To all dimwits. It is Aussies not ozzies. you lazy spelling sons of idiots

Despite some minor flaws in Tim’s argument – well summarised by jaranet – his overall point is fair in the broader context, especially in view of Wiki’s amplification as a first-port-of-call reference source (particularly school projects and blog commentary).

The supposedly reliable Time article uses plenty of subjective and less than substantial POV – e.g. ‘repeatedly interrupted’, ‘Chavez's leftist policies shun outside investment’ (BTW, this is not true), ‘What may have motivated Chavez’, ‘(Chavez) went on the tirade’. The article also unreliably second guesses Chavez’s own feelings and attitudes – e.g. ‘(Chavez) insists’, ‘(Chavez) blames’.

I would also challenge the wisdom of basing any encyclopedic reference on news articles, which are notorious for being compromised by media editorial policy, which is in turn compromised by the profit incentive.

It would also be interesting to speculate how this whole King Carlos/Chavez incident would have played out in the Western media, had it been Chavez who told King Carlos to shut up.

Whats in some names?
Im not much at wiki.
Its too close to wicca.
And witchcraft.
Maybe if theres a lot of untruths on Wikipedia it may become a bit witchy.
If its not reliable with truth then it going to serve the dark side anyway.

Gibo, get help.