This is an archive of past discussions about Hugo Chávez. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The recent developments in his health need to be addressed a bit more thorughly, namely:
- Supreme court ruled that inauguration of a sitting president can be postponed, and vice-president Maduro called it "a formality", not the court. The court also didn't rule that the inauguration can be bypassed, but that it can be postponed. We could also add that some constitutional experts disagreed (http://www.eluniversal.com/nacional-y-politica/121220/venezuelan-experts-president-chavez-must-take-office-next-january-10)
- the two signatures Maduro produced were identical in their form (see a nice picture on Venezuela devil blog), which is impossible. There is no evidence Chavez was aware of the signatures, and his hand certainly didn't sign both of them. This should be included. The part about "opposition politicians" should be eliminated, since it's not limited to them.193.2.253.126 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Why am I prevented from editing this article in a factual manner, as substantiated by the BBC? Chavez is regaining strength. This has been widely reported in international media. I allege US capitalist bias! Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is all of your betters, and he deserves factual coverage. Nat (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Correction: the people in power who have everything to loose if Chavez were to die claim he's gaining strength. Back in reality, the media attention freak hasn't been seen, heard or red from in a verifiable way for nearly 60 days. Smart money says he's dead or incapacitated.193.2.253.126 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
No, they are quoting someone who made the claim that he died Dec. 31st. No explanation of how he was able to make public appearances after his death. TFD (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
One and a quarter tonnes is an insignificant amount, not worth mention in the scale of the problem that Misión Mercal seeks to address. Perhaps the editor meant to write 1.25 million metric tonnes? That would signify something.
The other problem with the statement that:
In 2008 the amount of discounted food sold through the network was 1.25 metric tonnes.
is that I couldn't find it in the reference cited. Nor could I find a corroborating quote on the Mission Mercal page.
Would somebody make the updates to the infobox? I've made 12 attempts, but was edit-conflicted each time. PS: This article need semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
(1) Venezuela's crime rate does not serve in any way to inform people about Hugo Chavez's death. Please remove that from the Death section. (2) Where on earth are people getting the idea that Maduro has actually succeeded as President? The constitution prescribes that the the National Assembly President (Diosdado Cabello) shall be interim president on the President's unavailability. Maduro will become President if, as Chavez recommended, he is elected in upcoming vacancy elections. 50.136.204.189 (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the murder rates and inflation statement should be removed from the section about Chavez's death. I do not understand why they would not be in the main text of the article, rather than a section about his death. 108.48.38.167 (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
" Under his socialist rule, inflation had soared, and the Venezuelan murder rate had quadrupled,[389] reaching one of the highest in the world.[388]"
Why is the above sentence in this subsection? If one wants to criticize Chavez, it should be under the criticism section of his political activities. Not bizarrely inserted here. Druep (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
BLP and cancer
Given the media are unanimous in saying they dont know what type of cancer Chavez has it is unacceptable for us to use shoddy references to claim he has cancer of the colon, I have removed these, citing our biography of living persons policy, WP:BLP. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs19:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject, it says his third term will last six years. Given the current situation that's unlikely. In fact it's unlikely he will even start it. Can someone change it from "will serve six years" to "was elected to serve another six years" or something? 89.142.127.213 (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The second comment is correct. Even with cancer aside, we don't know if Chavez (or any other head of state) will rule for a certain time period. There are several things that may happen: death, impeachment, coup, resignation, etc. The thing that is certain is the length of the mandate that was at stake in the last elections. Cambalachero (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We can never tell if any ruler will complete their mandate, Chavez may be at greater risk of death but every human being is at risk every day. Important that we frame things not to be a crystal ball. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBoxtalkcontribs13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is wrong:
"On 30 June 2011, Chávez stated that he was recovering from a 10 June operation to remove an abscessed tumor with cancerous cells.[4] He required a second operation in December 2012.[5]"
He had two surgeries in june and another in april, this was his fourth related surgery. We can use the same source, it says as much.89.143.43.7 (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
The article still states that it is unknown if Chavez will return to Venezuela by January 10. Ten days later, it is pretty clear that he did not. The article should be updated (I cannot edit it, or I would fix it). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.126.79 (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur, and suggest this is added: "Chavez missed his inauguration on January 10th. As of January 24th, 2013 his status and date of return remain unknown." There's a ahort article on this in english version of El Universal, if we need a source.193.2.253.126 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Can you source that? The last information from Cuba that I recall had Chavez exercising by 15th december. If that were accurate, he wouldn't have missed the inauguration.193.2.253.126 (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Words such as "hypothetical" and "assumptions" crop up in vital phrases. The report doesn't actually tell anything, it just assumes he's doing fine and will be back on february 5th. It really reads like the run of the mill info-free Venezuelanalysis garbage. Given that there is no indication of his life or lucidity, that he wasn't even able to attend inauguration or sign two pieces of paper and that he was always anything but camera-shy on top of all that, it leads me to conclude the only usefulness of the report is TP. No offence meant.86.61.50.176 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I concur that venezuelanalysis.com is trash and has several aggressive authors who have successfully embedded 10 links, drastically boosting their blog's SEO. I am ashamed to see it and wish an established editor would take it on ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
hi i am a regular user of Wikipedia and on his death in the article it cites fox news as one of the sources and in Universities the UK unis anyway we see things like the sun, NOTW, Daily Mail and Fox News above all as unreliable sources and i think it should be changed to a more reliable source. Thank you.
P.S. sorry about the bad grammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.136.13 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Maduro just went on national television and claimed that the US planted cancer inside Chavez (translated). (waits for Venezuelaanalysis.com to reguritate about "CIA" planting cancer and the plight of the socialist revolution, then suddenly random author places link back into wikipedia and fights off any edits citing that URL as a valid source) ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What is your source? The constitution prescribes (as of 2006) exactly what I said, pending special elections to fill the vacancy. Chavez recommended that people vote for Maduro if and when those elections occur, but they have not yet.50.136.204.189 (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Chavez handpicked Maduro [1]. Whether or not this is constitutional is irrelevant as sources are reporting that Maduro is taking over leadership.[2] Cabello has reportedly accepted Chavez' decision BBC. RyanVesey00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Herald article says nothing about Maduro now taking over the presidency of the republic, but says quite clearly that he would have to be elected. The BBC article is qualified by "seems", i.e. the reporter is attempting to read Cabello's mind.50.136.204.189 (talk) 01:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no source that states that Nicolas Maduro is the acting President, but the constitution states that if the president didn't started his term (Chávez didn't swore before leaving to cuba so he didn't start his next term) the President of the National assembly (Diosdado Cabello) would be the acting President, We already have a discussion at Diosdado Cabello. MrGcCc (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Some do suggest that he hasn't since he was in Cuba. That said, to make sure everyone is aware, it has been confirmed that Maduro is the interim [3]. I apologize for not knowing where I read the following, whether on Wikipedia or a news source, but I did read that a decision was made that since Chávez was the incumbent president, his presidency continued unceasingly when he should have been inaugurated. RyanVesey04:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If the constitution were followed, he would've been declared absent on 10th January, with new elections scheduled within 30 days. Now however, no one can say. It bodes quite poorly for the country.89.142.213.27 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What does it matter for Venezuela whether the one party-member of Chávez is president ad interim for 30 days, or the other? Shouldn't we recognize this as a political game?
What bothers me, is that on the wikipedia page on Chávez, the above discussion is not translated, and that the text that has been placed is in fact not correct. Now it reads: "speaker [sic] of the National Assembly, (..), should assume the interim presidency if a president cannot be sworn in".
Now, the constitution says nothing about what if the president cannot be sworn in. It only says (Artículo 233) who is to replace the president in case of permanent absence in the following 3 situations: before the president has assumed office (which according to Artículo 231 happens on Jan 10th), in the first 4 years of office, or in the final 2 years of office.
Source: "Constitución de la República Bolivariana de Venezuela" of 1999, that can be downloaded here: http://www.cgr.gob.ve/contenido.php?Cod=048
The wiki-page, IMHO, should be more objective, and should explain that the constitution does not prescribe what should be done in the current situation. Several arguments can be forwarded for several solutions, but no clear-cut answer can be given.
And again, realize what this is about: not clear-cut answer can be given to the question who is to be the interim for the next 30 days. A political game is going on, and the reader of the wiki-page should get information that allows him or her to conclude that, instead of the imprecise wording of one out of 2 subjective versions (without mentioning the other).Martijnijzereef (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
In regards to what is said above, I think the best option is to not state any successor at this time. Don't state Cabello, don't state Maduro. RyanVesey01:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Despite (or because of) it's massive size the lead is one of the most obviously POV I've read around these parts. The article's so big I only picked out a few sections but the pro-Chavez sentiment is consistent and deeply embedded. Just an observation. 24.212.137.195 (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
"Wandering Jews"
The two citations provided for the alleged "wandering jews" remark seem unreliable. The first source cites two other sources, including this page, a poorly punctuated, unsourced, and one sentence long article with no named author, and the other links back to the second source used by the wikipedia article. This other source also cites nothing and is anonymously written. If anyone can find a reliable source for this, it should replace the two non peer-reviewed, non-cited, anonymous sources. Otherwise, this should be scrapped as baseless slander.
Unless the Stephen Roth Institute is doing original reporting here, this is an alleged direct quote which would require a direct source. I don't doubt whoever authored this was acting in good faith, but quotes are often erroneously attributed to people even in academic contexts. The anonymous article posted on the Stephen Roth Institute's website cites nothing to support this and I can find absolutely no record of this comment made in news sources. I did not mean to imply that Tel Aviv University is not a legitimate academic source, but since the source simply alleges this quote without providing any evidence. Reliable as an institution, sure. Suitable evidence for this quote, absolutely not.
I've looked for other sources to verify that quote but there are none (besides those that link back to the first website). Considering BLP and REDFLAG, it should be removed. Furious Style (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
You are proposing that 'antisemitism.org' is a source for an alleged anti-semetic quote? Did Hugo Chavez make the statement in question in an interview with antisemitism.org? I would assume not. I honestly have no opinion on Hugo Chavez, nor any knowledge of whether the quote is legitimate, but to include it there needs to be a DIRECT SOURCE cited where the statement was made. As far as I can see, nothing provided yet documents who the statement was made to. Phonograffiti (talk) 09:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This whole section appears tendentious at best. All of the "citations" are links to links that make broad and unverifiable claims. There are two "citations" of the "wandering jews" allegation, but both lead to exactly the same source which, though clearly politically biased against Chavez, itself heavily qualifies the term.
The other quote at the beginning of the section ... anti-semitic? Only if you rewrite scripture and history to make an extremely prejudicial reading of it. It was the *Romans* who crucified Jesus, and it is also the only reading that makes any sense when you combine it with the comments about Bolivar. He's talking about colonialism and imperialism and how they benefit a small class of the rich in our societies. In it he's refering to the Roman occupiers, not the Jews. Ecadre (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The Institute can be considered a reliable source. Statements in reliable sources do not need corroboration. When reliable sources publish inaccurate information, we correct it by finding another reliable source that corrects the first one. Whether their analysis is correct is another matter and the comments may not have received sufficient attention to be worth including. TFD (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
A WP:REDFLAG statement, (in this case one being used to accuse a person of being antisemetic), "requires multiple high-quality sources". So far we can only find a single source of low notability to back the alleged quote. If another source can be found then it could stay, IFF, we found it to be worthy of inclusion, which I also question.
I also agree with Ecadre, the entire section seems tendentious. It seems like a coat rack of anything about Jews in Venezuala is somehow related personally to Chavez. A few thousand Jews moved from Venezuala to Israel, that must mean Chavez is antisemetic? Really? Show me sources that document policies against Jews and I'll write a section on it, but that a Jewish school was one of the many places searched for weapons after a tip off after a political assassination took place, please. Furious Style (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit to not being familiar with all of wikipedia's guidelines on this sort of thing. However, in academia a direct quote would never be accepted from a source like this, especially given the seeming lack of other sources for this supposed quote. Direct quotes must be absolutely verifiable. If they come from a secondary source ought to cite a primary source to be considered credible. Forgive my wikipedia ignorance, but is there a way to get an administrator or something in on this to clarify this issue?
Parenthetically, I find it highly improbable that a quote like this that would certainly cause immense controversy would not have primary sources available if it were accurate. Certainly any head of state, but especially a controversial one like Chávez would've received quite thorough scrutiny from the media over this. Is it really believable that something like this would be accurate and at the same time lack primary sources?
There are two relevant policies, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Did he make the comments and if so what did they mean and is it important. It is possible to write a factual but biased article by loading it with either flattering or unflattering information. TFD (talk) 03:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing wikipedia's policies on sources, two things seem particularly relevant to me regarding this matter. "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;″ This can reasonably be considered important, and multiple mainstream sources are not present here. It states clearly that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Unless this criteria can be met, this should be removed.
I looked at this article because I wanted to see if and how Chavez gets smeared, and I must say that I was surprised that the slander would be so crude. Given how much the Western press despised Chavez, I think one can safely say that if there were any basis to these accusations, the mainstream press would have picked them up, which it has evidently not done. Therefore, this section should be removed immediately. That also seems to be the prevailing view in this talk section. – Herzen (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The first source cited in this section is The Weekly Standard. This is a notoriously unreliable source that regularly smears people it doesn't like as being antisemitic. For example, it recently smearedChuck Hagel in connection with his nomination for US Secretary of Defense, repeating a false story about Hagel which the Atlanticlater debunked. A second source cited by the section of the article being discussed here, Commentary, also repeated the smear on Hagel, and should therefore be considered unreliable as well. – Herzen (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Upon further reading, a great deal of this section appears problematic to me. The extreme accusation of kidnapping Jewish children in Venezuela is unambiguously an exceptional claim. It cites only one source (in a case where clearly multiple are needed) which cites one Venezuelan Jewish woman who made this claim with seemingly no journalistic credentials or presence on the internet of any kind outside of this article, and absolutely no evidence is provided. If anecdotes can be used as sources, would it be acceptable to then follow this tidbit with "However, others have claimed that Chávez gave free ice cream to all Jewish children on alternating Tuesdays" after clawing through the internet until one random Venezuelan individual's anecdote could be found alleging this?
The source cited for that, Front Page Magazine, is an Islamophobic hate Web site, also concerned with "feminist man-hatred", among other things, as one can see by going to the site's front page. (The Wikipedia article about the site has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality, presumably because the article gives the impression that the site is merely "conservative", whereas it is really right-wing extremist.) That site is no more a reliable source than The Weekly Standard or Commentary, probably less so.
I repeat my suggestion that the whole section "Allegations of antisemitism" be deleted, which means that "Criticism and allegations" should be deleted too, since it contains only the former. The only difference between this whole section and the corresponding one at Conservapedia is that the Conservapedia section is shorter and does not use the term "allegations". – Herzen (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I do not see any policy based argument to remove this section. The Hugo Ghavez "wandering Jews" quote is backed by hundreds of sources. Just a quick look at Google shows that medias like The Washington Times and others reported it. [4] To remove or censor this is WP:NPOV violation.--Tritomex (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I removed this section after a Google news search revealed that reliable news media have not brought up the subject of Chavez's alleged antisemitism after his death. The Washington Times is not a reliable source; it mentions "wandering Jews" in an editorial, not a news story; its source for that allegation is the same as for all the other outlets that mention this (Commentary, The Daily Standard); that sole "original" source (which seems to just collect news reports) itself makes a naked allegation about the "wandering Jews" comment, without providing any information about where its information came from.
Clear reasons why this section should be deleted have been repeatedly given. The main relevant policy is exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Please, let's not talk around in circles. It is clear that NPOV requires that this section not be present in the article. Smearing someone with unsubstantiated allegations is not NPOV. – Herzen (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
As I said the "wandering Jew" quote is backed by numerous sources. Its non sense to deny this as even US State department reacted on this issue. You have professional organizations monitoring Antisemitism which covered this issue, for example Cantor center-Tel Aviv university [5] This quote looks beyond any reasonable doubt to be valid. Second, prominent secondary sources and their editorials are also WP:RS for Wikipedia.--Tritomex (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked you not to talk in circles. There is only ONE source behind this allegation, and it is an organization that collates information from news sources. Usually when it reports something, it cites a source, but in the case of the "wandering Jews" allegation, it cites no source. No reputable source has picked up this allegation from this one source. The "news outlets" that have picked up this allegation are exactly the same ones that picked up the smear of Chuck Hagel which I mentioned above, providing links. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for disseminating smears about Hagel, and it is not a vehicle for spreading smears about Chavez, either. – Herzen (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
It may be difficult to find a reliable source, but one of the quotes namely "some minorities, the descendants of the same ones who crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones who threw out [South American liberator Simon] Bolivar from here and also crucified him in a way in Santa Marta, over there..." evidently came from a Christmas eve speech sometime around 2006. If it was a public speech a little further investigating might turn it up. According to this article [6] the "wandering jew" thing came from a 2004 speech.Chhe (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for giving a link to that Bloomberg article. (Bloomberg is a reliable source.) It is interesting for two reasons.
(1) It notes that "Jewish groups have accused [Chavez] of inciting violence against Venezuela’s Jews through speeches like one he gave in 2004 comparing the country’s opposition to “wandering Jews.”" My guess is that what is meant by "Jewish groups" there is the Stephen Roth Institute, which is the original source for the "wandering Jews" quote that is the main object of contention here, and other people/organizations which repeat this allegation made by the Stephen Roth Institute. Note that this Bloomberg piece is from less than a month ago. The Bloomberg piece treats the "wandering Jews" remark not as a fact, but as an "accusation" made by "Jewish groups". If Bloomberg wasn't able to substantiate this accusation, I think it's unlikely that Wikipedia editors will be able to. Thus, I believe that Bloomberg's take on the "wandering Jews" allegation supports Wikipedia not mentioning this allegation at all, since it is just a random allegation, and hence not noteworthy for an encyclopedia.
(2) The Bloomberg piece mentions that "Chavez broke off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state in 2009 to protest its military incursion into the Gaza Strip to halt rocket attacks by Hamas". The current version of the Chavez article does not mention Israel at all. (All a text search comes up with is one hit in the footnotes.) If someone wants to add to the article that Chavez sided with the Palestinians rather than with Israel when it comes to the Israel/Palestine issue, I think that's fine. In writing about Chavez, editors should be able to distinguish between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. – Herzen (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
There are people saying he had a personal net worth of about 2 billion dollars when he died? If true, probably worth putting in the article. If not, may be worth debunking/putting a correct figure. But I don't know if it's true - citation challenge! Abeg92contribs03:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hm, well Venezuela is notoriously corrupt, so nobody would really be shocked. But the no-name "Criminal Justice International Associates" is hardly a reputable source. According its website, http://cjiausa.org/, it's based in Northern Virginia; it seems also to have an address in Miami. Cough. Rd232talk20:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Until mainstream media pay attention to the claim it does not have sufficient significance to be included. TFD (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Brewer never made the claim attributed to him but was quoting unnamed "underground sources in Cuba, Venezuela, and Miami." ("Hugo Chavez's Mortality and Cuba's Deception", March 3, 2013)[7] In a later article, he speculated that Chavez died Dec. 11th, which is a more interesting story. ("The Death of Hugo Chavez Surrounded in Veil of Concealment" March 6, 2013)[8]TFD (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
A pair of details on the death section
Isn't the Ornella quote a bit out of place? In the paragraph, it is given alone, with no context, analysis or comparison (and thus, very close on using it to promote the POV of that quote). And to say that Chavez sacrificed him for his country can only an inapropiate figure of speaking: he died of natural causes, not during a military conflict or something like that.
As for the wild theory of the cancer poisoning, shouldn't we detail the absurd nonsense of that claim? Cancer is not an illness caused by external agents like virus, the idea of cancer poisoning is nonsense, and just because Maduro is a political figure he does not get an exception from WP:FRINGECambalachero (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm one of the people who added mention of the claim of assassination. I had written "Maduro speculated that Chávez had been poisoned or infected by enemies, and expressed a belief that the claim could someday be tested scientifically." Note that I didn't mention cancer. I thought that Maduro's own acknowledgment that there is no scientific evidence that Chávez' illnesses were unnatural—that the accusation is unprovable and without evidence—was enough of a rebuttal in itself. I've now added the unsourced statement "it was unclear whether Maduro was referring to Chávez' cancer, or his respiratory infection" which I heard on an English-language radio report (I meant to add it yesterday, but forgot to until you reminded me of this). Do you think a source is necessary for this change? You seem to be saying that Maduro was referring to the cancer in particular. How did you come to that conclusion?
The text you added, while intended to refute the idea of inducing cancer chemically, does say that it can be done. Viruses, too, can lead to cancer, see Gardasil and Cancer virus. Cancer can also be caused by ionizing radiation, something that was attempted in Romania. X-rays or gamma rays such as from a piece of cobalt-60 can penetrate a person's body from the outside, without causing the body to become radioactive. Another way of administering ionizing radiation is internally with a radioisotope. Alexander Litvinenko was assassinated with polonium, and the possibility that Yasser Arafat was killed the same way is being investigated. While neither died of cancer, cancer is a possible outcome when radioactive material is ingested.
It's well-established that cancer can be caused by a variety of "external agents": chemicals, viruses or radiation. To assert that it cannot is itself a fringe theory.
There have been investigations into deliberately causing respiratory infections by spraying micro-organisms into the air. Several people were killed in such experiments in San Francisco and Tampa Bay in the 1950s. Perhaps you'll agree that certain infections can be transmitted by a sneeze from an infected person?
I think Maduro's belief that Chávez was assassinated would be noteworthy even if we could definitively say that it is false. As I mentioned in the article, he announced in the same telecast the ejection of an attaché of the U.S. embassy. I've since heard that two people from the U.S. delegation were sent away. Then the U.S. denied killing Chávez. As I understand it, Maduro didn't single out any particular "enemies" and indeed said they could be either foreign or domestic—and yet, it seems there may be some connection between the charge of assassination (however unfounded) and a deterioration in U.S.-Venezuelan diplomatic relations.
A radiation source would either cause radiation sickness or take many years before it would manifest in cancer. Similar for any chemical agent, it would either take a very long time to MAYBE produce a cancer, which MAY be fatal eventually, or it would create acute toxicity early on. A virus may assist in causing cancer, but only in a small part of infected, with no way of knowing who would get ill and who wouldn't. The whole idea is idiotic, it's just more demagogery from Maduro, with no scientific basis whatsoever.89.142.195.91 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Whilst
Usage of "whilst" instead of "while" should be limited to articles of British focus. I'm requesting that the occurences in the article be changed to "while". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.115.184 (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Because, "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." and "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." As a speaker of American English, I find it particularly grating to read "whilst", and the alternative version "while" is perfectly acceptable in British English -- even recommended in some British style guides like the Guardian's according to the while Wikipedia page. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that this applies to this article, the subject nor the country he was a citizen of has a strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation so why should one be favored over another? LGAtalkedits07:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
@Sp33dyphil Thank you for the changes. I do contribute, just not with an account. There's no good reason why, but it's just my inclination not to. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 10 March 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Dear Wikipedia.
I appreciate your help for many years,however I was reading an article about Hugo Chavez to explain my students a little better the situation in Venezuela with some important dates and events about his life.
I'm colombian,33yrs old and a elementary school teacher. I found this error in the article:
...."FARC's targets have included Chavez's enemy Ingrid Betancourt who was kidnapped by the rebel group. She had been a presidential candidate in Venezuela running against Hugo Chavez. She was taken in midair in 2002 and released by Colombian forces in 2008....."
1. Ingrid Betancurt was a Colombian Presidential Candidate in 2002,she was a hostage with her campain manager Clara Lopez,all this under Presidential period of Andres Pastrana and after failed negotiations with the rebel group. Our government stopped to provide protection and advised Lopez and Betancourt about to do not go to the colombian jungle to interview with the farc without military company but the two of them refused,all the information in this article:
http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Íngrid_Betancourt
Again,I hope my small contribution may help the wonderful job of Wikipedia,you guys have done a lot for all of us.
That must be the fifth time I've seen the main picture change on this article in the past 24 hours. Bit excessive really? 217.41.79.214 (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. I mean if you want a picture that's fine, but just choose one. - User:Dpm12
I agree. We need to agree on a sufficient lead image. I'll add the three ones that have been circulated here for (hopefully) some discussion. – Connormah (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I support the first one of the 3, File:Hugo Chávez crop.jpg. It is a full body photo of the man standing there for the photo shot: if you asked someone to stand for a photo that may serve as a visual identification, that is precisely the type of photo he would pose for. Focused, no distracting details, full detail of face, everything a lead photo should have, it has it Cambalachero (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with most of your points but I do find the person in the lighter-coloured uniform in the background a bit distracting... – Connormah (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I would go for the third of these images (File:Hugo Chávez (02-04-2010).jpg), for it provides the clearest depiction of his face out of the three, and furthermore is the most aesthetically posed image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC):::
I agree, the third is best, it looks the best compositionally even with the microphone, it is of the highest quality. User:Simfan34
I see the image has been changed again. Please can we refrain from changing it until we get consensus here? The swapping every 24 hours or so is not necessary. – Connormah (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we settle upon the current one: (File:Hugo Chávez (02-04-2010).jpg)? Of the three, it is the latest and least posed. – Herzen (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Since the three photos initially suggested, another one has emerged, and I prefer it. It seems to show Chávez in his "natural habitat". I have just edited the article to use this photo. This photo is the only one of the five being considered which has him dressed in red. :-) – Herzen (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is this photo debate leading to a freeze on the page? Heavy handed.... This photo debate seems insubstantial to me. Anyway, since there was removal of the line that Chavez called Bush a donkey, I wanted to comment that removing text should be for removing incorrect infromation, if you dont like a source, then find a better source, it is not your prerogative to remove correct information simply because it is inadequately sourced. Here is a video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY8xFiPqMGk of Chavez saying it.... As for the photo, why does it even matter? Ottawakismet (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is one more photo that has been used in this article recently. It seems to be a shot of the same event as the photo above. I prefer the photo above: nothing like a waving hand to represent populism, which Chávez was certainly an example of. – Herzen (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I've looked over other-language Wikipedias to see what photo they use. Most seem to use the third photo from 2010 at the top, with Chávez behind a computer monitor. Israeli Wikipedia uses a particularly unflattering mug shot of him. Dutch Wikipedia uses the close shot of him in the red suit, the photo directly above. Chinese Wikipedia uses the photo I prefer, with him in the red suit waving his hand. – Herzen (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Can we please stop swapping it so often and come to a consensus? Every time I reload this page it seems someone's swapped the image and it's a bit tiring to see. So far I think the 2010 is the preferred one bit more input would probably be more preferable. – Connormah (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
The people doing most of the swapping don't write an edit summary and don't seem to care about this Talk section, and I'm not sure they're interested in reaching a consensus.
I preferred the 2010 photo until I saw the first photo above of him dressed in red. I prefer that one now because I think it says two things about him: (1) red is the color of "socialism"; (2) his waving evokes his being a populist. But I can live with the 2010 photo as well. (The only time I changed the photo myself was after someone had changed it to an unflattering mug shot that is not among the photos being considered here.) – Herzen (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Edits on the article by non-admins are now frozen because of the constant picture changes. I am happy with the current photo, which is the 2006 one. Can we just agree to leave it at that, so that the article can be edited in other respects? This has gotten very silly. – Herzen (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
German Wikipedia uses this photo, and Spanish Wikipedia marks the German Wikipedia article on Chavez as outstandingly good. – Herzen (talk) 06:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
It's inappropriate to use the current picture with that expression. He also wasn't usually formally dressed. I've changed the pic to (Chavez141610-2.jpg). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Lead too long
The introduction is more than four paragraphs long. It needs condensation; some paragraphs (or sentences) must be moved into body article. --George Ho (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Assassination
It is the overwhelming consensus among the unbiased media that Chavez's death was a result of US operations. Indeed, there is incontrovertible evidence. This fact should be acknowledged in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.82.250 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
"Consensus"? "incontrovertible evidence"? "fact"? Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a playground for children who believe in fantasy and fairy tales! --AVM (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you even say here what that evidence is? I saw report in media yesterday that the Venezuelan authorities are seeking scientists to investigate and I've never heard of any such evidence. I'm a supporter of Chavez, a great hero of the common people, but the truth is more important and what you say is just flat false, there's no such consensus. Also what is "unbiased media", I know of no such thing. You don't help the cause by that kind of thinking. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Unlike the unbiased media opinion (no value judgment there!), the expert opinion is quite unanimus: it's a load of dingo kidneys. 86.61.58.93 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Any media that supports the United States position is biased media. Any media which rightfully opposes imperalist and fascist forces worldwide and supports justice is unbiased media.
In other words, anyone who agrees with whatever you say is unbiased, and anyone who disagrees with anything you say is biased. StuRat (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
There probably will be an autopsy, and it will be a part of an effort to prove the cancer was "induced". I predict the "results" will come around a day or two before the elections and will "show" the cancer was induced. Unnamed CT supporter, you just labeled much of the media both unbiased and biased at the same time. Crongatulations.89.142.222.58 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible for media to be both biased and unbiased at the right time. Any media that supports correct reasoning is unbiased, it is very simple.
"Many media outlets that oppose Chavez are the mainstream US media, and I consider them to be unreliable sources for this article." - Is this due to bias? Firstly a biased source can still be "reliable" in its facts. And also remember that within the US bias towards/against Chavez does depend on the political spectrum, with more left wing sources being sympathetic to Chavez, and more right wing sources being opposed to Chavez. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
The solution is to use US sources and sources from other countries (Venezuela, Canada, UK, Australia, Qatar, etc) together so that all relevant viewpoints are considered. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
"Canada, UK, Australia, Qatar" are all US satellites, so one should not expect that citing sources from news outlets based in one of those countries would be any more productive than citing US sources themselves. When it comes to Venezuela, I would find Russian, Chinese, and left-wing Argentine news outlets to be reliable sources. But there are publications in the anglophone world that can be trusted on this as well, such as The London Review of Books. – Herzen (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
A US media outlet has to be very left wing to be sympathetic to Chavez. For example, a left wing blogger tears apart what a New York Review of Book blogger had to say about Chavez and his popularity here: NY Review used to be a pretty progressive publication, but now it just joins the US media bandwagon trashing Chavez. – Herzen (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it necessary counts as "trashing" Chavez if a source tries to present a comprehensive view rather than a one sided view even if it includes criticism. Consider CNN, which in the US is considered in the middle of the political spectrum:
None of these seem to be attack pieces. For that matter the book review, while not a hagiography, is not a rabid attack piece but a formulated opinion.
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here. Unless there's a reliable source for this -- and, when I say 'reliable source,' I mean according to Wiki standards, not according to what some anonymous conspiracy theorist decides is a reliable source -- there's nothing to debate and nothing to add to the article. JoelWhy?(talk) 19:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Just to state the obvious, these are reports on Venezuelan government asserting he was assasinated, not reports that he was assasinated. That Venezuelan government made these claims is not in question.86.61.37.125 (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
The government itself has made no claims. TFD (talk)
I'm sorry, but I just have to pick up on an earlier point – User:WhisperToMe said: Canada, UK, Australia, Qatar: Satellite states in which capacity? Under which circumstances? Do you have reliable sources which say so?
lol, I love it. This type of nonsense is not even worth responding to, but suffice to say that unless you can provide reliable sources to demonstrate content from these nations are biased, it must be treated as a standard reliable source. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Granted – each source should be taken on its own merit. I'm just pointing out the context :-) As long as we don't discriminate against Venezuelan State TVin favour of US media corporations such as CBS (example neutral quote: Showdown with Saddam), then there shouldn't be a problem. BigSteve (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely DO favor U.S. news sources, such as CBS, over a state run media source. So, a story published on Voice of America (a U.S. government entity) would not be typically viewed as unbiased. A story from a major media source, such as CBS, would be considered neutral. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
What you say is funny (in a good way), like you say - "lol". So "you favor U.S. news sources, such as CBS, over a state run media source." So you favour a biased corporate US source such as CBS's disgustingly sensationalist "Saddam Showdown" (invoking connotations of western-action-adventure such as "good guy" Clint Eastwood inviting some random "bad guy" to "make his day")...over the BBC, which is a state run media source? Don't backtrack that "you didn't mean the BBC", because then that would mean that you favour all western sources over all third world sources.
I'm sorry to have to rain on your parade, but NOWHERE in the style guide - neither here nor here, nor anywhere else that I have seen, is what you are claiming mentioned. Wikipedia does NOT "absolutely favour" CBS over Venezuela's VTV. You should either learn these rules, or stop editing.
p.s. And don't use "we" for Wikipedia, because your opinion does not represent WP's 120,000 active users, and certainly not its 19 million total users. Your opinion is just that - an opinion, and I think I have just proven it wrong (though I am quite open to continuing the debate, if you happen to disagree with me :-) BigSteve (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You should learn to do some remedial research or stop editing. I didn't mean the BBC, because "the BBC is a corporation, independent from direct government intervention..." Conversely, Venezuelan media sources, both public and private, have been largely controlled by the government. (i.e. propaganda.) No one's arguing that CBS is a haven for top-notch journalism. FOX News is an independent company, but I would hardly call it unbiased. But, even these right-wing media sources are not controlled by the government, and then self-reporting all the great things said government is doing. So, this state-run media may be used as a reliable source, but NOT as an unbiased one. By it's very nature, it most certainly isn't. (Perhaps you're the one who needs to read up on the rules (i.e. Identifying reliable sources, which explains this very point quite clearly.) JoelWhy?(talk) 13:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Certainly, I like the fact that we both agree that "reliable" is not the same as "unbiased" or "neutral"! That's all I was going for. As far as how government-controlled the BBC is - let's just agree to disagree and leave that discussion for another time! (or for now, but, obviously, elsewhere - just say where) Best :-) BigSteve (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The whole thing of the "cancer gun" is scientific nonsense, as already pointed. It is just a cheap excuse for "anti-imperialism" propaganda, but nothing more. Not even the Venezuelan government itself takes it seriously: the assassination of a sitting national leader is one of the worst things a country can do to another, it's even a justified cause for a war, and what has Maduro actually done about that? Cambalachero (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That's Chavez's own opinion. Nothing to do with the media that reports on it. If a media outlet is quoting him, then that's fine. If it's giving its own opinion, however, then obviously that's different. But, based on WP:BALANCE, we should include both a Western opinion piece that contradicts Chavez' claim, and a Venezuelan opinion piece that supports it. Otherwide it'd be quite biased to say that Chavez says it, that some Western academic calls him crazy, and leave it at that. We'd need to state what the arguments for that assertion are as well, wouldn't we? BigSteve (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Information on term limits not clear
Seach in the text for the bit about "seven years" in respect of term limits. What that (and nearby material) says about Chavez's attempts to serve for longer than (was) legally permited was not clear to me. What WERE the rules, when and how did he get them changed, so he could serve longer?
First of all, if Hugo Chávez had anything was a political ideology, not a political philosophy. Otherwise, where are his books on political theory?
Second, his ideology like previous South American leaders such as Juan Domingo Perón was a mixture, often incoherent, of different tendencies. Chávez saw himself to be a follower of Simón Bolívar, a military leader of the 19th century, mainly influenced by political liberalism. Unlike Bolívar however he did respect some basic principles of liberal democracy like open elections to elect the country’s chief of government. Then he also claimed influence of socialism, foremost the Latin American version of it, and some form of democratic socialism labeled as 21st century socialism. And last but not least he pursued above all a nationalist ideology. In his speeches, thought and practice the fatherland (patria) was way more important than citizen participation or the class interests of the proletariat.--Rivet138 (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Was it not the case that the Venezuelan national identity was borne out of the ideology of anti-Imperialism? This coupled with the real and tangible threat of a U.S. sponsored coup(which was attempted). In terms of the article I think the section on his political ideology was written and sourced very well, hats off to the people who have been working on this article. KingHiggins (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
as this was replaced twice without any attempt at discussion by User:Bobrayner with the comment whitewashing and without any attempt by BobRaynor to discuss, I have removed it again from the header of the article - perhaps sits better in an article about the government rather that a personal biography, or as a minimum in a section about crime during his presidency, the point is, the addition asserts blame on the subject of the article without effort to expand or discuss the claim.
During his time as president, oil prices tripled/aids cases trebled/rape increased/religious beleivers decreases, or anything you want to slant the article to your personal bias. Mosfetfaser (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Multiple reliable sources highlight how shockingly high crime rose Venezuela, and they explicitly tie this to Chávez's rule. Why are you whitewashing? It's better sourced than most of the rest of the article. It's interesting that you didn't criticise "Communist-USSR" for repeatedly removing sourced content. bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
For the lede it is undue to assert responsibility on the subject, bland factoid, not in the lede, perhaps a section, crime rise attributed to H Chavez or some such other titleMosfetfaser (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
How is "undue" if multiple reliable sources highlight how shockingly high crime rose Venezuela, and they explicitly tie this to Chávez's rule? Are you using a different definition of "undue" to me?
There are lots more sources. I can only assume that your removal of relevant, sourced content was an accident - if you revert, the disagreement can stop here. bobrayner (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
None of that supports the bland ,During his time as president, crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered. in the lede of a biography. Why not try creating a section about increace in crime under chavez where for and against points can be addedMosfetfaser (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course the sources support the statement. And as for "for and against points": We don't need to add more excuses for Chávez; the sources are quite clear. Any "debate" would be our own creation. Let's get back to the point: Why are you removing well-sourced content? How on earth is it "undue"? bobrayner (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
After looking this over, I have to agree with Bobrayner on this. The article as it stands is so obviously slanted that it would be considered excessively promotional for a Facebook profile, and attempting to hide such vital information is contributing to it. It won't solve all the problems, but including the dramatic uptick in crime would be a start. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
A slanted article is no excuse to add bias the other way to balance it, correct would be to unbias the article. During his time as president, crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered - Why? Who? Where? the simple factoid in the header without any explanation or reason that he is responsible is excessive in my opinion and considering Wiki guidelines Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
The point would be that in the article, we could actually describe the connection; the lead is for noting what is in the body of the article. That it's not explained in the article now is something that should also be fixed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think he could be included in such a group and I removed it, a serch on tinternet didn't return results of him being call such, if anyone knows more ? I will tell the user there is discusson here. Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
bobraynors addition
During his time as president, Venezuela developed serious economic problems, democracy was undermined, and the crime and homicide rate substantially increased with over 200,000 murdered.
very biases addition - during Chavez time Venezuela economy greatly improved. etal - biases opinion in the lede to weak sources - nothing to support reasons related to Chaves and murder increase - Mosfetfaser (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Literacy section
I believe that the current revision of the literacy section gives undue weight to criticism of one particular claim made by the government regarding the number of Venezuelans who learned to read thanks to the government's education programs. This criticism--by "Francisco Rodríguez of Wesleyan University in Connecticut and Daniel Ortega of IESA"-- has itself been subjected to critique, as I have attempted to show by including the reference to the CEPR document by Mark Weisbrot and David Rosnick. However, it is my preference that, rather than summarize the back-and-forth between the different sides of this debate, which would involve in-depth discussion of the authors' respect views regarding the most appropriate datasets..., and the proper methods of statistical analysis..., for assessing literary rates in Venezuela, we simply provide the (government's) claim--about teaching 1.5 million Venezuelans to read--and then mention that this claim has become the subject of scholarly debate, including references to all the relevant sources. After all, this article is about Hugo Chavez, not about the education programs enacted by his government, and not at all a place to arbitrate between competing evaluations of their success. (In my view, the 'literacy' section, and even the 'policy overview' section itself could use a trim.)--Riothero (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Look, you came up with multiple excuses to revert my edits. Initially you called them propaganda. Then you weasel worded them. Now you're claiming undue weight... Please stop.--Zfigueroa (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I haven't come up with 'multiple excuses'--I hadn't the chance to explain to you my concerns with your edits to the 'literacy' section, and the reasoning behind my change, until I came to the talk page and posted the comment above. (I did try to explain some of this in my edit summaries, there wasn't enough room to do so adequately. However, those edit summaries--"the critical source has itself been contested, and this is not the place to rehash the debate" and "undue weight given to controversial study"--are consistent with the rationale I offer here.) --Riothero (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, we all know Mark Weisbrot and how he is... Might as well ask Venezuelanalysis for their opinion too.--Zfigueroa (talk) 06:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The graph on corruption over time has a couple of issues - the y-axis goes from 0.0 to 4.6, but the title indicates that the minimum possible rating would be 1.0. The maximum of the graph is 4.6, the highest rating, but this gives the impression that corruption is percieved to be at the most it could be, when it's not.
148.88.244.126 (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is already a section on the "History of Jews in Venezuela" article that delves into accusations of anti-semitism. I urge you to read it. It addresses a number of comments by Chavez which incited controversy (usually at the interntional level). In nearly every case, the initial uproar was followed by a closer examination of the comments in their original context, and it was found (i.e. by the Venezuelan Jewish community) that the original meaning had been distorted/misunderstood. That is why it would be a mistake to introduce in this article out-of-context quotes and misguided interpretations to which they lent themselves without alluding to the fact that these accusations were based on misreadings, etc. --Riothero (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The accusations used are primarily from the Jewish community. Also, the majority of "closer examination" you speak of deals with the "wandering Jews" remark.--Zfigueroa (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Nope. It applies also to the "crucified Christ" remark, which you so selectively edited (via your sources). Perhaps you need to read more carefully.--Riothero (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I will change the picture of his picture to a more suitable, professional looking picture. He may not be smiling but it is more professional and comparative to current and formal heads of state.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I already posted this comment on the talk page of "Economic policy of the Hugo Chavez's government", where this so-called 'Stanford publication' was also cited (and directed fellow editors to that talk page in my edit summary). this seems to me to be a pretty clear cut case of a (debunked) fringe theory posted in lieu of widely accepted facts on this issue (economic inequality).
I am surprised that “Over the Horizon Proliferation Threats” (referred to--a bit misleadingly--as the 'Standford University publication' in the present article ) , a book about the threat posed by nuclear weapons in the 21st century, could even be considered a reliable source for the 'information' on Venezuela’s inequality under Chavez. the book has little to do with Venezuela; the country itself is mentioned only in passing, in the context of assessing Latin America’s nuclear capacity. and there is just one sentence addressing economic inequality in Venezuela--the issue for which the book is cited as a source--and the authors are merely repeating a (debunked) claim of Francisco Rodríguez, whom they explicitly credit in a footnote.
In a 2008 Foreign Affairs article, Rodríguez wrote that “…according to the Venezuelan Central Bank, inequality has actually increased during the Chávez administration, with the Gini coefficient (a measure of economic inequality, with zero indicating perfect equality and one indicating perfect inequality) increasing from 0.44 to 0.48 between 2000 and 2005” (p53).
Could we report these numbers somewhere in this article? The reduction in inequality is reportedly a major accomplishment of Chavismo, yet little (other than false information) has been said on this subject.--Riothero (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I did not see that it was Rodriguez who was noted. The fact that Stanford still used his data instead of Weisbrot is surprising given the fact that the disputes happened years before the publication of their book. However, it would be more suitable if we just left the article as it was before my edit. I apologize for that one!--Zfigueroa (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Bloat
I've raised this many times over the years here, and made no progress. The fastest way to begin addressing the POV in this article is to cut it in half:
WP:SIZE recommends roughly 4 to 10,000 words of readable prose.
The readable prose in this article (from Dr pda's tool) is 18,000 words. And that is even though the article has many sub-articles, like Military career of Hugo Chavez
The bloat here is the result of shoving every off-topic mention possible of sources that puff up Chavez, resulting in a hagiography. By cutting the off-topic bloat, the remaining POV will be easier to address. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Assumed office date may be wrong
Sorry, new to posting, so I hope I'm following protocol. Not sure I understand the "Assumed Office 26 July 2014" in the "Eternal President of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela" section of the top-right info block since the date is after his death. I don't know if the date is a typo (seems likely) or whether it should be added that the assumption of office was posthumous (seems less likely). Cpalsgrove (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)cpalsgrove
The date is correct as the title was bestowed on him posthumously. Agree that it's strange wording to "assume" a position after death. Greenman (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
June 2008
2010
.jpg)
