Jump to content

Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 29

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29

Cato Corruption section

Ok, so I didn't violate the 3RR, but I will start a discussion here about the removal of this section. The Cato Article which originally appeared in the USA Today magazine looks at multiple incidents and sources involving corruption surrounding Chavez. I do not believe that there are any reasons why this should be removed. The info was properly attributed and reliably sourced.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

CATO Opinion pieces are not a reliable source. And yes I read the totally unscientific basis for the allegations which were an confabulation of half truths, lies and selective statistics. The original article on the CATO website. Cathar66 (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
If I provide the actual article would you still call it unreliable? It is not an opinion piece but a commentary placed on Cato's website by a contributor. Please give examples of lies, half-truths and selective statistics as well. How can we be sure that they are what you say they are?--ZiaLater (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
A commentary is an opinion piece and CATO is not rs. The article makes original accusations that have not been picked up except in a limited number of other right-wing websites. TFD (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The other USA Today article is not a commentary I believe but the way it is provided by Cato makes it seem so, similar to a blog post on their website. Can you prove that these accusations are limited?--ZiaLater (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, why would Cato not be a reliable source?--ZiaLater (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to chime in on issue I haven't been paying attention to at all until two minutes ago... A libertarian think tank—especially one associated with the Kochs—isn't likely to be impartial on this topic. It isn't the first time either that critical information regarding a Venezuela topic is attributed solely to such a source, which... isn't ideal. I'm not totally against the material. I think we need additional coverage from a non-partisan source to reinforce this as a legitimate subtopic rather than a partisan hit-piece.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that CATO should not be used, not only for the sourcing issues, but also because this article is already twice the size it should be and there are gazillions of sources that could be used to cover basically the same idea. (Cut this article in half! We don't need 18,000 words of readable prose-- see WP:SIZE.)

As to "A libertarian think tank—especially one associated with the Kochs—isn't likely to be impartial on this topic", please remember to apply the same logic when liberal think tank CEPR/Weisbrot are used to cite content in this article. Every single commentary about CATO in this section also applies to CEPR/Venezuelanalysis, yet they are frequently cited in Venezuela articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think Mbinebri's reasons are policy based. Being reliable and being partisan are too separate issues. The reason CATO is not rs is that it publishes opinions and analyses without the degree of rigour that is required of that type of writing to meet rs. The same types of writings in Venezuelanalysis or the New York Times would not meet rs either. Very few think tanks meet rs. TFD (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
An entire section based around one article from a partisan think tank? That seems to me to be a violation of WP:UNDUE. I am not opposed to including particular allegations, but they should be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Gamaliel (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I think I might have found an article from US Newswire as well. It might be the wrong one though. There is also the one source from US Today.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
ZiaLater, I do not have to prove these accusations are limited, you need to prove they are not. Similarly it is up to you to prove that CATO is rs. But it is moot, an opinion piece is not rs. Any idea where he is getting his facts btw? Because they appear to be inconsistent with facts presented in other sources. TFD (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
That is what I am trying to provide the secondary sources. Also, it gets a lot of the facts from José Guerra, a former executive of Venezuela's Central Bank, an agency similar to the Federal Reserve System. If a head of the Federal Reserve were to make mentions of such spending in the United States, I am sure it would grab some attention.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the article from USA Today:

  • Title: THE CORRUPTION OF DEMOCRACY IN VENEZUELA

Author: Coronel, Gustavo

Agency: USA Today

Volume: 136

Issue: 2754

Pages: 67-69

Date: March 2008

That's the original article, I believe.--ZiaLater (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately I couldn't find this article in Lexis/Nexis. Gamaliel (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Well it exists. This isn't what I used but here is a link I can show you from EBSCO Information Services showing the article and information.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, in The Freedom Movement: Free Food, Free Drugs & World Peace by Ethan James, the article and its contents are discussed on Page 143.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
"News organizations" says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds)...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." BTW, you began your section, "According to the Cato Institute...." That is inaccurate, it was according to the person who wrote the piece. Guerra btw was not head of the Venezuelan central bank so the comparison does not work and he works for an opposition party. And he is just quoted as saying that the Chavez government gave money in foreign aid and spent money to build political support among some constituencies, none of which supports the main thrust of Coronel's piece. TFD (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe that it exists. L/N's coverage can be spotty at times. But I can't support including a source I haven't even seen. Do you have a copy of the full text you can share with other editors? Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
It appeared in USA Today, "The Magazine of the American Scene", which is unrelated to the newspaper. Anyway, however reliable that source may be, fact-checking is only carried out on articles submitted by staff, not by guest writers. TFD (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I was searching the newspaper. I have the article now, and will send it to anyone who emails me. Will comment on the source itself when I have a chance to read it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Here is a link to the article on the Cato site [1] It is based on this piece from 2006 by the same authour [2]Cathar66 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

So what have we concluded? Just want to close this discussion or continue if needed.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of death controversy

I see this section has been removed and restored several times, so it seems like it needs a discussion. I'm somewhat torn. On the one hand, Salazar's claim was widely reported; on the other hand, his claim seems to be a fringe theory we're giving a section to, and WP:FRINGE makes it very clear we have to avoid giving undue weight to anything not widely-accepted, which Salazar's claim doesn't seem to be. Thoughts?  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to where the section was removed? TFD (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez&diff=646031049&oldid=646029963 --Riothero (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I was planning to write a line at the end of the #Death stating that the exact death of his death has been the subject of skepticism and controversy, citing Leamsy Salazar, a former head of security to Chavez, who defected to the United States in January 2015, who claims that Chavez actually died two months earlier than officially reported. However, I could not find a credible source for this claim, as Infobae (which itself is not a sufficiently neutral re Venezuelan news) indicates that the claim is merely hearsay: the source is Guillermo Cochez, the former Ambassador of Panama to the OAS--the guy who propagated a (fake) Maduro's birth certificate 'proving' that latter was Colombian--who, in a tweet, "confirmed" that this is what Salazar said. If Salazar's claim is eventually confirmed by a mainstream source, then such a line may be considered. --Riothero (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I did a quick source perusal and it appears you're right that we don't even have direct confirmation Salazar said any of this, that the info is being relayed by someone else (who isn't reliable?) and then being reported on. For a controversial claim, we need better than that.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I heard about it before, the theory that Chavez died and the government pretended he was still alive for several months. We would need to show that it had extensive coverage before including. If such coverage existed we would have sources that commented on how likely the theory is. I think the theory was first suggested much earlier, and then dropped when Chavez appeared in public. It's used often for Castro. TFD (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I read an article about this from NBC. Thanks for this edit, since I was about to make an edit about this.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I read the linked article. It just confirms how dubious the claim is, comparing it to a wild conspiracy theory and pointing out the source of the info has previously pushed a hoax regarding Chavez's health.  Mbinebri  talk ← 17:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Thanks for the edit Mbinebri, I forgot I placed it in the other article as well.--ZiaLater (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Economic and social policy section

I just wanted to explain my previous edits on the section. Since the main article is linked and the "Policy overview" section still needed some clean up, I was removing excess information that was either controversial or out dated/controversial. This included the literacy information and information from Chavez supporter, Mark Weisbrot.

The literacy data is controversial since the changes can supposedly be explained by the deaths of elderly citizens that were illiterate. For example from 1980-2009, the literacy rate among those aged 15-24 years increased only 5.4% while 65 years and older increased 26.6%! This can be attributed to better education practices that those who are recently over 65 years old experienced compared to the older groups of the population that had died that were illiterate due to poor education practices at the time of their education (say 70 years prior to their death).

For the Weisbrot data, it is outdated/confusing to the reader because it states "current economic expansion" when words before it, it says "in 2009". It is also funny because at the time, Venezuela's economy was experiencing a recession and he was saying it was expanding.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean regarding the literacy rates. Still, I condensed it a bit more for balance. I have no problem with the rest of the section as it is now.  Mbinebri  talk ← 19:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks Mbinebri.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1998 election turnout

Despite your claims, Zia, there is conflict regarding the election between these sources, and WP:V says contrasting accounts from reliable sources both should be included. It's right there in the intro for the policy. Your source says there was low interest in the election; Riothero's sources states there was high interest and cites a 54 to 64 increase in the turnout, which you incorrectly summarize as a small increase. The sources don't mesh. Neutrality requires including both sides.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

They are talking about parliamentary elections from the previous month (November), not presidential. It was one of the lowest voter turnouts in presidential election history. There are no sides.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the IRI does indicate the cited increase is from the November election. In your summation, however, you weren't specifying only presidential election results, so maybe that's where some of this disagreement is coming from. What specifically does the Nelson source say? Can you quote the passage here? The solution might be to say something along the lines of "Despite a 54 to 64% increase in voter participation from the November parliamentary election to the December presidential election, the latter's voter turnout represented one of the lowest for a presidential election in Venezuelan history." That said, the IRI's statement regarding the reversal of a 20-year trend complicates this summation.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
...Upon further thought, the most neutral thing to do would be to scrap any analysis and just cite the final tallies for the candidates.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The best thing to do is to tell the truth to readers that it was one of the lowest voter turnouts in Venezuelan history since the country was upset with politics at the time.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Whose truth? And what defines "the best thing to do"? I'm just trying to find a compromise between your sources' claims and Riothero's sources' claims.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
The source's claims did not include mean just the presidential elections but possibly elections in general. In the case of Hugo Chavez who participated in a presidential election and not a parliamentary election, it is pretty obvious on what data should be included...--ZiaLater (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I wish it was obvious. I wish everything on Wikipedia was obvious.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
It really is obvious. Chavez was not part of the parliamentary elections, he was part of the presidential elections. In 1998, the presidential elections had one of the lowest voter turnouts in Venezuela's history. If it is not obvious to you from the existing sources, I will provide more for you if possible.--ZiaLater (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

However...

After your own comment here about compulsory voting, you still argue to add misleading out-of-context content and consider it NPOV? Also on a sidenote, you should at least try to avoid (your favorite?) words like "however" and "claim", in general but also especially when applied onesided.TMCk (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Even when Venezuelans were forced to vote, they still didn't and it was still one of the lowest voter turnouts in history. It is not misleading and it fits in context since Venezuelans were sick of the political entities existing in Venezuela and decided to go with Chavez, according to some individuals. Explain how it could be POV? Also, favorite words? You mean common transitional words that are used everywhere? I apologize if I ever used claim because it might've slipped through my filter while reading sources.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you are talking about the WP:CLAIM recently edited, that was a different user shown from this edit back on 11 April 2014.--ZiaLater (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

What I see here are excuses and/or missing knowledge despite you're editing WP for about 2 years by now. Don't have the time and nerve for this but real quick, this edit was just today. Re "however": See WP:EDITORIALIZING; or even better, read the whole wp:MOS including MOS:WTW.TMCk (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Since no one else has brought up the "however" before, it must not have been that big of a problem, not even with Chavistas apparently. However, I will try to refrain from using "however" when it is unnecessary. It is hard to please everyone in articles like these where everything is flagged as POV, I hope you understand. We already fixed that "however" but is there a way to transition the other one so it doesn't read so bad? Maybe we could try, "Despite such changes" or "Such social works relied on oil products, the keystone", I'll change it to the latter for right now just so you'll be happy and feel clean...
Also, you should read the whole page on WP:CIVIL after this since after nearly 7 years of editing you still haven't learned how to kindly work with users. First, you incorrectly accused me of one of my "favorite words" being "claim" and then instead of changing the "however" into better wording yourself, you made more accusations against me when you could have asked me nicely to read about "however" in the edit description. I know this response may not be WP:CIVIL itself, but it is so you realize how I feel. I am a person behind this screen you know. You may be stressed since you are so busy but please use WP:FAITH.--ZiaLater (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis.com not WP:RS

The website www.venezuelanalysis.com does not fit the criteria for a reliable source listed in WP:RS, yet it is cited numerous times. --108.45.56.173 (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

On what basis do you make that claim? Greenman (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
On the fact that it is funded by the Government of Venezuela, and that it is blatantly pro-"bolivarian revolution." If you don't believe me that it has a pro-chavista bias, perhaps you can believe its founder? http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/9884. Further, the founder admitted that the website receives funding from the Venezuelan Ministry of Culture: http://redpepper.blogs.com/venezuela/2007/03/hugo_chavezs_fu.html. All of this makes the website 'inherently' unreliable. --108.45.56.173 (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that is pro-Chávez? So, we should remove CNN, for example, on the basis it is a "rival" source? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Reliability of WP:RS depends on their use. AFAICT, it is used primarily for quotes or opinions from Chavez and his supporters. Are there any examples in the article where you think this source is improperly used? If not, this is not a forum for discussing why we hate venezuelanalysis. TFD (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The truth is that there are much better sources than Venezuelanalysis (no hate intended TFD). And for Gabriel Yuji, CNN is not a rival at all, it is just a Latin American news organization that is practically run by the Venezuelan state and its friends. So it would be like saying CNN is state media, but I guess you have your opinion to say that CNN is state media if you want to go into that... Venezulanalysis is different from both TeleSUR and CNN however, as they clearly state that they are pro-Chavez, etc. VA sources are fine if they are properly attributed to the content in the article, but in the long term I recommend just Googling everything stated by Venezuelanalysis and I'm sure there is a better source for the information. And if VA is just used for comments by the government such as what TFD says, there is no problem as long at is attributed to the government and not vaguely stated or stated as fact. I will take a look at VA content soon as I'm sure there is plenty of it in this article.--ZiaLater (talk) 11:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
ZiaLater are u saying CNN's run by the Venezuelan state? socialistguy - when you make/review edits, please make sure they're neutral and cover/acknowledge multiple POVs. Thank you (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Concur with ZiaLater and IP 108, Gabriel Yuji doesn't appear to understand WP:RS, and for TFD, samples where venanalysis is used incorrectly:

  • Ridiculously long excerpt in a quote box, giving one person's opinion-- a person who has stated publicly that Venezuelanalysis is pro-Chavez.
  • Current citation 314, paragraph about communes-- most of the paragraph is only cited to Venezuelanalysis.com, there is no other (neutral) analysis of the communes from independent sources (the paragraph is biased, and a good deal of it doesn't even belong in the article).
  • As examples of other problems in this article (there are too many to list, and the POV tag has long ago and many times been edit-warred away without reason), look at the "Literacy" section (which used venanalysis and CEPR). First, it's off-topic (doesn't belong in bio). Second, cited to Venanalysis. Third, criticism of the numbers is glossed over.[3] (Remember that Weisbrot is CEPR which has hired VOI staff ... another non-neutral source.)
  • Food, same problems as literacy. A bunch of off-topic, unbalanced, poorly sourced text that wouldn't belong in this article even if it were properly sourced and balanced.

Those are only a few samples-- by no means an exhaustive look at the problems in this article. Over the years, I've supplied multiple reliable sources that have been excluded here, and the POV tag has been removed multiple times without correction of the problems. There are hundreds of good, independent sources on Chavez, this article doesn't use them, and this article is ridiculously too long, going off-topic to construct a biased image of Chavez. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • User:SandyGeorgia, on my quick run through this article I was wondering about that box, and I'm glad to see some of my suspicions confirmed here. I have, accordingly, removed the quote box not so much because of possible POV but because it is overly detailed and does not fit this article (which is a biography). Drmies (talk) 03:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
  • This article stopped being a biography almost ten years ago :) The problems are numerous: as I've stated several times on this page and in archives, even attempting to clean up this article is not reasonable until it is cut at least in half, removing the POV that resulted from shoving in every possible positive mention of the Chavez administration (often from biased sources), while seriously ignoring most sources that discuss Chavez, the man. If the article is ever cut in half, and if OWNership subsides so that at least a POV tag can be put on it (considering the abundance of reliable sources that have routinely been excluded), it may be worth working on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
There are designated articles that have policies and such regarding Chávez. I'm more than happy to trim things up and move them to other articles or even create new articles. I think this may take some time and a few users though. I agree that most of this article is about the state of Venezuela rather than on Chávez. Where should we start?--ZiaLater (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"We"? Nosotros es mucha gente. We start with reading WP:COATRACK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good Sandy since that is exactly what I was thinking. I asked for some comments on what to do in case others want to get involved as well. I may have some time to take a crack at this soon. Any good articles that should be an example of what this article should be?--ZiaLater (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
You can browse Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Politics_and_government_biographies; I haven't checked all of them recently, so can't guarantee that any of them are still in good shape, but I see right off the bat we have Yasser Arafat, and further into the list, Richard Nixon. You should be able to locate a few sufficiently "controversial" ex-Presidents in there ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Alright I will try to get started. I will move some things to a sandbox and add them to other articles where needed. Hopefully I'm not so busy today and won't get stopped or forget where I am, I have a lot to do.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015 edits

I have made some recent edits due to a previous discussion that was made above in order to clean the article up and update it. Some edits were not perfect and reversions made it more complicated to correct edits but I am providing an explanation to those who may not be happy with my edits. If we were to place percentages in the lede of this article, then it would leave the lede open to other percentages (like the over 1000% increase of kidnappings and such) and we would be in the same place again with a messy article. Please discuss below if there are any other concerns and please, no more accusations (I am not "President Bush" by the way).--ZiaLater (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

2012 or 2013

So there is an argument now that Maduro is responsible for the increase of poverty in Venezuela in 2013. He would have had to make drastic changes in order for this to happen in under a year, but he didn't (see first sentence of Economic policy of the Nicolás Maduro government). Maduro was elected president over one-third of the way through the year of 2013 (late April 2013) while economic policies in place from his predecessor, Chávez, had been in place for over a decade before his election into office. So again, why would someone who was president for mere months be attributed to an increase of poverty when he hadn't even (and arguably still hasn't) made any significant changes in Venezuela's economic policy?--ZiaLater (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So there is an argument now that Maduro is responsible for the increase of poverty in Venezuela in 2013. When did I argue that? I said the majority of 2013 was Maduro's presidency, not Chavez's, therefore it's incorrect to attribute 2013's final poverty stat to Chavez. In fact, your allegation is strange. Poverty rates and an overall economic state are obviously due to more than just national policy. Fluctuations are natural thanks to local, national, regional, and global factors. By March 4, Chavez was dead and had no ability to respond to those factors, while Maduro did. Even if all he did was continue Chavez's national policies without the slightest change (which is doubtful), it was his choice to do so. Maduro was by no means helpless to pass new policies. Whether he instituted changes or maintained the status quo, the burden of the economy was passed to Maduro upon election and that makes 2013's final poverty stats more on him than Chavez. 2012 was the final full year with Chavez at the helm and stats should reflect that as they previously did in the lead.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
One often argues that poverty changed under Chávez, either for good or for bad. To attribute 2013's poverty rate to Maduro would not be correct especially since multiple nations saw drops in poverty compared to Venezuela. Also, to sweep Venezuela's own economic policies under the rug and focus on international factors is dubious at best.
When placing these things into data such as a line graph, Chávez was still president in 2013, though not through its entirety. So in graphs and such, the poverty rate under Chávez would still be shown 1999-2013. Though some things in 1999 were not under Chávez's control or he just decided not change them at the time (though there was a "revolution" going on), the poverty changes under his administration would be reflected from 1999 to 2013. The same for Maduro, though the data for him would be reflected from 2013-XXXX with an overlap of a year with Chávez in 2013. Without that overlap, data can appear to have gaps. In the year XXXX, Maduro's performance would be seen and his successor's data would overlap and begin in XXXX.
You could also say that a newly seated president should be represented for an entire year instead of part of a year. Chávez was elected in 1998 and served throughout 1999. Maduro was elected in 2013 and served as president for about 70% of 2013, not its entirety. According to sources, if Maduro changed Chávez's polices immediately, he could have faced outrage from his supporters. So yes, Maduro chose not to do change policies but did he really have a choice? The rumors of protests after a potential raise in gas prices in Venezuela that have echoed in news outlets in the last few years shows how volatile the situation is. So with whatever happens, under Chavez from 1999 to 2013, Venezuela was sixth in Latin America at reducing poverty among the population.[4] With Maduro, we will see what happens from 2013-XXXX.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You're relying on straw-man arguments. I'm not trying to place the blame entirely on Maduro, I'm just saying it can't be put entirely on Chavez, as you would do. I have also made no attempt to sweep national policies under the rug. I could argue further but it's somewhat irrelevant now, as I replaced the sentence at issue with a more general summary of improvements (while reducing its length). Using one sentence to focus solely on poverty made little sense to me.  Mbinebri  talk ← 12:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
That's better. I might modify it a little to make it clear how in the 2000s some progress was made but that in the 2010s some of that ground was lost. Thank you.--ZiaLater (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
The lead already notes the subsequent notable blowback/reversal in that paragraph. The new sentence is fine as-is.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Just saw your edit. I have no immediate problem with it.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mbinebri, I try my best! ;)--ZiaLater (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately very unreliable article nowadays (February 2016)

Hello all. I think a warning sign should be placed at top of the article, because it seems not many users are working on the article anymore. Instead it has been for pure pov rewritten (examples: [5][6][7] and if it has the right direction it is possible to pack into the article even the most obvious fakes. I just removed from the article: "Chavez was known to bathe in crude oil as a show of Venezualen might. The "black baths" were required viewing for every Venezuelan citizen and was a weekly program on the Al Jazeera network. Sadly many experts believe that the frequent bathing in crude oil led to the health problems which would ultimately lead to the dictators timely death" (yes this was seriously supported in the article and not just for an hour: [8]. Did just jump over the article but I think it is not unlikely quite some of such type of stuff is in there now. --78.51.177.19 (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello. The oil bath content has been removed and had no place in this article. I have been trying to keep an eye on this article the best I can.--ZiaLater (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Political image

We currently have the articles Bolivarian propaganda, Hugo Chávez's cult of personality and Public image of Hugo Chávez. Which is the difference of scope between them? Wouldn't it be a better idea to merge them into a single article? Cambalachero (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Something was cited incorrectly.

"proved to be unsustainable, with Venezuela's economy faltering while poverty,[7][15][27] inflation[28] and shortages in Venezuela increased."

Source number 7 is cited incorrectly in this case as the information within the source shows how poverty is decreasing. I would label it as verifcation failed, but I'm too unfamiliar with the interface being new so if anyone is out there please remove the citing of [7] in this case. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD8D:1230:B5DA:2367:7222:AA (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Cato Institute? Seriously?

The Cato Institute isn't devoted to any serious sociological research, it's devoted to pumping out far right propaganda. It's founded and funded by the Kochs in order to normalize Austrian economics, along with other unworkable loony toons ideas.

Using the Cato Institute as a source is literally worse than just guessing and making something up. You might as well consider Infowars a reputable source. Is Venezuela populated by space lizards? Let's see what Wikipedia has to say. Welp, looks like it is! If a major participant in the writing of this relies on the sort of fractally wrong worldview peddled by Cato, then this whole article is likely rotten to the foundation. You're gonna need to uproot the whole thing and check for BS. You've got a slimy little ancap trying to insert their propaganda into a country's article.

72.181.99.6 (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Chavez and Ceresole

In the "political influences" section, a certain editor with anti-Chavez and pro-Israel opinions by the name of DarkKing Rayleigh, is attempting to present Chavez as some kind of "communist-fascist" boogeyman by association, who the world needed saving from.

Specifically, the insinuation that Norberto Ceresole who was an influence on Chavez was some kind of "fascist" is complete disinformation and does not belong in the article. Ceresole was a leader of the paramilitary wing of the Workers' Revolutionary Party (Argentina) and during the dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla was a left-Peronist in exile. In no way can he be considered a fascist. Because of his pro-Arab and especially pro-Palestinian views, Cersole aligned himself with Roger Garaudy (a fellow communist) in criticising the alleged Israeli use of the Holocaust to promote anti-Palestinian policies. This doesn't make him a neo-fascist, both he and Garaudy are lifelong Marxists. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave your peronist nazibolshevik alone, since they are almost synonyms. But slow down with those personal attacks or you will be reported. It's not the first time somebody warns you.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 04:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Chávez. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Extremely biased excerpt

In the "Economic and social policy" section:

"Chávez created the Bolivarian Missions, aimed at providing public services to improve economic, cultural, and social conditions so he could maintain political power. According to Corrales and Penfold, 'aid was disbursed to some of the poor, and more gravely, in a way that ended up helping the president and his allies and cronies more than anyone else'."

This excerpt sounds extremely anti-government biased and, in my humble view, violates Wikipedia's laws on neutrality. There is no decisive source stating that Chávez created the Bolivarian Missions to "maintain political power". I humbly propose that we remove both the aforementioned piece of text and the Corrales and Penfold quote entirely to avoid breaking neutrality and tell the facts from a neutral point of view. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Have to disagree due to sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
One of the sources in the first sentence is "Stratfor", referred to as "The Shadow CIA" and favorable to American geopolitical views. Hardly a reputable source. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Note that it's also not appropriate to include this quote in the references section appended to a ref tag for more bromine statements. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: I am very pointedly challenging the reliability of Maria C Werlau as a source on Venezuela. She's literally on the board of directors of an anti-socialist propaganda organization, she is a former bank VP. She is not an academic; her highest credential is a Masters' Degree from what I can find. In short, even if the journal itself can be a reliable source, in this context, from this author it is not reliable except as an opinion paper by a non-expert banker. Simonm223 (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, it's pretty evident from the discussion here that you don't have a clear consensus to re-insert these sorts of POV pushing quotes. Simonm223 (talk) 12:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

English

Why this article is written in British English? Venezuela is not part of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.185.4.75 (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

U.S.–Venezuela relations

@Flickotown: Per your edit wars here and here please explain your reasoning. How can this be "undue and not in keeping with the tone and point of the paragraph"? You are obviously wikihounding by reverting my edits across several Wikipedia articles. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The material you included is clearly undue and therefore violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but your ignorance makes sense given your edit-warring on this article and history of consistently including similarly one-sided, point-of-view-material on other articles. You will note that the paragraph consists wholly in outlining his ideological orientation and policy directions - this makes sense because it is just giving a general description of foreign policy positions. Not his opinion on some specific event that you discovered overnight and then arbitrarily decided was important because you have a political agenda to cram and/or because you have a desperate urgency to claw out some kind of false balance in the paragraph. I will remind you that the current foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your WP:BATTLEGROUND pov-material so the obligation really is on you and anybody else to justify why it belongs. I will also remind you that you have an established track record of edit warring with other users on a whole host of other articles for the same reason that you are edit-warring on this article (injecting highly non-neutral material), but for the sake of assuming good faith I will urge that you do not restore this undue material. There are other places where that kind of stuff can go (like a personal blog) but on here? No that just isn't going to fly. Flickotown (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
@Flickotown:, Chávez has been known for his anti-American rhetoric and the anti-Americanism had a prominent place in his foreign policy. The invasion of Iraq was the most controversial U.S. foreign policy decision in recent history. The intervention in Libya was also controversial. I see no reasonable argument here to remove these informative additions. I just don't like it doesn't count. I agree with RichardWeiss. My additions are sourced, relevant and the consensus is against you. Please read WP:No personal attacks and WP:Civility. Also read WP:BATTLEGROUND, I see you are wikihounding by reverting some of my edits on multiple pages. -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Chávez has been known for his anti-American rhetoric and the anti-Americanism had a prominent place in his foreign policy. That is already reflected in the paragraph. It is your right to expand on that part of the section (as I would expect given your WP:BATTLEGROUND history) but bear in mind that the section as a whole is meant to provide just a synopsis of Chavez's foreign policy not some paranoid focus on America (or any other country). So it would be best to do general descriptions and not this coatracky material of yours.
The invasion of Iraq was the most controversial U.S. foreign policy decision in recent history. The intervention in Libya was also controversial. That is irrelevant to the discussion and yet another example of your WP:POVPUSH. This article (let alone the paragraph) is dealing with Chavez not American foreign policy, let alone your interpretation of what foreign policy event is or isn't controversial.
I see no reasonable argument here to remove these informative additions. I just don't like it doesn't count. There is. You have already been told what they are. You just don't like it because you have an agenda to push (as your edit-warring on this article and history of consistently including similarly one-sided, point-of-view-material on other articles indicate).
I agree with RichardWeiss. My additions are sourced, relevant and the consensus is against you. No no there is no "consensus." Numbers-wise it is a deadlock as another editor has reverted you (User:Jamez42). Everything still stands: the current foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your WP:BATTLEGROUND pov-material so the obligation really is on you and anybody else to justify why it belongs. You do not get to overturn years of consensus on the paragraph just because you want to Flickotown (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Paranoid focus on America as you put it @Flickotown: sounds very like Chávez' opinion on the US. This paragraph is well-sourced, relevant, not undue sand should remain. Seems several editors disagree with you so please desist from reverting, while continuing to seek a consensus here. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 19:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Treating opinions as fact

How is an opinion expressed by a South Korean newspaper due inclusion in the lede in Wikipedia's voice? Especially for the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that a robust public sector caused the economic crisis as opposed to over a decade of economic warfare from the US in the form of trade sanctions, manipulative alliances and sponsoring massive smuggling over the Colombian border? Simonm223 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

While BTI may have more due relevancy than the original source, it still cannot be communicated using Wikipedia's voice. They're clearly a strongly POV source; they are explicitly anti-socialist so their views need to be contextualized. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Simonm223: Wow. Can you provide sources about how there has been "decade of economic warfare from the US in the form of trade sanctions, manipulative alliances and sponsoring massive smuggling over the Colombian border"? References on other claims have been included before and those are bold statements. Can you quote how the BTI is "explicitly anti-socialist"? Truth be told, is WP:DUE the problem, the sources used or just the content added? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
As I'm not putting that statement in article space I am not required to. We can consider it common knowledge. With regard to BTI being explicitly anti-socialist, I went to their "about" page. That's pretty clear on the matter. With regard to the WP:DUE problem the new source (BTI) is slightly different from the old source (the Korean newspaper). As a think tank or NGO, BTI's opinion may be due where some random daily is not. However the statement still represents BTI's opinion so, while it may be due in the lede, it must be accredited to BTI. And in this case, BTI expresses a specific mission to forward "transition to... market economy" - which means they are an organization which explicitly opposes socialist practice. As such, the accreditation must contextualize their opinion as being one which comes from a group that wishes to undo socialism notwithstanding the specifics of Venezuela's economy.Simonm223 (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Would the person who claimed that accrediting the org who made the statement as the org who made the statement is unrelated synth care to explain themself? Because it really looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Likewise, that of an obscure German think-thank. Certainly not appropriate for the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes

@146.115.72.47: Could you please explain your recent changes? You haven't provided references to support them. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The wages of POV edits are edit warring

I'm not taking the side of either the IP nor Jamez42 as I see both sets of edits as being full of WP:WEASEL problems and both as being used for either a pro or anti-Maduro WP:POVPUSH. But I'm getting pretty tired of IPs and SPAs edit warring in Venezuela articles to make Wikipedia into a WP:SOAPBOX for their preferred opinions and I'm half tempted to ask Arbcomm to implement a restrictive sanctions regime here. I suggest you two avoid edit warring, go to talk and also consider editing other areas of Wikipedia once in a while. I'm tired of this. And it's getting worse, not better. Everybody stop. Simonm223 (talk) 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I currently don't have the time to answer properly to every discussion, but I will repeat that the latest changes made by the IP were unreferenced in violation of WP:VERIFY. I'll repeat that I have not introduced any new wording, allegedly "anti-Maduro", and that this is in accordance to WP:BRD. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If you edited articles outside of those to do with Venezuela current affairs, you'd likely see why I view your edits as being as WP:POVPUSH as those of the IP. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite understand your point, but each edit should me examined individually, and looking at the edit history this should be clear. Having the article in my watchlist isn't related, and I hope you're not assuming bad faith over previous editorial disagreements. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How would I possibly know what's in your watchlist? All I can go by is your user contributions - which are effectively, from what I saw, either edits to pages about Venezuela or contributions to wikispace discussions of Venezuela. Again, if you thought I could see your watchlist, this is an indicator that you should probably broaden your understanding of Wikipedia culture by contributing outside the area of one highly contentious political dispute. Simonm223 (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Another bad faith assumption, and if I may add, a mistaken one. This is becoming off topic, I continued the discussion in your talk page. Returning to the issue and like I have said before, not only weasel wording has been added, but unreferenced claims have been added or have replaced important ones, like suggestion that the poverty improvements have not been temporary, that these changes have stagnated rather than reversed, and arguing foreign sanctions are responsible for the crisis, not to mention that the category "Democratic socialists" was removed without explaination. It seems that these changes were not reviewed properly before being restored. I have pinged the IP that added the content, to no avail. If there aren't any policy based reasons to maintain these changes, I will restore the original version per WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Marxism

Chávez did affirm at the very least once in the National Assembly that he considered himself a Marxist, but in another speech he claimed he wasn't. Maybe we could fix this?. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Jamez42: The "Marxism" section seems to reflect this already. What change are you proposing? --MarioGom (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Sorry, I forgot to reply. I think that the mention that he described himself as a Marxist in the lede should be removed, or at the very least changed, since it isn't completely accurate. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

@Baprow: Please achieve consensus before replacing the infobox image and follow WP:BRD.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Baprow: Seeing that once again you have reverted the image, can you explain in the talk page? It appears that it is not the first time that you edit war over an infobox image. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The image that you propose is not suitable for the infobox. For another place in the article, yes, but not for the infobox. It is too small and when you enlarge it the quality is not too good. There are many better images. In which I propose the president's face is perfectly visible without the need for extensions and its quality is better. --Baprow (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

When I first saw both images, I noticed that one of the differences was to show Chávez either as a civilian or as a military. Since that was his career, I think the latter is more conveniente. There might be other similar images with better quality. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Although Hugo Chávez was a career military man, the highest position he achieved was the position of president, which is a civilian position. There have been other long-term presidents who were formerly military (Eisenhower, Nasser, Grant, Atarürk, Al Sisi ...) and they appear in their infoboxes in a suit and not in uniform, so I think that what they did before should not condition the photo of the infobox.Also, the photo is too small. I consider a photo in which your face is more visible to be more appropriate. --Baprow (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chávez/Archive_29&oldid=1184491785"