Why was my change just reverted? It was balanced, it was backed up with references, and it furthered a less biased view of the subject. Why did you just revert it without explanation? Researcher 21:40, 13 November 2007 (EST)
- Thank you for putting back part of what I said. I have to ask why you didn't include the stuff about him wanting to help poor countries through OPEC, though. Also, where you put the sentence about the government of Venezuela doesn't currently make sense (I'll move it.) Researcher 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)
Just for the record: I have a great deal of respect for the man, and was once a supporter. I've since already been disillusioned. Researcher 21:52, 13 November 2007 (EST)
The event where anti-Chavez students were recently fired upon by masked gunmen is bush's fault. A Liberal 18:59, 15 November 2007 (EST)
And that newspaper is run by the CIA. A Liberal
- Look, I know you are supposed to be parodying liberals, but it's a little thick, and a little off target. Besides, aren't the NYTimes and the Washington Post both part of the "liberal media"? Researcher 19:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)
A friend of mine is from Venezuela he's still got family there. He tells me that food shortages and breakdowns in law and order are the two biggest problems at the moment.--Bobbing up 07:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)
"Democratically elected dictator"
- He was denied dictator powers by referendum. While he's an attention whore with autocratic tendencies, calling him a "dictator" is not quite correct. EVDebs 02:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
- That's why it's in quotes. He was arguably democratically elected, but many "people" refer to him as a "dictator" to attempt to diminish whatever legitimacy the elections confer on his leadership - by lumping him in with the many military and otherwise dictators who have trampled all over Latin America for most of the Cold War. ħuman 14:19, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
I've Been to Venezuala and I've seen the man himself in person
- He is a nutter ruining a country by exploiting the questionable intelligence of poor people. His policies actively make their lives more dreadful - crime is rampant and uncontrollable, the economy is crumbling, oil is just about preventing the country falling apart at the seams - yet they vote for him, because they are completely in thrall to his powerful propaganda machine. His goons actively prevent the liberal minded opposition from forming a genuine civic resistance, and political intimidation is the norm. The fact of the matter is, if Chavez was governing Britain, Australia, the US, France etc. then all the pinko's who now idolize him would be horrified, because they would see the sheer Orwellian nature of his manipulation techniques and the crappy crappy egotistical way that he runs the country. He holds democracy and liberty in utter contempt, he is a slave to his own ego. He reminds me in some ways of Idi Amin.
- What sickens me most are his defenders in the west, mostly middle class college kids who haven't the first clue about this country or the absolute loon who governs it.
- This article was pretty shoddy by the way, tries to please both camps and ends up pleasing neither. MarcusCicero (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. ТyTalk. 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- From what I've heard from Venezuelians and others that know more about this topic then I do, it was all worse before him. As long as the international organizations say it's all democratic, free a.s.o. it's not our desicion but the one of the people of Venezuela. And making embargos on a country because we don't like their system is piss-poor act to fuck up a system and then point at it and say "look it doesn't work, told'ya!". --ǓḤṂ³ 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. ТyTalk. 00:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This looks like it was written by a Conservapedian fascist, try removing some stupid criticism and add useful information. I also have talked to some Venezuelans in person, and what they tell me is very different to what this article says and more like this. Also, Chavez is in NO way a dictator, no matter what you say. He has always won by overwhelming majority, and his popularity is growing even more. Please don't try to distortion the meaning of "dictator". A dictator is one who rules against his people's will. Period. Chavez has been always clearly democratically elected. --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- By that logic, Hitler and Napoleon weren't dictators either. ТyTalk. 02:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Or, to give a more explicit counterexample, there was once a Roman dictator by the name of Cincinnatus; he had popular support.
- The difference between a dictator and a regular head-of-state is not whether they have popular support or not — plenty of regular heads-of-state wax in and out of popularity — but whether or not they are empowered to breach the rule of law; the chief distinctive of a dictator (both in ancient Rome and today) is that they can rule by decree. By moving toward this ability, Chavez has moved toward dictatorial status. ListenerXTalkerX 02:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- It follows that a dictator will rule by fiat...I would proffer the other main criterion for being a dictator is an ineffective regime-change apparatus, (or a "voting" system that heavily favors the incumbent). 03:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
Critical research failure
might be on your case. There may be a counterexample to the claim of "first" socialist, but Jesus' economic views would certainly be considered extreme left today, in the fields of Socialism and Communism. Quoting non-violence, "the other cheek" is orthogonal to that, there are many pacifist socialists, though Chávez was none of them. And there are counterexamples to Jesus as pacifist, his quotes about swords, being executed as an insurgent leader. If you want to equate socialism with authoritarianism, if you take mainstream Christian theology seriously, you can't get a more final authority than Jesus, being God, condemning every rich person to hell...— Unsigned, by: 18.104.22.168 / talk / contribs
- I guess you didn't hear the announcement from the stage about the brown acid. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the intro
Chavez was a complex figure and it will take historians many decades to get to the bottom of him. He is a from a rich tradition of Latin American populism, and his demagoguery was not always well understood in the West, which tends to flinch when faced with somebody so obviously loopy. I do think we could do with pointing out that under his tenure he created a cult of personality and made the lives of many Venezualans - particularly those who voted against him - demonstrably worse. The explosion of violent crime under his reign was no accident either, it was a direct result of the cronyism and party-first system he inculcated. Rationalwiki does itself a dis-service by nodding to the agenda of ignorant college kids in their various socialist/left wing societies, what with their Guevara tee shirts and faux Trotsky mustaches. Anyway. I consider myself a man of the left, an Orwell socialist if you will. Orwell would have despised Chavez, and seen him for what he was. I think Rationalwiki needs to take the blinkers off and look at this loon and the damage he did to his country. I'm sure my edit will be reverted or drastically toned down, but I think its important we have this discussion. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)