Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Proposed format for "Wikipedia:Today's featured article" appearance 2 Comment 3 Two choices 4 Alea iacta est ... 5 The main-page box 6 Terms in office 7 Arbitration for User:TDC 8 Early life of Hugo Chávez as an FA?

Proposed format for "Wikipedia:Today's featured article" appearance

A while ago, I put up this article as a suggestion for appearance on the English Wikipedia's Main Page — which is now one of the most visited portals on the Internet. There, a featured cover article appears each day, and is switched out daily at around 00:00 GMT. This article is referred to as Today's featured article. It is a great honor. It brings vast numbers of users to the exhibited article. Typically, on the day an article is featured, several hundred edits are made to the article. By hundreds of different users. All in the same day. Usually, such attention dramatically improves the exhibited article. Needless to say, we need this here.

Any future "Today's featured article" must first be confirmed and posted to Wikipedia:Tomorrow's featured article. Candidates nominated for this honor be must first be posted at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. There, they will be selected by Featured Articles bureaucrat User:Raul654. Here is what I submitted (with comments suggesting an appropriate date to be exhibited):

---

Requested by Saravask 09:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC).

December 10 would be another good date. It is the anniversary of the first call for mass opposition strikes and rallies by Fedecamaras. Back in 2001, this call first brought widespread and continuous international media coverage to Chávez's rule (which continued through the 2002 coup and strikie/lockout). Thank you. Saravask 09:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

---

If anyone sees major problems with the lead, please let me know. Saravask 16:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment

Great move Saravask (archiving). I look forward to a new page of discussion ABOUT THE ARTICLE and not ABOUT THE PEOPLE that make the edits. Peace and cheers to all. --Anagnorisis 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You should check User:Silence's user page and talk page. I think you will find that it is his style to (innocuously) pick minor fights — he has told me that this helps him stay interested in an article. So I really don't think he was seriously seeking to rhetorically impale you. Anyway ... Saravask 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm wrong. Everything about what I implied about Silence what wrong. Please. I extrapolated Silence's character from a strange comment from him I found from a strange dialoge on his talk page at User_talk:Silence#Victor_Hugo_Page_--_PLEASE_STOP:

"Hahaha, don't wikiworry about it. Sometimes I pretend to care about things that I don't to make things more interesting. And yeah, I can see better how the thing got out of hand now. Best to wait until it cools off. -Silence 21:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)"

I based my theories that he likes to facetiously pick fights and thinks the general Wikipedia readership stupid simply from the above quote from Silence. So I was wrong and take everything back. Now please ... Saravask 18:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oy. Calm down, Saravask; you don't have to retract everything you say just because someone doesn't like it. I asked for a retraction on your Talk page because you said some things that weren't true, not because I don't think anyone should be allowed to criticize me or say anything negative; especially now that you've provided a quote to explain where your mistake originated from, I can see where you were coming from.
• To clarify: I would never pretend to care about something I don't to cause an argument or stir up trouble. The quote you referred to above was my explaining to someone who was worried about offending me by using the "wiki-" prefix because I'd mentioned being annoyed by that on my Talk page that I was just joking when I said, to poke fun at how common such prefixes have become; it's too trivial of a thing for me to actually care in any way about, I just wanted to satirize it a bit because it does sometimes get overused in amusing ways. That doesn't apply to this case, especially since I didn't start the discussion at all—how could I "pick minor fights" when a minor fight already existed when I got here? -Silence 20:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Boys boys please behave. I thought we were going to use this new page to advance the discussion about the article -not the egos. Instead it seems you are still stuck in the previous page trying to keep the clash of egos alive. Show some maturity by moving on regardless of how difficult that may be for someone. --Anagnorisis 19:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Show some maturity"? Hopefully you're trying to be ironic. I was trying to keep my request to Saravask's talk page, but he brought it up here too; this is my first post to this page since the discussion was archived, in case you haven't noticed. :) You, on the other hand, have been quite gleefully making subtle jabs at me even after claiming readiness to "move on", continuing to post attacks to the page right until the point it was archived, posting even more attacks to both my Talk page and Saravask's Talk page, and even to this page: you just couldn't resist adding in that "regardless of how difficult that may be for someone" at the end to once again attack my maturity, could you? How.. mature? Heh.
• Please drop the faux "detached parental figure" persona with your statements like "Boys boys please behave"; it's a pretty obvious rhetorical tactic that I doubt anyone around here would fall for, especially considering that it's coming from the person who started the entire conversation, was the first person to further reference it on this page ("ABOUT THE ARTICLE and not ABOUT THE PEOPLE"—I wouldn't be surprised if that was a subtle attempt at a jab too, even though it applies to both of us), and was the only one who filled the discussion with endless insults and mockery, rather than point-by-point discussion and reasoning. Please show a little of the maturity you ask of others by ceasing the backhanded personal attacks, dropping the superior, elitist attitude you accuse others of having, and take some genuine, honest attempts to settle and conclude this meaningless conflict, rather than continuing your efforts to make yourself look good and put the other guy down on a more subtle level, feigning neutrality while continuing to launch backhanded and veiled barbs at every opportunity you get. It's not working, so drop the act and work with us, rather than over us, to get over this trivial argument, since you obviously have no interest in resolving it. OK? -Silence 20:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • He's back! Bait, sink and hooked. So easy! The energizer bunny, the king of neverending words, can't never let go. Show him the bait and he will go for it fast. If hooking big fish could ever be so easy! For each line you write, he will reply with .... errrr... let me count, to my 3.5 lines above, he replied with 22! Going and going and going. --Anagnorisis 00:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Saravask, it seems that this page despite your best intentions, got also tainted with another diarrhea of drible. Perhaps you should try moving this to the archived page and try again.--Anagnorisis 00:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• The only person who's yet posted anything to this page attempting to continue and exacerbate the previous argument is yourself. You've also clearly demonstrated and stated that your intent in attacking me here is to troll (and you're the first person I've ever referred to using the word "troll", so that's no empty label) for the sake of making a point and repeatedly personally attacking a user, which clearly violates both the official policy and the spirit of Wikipedia.
• Please desist in making unjustified and deliberately insulting and inflammatory jabs at fellow users, please remember that it is the content of a person's comment that matters, not the length (or lack of it), and please stop trying to manipulate Saravask into censoring my comments by repeatedly taunting and baiting me, and then requesting that he intervene so you can start the cycle all over again. Backhanded insults are still insults; until you are truly willing to drop the venomous attitude and aggressive "X user is an egomaniac and must be knocked off his high horse" behavior pattern, it will be impossible for this place to return to a healthy editing environment where we can freely discuss issues in an efficient and open-minded manner. -Silence 01:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I meant what I said about retracting my mistaken remarks and observations. It was not just to please people (I hope). I made these mistaken comments about Silence only because I honestly did not read the dispute; I just went off and worked on the Rabindranath Tagore article. I only observed Anagnorisis's colorfully descriptive header "stupid readers" and assumed that Silence had said something to that effect. Obviously, he didn't. He merely suggested reformatting the article. After all, remember what happened when Einstein sat in on one of Linus Pauling's famous lectures on protein biochemistry ... Einstein didn't understand a word of the lecture, and so he walked out! In the middle of the lecture! Seems Pauling could have used some of the advice that Silence is now offering for the Hugo Chavez article. After all, we absolutely do not want our readers "walking out" while in the middle of reading our article simply because they do not understand ... Saravask 02:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Alright, thank you for the clarification; I'm glad you took the time to read the dispute now, before making any judgments about it. It's not a sin to have an opinion or stance even on a contentious issue, but one should make an effort to read as much relevant information on the subject as possible, from both sides of the dispute. -Silence 03:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Two choices

image removed as it violates WP:FUC
These are the choices so far for the TFA blurb. Comments? ← Saravask – 15:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Left. Clearer, better contrast and detail, more compelling. (Though I'm still a bit of a fan of the one where he's doing that thing with his hands, since it's more unusual and conveys personality better. :)) -Silence 20:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I also prefer the left one. On a different note, I notice ALL the edits made by user:Sandalistawatcher. While all his comments paint Chavez in anegative light, many of them have some validity. I would reconsider some. In some cases -where there are no sources, he just chaged an absolute statement like "Chavez did" to "Chavez says he did." If nobody can confirm it, then it should be "Chavez says" instead of "Chavez did." This is just an example. I think there are more. We should look at what he wrote with less pro-Chavez passion. Cheers.--Anagnorisis 01:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree (though this is off-topic and should probably be discussed in its own section). Although his edits to the top of the article were clearly unacceptable, some of his subtler edits seem relatively reasonable. I was planning to bring it up myself if no one else more informed on the topic did. -Silence 01:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! I agree. Thanks. The left one it is, then. Saravask 01:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Alea iacta est ...

It is done. We chose the wrong image for the TFA, and now we have this problem. A different solution (image) is needed. Comments? ← Saravask * — 06:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? What's wrong with Image:Hugo_Chavez_United_Nations_2005_cropped.jpg? They seem to have pretty much the same copyright status and explanations. How is what we chose the "wrong image"? If that image is unacceptable, what images are our options? Also, why is the current text so very different from the text we agreed to? -Silence 06:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think the problem with Image:Hugo_Chavez_United_Nations_2005_cropped.jpg was that Raul654 could not verify that Biografias y Vidas holds the copyright for the image. I did mention a long while back (on the FAC page during our discussion of the lead image) that I found an exact replica of the UN image at the UN website. I said that this led me to doubt the copyright status of that image. It seems that while we forgot this dubious provenance, Raul654 remembered. He thus rightly threw out that image to avoid legal entanglements for the Wikimedia Foundation involving an appearance of a UN restricted image on the main page. ← Saravask * — 07:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. But I prefer the picture that Silence says. --Anagnorisis 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Raul654 is the director of the featured articles and the TFA. He has complete control over which and at what time articles appear on the main page. I believe he is also free to edit our submissions as he sees fit. I am not surprised. ← Saravask * — 07:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heavily edited the main-page FA box (and I've also edited the main page opening paragraphs a little). What do you guys think of the changes? :o -Silence 07:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Must be 100px? That's simply not true. That's the standard for most vertical images, but horizontal images like the above must be larger to be visible, since the "px" notation refers to horizontal length, vertical only changing in proportion to horizontal (thus a horizontal rectangular image will only become slightly larger when one increases px, whereas a vertical rectangular image will become dramatically larger). While most images are 100px on the main page (because most images are tall, not wide like ours), Raul was reasonable enough to make exceptions for rectangular images that wouldn't be clearly visible at 100px like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 2, 2005 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2005 (140px each), Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 29, 2005 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 9, 2005 (very large 130px ones), and countless others. 130px serves this image much better than 100px, so I'd say that it's a good idea to aim for something like that, if possible, if the ideal of 200px is unattainable. -Silence 07:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here. This is silly. I'm just gonna crop the image. One sec. -Silence 07:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Unacceptable. I prefer Raul654's version (which appears below, with a different image). I don't like the changes to the text. That text is too disorganized (information about his elections appears at both ends of the blurb, for example).
Since you are bringing your version more along the lines of Raul654's, I now have no problem with your text. owever, I still think we need a different image than what you propose. I actually like Raul654's image choice better than yours, since the background in it is less cluttered (and thus distracts less from Chavez himself). Also, in your image, Chavez bears a rather unflattering and more than passing resemblance to the resplendent countenance of Jabba Desilijic Tiure. ← Saravask Unconditional support. I like your new image much better. Please make the appropriate arrangements to get this uploaded by an Raul654 as soon as possible. I do not know the procedure, unfortunately. Thank you. ← Saravask — 10:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I was about to say that your image (the one from the top of the page) makes Chavez look much more obese than he normally does, what with the solid wall of neck. But as long as we don't go with the top image, OK; the image choice is less important than the text improvements, which I think I'll also make to the main page now (i.e. mentioning the coup and the recall vote together, since both are negative to Chavez, not with the election and reelection, which were positive). But I'm glad you're OK with my above version; I'm too tired to go through your version below line-by-line and explain in great detail why I don't like this bit or that one, like I expected I'd have to do. x_x; -Silence 09:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is not true, please reread the text more carefully, and try to view it as a completely new reader would, not as someone who's grown extremely used to the previous version of the text. His election in 1998 is listed at the part of the text which discusses his rise to power, as it should be. His 2000 reelection is not mentioned anywhere in my version because it is not a vitally important part of this blurb, which should be kept as short as possible; for all practical reasons, Chavez has simply remained president since 1998, sans the one-day coup, and mentioning the reelection in this context tells our readers little, if anything. The recall referendum is mentioned along with the coup (which was not mentioned at all in your version, even though it's much more important than the 2000 reelection and has greatly influenced his policy and behavior) because the recall referendum has much more in common with the coup than with his election and reelection as president: while the recall referendum and coup both provide much-needed evidence that he's "controversial" to help balance the end of the section out and minimize the pro-Chavez POV, the recall referendum has absolutely nothing in common with his election except that they both involve votes. The referendum and coup are both attempts to seize power from Chavez, and should be mentioned together as examples of such; the fact that one is more legitimate than the other, one based on military seizure and the other on popular vote, is irrelevant here, as both are still expressions of the growing opposition to Chavez's policies. -Silence 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, I agree with Raul654's removal of the phrase "socialist liberator or an authoritarian demagogue,". These do not add information about Chavez, and is not encyclopedic.

• I disagree that they don't add information on Chavez. They provide a very nice summation of the two distinct views of this figure, driving home the statement that he is "controversial" in a much-needed way. Without it, someone reading this paragraph might think that he's really not especially controversial at all, just a typical politician, with his supporters and detractors; the statement adds a much-needed strong finish to the paragraph, and is not really POVed, as it portrays both popular extremes of opinion, not just one or the other. However, if you feel strongly that it's unencyclopedic, I won't fight you on removing it from my version. My other changes are more important. -Silence 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I want the text that appears at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2005 to stay exactly as it is now, unless minor changes are first proposed and given some rationale.

• Why? I'm quite certain that the version I proposed above will get two or three times as many readers interested as yours, as it flows much more nicely and actually makes complete topical sense, transitioning clearly from one topic on Chavez to the next rather than being dominated by unrelated lists of miscellaneous terminology and events in his political career that no one reading the text for the first time will at all understand anyway. -Silence 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I am only in disagreement with the current images (both Raul654's selection and Silence's) — neither is portrait-style, and does not give us good resolution of his face. Also, I actually do believe that fair use images can appear on the main page, since the Tom Brinkman blurb has a fair use image. I want an image more like that appearing in the Tom Brinkman blurb (more professional and poised).

• "Professional and poised" is the antithesis of Chavez's personality, wouldn't you say? I think Anagnorisis will back me up on this one: Chavez deserves a photo with a little personality and charm, not just a generic and obvious politician's mugshot. That's the kind of stuff we can provide that a typical encyclopedia can't: editorial and aesthetic decisions that are insightful, interesting, and intelligent, not just formualic and plain. (Also, FAs don't use the same image for the main page as they use for the very top of their article. That's just an unwritten rule of getting people interested in an article: don't hit them with the same image twice in a row. Trust me on this one.) -Silence 08:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This that appears below is Raul654's version (but with a different image). This is the version that I want on the main page:

← Saravask * — 07:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see that you (Silence) have cropped the image that you proposed (Image:Chavez127928 cropped.jpeg). I am going to propose my image, your new cropped image, and some others to Raul654 on his talk page. I will leave it up to him to select, since it appears we ourselves will not achieve consensus. ← Saravask * — 08:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The main-page box

Some comments on the current text of the above box, tell me what you think of these possible changes:

• "Leader of Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, Chávez is known worldwide"

• Should probably change to "The leader of", or possibly "As leader of".

• "and his radical critique of neoliberal globalization."

• I'd recommend changing "critique" to "criticism", so it sounds like a general denunciation rather than an essay. "Criticism" is very commonly used as a mass noun (which is one reason I've been thinking for a while about whether "Criticisms of Hugo Chavez" should be moved to "Criticism of Hugo Chavez" per most other "criticism" pages and sections. But that's a minor point).

• "Chávez founded the leftist Fifth Republic Movement after attempting a failed 1992 coup d'état."

• "Leftist" is a redirect page, going to Left-wing politics. It's preferable to bury the actual page being linked to, as is done on the current main page (a lot of the differences between the main page now and the box above seem to be things I changed on the main page a while ago that weren't changed in the box, so presumably you've had that box for quite a while, working on it separately). Also, "after attempting a failed" seems a bit odd; wouldn't just "after a failed" do?

• Chávez was then elected President in 1998

• Is "then" necessary?

• and survived the 2004 recall referendum

• I recommend changing "the" to "a". The recall referendum won't be common knowledge to most of our readers, and hasn't been mentioned previously in the article.

• Chávez faces myriad criticisms and allegations from Venezuela's middle and upper classes,

• Sounds smoother as "Chávez has faced severe criticism from Venezuela's middle and upper classes,"

• most notably of repression and electoral fraud.

• "most notably" could be vaguely construed as POV. Why not just "who have accused him of repression and electoral fraud."? I know that's not all they've accused him of, but I think people will get the message from that, and I doubt anyone will assume that it's all he's been criticized for, or accused of.

• Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial, and high-profile political figures in modern history.

• Yeah, this is definitely a bit out-of-date (as most FA main-page excerpts are). Switch "political figures in modern history" to "figures in modern politics". -Silence 20:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Despite all the funny sparring, when Silence gets serious and concentrates in the article, he makes a lot of sense. I agree with all his comments above. Good job. Keep it up. Now, if you could only let go on the matter of writing so much about ego-related things ..... then almost all you write would really amount to a great editing job. Yes, yes, I know, you can't change. So to get the good of Silence, we must also take the bad. Oh, well, who said anyone was perfect? --Anagnorisis 00:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Are you even capable of making a comment anymore that isn't full of hateful, insulting barbs? You truly are entirely unwilling to drop this, aren't you? I haven't seen you say a single thing since you first began the "stupid readers" thread that wasn't directly or indirectly intended to assault my character as best you could. This is getting more and more ridiculous.
• Has it yet occurred to you that the reason we're both here is to work together to improve this article, not to "teach each other a lesson" or whatever other macho, competitive point you're attempting to make? A discussion is not a battle, where you "win" whenever you taunt me into replying (pretty ridiculous, considering that I could just as easily say that I've tricked you into replying to me repeatedly, especially considering how many times now you've sworn off of replying to me anymore, only to immediately reply to me again afterwards!). A discussion is an exchange of ideas where both parties seek to understand the other party so that they can reach an appropriate decision or compromise to suit the best interests of everyone. You don't "win" by insulting me as much as you can and getting me to admit that you've been right all along, you "win" by reaching an appropriate understanding and common ground between you and the other party! Until you realize that, it doesn't seem that any discussion with you whatsoever will be possible, if you feel the need to interject your absurd jabs at me even into a totally unrelated thread. -Silence 01:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• • One more for the team! Once again, bait, sink and hooked. Do you know what a mirror is? It may do you well to look yourself in one. Oh, and before I forget, check the concept of "projection" in psycology. Man, this is starting to go beyond funny. It is starting to be embarrassing just witnessing it. See, you can not even grasp the fact that I was saying that I agreed with your suggestions. Your huge ego can only focus on the negative side. Man, move on. You are going from funny to pathetic. Now, give us one more yada yada yada reply. Do not dissapoint us. Keep making a fool of yourself showing you can not move on and instead NEED to come defend your honor and show us how great your ego is. Keep it up. I can take anything you throw at me. You can take zero. I am LOL seeing how you are incapable of moving on. Man, you are taking this all too seriously. I started this page saying I hoped we could move on, but first thing you did was to defend your ego again. How pathetic and embarrasing. Has it ocurred to you that maybe if you let go, things would return to normal and your ego will stop taking this beating. It must really hurt. By the way, I am still not reading all you write -I just glance to see what it is you write about. If it is about this silly fight, I jump to write some more to bait you once again. --Anagnorisis 02:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Guys, feel free to directly edit what's in the red box. If I have issues with any changes, I'll let you know here. We still have plenty of time to resubmit a consensus/revised version. Saravask 02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I will resubmit whatever is in the red box right around November 30. Again, feel free to directly edit the sacred red box's text freely; you can even change the image. I already agree with many of your proposed changes. Saravask 02:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• K, will do. Was being extra cautious to try to avoid any more potential arguments; since that seems to be futile, I'll just return to editing whatever I feel I can improve, and anytime I make a mistake we can discuss it on the Talk page. Asking for approval every time with the less disputable edits takes up too much time and Talk-page-space anyway.

• Absolutely. It is agreed, then. Saravask 02:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, one more thing: I'd recommend a different image for the main page, if possible. The current one is acceptable, but a bit more blurry and dull than would be ideal. A more interesting or eye-catching image will attract many more readers to the page, and we have a nice crop of such images on our page currently, especially with the many fantastic additions you've recently brought in! -Silence 02:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• I've been looking (snooping) aroung WP:TFA to find what the requirements for the image are. I found that the vast majority of articles selected by User:Raul654 to appear on the main page (from the long list of nominations) have either PD or free use status. I could not find an example where a fair use image appeared in the TFA excerpt on the main page. So I swapped the lead image in the article (fair use) for the blue one (which is free use) in hopes that Raul654 would then approve. Again, I do not know if use of PD/free use image is a hard and fast rule for reception of a TFA appearance.
  

So that blue image you see now in the red box is a cropped version of one of the new free use Agencia Brasil images. I put it in the red box only because it is free use. If you have any better images in mind (appears you do), then by all means, do as the perennial construction crews always do at Cornell (get in there and improve it, even if it may cause disagreements). Saravask 02:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Preferrable images I can see include Image:Chavezbyv.jpg and Image:Chavez127928.jpeg, and maybe Image:HugoChavez1823.jpeg. How do the copyright statuses of these images differ from that of Image:Chavez CASA127994.jpeg? -Silence 03:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Terms in office

I think the term in office suggestions looks strange. In my opinion it should be modified to "February 2, 1999 – Present" instead of "February 2, 1999 – April 12, 2002, April 13, 2002 – Present". The 2002 coup was an absence of power, and Camona's government lasted only 48 hours. I think dividing it in two terms isn't appropriate.

Any suggestions? Enano275

I think this is a POV-charged issue. Chavez supporters allege that Carmona was not President (only a coup plotter), while opponents claim he was President (since he was sworn in). I think we should just look at the de facto situation (the verifiable facts on the ground) and put definitions/allegations/legality issues aside. In that case, Carmona was President, since he did wield the Venezuelan executive power while Chavez didn't. I think that is the most NPOV analysis, and that is why Carmona is listed as a Venezuelan president as well. We must only look at the fact that Chavez lost executive power to Carmona, no matter how briefly or how illegal Chavez or others declare that seizure to be. Other thought? Saravask 02:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration for User:TDC

Hi, you don’t know me but we have had contact with a mutual person, User:TDC.

I got your username from the Requests for comment/TDC-2[1] or the Requests for comment/TDC[2]

Currently there is arbitration pending on User:TDC. [3]

I welcome and encourage your comments on the arbitration page.Travb 01:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Er... are you trying to talk to Hugo Chavez? -Silence 02:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• No. I think God. ← Saravask – 15:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Early life of Hugo Chávez as an FA?

Considering how much work we've put into it, I think we should together get more recognition for our toil. I think we should nominate the Early life of Hugo Chávez immediately. Thoughts? ← Saravask — 12:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, what the hell. I nominated it for FAC. ← Saravask — 13:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Oh no! Shouldn't we finish this one and then take a holiday? (Kidding). Cheers. Anagnorisis 17:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oy. Impulsive, aren't we? Now we have to simultaneously work on adding Anagnorisis' above additions to the "Early life" article, meeting every objection raised on the FAC for that article, and finishing up some vital last-minute copyedits for Hugo Chávez before December 10th (in particular, I haven't even started copyediting anything in the last half-dozen sections)? :f Oh well, couldn't hurt, and might net some more interest from other editors in improving both that article and Chavez before it goes up on the main page. But next time, waiting until after the last-minute crunch for a major review of one of the most important and high-quality articles on Wikipedia (Chavez) would be nice too. x_x; Should be an interesting 10 days! -Silence 18:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also note that nominating the article right after Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. was probably a very bad idea, because it will lead to inevitable comparisons between the two articles, most of which will probably be to the detriment of our article:

• that article has 7 public domain images, whereas we have only a single image—and it's fair use! Of course, images aren't a requirement for an FAC, especially when they simply don't exist for the subject in question; but aesthetics is still extremely valuable for votes-gathering, from a purely psychological perspective. You'll find that there are dozens of Featured Articles out there which actually are quite lame from a prose perspective, but succeeded in their nominations because they looked sleek and professional. Our Chavez is an exception, of course, having both. :f
• that article has 39 distinct references and 5 in-depth and informative notes, whereas we only have 2 distinct "references", plus about another 8 mentioned in twenty-one very brief notes.
  • Well, let's see now ... Our sources are by credentialed and impartial academics. So now go take a second look at some of the titles of these so-called "references" that emerge from the other article. The vast majority emerge either from blatantly Mormon institutions (BYI) or else from Mormon journals and publications. I don't know now, but could this perhaps constitute a CONFLICT OF INTEREST??? Gee, it must be a rather simple matter then. GO join some sect with millions of members (such as Assemblies of God, gather up several DOZEN editions of the Pentecostal Evangel or Watchtower magazine — a VERY neutral and objective source, wouldn't you say — and hash together MY VERY OWN "objective" and "well-referenced" article on one or more of our heroic and glorious evangelical forefathers. Praise the Lord! ← SARAVASK — 03:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Where did I every say objective? Where did I ever say well-referenced? I wasn't talking about quality, I was talking about presentation. Going out of your way to compare your article to an article that easily beats you for looks and at least superficial depth and quality and comprehensiveness (and face it, people, including Wikipedians, are by nature superficial) is just asking for more criticism than we'd otherwise get. If we're going to go to the trouble of nominating an FA, why not do as much as possible to give it a good start, rather than stacking the odds against it? All I ask is to give the subject more than a half hour's thought next time. :P This time, though, I'm just interested in seeing how things turn out for this nomination. I've never seen an article quite like this try for FA, and if anyone could get it to succeed, you're the man, so it should be quite a show! -Silence 03:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• that article is almost twice as long as ours, even though it covers only 22 years, whereas ours covers 38 years. I'd expect possible objections on grounds of comprehensiveness, spurred by such comparisons more than by vital information that's really missing from our article.

• But, now that it's nominated, no reason not to see what happens next! Our article is awesome too, I just worry about whether this was the most strategic time to nominate the article. -Silence 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• "... The recently-nominated Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. does an excellent job at this..." See? With the very first comment, my prediction is confirmed. :) Comparisons! Getting an article FAd easily is 20% raw quality, 30% perserverence and dedication, and 40% presentation and strategy. If you're nominating something similar to something that's recently been nominated, make sure that (1) that article's doing very well, and more importantly, (2) that most comparisons between the two will be favorable toward your article, highlighting ways your nomination does things better than the other one. You probably just nominated it after seeing another "young life" so you could cite that one's nomination as justification for nominating your own "early life" article, as a sort of safeguard, but it's really not that simple. Getting lots of FAs takes careful timing and planning. (Of course, with your dedication, I wouldn't be surprised if you still manage to get "Early life" FAd. You seem to work best under heavy criticism, so good luck with meeting all the demands of becoming Featured. :)) -Silence 03:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some comments/questions:

• Is early life really the best of the daughter articles? Could we have tried another one first? Perhaps more interesting or more complete?
• I think one should select as candidate for FA an article that one already feels very comofrtable with it being a candidate. An article that one can then fully support and make changes that make sense as they are suggested.
• One should not put an article as candidate for FA as a way to force others to comment in the article, thus making oneself work harder on it to improve it. As it stands now, I would vote against, but I know that as changes are made then I would support it. I do prefer to start from a support stand ... but what the heck, what is done is done.
• Having said all that ... well, I guess we can find many more things on Chavez early life. But I am not sure how relevant many of those will be in order to paint an interesting life. Many things may just be your regular homey stuff.
• There are family pics of young Chavez around. But not sure about copyrights. But having been seen around so often, how does one find who holds the rights? I think actual owner may not even know how to say yes or no to their use -he may not even know he/she can say NO. Anagnorisis 21:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)