Talk:Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez is part of WikiProject Venezuela, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Venezuela and Venezuela-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents 1 Foreign policy section and article need updating 2 Undue Weight 3 US/Pedro Carmona Government inconsitency 4 Called Bush "pendejo" 5 Colombia 6 Move to Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez administration 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Chavez04 fidel9.jpg

[edit] Foreign policy section and article need updating

Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez has to be updated. Important elements missing: Venezuela looking for a seat in the UN Security Council and recent trips (Africa summit and Belarus-Russia-Qatar-Iran tour). Also we need to rewrite the summary in the main article JRSP 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight

I think this article lacks balance, not as much in the sense of POV but in the relative importance of each country in Venezuela's foreign relations. Some examples: Peru has a big subsection while Colombia is practically neglected, Iran and Libya have more or less the same coverage when relations with Libya are basically OPEC bussiness while ties with Teheran are closer, for instance, Petropars and other Iranian companies have investments in Venezuela. JRSP 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that when consensual editing resumes here, other editors may help you fix that. I'm sure you can imagine that folks aren't interested in working on articles when you delete everything written. Sandy 14:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some structural changes are needed in the article. I agree with a section for the USA but perhaps we should modify the layout of the 2nd seccion. A geographical division would be OK, apart from the USA section there should be one for LatAm (with a subsection devoted to Colombia), Europe and one Asia-Africa JRSP 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Perhaps you don't keep up with international news? Chavez is clearly on an anti-US bent, forging controversial alliances, and you can deny it all you want, but that's what is in the news all day every day, and the article should address that fact. Undue weight? The current *weight* is what is in the news 24/7 about Chavez. Sandy 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"International" news? Iran has newspapers too, just to give an example. JRSP 16:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

And? You're suggesting they are not reporting the same things, with a different spin? Point is, the Chavez articles need to deal with what is in the news, not obfuscate and ignore it. Undue weight is given in the Chavez articles: to ignoring the current headlines. Sandy 17:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for me undue weight includes among other things that Colombia, one of the most important countries in Venezuela's external politics looks less important than Libya JRSP 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would say that none of the Chavez material is in proportion right now, but all the unnecessary reverts and deletions discouraged any further writing. It all needs to be beefed up and updated, but I can't imagine why you expect other editors to do any writing until you agree to work within consensus and refrain from overarching misinterpretations of WP:BLP. If you want to own the articles to the extent you have, you'll have to do the writing yourself. I have no interest whatsoever in engaging in edit wars, revert wars, and doing a lot of work which you will just delete. Sandy 17:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, before writing deleting or whatever, I would propose giving a new structure to this article. JRSP 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the Table of Contents is a wreck (Katrina is not important enough for its own heading, for example). Would you like to propose a new structure here? I don't think it should be by geographic area, rather by foreign relations focus, e.g.; solidification of ties with arab-opec countries, anti-"imperialism" or anti-US or ties with communism or however you would label that thing he's doing, Latin-American integration, etc. Sandy 23:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A broad geographic division would be a good place to start. I agree the OPEC countries deserve special attention. However a US-centric structure would not be good for the article. The relative weight of each country must reflect how important are these countries to Venezuela, not to the USA JRSP 00:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Since a *major* part of Chavez's policy is anti-"imperialism" and anti-US, it is silly to think you could write about his foreign policy while ignoring the elephant in the room. It is not US-Centric: it is the way Chavez has defined his own policies. Sandy 00:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Not anti-US as Venezuela has provided humanitarian aid to US people. US relations are important for the article but the relative weight of each country must reflect Venezuela's priorities not USA's.JRSP 01:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Chavez's own statements and policies are anti-US. DO you want me to give you five sources, ten, twenty, thirty? How many do you want? It IS his policy, and it has weight. Sandy 01:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

US is a country, not a government. Chavez opposes imperialist policies of the US government but has actually helped US people[1]. Countries are people, not governments JRSP 01:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US/Pedro Carmona Government inconsitency

"Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez" claims that the US government did not recognise Pedro Carmonas government, while "United States-Venezuela relations" claims that it did.

And, typically, neither statement is referenced, in either article. I'll see what I can find. Sandy 01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002 states the U.S. "acknowledged the de facto Carmona government." After reading the source, a State Department press release, April 12, that phrasing seems more accurate. We recognized that Chavez wasn't president, but never explicitly said Carmona was. MorrisGregorian 11:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That press release [2] does not appear to include recognition of the Carmona gov't, and I've never seen a reliable source which indicates that the US recognized the gov't. They supported the resignation of Chavez. Sandy 14:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

True, the press release acknowledges that there was a new government, but is that de facto recognition? I think so, but if I understand your point, since it doesn't explicitly give recognition we shouldn't say the U.S. did. How about changing the sentence to something like "the United States acknowledged that a 'transition civilian government' was in charge of Venezuela." MorrisGregorian 18:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. There was one source that specifically covered this, but I can't for the life of me find it again. Maybe it would be safer just to say that the US govt didn't reject the transition government or something about what they didn't do, rather than what they did do? Sandy 19:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I could have sworn I've read something that covered this too, but I also can't remember. I'll check to see if I can find something, though this might take a couple days. If I can't, your idea sounds good. MorrisGregorian 03:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had much luck. I checked with a couple of Congressional Research Service reports, assuming that something written by the U.S. government would make it clear, but they don't say either way. The best I could come up was this paragraph from "Latin America and the Caribbean: Legislative Issues in 2001-2002, (December 6, 2002)":

In the aftermath of Chavez's brief ouster in April 2002, the United States expressed solidarity with the Venezuelan people, commended the Venezuelan military for refusing to fire on peaceful demonstrators, and maintained that undemocratic actions committed or encouraged by the Chavez administration provoked the political crisis. In contrast to the United States, many Latin American nations condemned the overthrow of Chavez, labeling it a coup. However, the United States did support an OAS resolution that condemned the "alteration of constitutional order in Venezuela."

I can't find a link to the report online, so I understand if it isn't considered verifiable. As for what to say about recognition, I think that saying what the U.S. didn't do would work, and mentioning how the U.S. differed from other Latin American countries. How about "The United States, unlike many Latin American countries, did not initially condemn the overthrow of Chavez or label it as a coup"? MorrisGregorian 01:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, it would be better to use some of the sources referring to the OAS meeting and countries, since most (but not all) of them acted in unison, and the USA was slower. Sandy 01:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Called Bush "pendejo"

The supposed sources of this claim say nothing about this. Shouldn't this be removed until someone finds a source for this? (72.181.194.88 02:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Colombia

How come one of the most important countries in HC's foreign policy is completely neglected while we have long sections about Lybia and Israel? JRSP 20:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez administration

Proposed move to be in line with other similar articles, example Foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration. --Jonte-- 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Chavez04 fidel9.jpg

Image:Chavez04 fidel9.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)