Jump to content

Talk:Hugo Chávez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.180.38.9 (talk) at 20:57, 23 March 2011 (→Overthrow through elections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleHugo Chávez is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 10, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 14, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
June 15, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
August 13, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Pbneutral

Overthrow through elections

The last sentence in the lead section states: "His opponents have attempted to overthrow him on various occasions, both through elections and through military coups, each time unsuccessfully".

How can one be overthrown through elections? Isn't the election the legal way of changing government? For example was George Bush overthrown by Barack Obama in 2008 elections?

And as a side-note: the article suffers from some serious POV issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.104.3.11 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various people have commented on this article having a bias, both pro and anti-Chavez. It is something that editors are addressing, slowly but (I hope) surely. As for the specific usage of the term "overthrow", I think that you're right on this point. "Remove from power" might be a better term to use.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
"Remove from power" would then sound like downplaying/legitimizing the coup. Split the phrase, they dont belong lumped together since its apples and oranges. A coup attempt and and opposiing via elections shouldn't be in the same breath. -86.157.81.232 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was a poor election of words ("overthrow" imply the use of force), but the idea is correct. The lead is a summary, and it states that his opponents want to remove him, both by legal and illegal ways. The ways are different, but the goal is the same, they are not "apples and oranges". Simply add a little more clarification on the difference between both things. MBelgrano (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Other bios and ongoing POV

I see no improvement in the POV here, but an unrelated discussion about bio sources elsewhere prompted me to go searching for examples. Hopefully editors working here will read and note the substantial differences between these bios and the Wikipedia article. I am not suggesting they necessarily be used as sources, in fact some of them would not be reliable sources-- just noting that they don't attempt to whitewash, and manage to stay focused on important issues with a manageable length, while mentioning the "good" and the "bad" (the latter being eliminated from Wikipedia):

Regardless of reliability of these sources, they provide indicators to easily sourced information missing in this article, and ideas of ways to introduce balance and brevity to this article. Some of the commentary here about the Marcano book relative to Jones is interesting, although not reliable. Foreign Affairs also reviewed the Marcano book here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More missing information-- easily accessible via a multitide of sources-- here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links Sandy, they should be of some help in the work I and others are doing on this page. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The biographical articles are all tertiary sources, but provide an example of how the article could be written. The International Crisis Group article could be a good source for analysis in the article. TFD (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "overthrow" in conjunction with "elections" is completely within accepted usage. The first dictionary definition is: "to depose, as from a position of power; overcome, defeat, or vanquish:". There is no mention of use of force being a requirement in order for an overthrow to take place. 208.180.38.9 (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chávez and Gadhafi

Lately, Chávez' support for Gadhafi has been mentioned quite frequently in media all over the world [1] [2] [3]. Is this something that should be mentioned in the article? - Tournesol (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to talk about it at Foreign relations of Venezuela. MBelgrano (talk) 11:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article today that says Chavez offered to mediate between Gaddafi and the rebels, but "details...are scant". Earlier reports that Gaddafi had fled to Venezuela were false. It would seem odd if Chavez had supported Gaddafi, when over the past decade, Britain had supplied weapons to him, and trained his soldiers and police, while Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice were frequent visitors to Libya, seeing Libya as vital to the war on terrorism. Do you have any more detailed sources about the relationship? TFD (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chavez has been friends with Gaddafi from some time. It's not exactly a secret (one of a number of dictators Chavez is good buddies with.) Direct quote from Chavez made this week: ""I'm not going to condemn him (Gadhafi)...I'd be a coward to condemn someone who has been my friend."JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to the transcript of the speech? TFD (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a transcript of the speech. It was televised, so I'm sure you could find it on Youtube (albeit in Spanish.) But, if you need further evidence of Chavez's friendship with the Libyan dictator, this is from a Venezuelan diplomatic cable (http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/10/09CARACAS1284.html):
Chavez hosted a number of bilateral discussions with African countries, with the feature event a lengthy ceremony between Chavez and Libyan President Gaddafi. The two Presidents congratulated each other on their "revolutions," with Chavez asserting, "What Simon Bolivar is to the Venezuelan people, Gaddafi is to the Libyan people." Chavez also awarded Gaddafi the "Orden del Libertador," Venezuela's highest civilian decoration, and presented him with a replica of Simon Bolivar's sword.JoelWhy (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is this more notable than Gaddafi's close friendship with the American president, George W. Bush, or the British PM, Tony Blair? TFD (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with anything? You're clearly a fan of Chavez. You've just learned that Chavez considers Gaddafi the 'Simon Bolivar of Libya'. You can either allow facts to inform and alter your opinions or not. But, do you really want the standard for good behavior to be whether such behavior is considered moral or immoral by none other than George W. Bush?!JoelWhy (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the current events in Libya, the issue is pretty straight forward. The relationship is more notable than that of Gaddafi with Bush or Blair (ignoring the fact that I don't see any evidence the relationships are comparable) in that Chavez has gotten directly involve, asking to "mediate" the civil uprising.JoelWhy (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not a fan of Chavez. But neither am I a fan of those who supported Gaddafi for the last ten years and backed him when he came to power. The same people who backed Noriega, Saddam Hussein, Ceaucescu, Mubarek, etc., until they didn't, then claimed that they had never supported them. Let's report history, not re-write it. TFD (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't label other editors as "fan of Chávez" remember that WP:AGF is a fundamental behavioral guideline. All governements in Venezuela since 1969 have had good relations with Gaddafi as well as with Iran, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Malasia and all other OPEC countries so Foreign relations of Venezuela is a better place for dealing with Chávez-Gaddafi or more generally Libya-Venezuela relations. And keep in mind that notable is not the same than recent. JRSP (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith. TFD likes Chavez. I'm not accusing him of anything. As for the relationship with Gaddaffi, I haven't seen anything to indicate that previous administrations had the same type of close, personal relationship that it appears Chavez has with Gaddafi.JoelWhy (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't seen TDF's response. My mistake, you don't like Chavez. I can't imagine where I possibly could have gotten that idea from...JoelWhy (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither a fan of nor do I dislike Chavez. The point of Wikipedia is not to build up people we like and tear down people we dislike, which is why I always insist on using neutral sources. I wish to read articles that present topics in a neutral manner, rather than pushing political points. If I want sources that confirm my views, then I can read a blog. Please trust readers to form their own opinions based on neutral presentation of facts. TFD (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree whole-heatedly with this...and, this is precisely why I continue to criticize this article. It's full of biased sources and biased writing.JoelWhy (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove them. Do not try to balance bad sources with other bad sources. TFD (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been prevented from removing the bad sources because other editors insist sites like Venezuela Analysis are unbiased. And, what "bad sources" are you referring to that I'm trying to add??JoelWhy (talk) 02:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through the discussion page for the last 6 months and cannot find anything from ``Venezuela Analysis`` you want removed. In fact I cannot find anything in the article from ``Venezuela Analysis`` that cannot be found in other sources. If there is anything you wish removed, then please tell me what it is, rather than make general accusations. TFD (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to a March 3rd editorial in Venezuelanalysis which I assume reflects Chavez's views of Gaddafi. TFD (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The West has a long history of using and cosying up to dictators. In the last decade that includes Gaddafi (remember Blair embracing him?). Chavez has equally built links with reprehensible governments, particularly oil producers who are part of OPEC (which includes Gaddafi's Libya). In addition, Chavez has a keen interest in South-South cooperation, and Gaddafi has long been a big cheese in that area within Africa, so there's an additional reason to hold his nose and make nice. Realpolitik is best done with nosepegs... Rd232 talk 19:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad referencing!

"According to the publications El Espectador and Le Monde diplomatique, rising crime in rural and urban areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups like Águilas Negras.[251]"
-- Lemoine, Maurice. "Venezuela murder mystery."Le Monde diplomatique. August 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2010.

Ref 251 DOES NOT point DIRECTLY to the Colombian publication "El Espectador", it is from a poorly referenced article on LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE that fails to offer an actual reference from EL ESPECTADOR, the author (Maurice Lemoine) provides this as reference instead: "(4) A group that reformed after the demobilisation of paramilitary organisations under the controversial “Justice and Peace” law of 2005", which is not ---here we go again!! -- a DIRECT REFERENCE TO EL ESPECTADOR. Furthermore, on his article he talks about some 20,000 paramilitaries being based in Venezuela, which can only be a guess, and a very poor estimation at that, considering it is MONUMENTALLY STUPID to assume ALL OF THE COLOMBIAN PARAMILITARIES were in Venezuelan territory! -- but more astonishingly, ALL OF THE COLOMBIAN PARAMILITARIES to be causing havoc in Venezuela as the Wikipedia article puts it "rising crime in RURAL and URBAN areas is partly due to increased cross-border activity by Colombian right-wing paramilitary groups".

So for the sake of correct referencing, ref 251 should only talk about what MAURICE LEMOINE has to say on his LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE article. 202.180.106.1 (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Americanism

Should there be a section about Anti-Americanism? Hugo Chavez is easily the most anti-american Latin or South American dictator. It would only need to be 1 or 2 paragraphs and could have a link at the top to United States – Venezuela relations. --Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably more appropriate to add this to the Foreign Policy section.JoelWhy (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dictator? --IANVS (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Vesey has a clear anti-Chavez bias methinks... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugo_Chávez&oldid=420381231"