Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 5

This archive page covers approximately the dates between November 9, 2005 and November 22, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary.
See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

New Featured Article Candidacy (FAC) in progress

The English-language Hugo Chávez article is currently subject to a FAC. You can vote and place comments here. Please express yourself freely about how this article stands in terms of comprehensiveness, POV issues, structure, chronology, adherence to FA standards, style, layout, et cetera. Saravask 02:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

1999 Constitution

The article says the 1999 Constitutional Assembly was a move "to bypass [...] opposition". Actually, the appointment of a Constitutional Assembly was a main point in Chavez's 1998 electoral campaign and in fact, when taking his oath in January 1999 he called the 1961 Constitution "esta constitución moribunda" (this dying constitution). JRSP 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true that his interest in constitutional reform (a new constitution) began before 1999. In fact, it began even before his 1992 coup. However, in the passage you quoted, "opposition" should be taken as the puntofijismo system and the political parties that benefited from it. Chavez saw the new constitution as a means to bypass opposition in 1992, in 1998 (as part of his campaign pledges), AND in 1999. Therefore, there is no contradiction or inaccuracy in the article. Readers will find this clear when they look at the Constitution of Venezuela article, which I refurbished a few days ago, where I provided (with sources) the same rationale. Saravask 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are the Talk Archives not linked ?

Why are the Talk Archives not linked ? Ericd 21:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

They are linked. Look above and you will see the numbers "01", "02", etc. Those are the archives, and they are labelled as such. Regards, Saravask 22:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean?

latest change doesn't make sense. What does this as a sentence by itself mean: The Carter Center endorsed 1998 presidential election on December 6, 1998 with 56.2% of the vote. The is something amiss there.

That change was made by 128.135.221.186. I undid that change, and also removed the words "considerable" and "renowned". Saravask 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"participatory economics"

Chávez has also overseen widespread state-supported experimentation in participatory economics

While Chavez's economics may be "participatory"; they are not participatory economics, a phrase invented by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel to discuss a particular economic system involving balanced job complexes (not in Venezuela), iteration facilitation boards (not in Venezuela), renumeration for sacrifice (not in Venezuela), etc. Venezuela may indeed be the closest the world has ever seen to participatory economics, but there's no evidence that they were widely influenced by Albert and Hahnel's ideas; indeed, reading Albert's thoughts after his recent trip there, it's clear there's a big gulf between his thinking and the Bolivarian Revolution. DanKeshet 23:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the language to exclude mention of parecon, until I can find sources linking Chavez to this system. Now, the statement reads "citizen- and worker-managed governance ...". I have sources for this, and am putting them in now. Regards, Saravask 01:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Stylistic concerns

I'm still not sure about having the TOC on the left of the "early life" section. It comes across as making both the TOC and the first section look very unprofessional and aesthetically unpleasing, what with how the TOC interacts with the bar and header of "early life", and that the bottom of the infobox comes down to touch the section on the right just doubles the problems. I think we need to overcome our horror vacui, bite the bullet, and just let a little white space appear next to the TOC. Contrary to what you may think, doing so could actually make the article more appealing and readable, by giving it room to breathe and setting the distinction between the opening paras and the beginning of the in-depth article text much more clearly. Consider it, at least.

Also, a question: why all the ^superscript? I've never seen a Wikipedia article that uses 21^st century instead of just 21st century. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) doesn't use it. -Silence 18:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Er ... unless there is a hard and fast rule against superscripting suffixes, I'd like to keep them, since that is how people are accustomed to seeing them in handwriting and printed texts. After all, if superscripting is unacceptable, then why was it implemented in MediaWiki? In addition, the guideline for floating the TOC is that it should not be floated if the TOC's width is greater than twice the width of the Wikipedia navigation bar (which can be seen to the left). If the TOC is less than twice that width, then it is OK to float. I can furnish the quote if needed. Saravask 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Exact quote from WP:TOC:

• If the TOC's width exceeds 30% of the user's visible screen (about twice the size of the Wikipedia navigation bar to the left), then it is not suitable for floating. (Percentages assume a typical user setup.) If text is trapped between a floating TOC and an image, floating can be cancelled at a certain text point, see Forcing a break.

Based on that argument, I demand that we make all of the text in this article fuchsia-colored, because having fuchsia-colored text is not clearly and specifically banned anywhere in the Wikipedia guidelines. Who cares if 99% of articles aren't fuchsia-colored, and if it in no way improves readability and is distracting and silly? It's not banned by a hard and fast rule, so make the change!!! -Silence 14:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Every time I read this strange comment, I just about fall out of my seat laughing, even though I disagree. I guess you've made your point well. I just unfloated the TOC and removed the superscript. Cheers. Saravask 12:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

A paratrooper of humble origins?

Current version: "A paratrooper of humble origins, Chávez founded the Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) in 1994 after his pardoning for the 1992 coup d'état."

Previous version: "Born into a poor family and having earned a distinguished military service record, Chávez's formal political career began when he founded the MVR in 1994, immediately after being pardoned for an abortive 1992 coup d'état."

I think there's some significant problems with both versions. Why doesn't it say anywhere else that he was a paratrooper? The current one doesn't make it clear that the first five words are trying to establish his early life very quickly, while the previous one is oddly-phrased with "Born into a poor family and having...", as the two don't really go together, and in any case don't link to the next statement. Maybe something like "Born into a poor family, Chávez rose quickly through the military ranks. His formal political career began when he founded the MVR in 1994, immediately after being pardoned for a failed 1992 coup d'état." -Silence 19:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer humble origins instead of poor family. Why? I think it should all be viewed and compared relative to local realities. A middle class person in one country could be rich in another, if measured by the actual things he owns and has access to. Whereas a relatively poor person in a well developped country could be middle class in a poor country. But humble origins is a more universal concept: yes, they were not rich, but they had enough to get by with a normal life (however relative that might be). As to being a paratrooper, I do not think it is that relevant; he was from the army and that should be enough; what he was assigned to, when a amid-level commander, should not matter that much (tank, artillery, engineer corps, etc.) ... but yes, it doesn't hurt having it in the article. --Anagnorisis 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Chavez and his family were not exactly starving or neglected, given that he went to school, got college scholarships, had a White girlfriend (Herma Marksman), etc. And Chavez has extremely wealthy ancestors (for example, Maisanta, who was a wealthy landowner who owned a vast plantation (although it was confiscated before Chavez was born). Saravask 05:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. "Humble origins" is highly unencyclopedic: it's too coy, too politically correct, too vague. "Humble" is a judgment call, and a positive statement; "poor" (or "impoverished" or some other synonym, if you prefer) is not a judgment call, and is a neutral statement. And "poor" does not mean "lower class" or "middle class" or "below average", it means "Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions." Thus it is a universal term, not a relative one (it's not an exact term, certainly, but it's vastly more exact and understandable than "humble"). Humble in your context means "Low in rank, quality, or station; unpretentious or lowly"; if we said "low in rank", "unpretentious", or "lowly" instead of "humble", would it be acceptable? If not, then let's find a better word. We also certainly need a better word than "origins", which suggests a long lineage of "humble" people (contradicting your claims about his ancestry) and is, again, far too coy and vague, when simply saying that he was born into a lower-class family would do fine. -Silence 05:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we disagree then. Because the same arguments you use, I think support the other view. Poor is also a judgment call -unless you want to use some economics definition, and if you do it then Chavez family was not poor. In any case, I would not consider the way Chavez grew up, to be the considered poor even when making a judgment call -certainly not in Venezuela. --Anagnorisis 16:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I agree. Chavez's background and situation are so confused that we shouldn't mention "poor" at all. Saravask 00:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Condensation of the lead

I am attempting to make the lead much more compect by reducing it to 200 words or less. This is needed to ensure that this article will meet the Wikipedia:Today's featured article guidelines required in order to appear on the Main Page. Please do not interfere with this process unless good explanation is given here first. Saravask 05:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Good explanation: the 200-word lead guideline one is ignored by most featured articles, and pretty ridiculous. Only follow it if it improves the article. If it worsens the article in any way, drop it immediately. The sole purpose of all guidelines, including every Featured Article requirement, is to make better articles, and FA cannot possibly anticipate every possible situation in every article, thus those guidelines must always be understood loosely (at least, the ones that aren't major policy issues like image copyright things) and applied with a good deal of common sense combined. For example, I highly doubt anyone would hold it against an article if it missed the 200-word mark by a couple of dozen words. Where problems could start to arise is if it was 500+ words long, but, again, countless perfectly good featured articles proudly break this "requirement"—and are better off for it. For the logical extreme of this, see FA History of Poland (1945–1989). You're doing a fantastic job with this article and you've successfully countered ten times more criticisms than most articles have to deal with to become Featured (ah, the curse of high-profile subject matter!), but remember, at the end of the day, that sometimes one must ignore all rules. -Silence 06:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Did you read my comment above? I was taking *not* about that FAC criteria, but about the criteria needed to display an article that was *already* FA *on the main page*. I'll say that again: I am shortening the lead in order to meet the guidelines laid out in WP:TOFA. In fact, I'll give you a quote from WP:TOFA:

"The three main guidelines for selecting what goes in this section are:

1. The article must already be a featured article (to nominate an article for that honor see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates).
2. It must have a decent lead section that concisely summarizes the topic.
3. An image must accompany the selection."

Did you see the word "concisely"? Good. Now let's take a look at the George W. Bush article's lead. Now compare that lead to the one we have here. Can you now explain to me slowly and clearly why the Bush article — which is more than 10 KB longer than this one — has a *shorter* lead than the one here, even after my attempts (partially reverted by Silence) to shorten it. Slowly, please. Well, I tried anyway ... Saravask 12:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you've so clearly failed to notice, I'll spell it out for you: History of Poland (1945–1989) has been on the main page. Just a few weeks ago, in fact. Nobody cares how short the intro paragraphs are if a longer intro serves the article better; you should spend your time on much more constructive endeavors. Just telling you this for your own good, and for the good of the article; don't bother to thank me for the head's-up. -Silence 13:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Vicente Fox news

The foreign policy section could be updated with what is now happening with Mexico. After a week with diplomats exchanging calls trying to difuse the situation created by Chavez calling Fox, Mexico's president, a "puppy of capitalism," Chavez again disrespected Fox yesterday in his Alo Presidente program saying among other things that "Fox was bleeding from his injuries." Today Mexico has demanded an apology by midnight or it will recall ambassadors (first step towards breaking diplomatic relations). This is gonna be a tough one. Way to go Hugo. Show how smart you are insulting them all. --Anagnorisis 16:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for source

"When asked in an October 2005 BBC interview if he would move to use the 40 month sentence if a media figure insulted him, he remarked that I don't care if they [the private media] call me names ... After all, if the dogs are barking, it is because we are working."

Could a linked source for this BBC quote be supplied. --Oldak Quill 01:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

...if the dogs are barking ... so easy to find a source for that. He has said that a few times. Not sure about that specific instance. Here are a few: [1] and [2] here is one from a government website: [3] And here is one in English [4]. I suggest using something called google. It can work wonders when looking for this type of things (I just used it). --Anagnorisis 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I just put in an inline citation and footnote linking to the interview's transcript posted on the vcrisis site. I actually first heard it from a posted clip at the BBC site itself ( several weeks ago), but it seems they have taken down the full audio version since then. Saravask 02:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: I first inserted that quote when I heard the BBC interview itself. I wrote down the quote verbatim (as it was spoken by the English-language translator). The written transcript may vary slightly in wording, but the sense and meaning is exactly as is stated in the article. Saravask 03:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Constant "Conspiracy Theories"

Please remember that the venezuelan goverment or Chavez himself have talked many times about a so-called "conspiracy theory" about the US wanting to kill him. And it has been said not only about the US, but also about Colombia (please read the end of 2002-2004, also regarding another crisis between colombia and velezuela at the end of 2001).

left-floated TOC ({{TOCleft}})

I tried to be civil and polite. But I see I have no choice now ...
Yes. How foolish we've been. All this time, we've been obsessively and excessively preoccupied with such irrelevant minutiae as the Darfur genocide, the Pakistan earthquake, et cetera. And yet, all this time, in our very midst, a dark and insidious evil lurked among us, tempting us with sin and damnation. The nefarious left-floated TOC must have escaped all of our eyes while it secretly plotted to destroy our families and our American/Western way of life.
I will not name any names, but unless anyone can provide *evidence* and *quotes* from the WP:MOS or WP:MOSBIO banning the use of floated TOC here, I will revert, *revert*, and *revert again* anyone who attempts to implement their own stupid and anal-retentive stylistic predilections on this article. I have in mind such actions as removing the evil superscript formatting and unfloating the TOC. Unlike the morally righteous and godly crusaders against the sinful floated TOC, I have an actual *argument* to support why the TOC needs to be floated:

1. It is a waste of space, and may give the impression to new readers that the article is only composed of the introduction (they may not see all the text we've worked so hard on, but happens to be 50 yards down the page, way the hell at the far end of the unfloated TOC. They will leave, assuming that the Wikipedia article is much shorter than it really is. That is, for example, what my display shows it to appear like.)
2. The policy *allows* floated TOCs if they are narrow enough (less than 30% of the user's monitor/screen size). See WP:TOC.
3. The *floated* TOC is neatly tucked to the side, and the rest of the text (that is to say, the text beyond the introduction) will be *readily apparent* to our innocent users. But this is bad, because whatever we do, we absolutely *must not* ease our readers experiences here.
   
4. And if left-floated TOCs were evil and antithetical to Wikipedia, then can anyone explain *why they implemented in MediaWiki*?
5. If floated TOCs are outrageously controversial, then why was a proposed deletion of the {{Template:TOCright}} met with overwhelming failure, with most people opting to *keep* it?

I will refrain from commenting on the absurdity of this debate, and that I need to waste my time on it at all. I can only hope that this helps. If it doesn't, God save us from the wicked superscript and fornicating left-floated TOC. Regards, Saravask 11:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

OK. I've had slightly more than enough of the accusations, insults, and attacks. Disagreements are a part of the Wikipedia process, but if you feel so bitterly possessive of your article in so many ways, it will be impossible for it to ever reach anywhere close to its full potential.

Most of the changes I recommended (recommended; I never reverted any of your reverts of my fixes, I left superscript alone after you gave a very feeble excuse for wanting to keep it, and I only once tried my hand at reaching a compromise on TOC because I thought you would find it much less objectionable now that the amount of white space on its side was so obviously minimal) will inevitably be made when hundreds of editors eventually see this featured article and wonder why it uses a different format than 95% of the articles for no real reason, when such changes actually worsen the page (hiding the TOC next to the text as though it was a part of the rest of the article rather than what it really is, a Table of Contents, which everyone is used to seeing clearly distinguished from the text that follows, and no one is used to seeing buried within the text of the contents being tabled!; and anyone so ignorant as to think that the TOC is the bottom of the page just because he doesn't immediately see the rest of the article text is probably too ignorant to know how to know how to scroll down a page on the Internet anyway, or know not to eat the mouse for that matter; superscript in no way improves the text, it just looks awkward to have to randomly see letters sticking up into the air for no purpose, and most people who see it won't be used to it; you act like because a certain stylistic choice isn't banned, it's the best choice to make; you see that the policy doesn't ban TOC floating, and it doesn't ban superscripting, therefore you argue that it encourages both—ridiculous) rather than bettering it, so I only attempted to make any of them now (and came up with some rather creative compromises to make them even more feasible, like finding good ways to shorten the TOC such that there's actually almost no white space created by not having it float!) to avoid possible incomplete or faulty attempts at fixing them in the future (for example, I foresee editors eliminating some of the superscript near the top of the article, but neglecting to get all of it and causing inconsistency) and needless edit wars over a trivial matter.

But since you're apparently more interested in turning this into a "holy war" for daring to disagree with you or voice a contrary opinion, and just because I tried to come up with some creative solutions to the TOC problem once, and since you've made it quite clear up to this point that you find my edits here villainous and horrible and suspect me of foul play for starting to work on improving this article while it's under nomination for becoming a Featured Article, I can see most easily that I'm not welcome here. I won't finish the copyedit I started on the beginning of this page and its subpages, and planned to finish over the next week. There are plenty of articles I can contribute to where input and new ideas will be welcomed and encouraged, not shunned like the plague.

For some people, obviously, the most appealing aspect of working on an "interactive encyclopedia" is getting to interact with themselves. Good day, sir. -Silence 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I got lost with so much text (above). Can someone summarize what the whole thing is about? Is it having TOC versus not having it? Or the position of it. My not humble opinion is lets have it like all other articles have it. --Anagnorisis 17:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's having white space on the left side of the TOC vs. having the first section (Chavez's early life) on the left side of the TOC. The argument for the former is that having any white space in an article is simply unacceptable, and people will be scared and confused if we leave them hanging on a Table of Contents rather than immediately jumping into the beginning of the biography. The argument for the latter is that it's nonstandard and unusual to have , and should only be done when absolutely necessary because it's liable to confuse people who will wonder if the TOC is a part of the first section, whereas having it before makes it quite clear that it's an overall table-of-contents for the whole page, by mirroring the way it's handled in all books, resources, etc.: giving the TOC its own area, even its own page in most books, and not cramming text into the size or worrying about people being annoyed by the white space around the TOC or confused by the TOC's presence and think that there's nothing more after it. Most articles don't do anything fancy with the TOC like this one currently does, though having text on the side of it isn't against the rules, per se, just generally disliked by most editors for stylistic, aesthetic, and organizational reasons. And I don't actually care overmuch which way we go; if Saravask had been willing to keep things civil, I'd gladly have let the issue drop (like I stopped trying to push for removing superscript) and continue working on truly important aspects of the article, like the wording and grammar throughout the text. -Silence 19:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are probably right. But I get lost in such a lenghty explanation. I do not want to go through all of it. Could you cut to the chase and say what it is that you propose -and against what. I am still not clear what it is you propose (though I admit I haven't read your message in detail). --Anagnorisis 20:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

To further summarize: "I like having text next to the TOC." "I don't." *insert drama here* -Silence 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Visual comparison of floated vs. unfloated TOC

Right now, the TOC (Table of contents) is "floated", meaning the text wraps around it rather than being shoved down underneath the TOC. If you want to see an example of an unfloated TOC, go to the George W. Bush article. That article does not have the {{TOCleft}} phrase, which floats the TOC. If you want to see the visual comparison for yourself, please go to the edit mode of the Hugo Chavez article. Please find the code snippet {{TOCleft}}. Now delete that snippet (delete the phrase "{{TOCleft}}"), and save the changes and note how the difference in how the article appears for yourself. I am for floated TOC while Silence is opposed.

Hmmmm .... I see. I understand what you mean. I think normally I would go for unfloated -as most articles have it. But given this is a very long TOC, I think in this case (as in the case of G.Bush floated would look best. --Anagnorisis 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, it sounds like you got a bit confused there, Anagnorisis: GWBush has an unfloated TOC. However, GWBush's place isn't the best example of such a TOC, because it also has a lengthy infobox on its right side that stretches almost all the way down the TOC. If George W. Bush was genuinely unfloated, it would have a very thin strip of text running between the left TOC and right infobox. For better examples of unfloated TOCs that leave white space in the article, see pages like Cheese, Flag of South Africa, and Autism (all Featured Articles). -Silence 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Superscripts

The superscipts are the tags that make "53rd" in the article appear as "53^rd" (in superscript, the "rd" appears as ^rd. "53rd doesn't have superscripts while 53^rd does. I am for superscript format while Silence is opposed.

On this I do not have much of a view. Almost indifferent, but if my life deppended on giving an opinion on the matter .... I think I would go for the now more common 53rd instead of the one with the rd small and high right after the 53. --Anagnorisis 21:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Comments on "nonstandard" and "different"

User Silence has pointed out many "nonstandard" features in this article, and has suggested that these must be done away with. I respecfully disagree. Rather than taking this as a point of shame, I see this as *good*. This article has a nonstandard presidential box, a nonstandard presentation of domestic polity, a "nonstandard" left-floated TOC, et cetera. I am absolutely rejoiceful that all Wikipedia article are not forced into the same dull mode, and that expressivity and tolerated. This *is* a onstandard subject itself. Nonstandard election results boxes highlight the nine elections Chavez and allies have won. The nonstandard presidential box adapts cleanly to Chavez's lack of a wife and other circumstances that the grey "standard" box would have foisted upon the page (and would have thus appeared partially empty). Again, "nonstandard" is good, and is particularly appropriate for nonstandard subjects and politicians such as the one this article deals with. Comments struck. See apologies below ...

Well, nonstandard is not automatically good -as suggested above). If it were, then standards would not exist ever. Standards make life easy for all. People get used to standards, facilitates things and make users feel comfortable with them. However this does not mean they cannot be changed when the old standard can be improved to adjust it to a new reality that the standard didn't initially cover. And .... what am I saying? Forget all this. I am starting to sound like a preacher. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's one of the most sensible comments I've seen in a while, Anagnorisis. :) Don't be so shy about voicing your opinion. (Of course, I say this because you've agreed with me on many points above: I'm a clever, crafty devil. :D) But anyway, I'd say that whether a certain feature is "nonstandard" or not is neither inherently good nor inherently bad. A certain trait's value should be judged only by whether or not it does its job as effectively as possible, causing the most helpfulness and the least unhelpfulness. For example, one argument against the floated TOC and superscript was that people would be surprised and confused and off-put by those (debatably) jarringly unusual style choices, but if some nonstandard feature was used that didn't have those effects, that argument would be completely invalid against it. How common something is is not, in itself, a note either for or against it, even if commonality is often associated with other elements that are significant. If I sounded in my above arguments like I was advocating just blindly obeying every common style choice on Wikipedia, I apologize; if I saw a definite benefit to using superscript or floating the TOC, I would not have argued against them. I also (probably) won't argue against them in the future, if you ever feel like returning those features to the article; we've both gotten our arguments for and against it out now, so whichever way we go, at least we'll be making an informed decision. -Silence 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sincere apologies to User:Silence

I apologize for the above remarks about Silence's edits. There was in fact no foul play on his part, and I see the suggestions made by Silence were made in good faith, with no malicious intent.

My fallacious suspicions:
But please understand that I was suspicious due to the fact that, in two months of heavily editing this article, I've never had this level of disagreement over such truly trivial details. In addition, it is very bizarre that for two months before the current FAC, *no other user* ever uploaded any images to the article. Yet, as soon as the FAC began, objections were raised about the excessive use of fair use images. Immediately after I removed all the offending fair use images and the objectors changed their votes to "support", user Silence arrives forthwith to reinsert these fair use images. Thus, Silence, whether unintentionally or not, endangered the FAC. He also did delete large blocks of text (such as his deletion of the paragraph dealing with his art and sports career). Silence also made significant structural changes to this article *during* the FAC. For readers who do not understand the significance of this, I will explain: one of the key criteria for becoming an FA is that the article be structurally *stable*. Thus, by implementing his changes *during* the FAC, User:Silence provided ample fodder for potential objectors to state that this article is not srtucturally stable, and thus unworthy of FA. I will also admit that I too have been meddling with the article's structure, but most of that was intended to adress FAC voters' concerns. Nevertheless, I'm just as guilty as User:Silence.

Yet this uncanny timing does not excuse my ultimately inappropriate remarks, and the FA has indeed (so far) not failed due to anything User:Silence did or attempted to do. So I invite all to make whatever edits they want, whether or not I agree with them, and we can discuss them in more favorable circumstances. All good-faith edits are welcome, and I realize that I did not sufficiently assume good faith with respect to User:Silence. So I apologize again to User:Silence, and invite him/her to return to this article as a contributor. Saravask 08:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• "user Silence arrives forthwith to reinsert these fair use images." - Yes, that was my chief mistake in editing this article, and a direct result of my not reading through the whole Featured Article debate carefully, but just going through any copyediting the article, noticing an image on a subpage that would help spice up an especially long stretch of text (in addition to copyediting, I'm very involved in the aesthetics of articles, so if you find any more good images that meet the Featured Article image requirements, I encourage you to add them to the page! :)), and unthinkingly adding it. As I said at the time, I'll be more careful with any future major changes I make, especially regarding images and layout.

I understand. You only put in one image, and it was a perfectly innocent mistake. No harm was done. Saravask 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• "He also did delete large blocks of text (such as his deletion of the paragraph dealing with his art and sports career)." - That was the only large block of text I deleted, and one of the only incidents in my entire career of copyediting articles where I've made such a deletion. I half-expected you to object to the deletion and would have gladly made my case if you had done so, but since you never did even though you were clearly maintaining an extremely vigilant watch over the article, I figured you were fine with it. Some of the reasons I deleted it included: (1) the section was too long to easily fit next to your floated TOC, especially since I needed to add a new line that must have been accidentally deleted at some point regarding the founding of the MBR-200 (at the time, the article never even mentioned it, but jumped straight to using the abbreviation in the second section!); (2) most of it was redundant to several sentences above which already explained his hobbies both in the military and in childhood in proper summary style; (3) I'd already fully copyedited the Early life of Hugo Chavez article and knew that all of the information was quite nicely provided there, so repeating such trivial details in the main article was quite unnecessary; (4) the section didn't fit into the flow of the section's narrative at all, violating both the style and the continuity of the above paragraphs, so even if we kept the information, it would have to be manually re-incorporated into the above paragraphs, and the information didn't seem directly important enough to merit that. When I considered all of this while editing that first section, I decided that making the deletion would be completely sensible and acceptable, and went ahead with it.

I am fine with that deletion. As you said, it was redundant. Saravask 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Silence also made significant structural changes to this article *during* the FAC." - Correct. I was hoping to give the article an even better opportunity to become FACed by addressing possible future concerns. In addition, I wanted to improve the article to the point where it met every objection I might make if I voted on whether or not to make it a Featured Article. When I see problems with an article, I generally prefer to simply fix them myself (whenever I'm able to, anyway, and have the time) rather than complain about them to other people. I view the FAC process as solely one of the many tactics used by the Wikipedia system to encourage people to improve articles. In the long run, this is the real benefit Wikipedia gains from having Featured Articles: it focuses efforts on already-great articles to make them truly excellent.

I was overly concerns about changes being seized upon by predatory objectors in order to demolish the FAC. However, people have noticed all our changes and *yet still* supported the FAC. So here too no harm was done by either of us. Saravask 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. I admit that it was improper of me to interfere in an article currently undergoing a very important and in-depth FAC vote without being very careful to ensure that my changes would all be welcomed. In some ways, though, this is better than how I've handled many other featured articles: I have a habit of going through the Archives of Featured Articles occasionally and glancing over what articles will be on the main page in the next few days, then visiting any of those that pique my interest and doing heavy copyedits and reorganizations of them mere days or hours before they're to be on the main page. I do this because I often see major stylistic or grammar errors on pages that are about to be featured (like History of Arizona, Tamil people, Algerian Civil War and History of Poland (1945–1989)—the longer, historical articles are the ones that most frequently have unaddressed problems, especially later into the article where fewer editors have ventured) that I feel need to be addressed to impress more new users with Wikipedia's quality, and because doing major edits to an article while it's on the main page is an almost impossible chore, what with dozens of vandals and minor edits being made while one tries to edit the page. I've been trying to avoid this lately because of the obvious problems that can result from tinkering too much with an article right before its appearance on the main page, so I've decided to become more involved in the process itself of articles becoming Featured and edit certain articles at that stage, when there's much less of an immediate deadline. However, thank you for pointing out that major edits can endanger a completely worthy article's chance to become Featured: in the future, I'll try to be more careful and circumspect with my changes. -Silence 21:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah! I eagerly await your improvements, and will not interfere with any of them without putting civil comments/discussion here (on the talk page) first. No need to be discreet anymore, since the FAC is almost over. Be bold! Good luck. Saravask 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One good and valid point that Silence raises is that as an article is seen as FA material and/or that only a handful are heavily involved with it, others become shy, intimidated perhaps, and withdraw from making edits. I am not saying this happened here (I am not saying it didn't happen either), but that people should not shy away from saying what they think just because they think they are not experts in the topic (afterall, who is?). Cheers. --Anagnorisis 23:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Various minor issues

Well, now that I'm back, might as well get to work. I re-copyedited the intro paragraphs and first section, and copyedited the second section for the first time. Going through the text, there were a few lines that I couldn't easily find the best way to fix:

"Venezuela's middle and upper classes have severely criticized Chávez, accusing him of electoral fraud, human rights violations, and political repression. Yet, whether viewed as a socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue, Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and high-profile political figures of modern history."

• Is "yet" really the right transition word here? Why is being "complex", "controversial", and "high-profile" in opposition to being accused of human rights violations and so on?
  • No. Now that I think about it, absolutely not. The accusations in fact are what underlie that controversy, so I suppose "yet" should be eliminated. Saravask 05:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Chávez numbers among the mestizos and mulattos of central Venezuela's llanos."

• I don't have a problem with this line because all three words are linked and thus anyone curious can visit them, but some editors will probably object to not defining any of those words in this articles, and thus probably confusing a majority of readers. Articles should be intelligible to just about any ignorant reader without that reader having to visit any links to see the definition of an uncommon word (my F&W dictionary doesn't even have "llanos" in it, in fact, though of course the AHD does); links should be purely optional accessories for those especially curious about learning about a topic in-depth, not a requirement for the typical ignorant English-spaker to understand what's being referred to.
  • Again, I agree. We should perhaps insert the term "mixed race" in front of mulattos, or can just explicily spell out Chavez's ancestry as primarily indigenous mixed with small portion of Afro-Venezuelan a(or just "African") ancestry. I had problems here too, because it seems there is no appropriate term for that particular mix of Indian and African. The only term I know of is "black Carib" — meaning Taino or other Caribbean natives with significant African ancestry. But since Chavez is not Carib or from the Caribbean, I would question that term's usage here. Saravask 05:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• That, for example, is why I added a mention in the second paragraph that the Fifth Republic Movement was a left-wing political party: without that information, someone reading the very beginning of the article could be confused and lost as to what's happening, and give up on the article as hopelessly ingrained in Venezuelan political lingo. Summary style requires not only being as short as possible, but also being completely understandable and accessible and to new readers.
  • I apologize again. I have no plans to undo any of your changes. Keep up the good work. Saravask 06:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Er, there's no need for you to apologize; I was explaining why I'd made one of my edits to try to improve the article, not accusing you of doing anything wrong. And I wouldn't be offended if you did revert any of my changes, as long as you explained why. Editing shouldn't be allowed to become personal. We'll both just do whatever we think benefits the article, and wherever our ideas on this matter conflict with each other, we'll talk it over and reach a suitable understanding and middle ground. I don't doubt that at least some of my changes will be mistakes, purely as a matter of averages, if I finish going through the whole page in as much detail. -Silence 06:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"Chávez was born in Sabaneta, Barinas... he was later sent to live with his paternal grandmother, Rosa Inés Chávez, in nearby Sabaneta."

• If he was born in Sabaneta, why did he later have to move to "nearby Sabaneta"? The information that seems to be missing is: Where did he live between his two periods in Sabaneta? It also mentions a third time that he went to a school "in Sabaneta" a few sentences later, as though this information is contrary to what we'd expect...
  • Yes. It is rather strange, but still true. Chavez was indeed born in the town of Sabaneta (probably in a clinic/hospital). But his parents were schoolteachers who lived out of town, in the country near a large river. But since Chavez's parents had so many other children, Chavez was selected to be sent away to his grandmother, who actually did live within Sabaneta town limits. So Chavez, throughout his childhood, has always lived close to or near Sabaneta. The distinction is only whether or not he lives within the actual town. Its kind of like when people from one of Phoenix's or Detroit's suburbs claim when asked that they live in those cities, even though they actually (officialy speaking) live outside the city limits. Cheers. Saravask 06:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK, though we should probably explain that briefly (which would be easier if we knew what the name of the specific name of the outside-of-Sabanata area Chavez grew up in, assuming such a name exists).

"He graduated on July 5, 1975, as a second lieutenant"

• How did he become a Second Lieutenant before enrolling in the military? I thought he became one later? Is this some secondary meaning for "second lieutenant"?
  • No. The academy he attended is very much like what you'ld expect: rather like West Point or some such place. Thus, cadets attend the school, and they are not yet officers. Upon graduation, they receive their commissions (as second lieutenant or whatever). Saravask 06:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"This statement on the coup's demise immediately catapulted Chávez into the national spotlight."

• The coup itself didn't attract much national attention, but a snappy phrase following the coup's failure did? Um? Some clarification would probably help with making sense of this. Also, there seems to be a very excessive use of "yet"s and "however"s in this paragraph, and perhaps in this article in general; there has to be a real contrast to use such transitionals. For example, there's no contrast between his starting a coup and the coup failing, so you can't say "He launched a coup. However, it failed."; you have to provide some example of his coup seeming to be succeeding or going well, and then do the adversative. Likewise, I can't figure out how to reword the two sentences right before his carnosity is mentioned—the "nevertheless, Chavez was imprisoned" would only make sense if there was some sort of popular support for his coup or some other reason that he wouldn't be prisoned, which wasn't mentioned. Likewise, "yet Perez" doesn't make any sense immediately following Chavez's imprisonment—it would only make sense immediately following his successfully stopping the coup.
  • Uh, think about the September 11 attacks. When the attacks first occurred (just a few hours after the attacks), not many people knew who did it, some people though it was an accident etc. But after a while, Osama Bin Laden's name came up, and he was thus "catapulted" to fame. So, of course the 1992 coup was likely well-followed by the public, but Chavez was probably just another one of the names associated with the coup. Just like not many people can name all 19 hijackers, they probably couldn't name all the 1992 conspirators. But when Chavez made that remark on national television, he instantly became a figure of anti-Perez sentiment, and at that moment ceased to be just another name but a widely related-to symbol of outrage against Perez. Hope this helps. Saravask 06:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• The analogy doesn't quite work, because the article claims that Chavez organized the failed coup and founded the organization that caused it, which would make him analogous to Osama in your schematic, and Osama would be extremely well-known whether he ever said anything on the issue or not. :) If Chavez was just considered ", then obviously that point needs to be made clear in the text! No reader has any reason to assume any of the very important things you listed above, just from reading the information in the article. -Silence 13:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. I guess so. I just do not know how those events where followed in Venezuela, since I'm not from there (and I was all of 9 years old when that coup happened!). I think you should ask User:Anagnorisis. He seems to know much more about these things then he lets on or has the courage to say, and he is Venezuelan. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find something that explains this. Also, I just ordered a thick book on Chavez that should explain *everything*. Good luck. Saravask 19:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Also please note: I guess you are right about the yets. I overloaded the article with transitions in an artificial attempt to introduce "flow", but I guess flow does need to come logically and historically, not just gramatically. Saravask 19:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Just as another note: before his words in 1992 calling off the coup, he wasn't well known nationally. He was only known in military circles as a speaker/lecturer and as a commander. And I have another analogy. Timothy McVeigh orchestrated the Oklahoma City bombings. He was obscure, just like Chavez. After the bombings, no one knew of him until evidence surfaced days later implicating him. I think its analogous with Chavez. Ah, I'll just go leave these idiotic analogies and find an authoritative source right now ... Saravask 00:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, note that the top template still uses superscript for "53rd"; indeed, the several biography pages I've seen that use that specific template use superscript in it, which is why I haven't tried changing it thus far. I do wonder, though, what the purpose of the blank bar at the bottom is (below Vice President). Though again, I won't make any changes to it; at least it helps fill a little of that white space to the left of the TOC. :) Just curious. -Silence 04:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The blank bar is there in order to list notes about, for example, presidential ordering controversy (some say he is the 53rd president, while others say he is 61st, while others still claim he is only the fourty-something-th (I forgot). Anyway, I just forgot to add any notes so far, but the space may be needed in the future. Plus, it seems a nice visual balance for the blue bar at the opposite end of the template (the "Feng Shui" of Wikipedia templates, I suppose ...). Saravask 06:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• OK, makes sense. -Silence 06:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Castro-lite

This guy is an asshole. He wants to shit on everything. The fact that he is where he is is a testament to how stupid some people can be and how just standing on a large amount of oil can give you great influence on the global economy. God help us.

I understand. If you feel though, that the article is itself pro-Chavez POV, then please suggest ways in which it can be corrected. User:Anagnorisis has already determined to do this (rightly). Um, I think we should otherwise keep our own opinions of Chavez private and present good arguments about how to improve the article here only. Thanks a lot. Saravask 19:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I've edited all the templates now to have a small space around them, so that text doesn't just run into the templates, but leaves a nice, reasonable little area around the box. I have some questions and suggestions, now:

• 1. Why are the 1998 election and 1999 referendum both contained in Template:ChavezElections1998? Wouldn't it make more sense to move the 1999 referendum to its own template, move the 1998 one up to the "rise to power" section, and put the newly-made referendum template in the place where the 1998 one currently is? Not only would that make a slightly overlarge template much easier to handle, but it would also put the information in the actual places where people would expect it to be and want it.
  • Yes. You're correct. There's no good reason. All the election boxes were once combined into one hideously large table/temaplate. It took a good deal of time for me to split it up into three. I was just to lazy to complete the job and separate the 1998 and 1999 templates from each other. If you need help spliting them, just ask. No problem. Saravask 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• K, I'll do it later tonight. Just checking to make sure there wasn't a reason for it being that way. -Silence 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I went ahead and split it, and moved the two new boxes to the correct positions. Saravask 23:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• 2. Why aren't the boxes-within-the-boxes containing the "candidate, vote, %" information properly centered, like the larger "1998 presidential election" very nicely is? It would be much more aesthetically pleasing and orderly-looking if the table wasn't right-aligned while everything else in the template is center-aligned.
  • Again, just my laziness and neglect. Please do go ahead and match the formatting. I can also do it if you need me to. Thanks. Saravask 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I can't seem to figure out how to center it. Could you tell me how, or do it yourself, whichever you prefer? -Silence 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• 3. I have a lot of problems with turning the bottom sections of this article into Templates. I've never seen such a thing done before on Wikipedia, and it seems like a bad idea in that it will discourage just about everyone from editing the bottom sections of the page (heck, I'm tempted to object to Chavez infobox at the top of the page for the same reason, except that the Chavez templates are much less likely to need regular changing or updating than the later sections of the page, so I guess this way works) and thus cause those sections to slowly degrade. However, since I know you've only done this templatification to combat a criticism of the page being large (by someone who probably hasn't even read the page, judging by his complaints) and protect the article's chances for FAC, I won't do anything about the template, and won't ask you too either until this FAC vote is over, since there's no need to stir up unneeded trouble. I do expect them to be returned to the page eventually, though. -Silence 22:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I promise I will remove all the transcluded templates I just added as soon as this FAC is finally done with. Thanks. Saravask 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• Perfecto. -Silence 22:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

1992 Coup (to answer Silence's question)

I figured I'd just start another section; things were getting too cluttered. I found the following passage (taken from here), and quoted below:

"Whatever his original intentions may have been on February 4, 1992, when he at last staged his coup attempt —to overthrow Carlos Andrés Pérez and install a caretaker government, or to make way for a junta that would convoke a constituent assembly—the uprising itself was a complete failure. His longtime co-conspirators fought bravely in other parts of the country, but the army did not split, and in Caracas itself Chávez surrendered with barely a shot fired. Nevertheless, his fortune was made. On the morning following his surrender the army leaders allowed him to make a live televised statement about the failed coup, intending that he would discourage the remaining rebels. They did not insist he tape a prepared statement. He talked for less than ninety seconds, but it was enough for him to establish an emotional connection with his viewers so intense as to guarantee him a permanent place in national politics. "For now," the conspiracy had failed, he said, two words that might have earned an ordinary golpista an even more severe prison sentence. But the lucky man must have had good friends in the highest ranks of the military: he and his comrades were charged merely with "rebellion." Two years later he was released from jail, and granted an honorable retirement from the service. Four years later, in 1998, having decided to join the politicians after all, he put himself at the front of his movement, and won 56 percent of the vote in the December presidential elections. "

New findings from book (needs to be integrated into text)

The name of the book is "Hugo Chavez Sin Uniforme: Una historia personal" and by Cristina Marcano and Alberto Barrera. Published by Editorial Melvin in 2005.

Chavez mother had her first son when she was 18. She had Hugo the following year. Hugo and brother Adan moved to live with the grandma from early on, and lived there until they moved out. The grandmother died in 1982 and it impacted Hugo and his brother when she died. After some time living with the grandmother, the mother wanted her children back, but the husband opposed forcing the mother to accept this situation she didn't want. This is from page 37.

Some people think that part of his resentment in later life and his inflamatory style is due in part to that forced separation from his mother at an early age. His former lover of 9 years, Herma Marksman is quoted saying that she once had a discussion with him where she asked him "And don't you love your mother" and to this he replied "No. I respect her." Furthermore, she says that he would even try to avoid bumping into her so that he wouldn't havce to say hello to her. Page 38.

Chavez first letter from the Academia Militar was to his grandmother. He used to write to her calling her "Querida mama" and "mamita." In one letter he said to her "I have always been very proud of you raising me and of me being able to call you mommy. Bless me, your son that loves you." Page 39.

Edmundo Chirinos, a famed psichiatrist in Venezuela, and former dean of the Universidad Central de Venezuela and who got to become friends with Chavez after the 92 coup says "Chavez genuinely feels scorn towards oligarch people, not only for their having of money, but also towards their gestures and their lenguage .... " Pages 41 and 42. I guess this explains his insisting in talking the way he does.

Chavez political campaign for the 1998 election was based in finishing with what he called "40 years of corrupt democracy." His main theme was doing away with the past. page 43.

I think maybe the article can mention that his second wife (the one who campaigned with him for the election) is very white, blonde and with blue eyes.

• This is interesting. But, at least in the U.S., it is not politically correct to namedrop someone's race unless it is directly related to the conversation at hand. For example, we wouldn't say " Condoleeza Rice, Bush's black Secretary of State, proposed to the Palestinian delegation that ...". But it would be correct to say "Among all non-white political figures in the U.S., Condoleeza Rice — who is herself black and is Secretary of State — has attained the highest status and position.

Regarding Chavez winning his first election, his electoral campaign chief, retired general Alberto Muller, is quoted as saying "the election was won more on mistakes of our oppositors than on our own successes." page 48.

When Chavez took over as president, he had 80% popularity rating. page 49.

• I don't think we can trust Venezuelan polls (especially if this is a Datanalisis poll). Many methodological problems (biased sampling, overt politicking by pollsters, etc.) that have been reported forced me to remove mention of them before.

Foreign banks financed Chavez campaign. This became some sort of a scandal in Spain and Venezuela for some time. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya and Banco Santander, each owner of one of the largest banks in Venezuela admitted during a judicicial investigation in Spain of having helped finance the campaign. Initially the Venezuelan government denied eveything, but when the evidence was too much, general Muller admitted that they had indeed received the money during the campaign. Pages 50 and 51.

New comments

1. I am not sure about the intention of the last quote at the bottom of the article; the one about Jesus. I would simply take it out.

Uh...given that nearly all biogrphies of politicians (such as Yoweri Museveni, Tony Blair, and George Bush comment on the subject's religion, I think it needs to stay in. This quote captures the motivation behind why Chavez uses the word "Christ" and "true Christianity" in many of his speeches and talk show programs. It also explains why he refers to the Bolivarian Missions as the "Missions of Christ". It is insightful and helps explains Chavez's views on Christianity and his own spirituality. Saravask 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not sure how the counting works for the references. Are they numbered automatically? That same quoted above, shows as number 15. But if clicked on, it takes the reader to reference 16. In addition there is another reference in the text way above that quote also numbered 15.

Automatic numbering. If references are aither removed or inserted, the numbering becomes screwed up, and thus needs to be corrected/realigned periodically. Saravask 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Along the text, there are several comments related to the recent Venezuelan economic performance, but as they are dispersed, they do not give a clear view on performance. In one instance a figure preises Chavez saying how well the economy did in one year. But in another section another indicator from another year is given to show how badly things have gone. I suggest trying to group all mentions of economic performance and indicators in the same section (whichever one it is), instead of having them spread in the article.

I will try to do this. Saravask 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Though it can be said that Chavez has made great efforts with different social programs, and some have worked, while others have not, the article should not be so slanted as to make readers think that after 7 years of Chavez, the economic performance has allowed the poor of Venezuela to considerably improve their living conditions. The comments about the country's overall performance and development should be balanced and point what are locally perceived by the population at large as successes (like Mercal), what are seen as having mixed results (like health programs with Cuban doctors), and what has continued to fail (many). --Anagnorisis 20:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

All the facts in the "Bolivarian Missions" sections are empirically documented and duly referenced. If you have some equally well-referenced facts showing bad economic and social performance under Chavez, I'd be more than happy to see them put in as well. Thanks. Saravask 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Good job!

The article received FA status. I want to congratulate Saravask for his great job in the past few weeks dealing with both sides (the not so neutral pro and anti-Chavez contributors), and for keeping his cool with all while balancing the article. --Anagnorisis 04:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Equal praise should go to Anagnorisis for all his input and superior knowledge about Chavez. Saravask 05:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)