish, wikipedia should not be a sponge at the very least the updated theory should replace it.

As for GDP figures I knew that the formating was wacked, if you pay close attention the GDP dropped almost 30% from 1999-2000 despite showing on the links that it grew by 3%. Those figures are not accurate. and they all come from the factbook.SuperFlanker 11:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The -25% Per capita GDP has to be removed ""Although recent economic activity under Chávez has been robust under these programs,[40][41] per-capita GDP in 2004 has dropped over 25% from 1998 levels.[42][43] However, as of September 2005, there have also been significant drops since 1999 in unemployment[44] and what the government historically defines as poverty[45], and there have been marked improvements in national health indicators between 1998 and 2005.[46][47]"" This whole quote looks out of place in the Misiones section, even if factual the misiones have nothing to do with GDP or unemployment.

• • ""They also point to the over 25% drop in Venezuela's per-capita GDP under Chávez. Others cite his demagoguery and personality cult as pathways to achieving power and adulation."" SuperFlanker 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

And why is it that it should be removed? You do not give any reason why you think that. You just state it has to be removed. It would be insteresting to know why you think that. but anyway, if we use Chavez's government own numbers (trying to help him here) the data from late 1998 to early 2004 shows a reduction over all that period of 15%. Anyone needs a source? :-) Anagnorisis 00:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the first post the CIA factbook data is wrong and self-contradicting (1999 $182.8 billion -7.2% 2000 $146.2 billion +3.2%), if you can find goverment figures that might be helpfull BCV figures might be official.SuperFlanker 01:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• I have a table (from the Marcano book) with several government figures. Problem is the table has three different sources (not all data in the column year comes from the same source as there are different categories). Anyway, the sources are: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE), Ministry of Finance and Banco Central de Venezuela. All those sources would seem very pro-Chavez. Having said this, for GDP the figures are: 1999 -6%, 2000 +3.7%, 2001 +3.4%, 2002 -8.9%, 2003 -7.6%. All those 5 combined give a figure over the whole period of -15.1%. In any economy (official figures or not) declines of 6, 9 and 8% would be considered dramatic. --Anagnorisis 02:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Yes those figures do look solid, however and they are similar to what the CIA factbooks says however the GDP numer itself is suspect (ie from 182.8 to 146.2 in one year alone, despite official 3% growth) GDP per capita is therefore calculated from the gross, growth for 2004-2005 was +17% and from 2005 till Sep 2005 it is officially 9% expected to finish the year around 9-10% (check the links).SuperFlanker 02:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why did you revert the changes? I already outlined how that the data is not only wrong, implausible but self-contradictory in the same factbook. How can such a figure be included if it cannot be defended in the talk page logically?SuperFlanker 02:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edit made it more misleading the other way around. I haven't looked in detail what Saravask was saying (in terms of the figures). -25% or -15%, it is still down. If you disagree with his exact figures, I suggest you change the numbers. But your change turned it around making, it sound as something positive. --Anagnorisis 05:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed it because it was not factual and that should be enough, it was not positive because I also removed the unemployment achievement because neither have anything to do with the Misiones. If a figure is essential for whatever reason then I extrapolated using your figures and new numbers (2004,2005) from the BCV the Venezuelan economy grew 8.3% from jan1999 till Dec 2005. Meanwhile the population grew over that same time period by 9.3%. I don't think a -1% drop in GDP per capita is that relevant but to each his ownSuperFlanker 06:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

There I changed it to 1%, although it looks more petty that way IMHO.SuperFlanker 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is turning into a joke, Saravask is not even debating it here and is still proping up self-contradicting numbers. What ever happened to intellectual honesty to at least debate it? Those numbers are wrong and I am starting to question the NPOV of this assertion.SuperFlanker 20:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

They are NOT self-contradictory. It is NOT self-contradictory for GDP to drop one year and rise the next. Please stop this. Either provide authoritative evidence or else accept the figures. Saravask 21:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave the evidence already... Here is the 2000 version of the factbook http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2000/ve.html#Econ In it GDP is 182 Billion, on the 2001 version of the factbook http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2001/ GDP is 146.2 Billion (a 25% drop) despite it claiming on the same 2001 version of the factbook that GDP grew by 3 %. I still think it must be dropped until that claim is proven, which BTW it is the first time I have heard of it specifically.SuperFlanker 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to look further into the figures right now. By the way, the idea of inserting that GDP drop was given by User:TDC a long while ago. Thanks. Saravask 21:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Image deleted. Here is a graph of Venezuela's GDP, which I took from here. Saravask 21:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you a mod? ;) The 25% drop in GDP per capita was just superficial and I assume original research, that graph looks at semester GDP growth (with relation to the previous year's semester) which is harder to decipher (ie March 2003 was a serious drop, and that is why March 2004 was so high).SuperFlanker 22:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

We're playing a game of chess, and you've just checkmated me. I can't find any sources or graphs for the 1998-2005 GDP series other than the CIA World Factbook data (which SuperFlanker has just shown is self-contradictory). Does anyone else have this data (with a good source)? Thank you. Saravask 22:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Boys, boys, c'mon, it is so easy to find data:

• 1996 -0.2%
• 1997 6.4%
• 1998 0.2%
• 1999 -6.1% (0.1% difference with official figures already mentioned above)
• 2000 3.2% (this one is different by 0.5% when compared to the same source mentioned above but 3.2 or 3.7 ... close enough)

All the other numbers, we already agreed on them above (2001 +3.4%, 2002 -8.9%, 2003 -7.6%) so ... I am a bit lost at what is it that is being discussed. Oh! Where did I get those figures above for 1996 to 2000? Here (it took me 2 minutes to find them using google): [5] Here is another source (actually it is so easy to find sources, I do not understand when you guys cannot find things [6] --Anagnorisis 23:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That data is not disputed by me, however you are still missing 2004 and 2005 (well 3/4) or are we in a time warp? Here are those numbers from the horse's mouth. 2004 [7] 17.3% 2005 [8] "determina un crecimiento de 9,1% para el acumulado de los primeros nueve meses del año" It is expected that it will finish the year at 9-10%. I used all that data to reach a 8.3% growth in GDP with a population growth of 9.3% SuperFlanker 06:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

And look how good the economic indicators were in the years immediately prior to the 1992 coup (and how they changed thereafter): [9]

Per Capita GDP: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ve&v=67 1999-2004 TDC 02:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The per capita graph uses the same data from the CIA factbook which is self-contradictory, I will try to put it in a table. (keep in mind that the 1999 factbook has 1998 numbers etc)

As you can see they use the GDP/Population to derive the GDP per capita, but the GDP figure is deeply flawed and self-contradicting. The population figure seems accurate.SuperFlanker 06:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Those figures for GDP are completely wrong. The right figures (very similar to the ones that were quoted by the national and international press) can be obtained from the Banco Central de Venezuela web page. Economic growth was positive during 1999, 2000, and 2001, very negative (around -7% and - 9%) in 2002 and 2003 (a -25% drop on the first quarter of 2003), and very positive (over 8%) in 2004 and 2005. --Juanco 18:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The BCV figures growth percentages are close to what is reported in the factbook, I read and linked their reports for 2004 and 2005, officially GDP grwoth for 2005 was 9.4% SuperFlanker 19:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I remove it again?SuperFlanker 18:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I think we have to be as careful with the captions that go under the pics as we are with the article itself. I notice under one picture that the FTAA has been shelved. I would say that is not correct. That is what Chavez wants to believe, but if you ask other countries, they would very much say "NO, IT HASN'T BEEN SHELVED." I suggest instead of "the recently blocked" to change it to "their recently opposed." Hmmm.... I will make this change myself. Revert it if you disagree. --Anagnorisis 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked? Hmmm .... better ... but was it really blocked? Or is it that they just opposed it and managed to postpone real progress. They just didn't reach consensus (which is what many would like). 29 countries support it as it is. 4 (Mercosur countries) want changes, and 1 alone really opposes it fully (Venezuela).

• The latest edit made by user 200.11.242.33 re. the coup attempt is not accurate. The number of people that died during the coup attempt were 14. Chavez later in order to underline how low the number was said himself "February 4 there were 14 dead. That is less dead than any weekend in Caracas (referring to vilolent deaths resulting from crime), less deaths than the children that die of hunger in Venezuela in one month. In this way I carry with my violence, it is up to the others to carry with theirs. I have neved evaded it (meaning responsibility). Do I have my hands stained with blood as somebody said? Yes, the hands and all of me is blood ..." This is in the Marcano book pages 127 and 128.
• There is a mention that says that half the military forces were with Chavez during that coup. The first coup attempt was only carried by army forces (not navy, not air force, not national guard), and the amount of people confirmed involved one way or the other only amounted to 10% of the army. Also from Marcano. pages 123 - 124.
• The other coup that the same user mentions was in November of the same year and that one incluuded men from other groups (air force, civilians, etc.) But I do not have hard data with me at the moment. Anyway, those details of the November coup I do not think are relevant now in this article.--Anagnorisis 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Article says in the coup section: ...large cities as Valencia, Maracaibo, Aragua, and Valencia .... Notice Valencia is mentioned twice. Aragua is not a city it is state. You may want to mention instead the capital of Aragua which is Maracay.--Anagnorisis 16:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Article also says: ....meanwhile Pérez, the coup's intended target, soon lost his presidency to Rafael Caldera That is incorrect in a couple of fronts. "Meanwhile makes it sound that it was soon afterwards. However it was over a year later that Perez lost the presidency. And not to Caldera. Perez lost the rpesidency as a result of being impeached on corruption charges. He was replaced by an interim president for the remaining few months of his presidency. Caldera won the next election (one that Perez would not have been able to contest anyway as Venezuela at the time didn't allow for inmediate reelection).
• By the way, I remember reading the whole article a couple of weeks ago (since then I only read small portions at a time looking for small things). I guess some major changes have been made to text. Else I cannot explain why I didn't pick on some of these things. Or perhaps unkown to me I have Alzheimer's.--Anagnorisis 16:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Article says: "He was then forced to appear on national television..." Correction, he wasn't forced. He was asked to do it to help avoid any more unnecesary loss of life -after all it was evident to Chavez they had failed. One thing not mentioned often is that those that were sent to negotiate his surrender were friends and simpathetic to Chavez -to this day there are two hours of Chavez surrender that are unaccounted for - a ride from the museum (with these officers to whom he surrendered) to the Ministry of defense, instead of the usual 15 - 30 minutes, took about 2 hours 45 minutes -obviously trafic was unusually light that day.Anagnorisis
• The article says "Chávez would issue a general call for a mass civilian uprising against Pérez." Besides that, not many details are known about the contents of the taped message that was to be broadcasted. All that is known is that there was a taped message They were not able to broadcast it due to their lack of knowdledge in opearting the equipment. The format of their VHS tape had top be converted and the staff at the station (lying) told them it was not possible. Some of the deaths of 4F took place during the taking of the TV station. The present minister of the interior (Jesse Chacon) led the assault on the TV station. There are pictures of him (which were printed in the press at the time) posing pointing to the dead very much like the pics of hunters smiling over their dead game. Totally irrelevant to the present article, but thought it could be interesting to mention. Anagnorisis 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Re.: latest edit on the 1992 coup ... I am not so sure that Francisco Arias failed in Maracaibo. He held control of the military bases there, and he had managed to arrest the governor of the state and took over his offices. In the opinion of most, he held control of Maracaibo. Only Chavez failed miserably that day; all other commanders had different degrees of success.
• This, I find it to be an interesting fact and for ease of understanding, I will quote from Marcano's book (page 127): "A fact that has remained, casting a shadow, is that the majority of the soldiers that participated in the coup were used (that is the literal translation from Spanish, but most accurate reflecting what the author says could be "taken advantage"), they were ordered to fight under deceit." This really does cast a dark shadow on those officers that day. One may wonder how "loyal" those 10 percent of the army units may have really been if they had really known for what they were being ask to give their lives. --Anagnorisis 18:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• "Chávez is of Roman Catholic extraction, and is currently a practicing Christian." Is describing him as of 'Roman Catholic extraction' the best term? 'extraction' implies ethnicity, as opposed to religion.

Was this article written by the Venezuelan Ministry of Popular Enlightenment? "Known for his democratic socialist governance"? Puh-lease. "Known for being an authoritarian demagogue and thug" is much nearer the truth. Opposed by the middle and upper classes? What about the general strike? Were the 75% of the people who boycotted the elections all "upper class"? Does this third-rate Mussolini really deserve this vast, eulogistic article? Plus a whole separate article on his early life? And another on his foreign policy? Adam 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Adam, if you find redundancies than remove them instead of criticizing the lenght of the article. If you think the article doesn't cover enough the general strike, the boycott, etc... than you can help. If you think the article is biased than explain that in lenght. But I am not sure you'd succeed to do so while comparing him with Mussolini. Cheers -- Svest 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

I have been meaning to bring this up for quite some time. Although the article is good on an informative level, Chavez is, to put it mildly, not without his critics, and those voices seem to be silent in this article. From official blacklists of opposition members, financial irregularities at the PDVSA and Citgo, violent confrontations between "Chavistas" and opposition protestors, the judicial coup, and Chavez's warm relations to every maniacal despotic government he comes in contact with, clearly there is more to the "Fifth Estate" than is being told here. TDC 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC, I tend to agree with you. However I think more of those things are mentioned in the article. If they aren't, please include them. But try writing them in NPOV style and it would be good if you can provide an outside source (which I know there are - one just has to go look for it). --Anagnorisis 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

TDC, recently, I would've agreed with you. But just about all of the criticisms you suggest are already in the text: Chavez' friendship w/Castro and his visit to Saddam Hussein during OPEC, the "judicial emergency committee" of 1999, corruption allegations, the "blacklist", clashes between pro- and anti-Chavez forces around the 2002 coup. Those stories are already being told. DanKeshet 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the critiscism section, a lot of the accusations are documented there, regardless of veracity. SuperFlanker 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This group of articles is inordinately long for a President of Venezuela - compare them with the articles on

Adam, do you think it is a good reason to say that this article doesn't deserve this lenght because Fox's is much shorter?! -- Svest 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}

You may well find yourself in for a fight if you rewrite this one, Adam. People do not tend to take kindly to major changes (let alone rewrites) to featured articles, particularly ones supported by so many. Ambi 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Portions of the article as it stands now (10 Dec 11.00 BST) would not be out of place in the "Socialist Worker" or "Granma." Of course this is going to happen with people and things which are dear to one or another ideological group, and it is hard, if not impossible, to show to someone who, say, tends to agree ideologically with Chavez, that using phrases such as "democratic socialism" and "an exponent of anti-imperialism" shows clear bias from the word go. However, as much as other people have pointed this out, it bears asking once more: should an article which is always going to be disputed to the extent that this one is, be featured?

User:PZFUN has made two attempts to reverse User:Silence's alternating image positionings. Shall we take a vote on the matter? Thanks. Saravask 15:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any need. Alternating is the blatantly superior model, both in general and especially in this specific page. Let's not torture our readers by arbitrary trying to put every image on one side. In paricular, putting all the images at the top of every section is colossally poor (and lazy) image/text arrangement. Keep reverting him until he justifies his change, report him to an admin if he doesn't stop or explain his reasoning. -Silence 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

There are in any case far too many pictures. They are all much of a muchness and I will delete some of them when I do a new draft. Adam 22:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, 16 seem to many. I would prefer about half that amount. If we were talking about a beautiful model (man or woman), the more the better as eye candy. But Hugo is kinda ugly. --Anagnorisis 00:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, couldn't disagree more. I wouldn't delete more than 1 or 2 images from the page, and a couple of sections (like the two coup sections) could actually benefit from having another image. Images are vital for drawing the readers in and keeping them grounded on the man named Hugo Chavez. It's easy for people who are used to Chavez and have grown tired of seeing him to dismiss images, but remember that this page is for people who don't know about Chavez already, and may have never even seen how he looks before; having a large number of images not only is necessary because this is such a long page (if you remove images, I expect you to remove some chunks of text too to keep things balanced; try moving some to sub-pages if you feel size is a big issue), but is also important because so many portray Chavez in a very different light, helping capture numerous facets of him.

Also, if you do remove any images, certainly transfer them to subpages so we don't waste their potential to help break up and illustrate those pages too; but since you can move them to subpages without removing them from here, I absolutely don't see the need, and am disappointed that we're fixating on such an issue with the main page showing only a few pages away and dozens of textual issues still left unresolved. -Silence 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The standard for featured articles is to have all the images at 250px and right aligned. I am updating this page to the standard, not radicalising it. This article is image heavy and the images were way over-sized. User:PZFUN/signature 05:16, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Then cite the Wikipedia policy or guideline that says that all images are to be 250x and right-aligned. :) Until you do, I'll rely on common sense and an understanding of the basic principles of design to make the page accessible, not an arbitrary and nonsensical ruling that is, in fact, not utilized by just about any Featured Articles in existence. Look at just about any FA out there, none of them blindly follow that ridiculous "standard". And thank god for that. -Silence 08:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

For a change Silence makes sense again. Yes, you convinced me. Despite Hugo being so ugly. --Anagnorisis 14:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You can be such a sweety-pie sometimes. :) I do understand your concerns about having too images, but I think that most readers will appreciate the effort to make the page visually appealing (even if they don't end up being as vocal as the ones who come here to complain about it). :) -Silence 00:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm 100% sure that only the middle and upper classes criticize Chavez. Poor people would never criticize a socialist leader, right? Why would they? Everyone knows socialism helps the poor. Seriously, can anyone justify that phrasing? 24.162.138.238 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Easily. A majority of the lower-class majority in Venezuela seems to support Chavez, while a majority of the upper-and-middle-class minority in Venezuela seems to oppose him. Although there are also a significant number of exceptions to this generalization (and common sense tells us that by nature statements like "the upper class X" or "the lower class does Y" must be generalizations, making stating it explicitly unnecessary), these exceptions tend to be much less outspoken than the rule does. It may not be perfectly Politically Correct (what a loss), but it's Neutral and seems to give a pretty accurate description of the social conflict and class struggle in Venezuela that people unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics vitally need in order to understand events in context. Nor does "popularity" indicate that a certain course of action is correct, or even that the poor are being helped by the policy; try reading the rest of the article, the intro paragraphs along can't possibly address every little nuance of such a complicated and controversial figure and the reactions to him. -Silence 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so I guess the poor don't criticize electoral fraud, human rights violations, and political repression. Somehow, I think that claim needs a citation. 24.162.138.238 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Oy. You rather miss the point. Chavez's supporters don't acknowledge the existence of electoral fraud, human rights violations, or political repression. And, again, I'm sure quite a few lower-class people criticize Chavez and accuse him of all those things, but those people are, overall, exceptions, since almost the entirety of Chavez's support is based in Venezuela's poor majority. And I wouldn't mind adding a citation for the claim, I recommend you contact either Mr. S or Mr. A for a nice source to link to, as they are the two chief contributors to this article. I'm just here to keep things in good condition during their absence. It's a dirty job, but... -Silence 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Everyone knows socialism helps the poor." How sure are you about this? Do you live in Venezuela? or have ever Lived under a Socialist regime? I do doubt it. Socialim dosn't help the poor, the basics of Socialism consist in making all presons have the same level, this does not mean that it makes poor people become welthier, it makes welthy people become poorer, this when confronted to the fact that poor people generally consider that their povery is others persons fault. P.S.:"I'm sure quite a few lower-class people criticize Chavez" Yet again wrong, electroal fraud was recentlly prooved when the opposition requested everyone who didn't support the governament to skip voting, and the outcome was unbelivable. There was one specific voting site in which from 7.000 voter, only 40 attended, curioulsly this was a pro Chavez Site. --MeDP 02:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I am implementing a common-sense solution (already outlined by me at

So if part of the article needs to be cleaned up, how on earth did it become a featured article?Dr. B 02:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Because I added that tag about 15 minutes ago? :) I could easily add the same tag to almost any other Featured Article on Wikipedia. I have quite high standards, and just about all long articles don't meet them at least in various portions. Feel free to remove the tag if you've read the text in that section and disagree with it, but the point of the tag is to draw attention to the area of the article that needs the most attention and fixing-up, not to go to such a silly length as removing the FA status of one of the most overall thorough and well-written FAs on Wikipedia. I previously attempted to create the same effect with a To-do List mentioning a few areas where the article could use improvement, but the list was hidden by Mr. S, and most of my requests to focus on improving that section of the article over the last few weeks were ignored, so I've taken that new step to highlight the article's chief weak point so that it can be dealt with quickly. Again, if you disagree, feel free to remove it, and if you agree, feel free to improve the section so that the tag won't apply anymore. The point of this entire process is to improve articles so Wikipedia will have better content for its readers, not to argue back and forth forever about something as trivial as whether the article's "Featured"; I can think of reasons to remove just about every article's FA status, but only a handful really deserve it at this point. -Silence 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd hope that an article wouldn't have its FA status removed for problems that could probably be fixed in a half hour of work. :) -Silence 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The following text is being repeatedly re-inserted into the article, even though it seems to be unnecessarily trivial and is poorly-formatted:

On November 10, 2005, Chávez, stated regarding Mexican President Vicente Fox in a talk before supporters in Caracas that he was saddened that "the president of a people like the Mexicans lets himself become the running-dog of the empire" for what he alleged was Fox's obsequience to U.S. trade interests in his promotion of the newly stalled FTAA. (The word Chávez used, cachorro, literally means "puppy dog", but it was the standard translation offered in Spanish Communist discourse for Mao Zedong's zougou.[17])

Please consider:

1. Moving this information to
   Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez
   . It is fairly trivial, and makes an already-quite-large article (and an already-quite-large section) even larger. There's plenty of room on the sub-page for such details.
2. The fact that the actual translation of text is more important than the "official translation"; if he said puppy dog, he said puppy dog, regardless of any subtle (or claimed) connotations.
3. This article's current notational system. If you go through the article, you'll note that there is not even a single external link in the entirety of the article's text; all of them are in the "notes" and "external links" sections. If we are to link to your above website, we will have to do so in the exact same way: by using the Note system and including both the explanatory paragraph and the link below, in Notes—which will require renumbering many of the other notes to compensate, another reason to consider adding the information at the sub-page instead, where it will be much easier to fit in). -Silence 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey someone hacked the site.. It wasn't me (I swear!) but it looks like someone's not too fond of Chavez.

"Someone" ha ha ha. Actually not just someone; it is many who are not that fond of the guy. --Anagnorisis 17:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Always interesting though that the vandals don't seem to come from Venezuela, and seem to dislike him based on third-hand information passed to them. *shrugs* Just for two cents ;) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, a phenomenon almost as amusing as Chávez's first-world groupies who've never actually set foot in Venezuela, let alone lived under the guy's rule.--RicardoC 00:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

i actually live in south america and believe in what Chavez is doing. Long has all of south america been he whorehouse of the U.S. (it is fairly the case of bolivia, mexico, venezuela and by the mid 50s Cuba, anyone who might think that its not the case, then i sugest a quick stop at the library). Its no secret that the united states controls most of south america, if all of sotuh america was united, as the united states was, we could be easily another world power. Venezuela is rich in oil, so is argentina, bolivia and argentina are rich in natural gasses. Its true that Chavez is a rather ambiguous figure, but he is also someone who has rised against the imperialist hegemony of the united states, the only country that in today standars, wages wars on countries that are far away from their borders (sometimes without any real excuse for it, just a number of vague excuses that dont make a good one), in todays world, the US is involved in almost everywar (Darfur, for example, the US backed the wrong side and labeled as "tribal war"), in most poor countries, the united states is involved (american corporations steal all the oil from Nigeria, and thats a damn fact). No hegemony lasts a thousand years, and as the world continues his course, more Chavez will appear for every Bush that happends to be around. The US has been involved in almost 600 attemps of assasinations of Fidel Castro (all in the Church report to the congress), not only that but it also distabilized the socialist goverment of Salvador Allende in the 70s, they helped the contras (a group that was aided by drug money, as it is vox populi) and caused a war that costed 30000 nicaraguan lives (what did they cared for the Sandinistas?, since when this false interest in lesser countries). Chavez is just a natural response to all this, as Evo Morales is in Bolivia, as Lula in Brazil, as Toledo in Peru... etc, etc, etc...

This is more than a little embarassing, but I have to clear it up. I had multiple pages open and I appear to have written on this Discussion page comments more appropriate to another. Since people have commented upon it, I'll leave it up. But in the interest of not looking like a fool, I felt I'd better clarify this. PainMan 07:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Why doesn't the author submit Chabez's name for beatification?

Some would claim the same about the George W. Bush article, it's unfortunately a necessary part of NPOV, that we not drag people through the mud, no matter who thinks they deserve it. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This article could have been written by one of the dingdongs from the Cristic Institute or, more contemporaneously, MoveON.GeorgeSoros.org.

The "proof" of alleged US involvement in the farcical "coup" attempt* is an article in the viciously and notoriously anti-American British Observer newspaper! Accepting an article from the Observer as "proof" is like accepting an article on the "World Jewish Monetary Conspiracy" in the Nazi Party's newspaper the Volkischer Beobachter.

(an attempt so farcical any fair-minded person must be reminded of Reichstag fire Hitler used to establish his dictatorship; a fire set by his own SS!)

But the bullshit doesn't stop there.

Contra-bashing crap is dredged up--yet nowhere is the genocide perpetrated by the Sandanistas, and their other crimes--against the Miskito Indians mentioned, only the same crapola about "American-trained" "Death Squads." (I'm surprised their isn't a picture of Martin Sheen in the article!) Apparently innunendo and gossip against the US is "proof" but documented evidence of Communist atrocities isn't worthy of mention.

More directly, nowhere in does this article mention Chavez's aid for the Columbian rebels who've committed countless atrocities in their quest to replace the Columbian democracy with a Communist dictatorship." The Columbian government has repeatedly protested the actions of Chavez's gov't in support of these terrorists.

Perhaps you could write up a nice NPOV paragraph on the subject, and post it here, and assuming nobody has any valid complaints, it could be inserted into the main article? I stress that NPOV is important. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The democracy of a city in South Carolina is being threatened by communist guerrillas? Oh wait, you meant Colombia. Forgive me, Yanqui. --Daniel 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate a good wise-ass comment as much as the next person and you had me until laughing until your last word.

"Yanqui" is going too far. That word is a slur on my nationality. By contrast, Norteamericano is merely inaccurate when applied only to Americans since both Canada, Mexico & Central America are geographically part of North America. But Yanqui is a hate word. As offensive as "greaser" to a Mexican or "kike" to an Italian Jew or "nigger" to an African-American or "redskin" is to an American Indian (I am descended,in part, from Cherokee chiefs , African-American slaves, as well Jews, so I don't want to hear any whining; my wife and daughter are of Spanish, Aztec and Mayan descent so I find all of these terms derogatory as well). There's no doubt it's a term of abuse Daniel. What if someone labelled you a "spic"? Whatever your nationality, it would be offensive, so I take serious umbrage to your using one just as vicious toward me because I am an American. But since I am an American, whatever foul epithets hurled at me seem to be ok with the powers that be at wikipedia. PainMan 05:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Boo-f*ing-hoo. Looks like the conservative yahoo likes to play the victim as well...

Instead of concentrating on that, we are treated to an bogus, falsified recapitulation of the Iran-Contra affair. Nowhere does the author mention the fact that the 8 year, $80,000,000 investigation by Lawrence Walsh PRODUCED NOT A SINGLE FELONY CONVICTION! (While the seven year, $40M "Whitewater" investigation produced dozens of felony convictions including a sitting governor of Arkansas!)

The hell it didn't!

Richard V. Secord were all convicted, and some of them served out their sentences. --Descendall

21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

To spare them this, and protect the reputations of those who were rich enough to afford a defense,* the elder President Bush pardoned them. It ended Walsh's vicious, quixotic quest (one which was also high remunerative: to the tune of millions of dollars in salary for Walsh!). PainMan 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• e.g. Cap Weinberger, one of the greatest SecDefs in US history, a visionary who helped to create the military that destroyed the Soviet tryanny without firing a shot.

Not fully aware of the details myself, but articles tend not to place a lot of emphasis on things that didn't happen. Also, this subject is not directly related to Chavez, so doesn't really belong in an article about him. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned that, Sheru. As I say above, in this section, I had a number of pages open and mistakenly posted this info here. I intended to remove it, but a number of people posted comments (including your badself, ;o). And some posted complete falsehoods such as the character above you. PainMan 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Elliot Abrams wasn't convicted of anything, let alone a felony, a FACT neither this article nor the propaganda in the Observer makes mention of. Walsh had no evidence agasint Abrams that proved he'd committed a felony; Walsh simply used the threat of the bankruptcy that Abrams' defense would have cost him to force Abrams to please guilty to a SINGLE MISDEMEANOR. (Walsh used the undemocratic grand jury to procure the indictments; the grand jury system is the most undemocratic feature in the US system; God help you if a prosecutor ever decides that destroying your life will advance his or her political ambitions.)

Abrams isn't mentioned in the article at all, in fact, so it would be very difficult to discuss his legal standing, in an article that isn't about him. THis article is about Hugo Chavez. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. PainMan 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Abrams, you see, isn't a wealthy man. A trial defense would have cost him his life savings. He took the course almost anyone else would have who doesn't have a huge fortune to defend himself. Knowing he had no evidence, Walsh forced Abrams to plead guilty to a single misdemenor to salvage Walsh's reputation--already beyond repair in the legal community except in the opinion of the most fanatical Reagan & conservative haters. Abrams sensibly decided that pleading guilty to a minor offense--which would in no way have barred him from further government service or taken away his civil rights. The Elder President (George H. W.) Bush pardoned an innocent man (actually, several innocent men including Caspar Weinberger one of the greatest Secretaries of Defense/War in American history who played a key-role in the destruction of the Soviet Union, his biggest crime in the eyes of Leftists, esp. Euro-trash leftists--righting an injustice perpetrated by an out-of-control prosecutor with a hatred for the great Ronald Reagan and anyone who worked for him. Walsh was nothing more than a gutless American Vyshinsky or Freisler.

Again, I suggest you create an

Elliot Abrams article, Chavez's article is hardly the place to mention any of this Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties}

) 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You might find people take you more seriously if you don't refer to historical characters as 'Idiot', you'll notice articles on

Josef Stalin maintain NPOV, this article is no different. (Notice also that Stalin and Mussolini are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, so this is not a case of a leftist WP or authors, rather a common rule) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties}

) 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You might find people take you more seriously if you don't refer to historical characters as 'Idiot' Sheru, has political correctness gotten so bad that no even the dead are entitled to proteted class status if they were on the Left? PainMan 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The praise heaped upon socialism is beyond contempt. The truth is that in EVERY SOCIALIST COUNTRY THAT HAS EVER EXISTED the inevitable results has ALWAYS been: mass murder, political repression, the supression of human rights and mass poverty--except for party members and the rulers--"redistribution of wealth" is nothing more than universalization of poverty. The truth about socialism (and any purported "disnction" between socialism and communism is one without a difference; 100,000,000 human beings were murdered in the 20th century alone by Socialist regimes.

You mean 'present and former socialist countries' like Sweden? Poor, blighted Sweden, graveyard of the Eurpoean continent? Sweden, home to mass murder, political repression, and poverty?

Fact-free argumentation coupled with invective is not particularly convincing.

I'd be very interested in your sources for that number, since they invariably involve "millions of Soviets died during a famine" as 'murder' - whereas nobody claims that Capitalism has killed billions of Africans over its history. "They died of poverty" tends not to be considered murder, except in the eyes of people unable to otherwise fabricate statistics about communism being a great evil killing hundreds of millions. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that people do die of famine in underdeveloped capitalist countries, but the famines in socialist countries were delibarately organized (or at least the conditions that led to famine were organized) by the government. For example the infamous

Stalin -- there were no climatic etc reasons, state just expropriated (a very good socialist word!) the harvest. And people starved, practised cannibalism, and died. Constanz - Talk

15:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you draw the comparison, since Chavez appears to rule by the consent of his electorate, and statistics seem to back up that Chavez has actually improved the living standards of the poor in his country. Do you have other statistics to back up your claim, rather than an angry tirade of ranting? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The Nazi Party was the largest party in Germany in 1933 with the most seats in the Reichstag (the German parliament under the Weimar Republic, q.v.. He was also appointed Chancellor legally by then President Hindenburg.

• Not so sure of "...statistics seem to back up that Chavez has actually improved the living standards ..." I tend to disagree with that. Though it is true some things have improved for some of the poor. Many others have got worse. And one thing that IMO is quite bad, is the discrimination among the poor themselves -in the very poor neighborhoods to have better access to some of the new programs for the poor, said poor person must be a known supporter of Chavez. But we are digressing. Problem with most "bad" guys is that NPOV articles tends to make them look better than they are. But the some goes for very good guys: NPOV articles makes them look less good than they are; NPOV moves people from the bad and good extremes to the center (whatever you consider the guy to be). --Anagnorisis 17:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, that's the beauty of my "seem to", it allows me to keep things in "what I'm exposed to" - but I'll assume you do in fact know more about the situation than I, and bow to that. But I agree, it's just a necessary part of NPOV that Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler are both written with the same tone (stating different facts, of course). Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a former traitor could be elected president shows the political immaturity and ignorance of the Venezuelan electorate.

Excuse a slightly pov jab here, but should I look at Bush's service record in the Air Guard during the Vietnam War? ;) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

Or George Washington, for that matter. 'Traitor' is in the eyes of the beholder. Or should we also say that post-WWII Germany was 'immature' for allowing Resistance figures to assume political roles?

The President's CO when he was in the Air National Guard categorically refuted the allegations. Numerous retired officers with whom Bush served also denied the allegations. They have no basis in fact. Just the fevered imagination of Bush haters. PainMan 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Spanish inheritance and the obscurantism of Catholic clergy (i.e. the Church's historical hositlity to market economics) is far more responsible for the poverty of the majority of Venezuelans than the usual "conspiracy of the rich" nonsense.

Chavez has been making ridiculous charges against the US gov't and the Bush administration but has yet to produce a scintilla of real evidence. If the US gov't wanted Chavez dead, he'd be pushing up the daisies.

Yes, because look at how quickly they managed to kill Fidel Castro or Osama bin Laden, clearly the US wanting somebody dead results in their instant cessation of breathing. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bin Laden is dead. In 2003, the depty director of the CIA said so publicly. I wish I had the story but I can't find it. How could he be otherwise? Given how easy it is to doctor video an audio none the tapes from the Al-Qaida News Service (known to some as "Al-Jazeera") mean anything. Bin Laden before the liberation of Afghanistan from his tyranny (the Taliban, was, in fact a front for Bin Laden; he controlled the country with 12,-15,000 Arab terrorists--most of whom, surprise!, ran like cowards when real soldiers showed up) had terminal renal failure. You cannot survive on protable dialysis machines when you are in terminal renal failure. There's no way you can set up a full dialysis machine in a cave. He's dead in one of those ratholes in the Afghan mountains. Like Hitler he didn't have the balls to face the consequences of his actions. Whether he died from one of our bombs--my sincere hope--or from renal failure is irrelevant. He is dead and unlamented.PainMan 06:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

'Osama is dead' isn't a verifiable fact by any means, no matter how much you wish for it. And it's hard not to notice that your theory that anyone the US wants dead ends up dead is clearly disproved by Castro... but you manage not to address this for some peculiar reason.

But why turn a joke into a martyr? Chavez's petulant rants are far more effective in discrediting him than anything the US gov't could possibly do. (And it's just so silly! The US is the largest purchaser of Venezuelan oil; without the American market, the Venezuelan economy would collapse in five seconds; to quote Shakespeare, all of Chavez's posturing is naught but "sound and fury signifying nothing.")

Generally it is considered to be the consumer dependent on the supplier, nobody says that crack dealers would die if it weren't for their customers. The US purchasing Venezuelan oil would appear to be the same as their purchases of Saudi oil, a blight on the US, not on the supplier Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Understanding that oil is a global market might go a long way in dispelling your ignorant diatribes. If the US stopped buying Venezuelan oil (and started buying more Saudi oil?), then Venezuela would be selling oil to whomever used to buy the Saudi oil (ie the Japanese and Europeans). Or, if the US stopped buying Venezuelan oil bc we reduced our consumption, oil prices would drop and all oil-producing countries would suffer equally. (or, more likely, would cut back production to boost prices and suffer less).

This article is a joke and a disgrace to Wikipedia. As usual Conservatives are slandered and Left-wing thugs are given a pass. Attacks insults directed at me were left up for months on one discussion page. When I replied to them, my replies were removed but the attacks against me were left in. The "sysop"'s bogus claim that the "Discussion" page was not to air the differences between ideologies rang hollow and false since the only ideology that is objectionable is the conservative one!

That my comments will be censored or removed from this page is a given. That I will put them back up everytime they are taken down is also a given. Free speech by conservatives, especially American conservatives isn't tolerated on this site. But the wildest Left-wing garbage is allowed to be posted without scrutiny. Leftist POV is encouraged whilst anything contradicting it is removed as "POV." Any attempted by conservatives to bring balance to articles is regarded as mere tendentiousness.

I could revise this apology for this wanna-be dictator, but what would be the point? It would take me a good deal of time to refute the lies and propaganda point by point. But it would be wasted time. As soon as my revisions went up, they'd be taken down. And no matter how many times I reposted them, some leftist kook would revert them. The powers at be at wikipedia aren't interested in the facts, just Left-Liberal lies and propaganda. It's nauseating to anyone with any concern for the truth.

I once had high hopes for Wikipedia. But articles like this have dissipated that hope.

Wikipedia = Conservatives need not apply.

PainMan 11:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, PainMan, if you bring "facts" such as 'Osama is dead, I just know it!' to the table, expect to be sent back to the minor leagues every time. This is not bias or censorship against any particular point of view. It is bias against ignorance and wishful thinking.

way to go!--Capsela 05:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The brief mention of poor progress with unemployment and the economy should mention that this happened at a time when oil prices boomed which would normally have caused a burst of economic activity, revitalization, and at least temporarily low enemployment none of which has happened. -- M0llusk 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to congratulate the people who worked to bring this article up to Featured Status. I guess the main page summarized it well as Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial and high-profile figures in modern politics. and it's important that Wikipedia is able to recognise that and provide a great article on him. I knew bare-bones details before, but just thought I'd stop by and thank those of you who worked on it, as I've learned quite a bit, and presumably so have thousands of others. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Job...eventhough Chavez is my least like it person in the world....some one forgot to mention, that he thinks he is the reincarnationo of Simon Bolivar, no joke. (Raniya 16:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

See User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

================================================================================
LinkFix Dump
Hugo Chávez
2005-12-10.13-43-48
================================================================================
5   [[President of Venezuela]] -> [[List of Presidents of Venezuela]]
21  [[President of Venezuela]] -> [[List of Presidents of Venezuela]]
23  [[Venezuelan coup attempt of 1992]] -> [[1992 Venezuelan coup attempt of
Hugo Chávez]]
25  [[Criticisms of Hugo Chávez]] -> [[Criticism of Hugo Chávez]]
25  [[Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004]] -> [[Venezuelan recall referendum of
2004]]
25  [[Liberator]] -> DISAMBIG
45  [[Iris]] -> DISAMBIG
50  [[President of Venezuela]] -> [[List of Presidents of Venezuela]]
55  [[Social welfare]] -> DISAMBIG
67  [[OPEC]] -> [[Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries]]
78  [[Consejo Nacional Electoral]] -> DISAMBIG
112 [[Rio Grande Do Sul]] -> [[Rio Grande do Sul]]
116 [[Putative Venezuelan coup of 2004]] -> [[Putative Venezuelan coup attempt
of 2004]]
130 [[Nestor Kirchner]] -> [[Néstor Kirchner]]
166 [[PetroCaribe]] -> [[Petrocaribe]]
166 [[Telesur]] -> [[TeleSUR]]
170 [[FTAA]] -> [[Free Trade Area of the Americas]]
180 [[Telesur]] -> [[TeleSUR]]
213 [[Personality cult]] -> [[Cult of personality]]
238 [[University of Brazil]] -> [[Universidade do Brasil]]
239 [[Russian Federation]] -> [[Russia]]
240 [[Beijing University]] -> [[Peking University]]
537 [[Bronx]] -> [[The Bronx]]
661 [[President of Venezuela]] -> [[List of Presidents of Venezuela]]
661 [[Pedro Carmona Estanga]] -> [[Pedro Carmona]]
662 [[President of Venezuela]] -> [[List of Presidents of Venezuela]]
# DONE

Some weird unicode trippiness, I'll investigate when I get a chance. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 19:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Opening up another can of worms: calling him an "anti-imperialist" is silly. It's 2005; EVERYBODY is anti-imperialist -- or at least says so. No world leader, no academic, no editorial writer would describe him- or herself as "imperialist" today, not even Chavez' bitterest foes. So to call Chavez anti-imperialist is not newsworthy. What IS newsworthy is that he views US foreign policy as being imperialist. See my point? Bush et al. wouldn't counter Chavez by saying "imperialism is good"; they'd claim "we're not imperialists." The problem, then, with calling him an "anti-imperialist" is that it is either irrelevant (if we take it at face value) or creates the impression of pov (i.e. the only way for it to be relevant is if we adopt a Chavezian POV and assume that the US is imperialist.)

Note that the above is not in any way a comment on the merits of the various arguments; I'm not making a political point -- just a nitpicking one about good writing. Doops | talk 20:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you answered yourself there. Being "anti-imperialist" in this context doesn't just mean "being against imperialism"; it means that you describe others' actions as imperialism and you oppose them on that basis. Similar to how being "anti-Communist" doesn't just mean you aren't for communism; it means you're actively opposed. DanKeshet 20:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Correct. This is also extremely similar to Chavez's opposition to "neoliberalism", since many of the "neoliberal" policies he opposes aren't described as neoliberal by anyone else. The reason these terms are used is because they're the terms Chavez almost invariably uses himself. -Silence 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying the terms shouldn't be used; it should just be done in Chavez' voice, e.g. "Chavez has strongly criticized US foreign policy as being

imperialist", etc. Scare-quotes is another way to do it, but it's not very professional-looking. Doops | talk 21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC) PS -- taking DanKeshet's example, by the way: if I read that somebody was "anti-communist" I would assume that he opposed communism itself -- this wouldn't be the label we'd use for somebody who attacked the welfare state as a creeping, insidious form of communism. Doops | talk

21:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, a week's gone by. I'm going to try doing something about this. Hope it works. Doops | talk 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why do the vote count include abstainers? How do we know they were abstainers rather than people who couldn't be bothered to vote? This sounds a bit POV to me. I don't see an abstainers count for George W. Bush or Tony Blair, for instance. ? 23:15, 10 December 2005 (GMT)

What he said. I noticed the same thing myself. Ambi 01:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Cheeky answer: Because if they did not do something, that means they abstained from it ;)

Serious answer: Because a) there was an actual campaign in favor of abstention, including the withdrawal of all five major opposition parties b) the government went to great lenghts to get out the vote, including chavista congresswoman Iris Varela stating (during the actual election, no less) that government workers who did not vote would be fired, and c) the Chávez administration denounced the "imperialist electoral coup", implicitly acknowledging that the low voter turnout was no mere case of electoral laziness.--RicardoC 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (signed after the fact, sorry!)

So, the article's main-page stay is over, and I'm enjoying look back at how much the article's improved in such a short period of time, to an enormous extent thanks to Mr. S's edits and Mr. A's behind-the-scenes work, and also how much it improved over a long period of time thanks to dozens of other editors who have slowly built the article up over the years. Assorted moments in the article's history:

• April 12 '02 : Creation of the article (during Chavez's brief deposal)
• December 7 '03 : Status two years ago
• June 1 '04 : Status a year and a half ago
• January 1 '05 : Status a year ago
• June 10 '05 : Status six months ago
• August 10 '05 : Status four months ago
• October 3 '05 : Status before Mr. S's first edit
• October 11 '05  : Status two months ago
• October 30 '05 : Status before first Peer Review
• November 9 '05 : Status when nominated for FAC
• November 19 '05 : Status upon completion of FAC
• December 3 '05 : Status one week before appearing on main page

Pretty neat. (Anyway, sorry for the pointless digression. Back to work! A Wikipedia article is never done!) -Silence 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Silence, thanks for your kind words. However, I do not think I deserve so much credit. I just gave some info and made a few comments. I actually think your work in the past weeks has added a lot more to the article and you deserve more praise than I do. Cheers and thanks. --Anagnorisis 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

You're a madman, Mr. A, but that's why I loves ye. Let's do this again sometime, K? Ciao! -Silence 05:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

In 1992, right after Chavez' failed coup there was televised Congress session to condem the attempt. That session is crucial to understand the events of following years.

During the debate, ex-president Caldera (a for-life senator by the 1961 constitution) condemned the coup but he also sorts of defended it asserting that he understood the reasons that had lead the group of militaries into rebelion.

Caldera's intervention lead to an intervention by Aristobulo Isturiz (then from the leftist Causa R party, if I remember correctly) in which he told that congresspeople had agreed to unanimously condemn the coup, but that he had changed his mind after listening to Caldera's intervention. Both Caldera and Isturiz took the opportunity to condemn government corruption and ineficacy, and to denounce poverty and injustice.

I can't remember if other congresspeople followed suit, but it is obvious that that Caldera's speach paved the way for the other two coup attempts, the impeachment of president Perez, Caldera's victory in the next presidential election, and more.

After the coup and the congressional debate Chavez' became a sort of "popular hero", with the green uniform and red berett becoming one of the favorite disguises worn by kids in the Carnival cellebrations of 1992. Caldera's electoral win lead to Chavez' disimprisonment, and the popularity lead to Chavez'landslide win in the presidential elections of 1998.

Another congressman, David Morales Bello, shouted "¡Muerte a los golpistas!" (Death to the rebels!) during his congressional intervention, and that meant the end of his political career.

I'm not posting this information to the main page because:

• It's all from memory, and I think references should be used.
• I'm still not well familiarized with the pages's content.

Juanco--201.211.96.173 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Most people I know can't wait for Caldera to croak. Not me. I hope he lives to be 150, so he can never escape the hell his political opportunism unleashed.--RicardoC 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that hell was unleashed by others way before, and that it totally broke loose during the riots of 1989. There was no way for the "Pacto de Punto Fijo" (the Punto Fijo pact) to subsist after that. They tried to keep it going any way, and the result is what we have, a complete swing of the pendulum. --Juanco 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I went out with a Venezuelan expatriate for several years -- a child of the upper class that is upset with Chavez -- and also have an interest in international affairs; as such, I'm aware of how hard it is to reconcile all the conflicting opinions and information about Chavez and present both sides of the argument fairly. This is probably the best article I have seen on the man that doesn't fall overtly on one side or the other. Extremely good stuff. Wikipedia at its best.

Count the number of avowed chavistas among the cited sources (some even in Chavez's payroll or recipients of his hospitality). Such exercise gives a clear picture of the article's objectivity. Indeed "Wikipedia at its best."

It would be helpful if you could actually list names yourself, which of the cited sources are on his payroll Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Gregory Wilpert, Richard Gott, Jonah Gindin, Marta Harnecker, Sarah Wagner, Alessandro Parma, Mark Weisbrot, Jeroen Kuiper, Rafael Ramirez, Jorge Martin, Cleto Sojo.

Which of those are on Chavez's payroll? DanKeshet 21:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

(some even in Chavez's payroll or recipients of his hospitality)

In Chavez payroll: Rafael Ramirez, Venezuela's illegal Minister of Energy and CEO of PDVSA. According to an admission of Dozthor Zurlent, "a Venezuelan who formerly served as international coordinator of the Circles and now serves as European coordinator" americas.org, Venezuelanalysis.com -of which Gregory Wilpert is the editor in chief and where Gindin, Wagner, Parma, Kuiper and Sojo are members of staff- is a website supported by the Venezuelan government email exchange.

First you quote out of context this is the whole quote from the first website " Contrary to some media reports, international Circles do not receive significant funding or direction from the Venezuelan government. “One thing that characterizes the Bolivarian Circles is that they’re independent,” noted Dozthor Zurlent, a Venezuelan who formerly served as international coordinator of the Circles and now serves as European coordinator. “They develop their own initiatives. No one’s telling them you have to do this, you have to do that.” While he admits being the head of the circles he claims independance and denies being part of the payrole. You later use his comment that venezuelaanalysis.com is owned by the goverment is not sufficient to establish a link, it could be very well be an outsider's (as in outside the gov) opinion, venanalisis could very well be government operated but real evidence is needed SuperFlanker 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Erstwhile KGB informant Richard Gott, Marxist Marta Harnecker, creator of intangible-wealth-measuring-method Mark Weisbrot and funder of Hands Off Venezuela campaign Jorge Martin have been recipients of Chavez generosity and hospitality be it airplane tickets, hotel rooms, dinning, etc.

So, there are a few issues raised by having partisan sources: disclosure, trust, and balance. Ignoring trust and balance for the minute because disclosure is easier to work on:

• Ramirez's position is disclosed in the footnote.
• Venezuelanalysis (including Wilpert, Parma, etc.): I agree that if it is funded by the Venezuelan government, in part or in full, that we should acknowledge that. The linked e-mail raises questions for me, but doesn't answer them. I am willing to investigate a little bit further. I will send out some e-mails to the author of that e-mail, the editors at Venezuelanalysis, and a few other relevant people. If you give me an e-mail address (you can e-mail it to me via the "e-mail this user" feature), I can cc: you on the e-mails directly.
• Other columnists, etc: Holding off on comment for a minute.

In addition, I think it'd be a good idea to get a good level of disclosure for all our sources, pro-, anti-, both or neither. DanKeshet 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally think there should be a separation between weblogs and journalistic sources, most are self defined so it should be easy in a NPOV way.

Thus, if I understand you correctly, you will send a bunch of emails to Wilpert et al and you expect them to say "yes we are funded by the Venezuelan government"? Is that your idea of investigation? Who is the "other relevant people" you'll email? My email address is [email protected]. The issue of citing partisan sources without properly identifying them is that the ignorant of the Venezuelan reality is duped into beliefs that are completely disconnected with what happens in the ground.

• Ahem*. It's a first step. If they say "yes", I'm willing to believe them. If they say no, maybe I'll probe a little further. Wikipedia isn't an investigative journalism project and it's really up to people other than WP to prove things like that. DanKeshet 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. Guess what the other two are? Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. How can someone build an argument upon one policy (no original research) and disregard the other two when these clash with the romantic idea that Hugo Chavez is Venezuelan disenfranchised's saviour? The amount of links to people openly partisan towards the populist Bolivarian Revolution coupled with the impossibility of verifying many of the purported facts cited gives a clear idea of the credibility of this article.

NOPV is being observed, we could certainly have a philosophical debate of what constitutes neutrality but the accepted one by wikipedia is to take at face value what is commented, the exception being original research. So if venanalisys calls itself independant it is referenced as independant, if people disagree a relevant individual is quoted as saying he claims they are gov funded. Verifiability is harder to reach I made a critiscism that a singluar claim of fraud was absurd using simple logic, however it was made and apperantly it is enough SuperFlanker 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

We need a citation for this extract, added on December 19 by Alexescalona:

However, the opposition challenged the validity of the results [of the 2004 recall], calling them fraudulent. Claims of fraud were backed by documents, reports of irregularities in polling centers and even one study that challenged the results using statistical analysis. Complaints ensued over the delay between the voting and recount process, which took place three days later, as well as footage that showed what appeared to be members of the FAN, the National Armed Forces, handling voting boxes in an undisclosed location.

If this is true it needs to be cited properly. Andrew Levine 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there were several statistical studies that aimed to prove that the election had been fraudulent. All of the studies were rebuted by qualified specialists. The OAS comissioned two revisions of the most publicized study (Rigobon&Pericci if I remember correctly) and concluded that there was no statistical basis for claiming fraud. All the information should be available at the OAS web site. --Juanco 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The study in question was carried out by Hausmann and Rigobon. Yes they were refuted by "qualified specialists" from the Carter Center , whose conclusions were confirmed by the OAS, though it's fair to say that, independent of political bias, the original study *was* published by two qualified professionals. To be fair then, the citation should be modified to remind the reader of the contradictions between the study's findings and those of the OAS commission. Now, the footage of the FAN members was broadcast on private (opposition) media channels. I will do my best to find a clip of this footage. Finally, the delay between the voting and more complete recount process (some recounts were done at the polling centers, though these were rather limited samples of the local pool of votes) may be found in several sources, especially the well'broadcasted panel discussion headed by the youthful president of the company that supplied to electronic voting machines, held just a couple of days after the elections admist growing claims of fraud. I will be looking for sources for these citations in the coming days. One thing I´d like to say though, the referendo section of this article (as well as the full article from which the summary is extracted) is notable for its lack of any discussion or even mention of the electronic machines used to hold the elections, particularly the unprecedentedness of this technology in Venezuela, the relative inexperience of the company that produced the machines, and the financial ties between the current government of Venezuela and the company. Alexescalona 00:08, 9 January 2006

This section is full of grammatical oddities and should be rewritten by someone who has an idea what the paragraph is trying to say:

"Media gave Chavez full publicity after his coup d'etat in 1992, making him a star media, trying to use him to defeat traditional political parties. Because of Chavez's political agenda asking Venezuelans to not vote in any election, he fell in a low popularity that took off attention from him until he accepted to participate in democratic elections in 1997. Some newspapers that gave him the opportunity to express himself until 1998 are now prosecuted by his government [| La Razón Newspaper case]"Katsam 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Why put a picture of him with his eyes closed at the head of the article?Katsam 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC) His eyes are not closed, he just looks that way... maybe he's a little overweight JunCTionS

Chavez's Christmas speech: Jews own all the gold and water, the "good lands" and the petrol

That is an interpretation since jews were not referenced, the people he most likely references (my interpretation) capitalists, he has gone on record more than once stating that Christ was the first socialist meanwhile Judas was the first capitalist. FWIW SuperFlanker 19:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation that is being implied by the article is that Chavez is refereeing to Jews, probably not a bad interpretation considering how chummy he has gotten with Ahmadinejad. DTC 22:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a good interpretation if guilt by association is your main standard, past speeches provide a more accurate record. Besides interpretations are POV SuperFlanker 23:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And POV is allowed, in fact it is encouraged if it is sourced. Seems as if it has been picked up by the Wiesenthal Center[18], and they have also made the link to Chavez's cozying up to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad DTC 00:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

POV is allowed, but only if neutral - hence, NPOV.--shtove 18:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Remarks cited here refer apparently in the sense of "liberation theology", to those who persecute would-be liberators of the poor ( citing Bolivar, those repressed in Santa Marta, or Jesus Christ) as overly wealthy.

Local Jewish reaction to the accusation [19]SuperFlanker 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest merging the politics section in Venezuela into this article for the following reasons:

• Most of the information is redundant
• this article is much better written and list sources
• Long political debates shouldn't be in the main page of the country.

I think the usual 60% consensus for page moves should be sufficient

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support : for the above reasons Spaceriqui 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support : for the above reasons --Zxcvbnm 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

A far better idea would be to summarize the sections on his presidency here and recreate

I'm interested to find out what happened here, as that bastion of accurate journalism, OfficialWire, has published an article describing a controversy. Can someone give me a breakdown of what happened here? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

From the OfficialWire article itself, the guy spammed Jimbo complaining that the article didn't meet his standards and when he stopped getting responses, posted a "I have information that nobody else has, so change the article" comment above at #Here's a question for the Chavez pundits, got shot down for NOR, and has decided to write about his awful mistreatment on the web. For those Wikipedians who don't recognize the name "OfficialWire", check out QuakeAID for the beef. - BanyanTree 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"the guy spammed Jimbo" care to provide the number of emails that Jimbo received from me? Last time I check these were five (5), first one on Oct. 4 2004 last one Dec, 14 2005. Does that qualify as spam in Wikipedia? LOL!! Care to provide the link where I state "I have information that nobody else has, so change the article"? I haven't decided to write about awful treatment, but rather about the clearly partisan and biased political stance of Wikipedia's article on Hugo Chavez. Counter the argument with facts, shooting the messenger never works.

The article is excellent (contender for the Wiki Oscars), but I wonder about the photographs, as they give me the impression of support for the subject: "Hugo - international man of steel, man of the people, smiling family man, shaking hands with other Great Men..." Otherwise, two points about sourcing. Such extensive footnoting can be off-putting for other editors (not wanting to upset the careful ordering of the article), but with a disputed subject it may be preferable to simple references at the end. Also, some Wikipedians think that published experts should be prevented from creating articles - I don't agree, but would the experts who have contributed to this article care to list their relevant published works? Hee Hee.--shtove 20:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe as an example of overdoing footnotes, why is this bit referenced?

Chávez was

reelected in 2000.^[21]

I think there is no doubt he was officially recognized as being re-elected. If there is a controversy regarding electoral fraud... maybe this should be fully discussed in the criticism or presidency section, but poorly footnoting this bit to the Carter document seems incoherent. - Spaceriqui 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)