| Revision as of 21:30, 11 April 2022 editJoaquin89uy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,327 edits →Llanero (sic): new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:58, 12 April 2022 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,300,354 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 29) (botNext edit → |
| Line 49: |
Line 49: |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== U.S.–Venezuela relations == |
|
|
{{Ping|Flickotown}} Per your edit wars and please explain your reasoning. How can be "undue and not in keeping with the tone and point of the paragraph"? You are obviously ] by reverting my edits across several Misplaced Pages articles. -- ] (]) 11:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:The material you included is clearly undue and therefore violates ] 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 foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your ] 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. ] (]) 02:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{Ping|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. ] doesn't count. I agree with ]. My additions are sourced, relevant and the ] is against you. Please read ] and ]. Also read ], I see you are wikihounding by reverting some of my edits on multiple pages. -- ] (]) 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 ] 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 ] 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 ]. 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. ] 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 ]. My additions are sourced, relevant and the ] is against you.'' No no there is no "consensus." Numbers-wise it is a deadlock as another editor has reverted you (]). Everything still stands: the foreign policy paragraph stood for years before you came along and injected your ] 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 ] (]) 10:25, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Paranoid focus on America as you put it {{ping|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. ♫ ] ] ] 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 Misplaced Pages's voice? Especially for the ] 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? ] (]) 13:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:While BTI may have more due relevancy than the original source, it still cannot be communicated using Misplaced Pages's voice. They're clearly a strongly POV source; they are ''explicitly anti-socialist'' so their views need to be contextualized. ] (]) 13:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{ping|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 ] the problem, the sources used or just the content added? --] (]) 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 ] 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.] (]) 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 ]. ] (]) 19:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, that of an obscure German think-thank. Certainly not appropriate for the lede. ]<sup>]</sup> 14:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The wages of POV edits are edit warring == |
|
== The wages of POV edits are edit warring == |
| Line 78: |
Line 58: |
|
::::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 Misplaced Pages culture by contributing outside the area of one highly contentious political dispute. ] (]) 15:56, 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 Misplaced Pages culture by contributing outside the area of one highly contentious political dispute. ] (]) 15:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
{{outdent}} {{ping|Simonm223}} Another bad faith assumption, and if I may add, a mistaken one. This is becoming off topic, ]. 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 ] and ]. --] (]) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
{{outdent}} {{ping|Simonm223}} Another bad faith assumption, and if I may add, a mistaken one. This is becoming off topic, ]. 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 ] and ]. --] (]) 22:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Recent changes == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|146.115.72.47}} Could you please explain your recent changes? You haven't provided references to support them. --] (]) 14:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Marxism == |
|
== 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)
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)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
