Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hugo Chavez"

Revision as of 02:26, August 19, 2015

This page appears fine to me. Citations are needed throughout the article, but as far as everything else goes, I approve. ColinR 05:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Date Of Chavez's Death

No offence, but this is absurd. Why are we calling ourselves an Encyclopedia if we're letting our biases and prejudices be used in lieu of verifiable evidence? If we had verifiable evidence it would be proudly plastered (this is based on observation of the nature and personality of this wikia) but it's not. All i get in response to my revisions fixing the date of his death to March 5th and addressing the suspicions (as there is some question) which is set as being around Dec 11th is "its obvious he died months ago!" with no citations beyond an article questioning on his actual death date. This appears to be based on nothing more than prejudice against liberals and calling them liars. If i'm incorrect in my assessment and wish to provide more reasoning beyond y'all's position feel free to do so. If y'all truly call yourselves a trust worthy encyclopedia for the sake of integrity in the project provide sound evidence for the basis of your conclusion beyond suspicions as gut feelings are not substitutions for verifiable facts. I refuse to get sucked into an edit war but this is ridiculous. I do not expect to be listened to I just want to put this out there. user:dsherman

Thanks

I'll get to work on some citations, but thankyou for accepting it, It's good to see some objectivity on this site. =)

This article is surprisingly neutral

I'm impressed that this article is surprisingly neutral towards Chavez, I figured it would call him a totalitarian communist.--DemocraticSocialist 11:50, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

He's more of a greedy communist robber baron. RobS 16:36, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

It must be liberal subversion hahahaha--DemocraticSocialist 11:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry to burst the bubble. He has been referred to as a dictator here. Have patience this article will eventually follow suit. Auld Nick 11:59, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

I knew it was too good to be true. While Castro is a dictator, Chavez who was elected by almost two thirds of the population is clearly not --DemocraticSocialist 14:58, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

We're waiting for Castro to die before her passes the baton. RobS 16:27, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Dictator!!!!????

How can someone who is democratically elected be referred to as a dictator --ScandalousHegemony 23:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

How about that Hitler guy in 1933? Karajou 21:16, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

...Who was not democratically elected. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 21:17, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Maybe the question should be, "how can someone who continues to hold democratic elections at the frequency prescribed in the nations constitution (Like Mr. Chavez for example) be called a dictator?" The answer to that question is, he cannot. Because he isn't. Like it or not, Hugo Chavez is the democraticly elected leader of a democratic country and any suggestion that he is a dictator is little more than an insult to democracy. How can this website call Chavez a Dictator, but not someone like General Pinochet of Chile??? This 'encyclopedia' gets progressively more ridiculous by the day. Unless someone either 'locks this page for editing' or gives me some very good evidence to suggest that I am wrong about Mr. Chavez and his democratic government I will delete the word 'Dictator' from this entry.

Oh look, how suprising. It's already been locked. That's it. I've had enough of Conservapedia. You have to look less hard to find the truth in UNcyclopedia than Conservapedia. At least they admit they are a comedy parody of the truth. And at least they dont get all angry because I choose to spell suprising with an 's' instead of a 'z'.

It doesn't matter how he got into power, especially if he significantly increases his power while in office. DanH 21:19, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Chavez does not have a record of increasing his power, merely changing the economy to having a socialist slant. --Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ^talk 21:21, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

• actually, he does [1]. Chavez is an autocrat.Богдан ^Talk 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

I used to have neighbors from Venezuela whose relatives were on Chavez's hit list. DanH 21:28, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Not surprising. Mr. Homimachong seems to be a fan of Kim Jong il and Hitler and Saddam Husseien, and he can't NOT be a fan of someone like Chavez. If you liked Hitler, you'll like Chavez! Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:18, 29 November 2007 (EST)

chavez IS NOT a dictator

you conservatives all suck. how can someone who was democratically elected be considered a dictator? you are all a bunch of imperialist fascists!

Typical non-spelling, America-hating fascist liberal, accusing others of fascism! Go to Venezuela. Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:14, 29 November 2007 (EST)

And Hitler was also voted in democratically. Are you going to say that he was Germany's "president"? Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:15, 29 November 2007 (EST)

We 'wouldn't' say that Hitler was Germany's "president," considering that he abolished the office after Paul von Hindenburg's death. Nor was he democratically elected. He was 'appointed' to the chancellorship by Hindenburg, and then assumed presidential powers after Hindenburg's death that he was never intended to have. Hence, as Chavez is a democratically elected head of state, you need greater evidence that he is a "dictator." Agnapostate 01:02, 23 December 2008 (EST)

Irony

Guys, you lost me at "Repressive Dictator". Can you really not see the irony in this skewed, worthless article namecalling democratically elected foreign (to you) leaders?. Someone please kill this article as it is embarassed by it's own existence.

Can anyone actually explain the point of this article; a blinkered, one sided repressive waste of time projecting its own ignorance onto others. Really there is no point to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrivpond (talk)

What a disgrace.

How can anyone seriously type that he is a repressive dictator? He was democratically election every single time, his new bid to remove term limits is being done by REFERENDUM.. are you guys on something, how is he a dictator in ANY WAY?

And don't get me started on this RCTV stuff, he closed it down because it actively called for a violent revolution against him, and then when that actually occured and an ACTUAL DICTATORSHIP was put in place, it just ran anti-Chavez ads the entire time, then when the dictatorship was crumbling as the people fought back to put Chavez back in, instead of running actual news saying this, it showed dramas like the Bold and the Beautiful. And so when it came around the renewing the liscence for it, he refused. ANY COUNTRY WOULD DO THIS, If there was a television channel in the United States actively calling for a violent revolution against the US government and falsifying news, what do you think the US government would do? The exact same. PLUS, RCTV can still be viewed on cable television.

It also is in no way the only anti-Chavez media source in the country, most media in the country are hostile to Chavez. User:Pallawish

So sorry to hear that, Mr. Chavez. I bet you'd rather be like your pal over in North Korea, who has a media that praises and worships him! Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

NOT A DICTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CHAVEZ WAS ELECTED WITH TWO THIRDS OF THE VOTE, HOW CAN YOU CALL HIM A DICTATOR. YOUR PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH LESS THAT HALF THE VOTE. --ChavezFan 16:24, 29 October 2007 (EDT)

Two thirds? Wow, Hitler beat him with 92% & Saddam got 99%. Looks like Chavez still has his work cut out for him. Rob Smith 13:18, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps ChavezFan would like to go down to Venezuela right now and begin his own newspaper with the expressed purpose of being critical of the government in general, and Chavez in particular. Let's see how long it lasts. Karajou 13:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

What is this Chavestite doing in America????? Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:08, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Pro-Chavez

I don't care how Chavez was sworn in, he can certainly become a dictator in office! I, frankly, am appalled at all those on here who love this man. If you love this man you must be a chavestite yourself or went to a ultra-pro-Chavez Venezuelan school. If so, you have a lot of surprises waiting for you! This article isn't even listing the things he said about Bush, like calling him "the devil". If he thinks Bush is the devil, why isn't he following him?? Scorpion^{Vote for Pedro} 14:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Dictator

I want to agree with the views expressed above. I am by no means a fan of Chavez; he is a manipulative, power-hungry, buffoonish demagogue who may yet drive his country into the ground and is stripping away his citizens' freedom. But he is absolutely not a dictator. A dictator has total or near-total control of the government; Chavez, whatever he may wish, is still heavily hamstrung by the apparatus of Venezuela's democracy. He has had to refer many of his measures to the voters, and was recently handed a defeat which he could do nothing about. You can call him a dictator-wannabe or repressive, but it ill-serves the credibility of Conservapedia to say he is something he is not. Tor 16:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Thank You Tor to are completely correct on this one. You know I am beginning to have my doubts about whether this website is being edited in good faith. Chavez is not perfect, and has done a lot of things to harm his country's economy and its people but a dictater? Well that's nonsense and for our encyclopedia to say so because we dislike his economic and social positions, well that's nonsense on stilts.--DamianJohn 08:59, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Anyone here heard the Simon Bolivar Youth Orchestra? No? I thought not. AlanE 22:54, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"Silencing" the Media

"In May 2007, Chavez silenced the only remaining opposition television station critical of his repression by revoking its licence." This claim has more problems than the "non-American spelling," which has caused Conservapedia to be critical of Wikipedia in the past. It is outright disingenuous to claim that Chavez "silenced" RCTV because they were "critical of his repression." RCTV's license was simply not renewed; it was not "revoked." And the reason that it was not renewed is because five years prior, RCTV had openly endorsed the overthrow of the democratically elected President Chavez. If a news outlet in the U.S. had openly called for the overthrow of Bush, and Bush was temporarily removed from power, it's likely that the persons responsible would be imprisoned and charged with treason, not have their license not renewed five years after the fact. --Agnapostate 21:28, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, given that nobody here has expressed any opposition to this, I'm editing the media claim. --Agnapostate 21:25, 12 October 2008 (EDT)

2002 coup

I am alarmed at the only passing mention of the 2002 coup perpetrated by the extreme right. I no one minds I am going to add a section in on it.

Reliable Sources?

I notice most of these sources come from the State Department. Some of these seem to be without proof or trustworthy information (mainly right wing media).

Is there any information from other sources pending to allegations of terrorism or human trafficking from sources other than the State Department? If there is I can't find any. So is all that information extremely relevant of reliable?

Please don't erase information you don't like. Instead, if you know some reliable sources with conservative information, please provide them. RJJensen 17:13, 16 October 2009 (EDT)

The word of one man is hardly a reliable source that you have cited. There was no election fraud. I simply erased it as it had no basis in fact. The election was verified by the Venezuelan government (without controversy claimed) and many international observers (including those from Canada.) I was simply removing information that was by any standard unacceptable and uncredited.

--Cidd11 17:23, 16 October 2009 (EDT) Once again I am removing the article on Election Fraud. I cannot stress the need for a reliable source on this subject. The opinion of one man does not constitute a reliable source. I also do not feel obligated to provide proof that he won the election as that would be a moot point towards this article. --Cidd11 12:02, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

C'mon, Chavez is a power freak. He is a master manipulator who has Cidd11 defending a tyrant-wannabe results. Someone check if Wikipedia whitewashes the election. Someone see if Carter gave his stamp of approval.--Jpatt 12:12, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Here's a source from a left-wing rag (Washington Post) which hints at election fraud [2], as well as the numbers cited in the source you removed. Others [3][4][5]. Cidd11, if you also don't feel obligated to provide proof, as you said, of anything that could help this or any other article, then why should you feel obligated to remove anything in any article? Karajou 12:22, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

If your attempting to prove this "election fraud" with media rants and unsourced news articles you go a long way from promoting facts. As I have said you are not providong any reliable sources to his election fraud other than these rants. I can give you the election results from the Venezuelan government (to which may I say again no one in Venezuela disputes the results. Perhaps members of the right-wing media but other wise it is a legitimate election) though i doubt you will give them any stock. I can provide you with sources saying he was elected freely. But they are not conservative or liberal. Honestly please try not to inject a useless bias into this discussion just because you wish to brand him a dictator. All I am pointing out is that you are not using any facts to back up this claim other than biased anti-Chavez news articles! I don't care whose liberal and whose not! I simply cannot support a lie!--Cidd11 13:16, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Now you're calling the above sources "media rants", as if you are determining what is news and what is not. You're also pushing to some degree the election results in Venezuela as provided by the Chavez-controlled Venezuelan government as though it was fact. You're completely-ignoring Carter's role in this, and he's on record as supporting every socialistic/dictatorship government in which an election was disputed. If you say that election fraud in Venezuela didn't happen, then you prove it by using the totally unbiased sources which you claim exist. Karajou 13:32, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Carter

I agree that some of the wording could be changed in the article. You suggest that is was a fair election because Carter says it was. That is nonsense. Carter is a racist Jew basher and an apologist for terrorists. His word is worth as much as a handful of dirt. --Jpatt 01:14, 10 December 2009 (EST)

No I suggest we add a source that was used worldwide regarding the election which was ultimately accepted as fair by everybody who wasn't an opposition spokesperson or who's mates didn't want to get their hands on a few billion dollars of oil each year. You're trying to censor even the inclusion of that information and maintain a false impression of the election rather than allowing the reader to make up their own mind. Have to go out now but I'll change some of the wording and in a seperate edit add this information in a neutral way and you can then decide. Rutger 01:26, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Nonsense. Nobody thought this election was fair, and trying to deprive our readership of the knowledge that it was a rigged election is censorship. Your goal isn't to make the article more informative, but LESS informative, and your edit is designed to influence Conservapedia readers in favor of Chavez and socialism. There's nothing biased about saying an election was probably rigged if it was probably rigged.JacobB 01:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Nonsense yourself. One or two ratbags claiming something doesn't make it true and as per Andy this website operates on a concensus of facts, not the opinions of a few. Almost everyone (eventually, many claimed like you did there was fraud initially but gave up once they failed to find evidence of it) thought the election was fair except the opposition, those involved in the previous coup attempt and hardcore capitalists. Even Fox gave up on claiming they were fraudulent. You see the problem with the theory that it was rigged is how did he rig his first election? The next two? How did he rig the massive amount of popular support which overthrew the coup attempt? How did he physically "rig it"? And lastly, and very importantly, why did he rig the elections but not the referendum which would have given him greater power? I know it's strange that poor people wouldn't vote to support large companies and disgustingly greedy wealth distribution but it really did happen. Rutger 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Latest edit

My latest edit didn't see DamianJohn's edit comment. At this point it seems more detail is fine.--Andy Schlafly 19:11, 5 March 2013 (EST)

Biblical Truths

Long time reader, first time poster. Testing the waters on this page with something I think should be included on all of the pages of deceased enemies of conservative Christianity: that those who deny the Biblical truths of Jesus Christ are destined to spend eternity in hell for their rejection of Salvation. This would be in keeping with the un-PC truth that Conservapedia is famous for as well as a warning for the libs that read and mock our work here. I included it under the "religious" section as I found that to be the best fit for this article. If the admins agree that this is a logical idea, which I hope they do, it could be worded or arranged any way deemed appropriate. Perhaps in the side panel along side place of birth, place of death, etc.? --Kmatthews 20:03, 25 July 2013 (EDT)

Chavez and Christianity

Looking for some sources right now, but I have heard he was a devout Christian and there is no mention of that in the article.Gonna add what I can find on him and religion. Putting this here to see other people's thoughts.-Scatach (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (EDT)