Wikipedia and Hugo Chavez

The following was a paragraph that I have tried, unsuccessfully, to include in Wikipedia's entry Criticism of Hugo Chavez:

Hugo Chavez has expressed in no uncertain terms his support for the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). High officials of the Chavez administration, such as Ramón Rodríguez Chacín have been accused by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of "materially assisting the narcotics trafficking activities of the FARC". [81] Hugo Chavez held a minute of silence [82] over the assassination of Raúl Reyes, about whom he referred to as a "good revolutionary" and whose death prompted Chavez to push Venezuela and Colombia to the brink of war. [83] This was not the first time that Chavez would bring relations with Colombia to a standstill over the FARC. In 2004, Chavez halted diplomatic and commercial relations with Colombia over the capture, in the streets of Caracas, of FARC leader Rodrigo Granda.[84]

There a lot of pro-Chavez editors in Wikipedia, which has been turned into a propaganda arm of the Venezuelan regime on internet. The Chavez-patrol works 24/7. Given the time of day at which unfavorable material is edited away from main entries, it is quite evident that these Wiki-editors are scattered around the world, working in different time zones. Pages related to Hugo Chavez or Venezuela tend to show a very rosy picture of the Venezuelan putschist. If one were to form one's opinion on Hugo Chavez, his policies and his Bolivarian revolution based on information gathered in Wikipedia one could be forgiven for concluding that Chavez is in fact the second coming of Jesus Christ. Such is the bias. Sources that are clearly compromised and are not by any stretch of the imagination authoritative, in anything other than propaganda, are used throughout as objective.

Since editors want to delete the entry, I want to leave a record, at least of the debate around the issue of Hugo Chavez's links and support for FARC, before the whole thing is deleted by Wikipedia's terrorism enablers. Goebbels' work and goals could have been achieved so easily had Wikipedia existed in that time.

Hugo Chavez & terrorism

There's just a passing mention here, under an inappropriate section, re Hugo Chavez's warmth towards narcoterrorists from FARC. Will move additions here.Alekboyd (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's fine as this is not an article about that topic but Criticism of Hugo Chávez which must follow WP:BLP among many other policies. Don't add unsourced material or revert edits of unsourced or questionable bias material and if you feel this topic deserves greater discussion then possibly create a new page for it as this article is excessive as it stands. To make it easier to understand George Bush's criticism page does not include harboring Luis Posada Carriles, a convicted terrorist, and the implications of "warmth to terrorism" that implies and the same standard applies here. RutgerH (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
First, the material was entirely sourced (in fact, plagiarized), so that's an invalid concern. Second, the Bush page need not include mention of Carriles since that is a minor to unknown issue in the average readers' eyes and insignificant in his administration, conferring undue weight, not at all comparable to the situation with Chavez and FARC. Third, that Chavez harbors FARC is a valid criticism can hardly be in dispute. Fourth, there are absolutely no BLP issues in the proposed text, as it is fully cited to a reliable source (see WP:BLP). However, I have not restored the edit because the text added was not adequately papaphrased and written to avoid plagiarism.[1] It should be rewritten and readded, but the section heading should conform to WP:MSH. Spurious arguments to keep out criticism of Chavez should have no place on Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First, yes you're right. However the cited reference for six paragraphs and numerous statements is from a US state department report by an author unknown which is a biased primary source and because this is a personal article about a living person must be used very sparingly, in context, fully disclosed and be balanced rather than treated as an undisputed fact especially when claiming to know his state of mind and the purpose of actions. Second, information is judged on it's own merits not the perception of western media and the hypocrisy they'd rather keep quiet about. Just because something does not make the nightly news doesn't degrade it's value or importance for an encyclopedia. Third, would you care to source that opinion which, even though the article did not say that that, you assume is fact but is disputed by verifiable facts by the end of that paragraph? Fourth, this is a personal criticism page not one of his government or ideals, know the difference and we don't need to know about international flights between two countries nor what other people are accused of. Lastly, spurious arguments have no place but that wasn't one. Two world leaders and their support and opposition for terrorism when it suits them to achieve their political goals. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for US foreign policy just as much as it isn't for any other country. WP:NPOV WP:BLP WP:V WP:RS do still apply regardless of personal feelings towards Chavez. RutgerH (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did I read that sourced material, whether fact or not, could always be included in Wikipedia? Venezuelan officials sources can be used but US ones not? Why is it impossible for people deleting information that depicts Hugo Chavez in a negative light to refrain from drawing into the issue whatever Bush did? What he did, and its criticism, is not an excuse to avoid addressing the very public fact that Chavez has a warm relationship with narco terrorists, or shall we start quoting here his minute of silence for Raul Reyes, his rage over the capture of Rodrigo Granda? One thing is to argue that the information is plagiarized, another to foster the notion that it's false, disregarding perfectly sourced info.Alekboyd (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, where to start with this. Perhaps the WP:NPOV-breaching header - FARC and Hizbullah aren't viewed by everyone as "terrorist organisations"; classic WP:AVOID. Secondly, it's extremely problematic to (a) accept US State Dept summary as true and (b) accept that it's important enough to report here: it's a primary source (WP:PSTS), and we normally look for coverage by secondary sources to determine how important info is. In sum, if someone wants to go into Venezuela/Chavez/FARC relations, fine, that merits coverage, but please don't treat WP (even articles as shitty as this one) like a blog. WP:NPOV applies, there must be some semblance of balance, which means at least using a range of sources to present a range of views. Rd232 talk 14:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you reference that policy as I don't believe that's the case. Nobody has stated that the facts are false except yourself. Regarding Bush that is simply an example of the same brush being used and how inappropriate that would be so don't make further assumptions there and try to maintain a NPOV. RutgerH (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

RutgerH, please take some time to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines you're quoting: WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Alekboyd, please do not re-introduce plagiarized text, and there are ample secondary sources discussing Chavez and FARC which can be used. (Primary sources are also allowed on Wiki, if they are used appropriately.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to explain why you're quoting those policies and what specifically isn't in line with them regarding my contributions in this article? RutgerH (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, FARC and Hizbullah are not considered terrorists organizations by everybody: Chavez calls the FARC "good revolutionaries" and Hizbullah are just a bunch of boy scouts in insurgency against Israel. It is also true that the civilized world considers FARC a terrorist organization, that is to say all European countries, Canada, Japan and the USA, despite Chavez sobbing attitude vis-a-vis Raul Reyes. So I guess the discussion on whether or not they are terrorist is pretty pointless. With regards to sources, I find some positions around here disingenuous, Venezuela and Hugo Chavez entries are chock full of compromised sources, official and otherwise, yet US official sources aren't good? What kind of a double standard is that?

The following is from Semana: "Venezuela: One of the most revealing revelations of the Reyes archives was the support in money and in arms as well as political support that for years sectors of the government of President Hugo Chávez have offered the FARC. Similarly, it was revealed that men very close to Chávez gave assistance to the guerrillas. The director of military intelligence and the one from the DISIP (political branch of the police) were among them. They were in charge of strengthening relations with the FARC inside and outside of Venezuela. The presence of guerrilla camps in Venezuela was also confirmed." The world of the FARC

Then there's this, from Die Welt Woche: "Secret documents show that the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA) supported the machinations of the Colombian terror organization, the FARC. The envoy of the Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey cooperated with the hostage-takers. The EDA even tolerated the presence of a FARC office in Switzerland." Helping the Hostage-Takers: Switzerland and the Reyes Computer Files

And while on the subject, how can we not mention INTERPOL: “INTERPOL's technical assistance and expertise in determining the actual content of the seized computers and whether that data had been altered, added or deleted was requested not only by our member country Colombia, but also by the Organization of American States because INTERPOL can be trusted to remain objective and to produce the highest quality work. Within days of receiving Colombia’s request for assistance, INTERPOL had assembled and deployed an international team, including experts from Australia, Singapore and the General Secretariat headquarters in Lyon to work on the ground as an independent INTERPOL unit. “The strength of INTERPOL is that it can call on any of its 186 member countries to provide the necessary expertise on any given matter,” added Mr Noble. INTERPOL’s intervention in Colombia, consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1373, follows other recent assistance and support in sensitive enquiries, including the UN Oil for food scandal and the ongoing investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.” INTERPOL asserts neutrality in seized FARC computer evidence probe in Colombia one must guess then that the countries and multilateral organizations mentioned are just part of the plot of making Hugo look bad.

The Germans also pitched in: "They called him "Angel." He was the highest-ranking outside contact for the Colombian guerilla organization FARC. More and more details are now emerging that demonstrate the close relationship between Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and the jungle terrorists." How Hugo Chavez Courted FARC

And the Brits weren't far behing...: "THEY represent only one side of a story, and most of their claims have yet to be independently corroborated. But Interpol has now concluded that the huge cache of e-mails and other documents recovered from the computers of Raúl Reyes, a senior leader of the FARC guerrillas killed in a Colombian bombing raid on his camp in Ecuador on March 1st, are authentic and undoctored. The documents throw new light on the inner workings of the FARC. And they raise some very pointed questions about the ties between Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez, and a group considered to be terrorists by the United States and the European Union (EU). Batches of the documents have been seen by The Economist and several other publications. They appear to show that Mr Chávez offered the FARC up to $300m, and talked of allocating the guerrillas an oil ration which they could sell for profit. They also suggest that Venezuelan army officers helped the FARC to obtain small arms, such as rocket-propelled grenades, and to set up meetings with arms dealers." Colombia, Venezuela and the FARC

But then again not everyone considers the FARC a terrorist organization and some even dare cast doubts on Hugo Chavez's relations with them...Alekboyd (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

None of the aforementioned e-mails mention money -- not one -- according to BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast, who has examined the contents of the laptop. [2] Indeed several reliable sources dispute the meaning of these e-mails. The Independent's Johann Hari writes that people have been flat out lied to. [3] The issue is clearly less explosive than you suppose. Dynablaster (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

You are, of course correct, in your appreciation Dynablaster, and I will not be the one who dismisses the opinions of such towering Chavez-FARC experts, as Hari and Palast. The BBC also provides this bit of information on the topic, "By weighing in and putting its seal of authenticity on the documents, Interpol is in a sense adding much greater credence to the Colombian government's allegations, says the BBC's Americas editor Emilio San Pedro." Farc rebel link files 'genuine' But I digress. What I propose is that we include the information coming from all sources, multilateral entities and what not, and allow Wikipedia readers to reach their own conclusions. Deal? Alekboyd (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and BTW Dynablaster: could you place here for the benefit of Wikipedia reading audience the link to the BBC site where Palast makes his arguments?Alekboyd (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'll actually read the interpol document, unlike some journalists it seems, the contents and authenticity weren't part of the investigation. You'll also see instead of stating the documents couldn't have been tampered with there was a period of time when they could have been as established procedures for data handling were not followed (they booted the laptop) but doesn't state explicitly how easy it is to modify a file then change it's time stamp and how there would not be any evidence this happened which is very strange given their claimed neutrality. As you can see though we're now getting way off topic. I think including the narco terrorism claim in an appropriate and brief way under foreign policy is worthwhile then link to the other articles for the rest of the information. RutgerH (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to give Sandy and Alekboyd a small glance how biased they are: In his rampage about FARC and the Hizbollah (and its so easy to play the value ridden knight in shimmering armor living in the so called "civilized countries") Alekboyd cites die "Weltwoche" which claims that the Swiss Goverment is supporting FARC (based on Mails they found on the Laptop of Reyes). Or in other words: Switzerland, the hosting country of the Geneva-Convention, the nation with the second highest per capita income world wide, the cliché-symbol of cleanness, chocolate and cows is officially supporting "terrorists". Micheline Calmy-Rey Swiss foreigner Minister and (partly) Head of State should have been involved top level. Now thats a scandal. But oops, die Weltwoche is wrong. There are no ties between the Swiss foreign ministers and the Farc, Calmy-Rey is not removed from office and those Mails NEVER SHOWED UP. Die Weltwoche, owned by a group around far right wing opposition strongman Christoph Blocher was just too eager to flap a scandal at (Social Democrat) Calmy-Rey, not really checking the sources but trusting the Columbian Military (How stupid can you be to do that?). It was a big damn Hoax, you know, like the mails you get offering you millions from african bank accounts or like this little Show Colin Powell did in front of the most honorary UN-Security Council, when he pointed at some old junk claiming they are WMDs.

You don't believe? Read it in semana: Or in Le Monde Diplomatique (French)

So please, the world is not black and white, there are always two sides of a story and therefore Slander about people have to be good sourced. Some Weltwoche, Fox-News and other Propaganda-Agencies from "civilized countries" will not do it. -- (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the moral lesson anonymous. Facts remain though, Hugo Chavez is on the record praising the "good revolutionaries" of a terrorist organization, so no amount of your hyperbole will change that.Alekboyd (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the problems with the egregiously WP:BLP-violating and WP:NPOV-violating paragraph you want to add diff, not the least is your WP:OR in using this BBC source [4] to claim Chavez led the countries "to the brink of war". Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
User Alekboyd displays no interest in collaborating with editors to create a balanced section which incorporates all notable points of view. I attempted to reason with him across talk pages. Nothing gives. Dynablaster (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster, if you care to read a few paragraphs above this one, you will notice that I requested you to back up your false allegation that the BBC had published Greg Palast's arguments. You have, thus far, failed to do so. So I will request it again: please place here link to a BBC site where Palast's arguments can be read. I have also asked you, very clearly, that if you have a problem with the lack of balance of my edits, the best way is to provided it, not by deleting them, but by including correctly sourced information. The blog of Greg Palast does not count I'm afraid. Rd232 then, I see that you keep your interest in Venezuela matters, and I welcome that. Perhaps you can explain, since you seem so knowledgeable of Venezuelan affairs, what would Hugo Chavez had tried to do, or had in mind, when he said "The air force should mobilise. We do not want war. But we are not going to let them... come and divide and weaken us." In the same BBC article one can read "Mr Chavez had earlier warned Bogota that any incursion into Venezuelan territory similar to Saturday's operation would be a "cause for war". But that incursion Chavez was referring to was not into Venezuelan territory but into Ecuadorian territory, where the Colombian army killed terrorist leader Raul Reyes. When another terrorist leader (Rodrigo Granda) was captured in the streets of Caracas by Venezuelan intelligence operatives, Chavez could not send troops anywhere, since Granda had been arrested by Venezuelan officials. BUt that did not stop him breaking relations with Colombia either.

So tell us Rd232, what was Chavez trying to do? While you explain your position to us, please do state your credentials (same goes to you Dynablaster), so that we can effectively take your words as those of someone who is privy to information that counters what's in the public domain. Otherwise one could be excused for thinking that both of you are just POV-pushing and ensuring that perfectly sourced information that cast Chavez in a negative light is constantly blocked from Wikipedia pages.

In the meanwhile, please place here your idea of how the paragraph should read like, for for all your attempts at watering this issue down, the information that I have provided remains factual. You have 24 hours to do so. After that, I will revert your edits again, and again, until we reach consensus, which will only be achieved if you provide balance in the form of other information. Saying that you don't like/agree, with what I have written, without actually contributing anything is, quite frankly, not an example of interest in collaboration.

Finally, I would suggest you stop placing warnings in my page, that will take you nowhere, and start actually doing some constructive editing.Alekboyd (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To answer the question directed at me, the article you cited ([5]) merely shows a country protecting its borders when its neighbour had recently shown a willingness to violently violate the sovereignty of another neighbour. Any responsible leader would do the same. Similarly, when countries breach international law by kidnapping people on the streets of another country, there are often diplomatic consequences. Really, your evident bias here is beyond silly - these are normal responses to these types of (mis)behaviour. PS The community does not like editors either edit warring or threatening to do so. If you want to get yourself blocked, carry on with that attitude. A better solution would be dispute resolution, but it's generally expected to try quite a lot harder to resolve issues by discussion than you have so far, before pursuing that. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
"I requested you to back up your false allegation that the BBC had published Greg Palast's arguments."
Greg Palast's journalism is broadcast exclusively on Newsnight – coverage of Latin America, everything. [6] I do not recall which week or month it aired, but it does not matter because his reporting of the laptop is mentioned elsewhere, in the Tribuna da Imprensa, OpEdNews and by the Centre for Research on Globalisation. Therefore lacking precise details (r.e. BBC air date) we instead attribute this point of view directly to Palast and provide one of the above as a reference.
"I have also asked you, very clearly, that if you have a problem with the lack of balance of my edits, the best way is to provided it, not by deleting them, but by including correctly sourced information."
No, it is your responsibly, when editing an article, to ensure all contributions are compliant with the rules.
"You have 24 hours to do so. After that, I will revert your edits again, and again..."
I have 24 hours to clean up your mess? Nice of you. Dynablaster (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good evening gents, let me address your points, starting with Rd232. Colombia has suffered one of Latin America's most brutal internal conflicts. Millions of its citizens have been displaced while thousands have died. This is a result of the actions of a terrorist organization, read FARC, bent on ousting successive democratically elected administrations in the last 40+ years. Now then, when the leader of a terrorist organization that has caused so much suffering is safely ensconced in a neighboring country, while being visited by high officials and emissaries of the president of that country, what's the first country to do? Work the diplomatic channels to get outlaws arrested, issue international arrest warrants, etc. But what happens when all this is ignored by administrations of neighboring countries that actually empathize ideologically with such terrorists? I will give you an example closer to home Rd232, so that you understand. ETA has been waging a terrorist campaign against the Spanish government since the late 50ies. When, during this period, has France had any such problems with Spain over the capture of ETA terrorists in its soil? In fact most of the leaders of ETA are arrested in France nowadays. It's called cooperation against commonly-denominated terrorist organizations. The issue is that Chavez does not consider FARC to be a terrorist organization. In fact he calls them "good revolutionaries", while Ecuador's President Rafael Correa dispatches his Minister of Interior (Gustavo Larrea) to visit a terrorist leader sitting in a camp within Ecuador to seek to establish relations. I will concede that this is an issue of perception: all European countries, Canada, Japan and the USA consider the FARC a terrorist organization, while Chavez does not. Since you have so much sympathy for Chavez's policies I assume that both of you share his perception of the FARC and that's absolutely fine, as far as I am concerned. However the fact remains: many countries consider them terrorists. Same as ETA. Your hyperbole about sovereignty is truly touching and idealistic. Recently Txeroki, one of ETA's most fearsome leaders was arrested in France in a joint operation carried out between Spanish and French police forces and the office of the public prosecutor. Did we see Sarkozy sending troops over to the border? No, the world actually saw him congratulating Spanish Premier Zapatero and calling for an even closer cooperation to rid the two countries of the terrorist threat.

Extrapolate now a very similar case to Venezuela. A wanted terrorist leader is captured in the streets of Caracas by Venezuelan intelligence officers and handed over to Colombian authorities. What does Chavez do? Does he congratulate President Uribe, a la Sarkozy? No. He breaks diplomatic relations with Colombia (which is Venezuela's second largest trading partner) and the Venezuelan Lt. Cl. believed to have led the operation to capture a Colombian terrorist in Venezuelan soil is arrested on trumped charges, tortured, beaten and thrown in jail. I suggest you weight carefully your reply here Rd232, before adventuring to make evidently silly comments for all this is factual. And worry not, we will get to dispute resolution, as we did re Chavez lobbyist Michael Shellenberger.

Dynablaster, your words: according to BBC investigative reporter Greg Palast... You have been asked repeatedly to show evidence backing your contention that Palast's interpretation of events re FARC have been published by the BBC. Since you have failed to do so, I can conclude that you have actually lied.

For the record the remarks you so feverishly dispute, but have not disproved, are factual and sourced in perfectly compliant sources. So it is not my responsibility but yours, to demonstrate that these are not 'rules compliant'. Then you talk about mess. What mess, a five line paragraph? Do you honestly think that you are going to be able to keep the discussion here on the talk page for ever? I will ask you again: point out here your disagreements with what I have included. Be specific.

May I remind you both of declaring your interests and credentials?

The clock is ticking gents.Alekboyd (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Alek, you have no right to ask for anybody's "interests and credentials" or to accuse other editors of lying (WP:AGF) or to threaten with an edit war. Said that, I think that the material you're trying to add has several problems. First of all, you're using a word to avoid in the heading, later you use a primary source (OFAC) to support criticism, not to Chávez himself but to people associated with him. The last two sentences are original research, none of the BBC articles mentions any "links to terrorist organizations". JRSP (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Good morning JRSP. I have every right to question the interests and credentials of editors, specially considering a) their unwillingness to conform with their role as editors and b) in light of the notorious and public instances in which Wikipedia editors have turned out to be a fraud. Dynablaster has lied, and that is a fact that just can't be spun away. He argued something which was not true and has no basis in reality, read a lie. End of the story. I have requested, many times over, in this page, that specific problems of my edits be pointed out. Thus far none of the editors purportedly willing to collaborate and reach consensus have said explicitly what it is about the paragraph that they disagree with. So I very much welcome your stance. Gracias.
I don't see any problems with the heading of the paragraph, for 1) Hugo Chavez is on the public record supporting the terrorists from FARC, 2) his reactions to events in which terrorist leaders from FARC have been involved are public and thoroughly documented, 3) he has called terrorists from the FARC "good revolutionaries... real armies...", 4) Chavez has asked other countries to remove the FARC from the list of terrorists organizations, 5) there are photo ops of him with terrorist leaders from FARC, and 5) the contents of the laptops of slayed terrorist leader Raul Reyes contain a wealth of information about Chavez relationships with and support for FARC. You can dismiss that information as invalid, as a handful of Chavez apologists have done. However it remains factual and public that many countries, multilateral organizations and media outlets around the world think that indeed the information is true. So I propose we edit the paragraph as to reflect who supports the information as factual and who does not. Readers are capable to reach their own conclusions.
OFAC is a perfectly valid source, I will not rehash here a discussion about a topic that we've already had, and consensus showed that you were in fact wrong. Very close collaborators of Chavez have been accused of materially supporting terrorists. Again people can make their own minds as to whether or not Chavez is part of the problem. I think he is, you guys disagree. Well, I invite you to support your position, as I have done with mine.
The last two sentences read "This was not the first time that Chavez would bring relations with Colombia to a standstill over the FARC. In 2004, Chavez halted diplomatic and commercial relations with Colombia over the capture, in the streets of Caracas, of FARC leader Rodrigo Granda.[84]" Nowhere in there it is stated explicitly that there is a link between Chavez and the FARC, so I accept your point as valid. However there's this other article from the BBC that says "President Chavez is most unlikely to be reappointed as a mediator, despite his success with Clara Rojas and Consuelo Gonzalez and his obvious influence over the rebels. The reason he was dismissed last year was because he was seen hugging Farc commanders and not informing Bogota of what he was doing with the guerrillas. Little optimism after hostage releases But then the BBC also has this other article, in which it can be read "Colombia has accused Mr Chavez of having long-standing links with Farc and funding them with hundreds of millions of dollars." Chavez issues plea for Betancourt.
To conclude JRSP, I read somewhere in this encyclopedia that information that can be correctly sourced belongs in here, whether or not editors like it, whether or not the veracity of such information is solidly established. On my defense, I will repeat that outside those toeing chavista official lines, there is consensus about Chavez links with and support for FARC, which is considered a terrorist organizations. So I will extend the invitation made to Rd232 and Dynablaster and ask you to come up with a wording that suits your point of view so that we can move along. Otherwise I will revert back to my version for you guys have repeatedly failed to provide your own point of view, based on correctly sourced information.Alekboyd (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You only have to look at the FARC article to get a more balanced view. Really, get over yourself. Furthermore, your current attitude here makes any attempt at discussion with you unproductive and unpleasant. Disembrangler (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster, the 24 hours have passed:

1) you have failed to show any willingness to collaborate in the form of your suggestions as to how the paragraph should read like;

2) you have failed to provide a link to a BBC site where Greg Palast' personal interpretation of contents of FARC leader Reyes can be read. Until you prove me wrong, which you have not, I can be forgiven for concluding that you are lying, although I am happy to retract my position in the face of evidence;

3) instead of seeking consensus, you are trying to have the entire article deleted. Other editors reading this, I am sure, will reach their own conclusions about your disposition to constructive editing. Alekboyd (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Written by Alek Boyd