Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hugo Chávez/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Hugo Chávez

This is a "self nomination".
This article in question has undergone a 1st peer review accessible here. The article also underwent a 2nd peer review that is accessible here. Both reviews are now closed for comment, pending results from the present FAC. All comments and concerns in the first peer review were quickly and comprehensively acted upon.
As per my best judgment, the article hews to each FAC criterion. To all supporters and objectors, please remember to follow Wikipedia policy and list specific and falsifiable examples and rationale as to why this article is or is not FA calibre, so that comments may be speedily acted upon. In the case of objectors, as stated above:

"Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored".

Thank you in advance for all comments, especially if they be objections. The valid and detailed objections will be utilized to improve this article in preparation for an impending 2nd FAC. Saravask 06:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Saravask's accomplishments on the rough terrain of such a controversial subject, along with other exceedingly difficult and complex topics in contemporary Latin American politics, are surprisingly impressive. On such a topic, it's an uphill battle just managing to keep inaccurate or off-topic information out of the article, let alone produce something ready for FAC. Before Saravask became an editor, I never expected an article on such a contentious current political topic, where the pressure to avoid reversion wars and page protections usually trump efforts to reach FAC standards, to reach the level of quality in both content and perhaps more remarkably style that has been achieved on the Chavez article. 172 | Talk 07:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: this article cannot undergo FAC and peer review at the same time - this creates instability as comments come from everywhere. Which is the one which will continue?
This FAC will proceed. The brief 2nd peer review is hereby closed. Saravask 09:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support Astonishingly in-depth, well written, and the layout is good. I don't like it being justified, as the text becomes strangely spaced, particularly near the top, between the ToC and the picture to its right. The first time a year is mentioned, it should be wikified. For each of the sections that states 'For more details, read', the summaries could be a lot shorter, to reduce length (the 'Putative coup of 2004' and the 'Recall vote of 2004' sections are about the right length). Reference 57 is in a different format than the others. Fix those little quibbles and I'll strongly support. Proto t c 14:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have just removed the text justification. I have also converted reference 57 into the standard ref/cite footnote format. I will look to see how the sections you mentioned can be further shortened (they had already undergone a round of extensive shortenings before). As for your comment about wikification of years upon their first appearance, that practice is not endorsed by the Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers):
"If the date doesn't contain a day and a month, then date preferences won't work, and square brackets won't respond to your readers' auto-formatting preferences. So unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there's no need to link it."
"What should not be linked:
  • Plain English words.
  • Years, decades or centuries, unless they will clearly help the reader to understand the topic."
Thus, years need only be wikified when they appear with day and month, a practice which was followed in this article. Otherwise, thank you for the kind and detailed comments. Saravask 16:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite right. FAs in particular have lately been subject to a trend away from the linking of dates without specific purpose, which was never the intention when the date articles were created. Chick Bowen 19:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Support after my little quibbles were well dealt with, although an article being non-Western should not be the sole reason to support (as below). Fantastic article. Proto t c 09:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Excellent, non-western article Bwithh 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I offer you the warmest appreciations for your vote, Bwithh, but there is one problem. Could you offer one or more concrete reasons for your decision based on the contents of the article? It need not be extravagently detailed — maybe a sentence or two. It could deal with perceptions of layout, prose, images, or other areas. Thank you.Saravask 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking through other Featured Article candidacies, I now see that I was wrong to demand more detail from supporters (as opposed to the case with objectors). For example, see the Margaret Thatcher FAC, the Tamil language FAC, and the Order of Canada FAC (all three were successful and are now FAs). Bwithh's support appears valid according to established FAC precedents and norms. Apologies to all, Saravask 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Last time I checked, Venezuela was in the West anyway. --Jibbajabba 05:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak support (almost similar to weak objection). I find that the article is very informative in some areas but doesn't cover others well enough. It concentrates on the political life of Chavez. That by itself is not bad. However there is little we get to know about Chavez prior to him becoming president. My support would be stronger if either: 1) the article was more balanced between his life in general and his politics; this is more information about his early life, family, life in the military, etc. i.e. more about the man himself. 2) Change the name of the article. If the article was titled something like "Politics of Hugo Chavez" or "The Presidency of Hugo Chavez" or something else along these lines. On a separate note, any article should be able to stand on its own content to deserve being a FA -and not appeal to it being perhaps the first or second "something" (I do not remember what the claim was) article to be nominated. Still, a good article (much better than the Spanish one) , but not sure of it deserving yet being a FA. --Anagnorisis 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Further comment. Just as there are these two articles: Early life of Hugo Chávez and Life of Hugo Chávez (1975 – 1992) which expand in the areas that I find lacking (assuming the article is about the life of the man -as the title suggests), it may make sense renaming the article as in reality it is about the political life of Chavez. If the article was renamed to show that it is mostly about his political life, my support would change from weak to full support. --Anagnorisis 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anagnorisis is a respected contributor to the Hugo Chavez article. I respect his judgment on these things, and we work together well (see the archived Talk pages, for example).

Yes, the article is sadly tilted towards his political activities, which is unfortunate. However, I point people to the Margaret Thatcher article (which has FA status even though it is about 80% to 90% concerned with her political career). Or the Brian Close (which is also FA, even though it is almost exclusively concerned with his sporting career). Is this focus to be lamented? Yes and no. Yes because humans have many facets, which in ideal circumstances we would deign to give precisely equal treatment. And yet no, because we write about these figures because of their accomplishments or noteriety in this or that field (Chavez's field happens to be politics, Thatcher's politics as well, and Close's in sports (cricket)). That is to say, most people do not do a web search on, look up Chavez in Wikipedia, or by a book about Chavez in order to discover the tantalizing tidbits of his love life or learn of romantic intrigue in his bedchamber. Nor do they do so in an attempt to learn further about Chavez's baseball career. They do so to discover the details and origins of his political activities, which is the facet of his life that has the most profound impact on both Venezuelan society and the world. This is not true of Chavez's baseball career. We at Wikipedia must serve the motivating interests of the article's readers, and place that goal in front of the unrealistic ideal of equal treatment of political and personal lives. This is the reality evidenced in all FAs I have examined.

It is unfortunate that the Chavez article follows along the line established by the Thatcher and Close articles, but this is not sufficient justification for preventing FA status for this article. Both precedent (in terms of similar articles that have been granted FA status), image (in terms of why people are interested in the Chavez article), and reality (we do not have equal access to all aspects of Chavez's life) preclude equal treatment of all facets in the lives of Thatcher, Close, and Chavez. Saravask 22:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Weak Support. Comprehensively written, balanced and informative. However,the article is nearly three times the preferable size (over 80 kb). Oran e (t) (c) (@) 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Object. Support. Congratulations to Saravask on a great article and thanks to him for putting in the effort here to give it a nice final polish. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Many one-paragraph sections and subsections. Sections should contain at least two large paragraphs or three to four small ones (not that this article suffers from small paragraphs).

:::I kindly direct your attention to the Mahatma Gandhi article (which has featured article status). One paragraph sections in that FA article include "Mahatma Gandhi#Vegetarianism", "Mahatma Gandhi#Celibacy", "Mahatma Gandhi#Silence", among many others. And referring to the FA criteria, one-section paragraphs are NOT mentioned as a disqualifying criterion. If you wish to persist in this particular objection, please give me a concrete quote from a Wikipedia guideline that clearly precludes FAs from having one-paragraph sections. Saravask 23:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It falls under "Well-written" in WP:WIAFA. Not surprisingly, not every aspect of what makes something well-written is entirely enumerated; indeed; this would be impossible. It also falls under having "a proper system of heirarchical headings" - you do agree that there could be such a thing as an overly detailed collection of headings? My belief is that one-paragraph sections are an excellent indicator that you have an overly detailed collection of headings. Another way of looking at this is that the quality of the prose suffers if the headings themselves bear the brunt of the organizational burden: the article starts to resemble a Powerpoint presentation. Finally, the success or failure of a single FAC from nine months ago is fairly irrelevant here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Bunchofgrapes on the one-paragraph sections. I do not accept your WP:POINT about the Mahatma Gandhi articles justifying using one-paragraph sections other feature articles. A paragraph explains one idea. A section discusses one theme. If there is only one idea in the theme, then it is not a good theme to discuss. However, "Coup of 1992" definately has more than one idea and deserves expansion. One-paragraph subsections are less serious but still should be avoided. They are far more easily avoided because they should be part of the central section theme. Are the subsections really new themes? or are they simply separate ideas of the main section theme? --maclean25 07:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Notes list should be numbered, if for no other reason than to remain useful in hardcopy versions. Struck. Some of the note links are a little garbled now, but I trust it'll get worked out. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, please provide evidence (a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy/guideline page) that mandates the usage of numbered (as opposed to alphabetized) footnotes. On the other had, here is a direct quote from the Wikipedia:Cite sources policy page:

"=====Technical issues=====
Citations using numbered footnotes are controversial in Wikipedia for several reasons: (emphasis added) # The current MediaWiki software has limited footnote support. In particular, automatic numbering of footnotes conflicts with use of embedded HTML links in single square brackets, and the same footnote cannot be used multiple times with automatic numbering. In contrast, the software is currently quite sufficient to support the parenthetical author-date format (Harvard style) suggested above. # Many of today's style guides forbid or deprecate footnotes and reference endnotes when used simply to cite sources (Concordia Libraries). The APA style does not use footnotes to cite sources. The MLA style manual has deprecated reference footnotes and reference endnotes for decades in favor of in-line bibliographic references. # Footnotes are normally simply numbered numerically. Thus, determining who said what typically requires a reader to continually jump back and forth between the main body and the footnote/endnote to see if there is something of value. When footnotes are simply providing a much more detailed argument, this is often not a problem, but if the footnotes are the primary citation method, this can be critical (since it is sometimes important to keep track of who claims what)." Again, if you cannot furnish a direct quote from a Wikipedia policy page that mandates numbered footnotes in featured articles, then this criticism will be necessarily ignored. Saravask 23:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are already using numbered note links in the text, so most of those rationales do not apply. It is very reasonable to suggest that those numbers should correspond with a numbered list of Notes. Our best work should be usable in hard-copy form. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Too many fair-use images, most of which offer only different-angle views of the subject. From WP:FU, "the amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible."
—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I have cut down the number fo fair use images to exactly one. Its usage rationale is abundantly explained. Regards, Saravask 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Most of the images in Template:Bolivarian Missions Infobox have a fair-use rationale; WP:FU says fair-use images "should never be used on templates (including stub templates and navigation boxes)" (emphasis in original).
I have quickly switched the template to one that uses no images whatsoever. I appreciate the advice. Saravask 00:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Image:Logo-VeneDeTodos Fondo Blan.jpg is still in the template; still fair-use. Thanks for addressing these issues; I'll strike my image objections now under the assumption you'll take care of that one. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. Thank you for responding quickly. Saravask 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support the authors have done a great job coordinating this and the daughter articles to produce a comprehensive and engaging biography. The aricle without notes in only 49kb which is not too big.--nixie 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am currently in the middle of matching the footnote numbering to inline cite numbering, as suggested by Bunchofgrapes. Observers can expect it to be completed within several hours. Thanks for the input. I have also removed or commented out many of the sub-headings disliked by Bunchofgrapes. Unless I hear otherwise, I will be removing more of them. Saravask 01:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

::I am currently using the Canberra article as a model for the numbering, since is uses the {{note_label|reference|number|a}} format for duplicate referals to the same resource. I just discovered that the footnote numbering does not match the inline cite number (this was the desire of Bunchesofgrapes, so that hard copies will allow readers to link inline numbering in the body to the numbering in the footnotes. That is to say, the Canberra article does not meet Bunchesofgrapes criterion. Therefore, I will need to just go for straight duplication, hopefully minimizing the information listed to reduce space. Saravask 02:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Er, unless you found a broken note in Canberra, all the inline numbers correspond to the correct numbered reference in the list.--nixie 02:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I see. The problem is that my display shows the footnotes near the end of the article, and so when I click on an inline cite number, the window cannot advance far enough down to center on the same numbered footnote. Thanks. So I'll try to introduce that system again. Saravask 03:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, see below. Object. Fantastic article, but... I'll be back with more as I can find the time, but I'd be interested to hear first what other people think of a problem I see straight away, with the "main articles" referred to, such as Presidency of Hugo Chávez. They're not merely linked from Hugo Chávez, but explicitly referred to as the places to go for more detail, so I do think they're pertinent to FA status for this one. I don't mean they need to be perfect, or FA quality, on their own, but IMO they have to be reasonably complete and independent articles (as opposed to being "subpages"). They're of very varying quality, and the longest, Presidency of Hugo Chávez, gives the impression of being a raw dump from an earlier version of Hugo Chávez, and can't stand on its own by any means. It has 30 note superscripts in the text but no notes at the foot of the page, no reference section or external links, nothing—the text just stops, just as at the beginning, it just starts (it's hardly fair, or communicative, to use for instance a word like Puntofijismo in the first sentence, with neither explanation nor wikilink). No Lead section, no pointer back to the Hugo Chávez article; a reader coming on Presidency of Hugo Chávez has no way of knowing that it's subordinated to a "hub" article, thus does not know where to look for the 30 footnotes, etc. P.S., returning to Hugo Chávez: the footnote section needs to be in the same order as the note numbers in the text, not arranged alphabetically. I see just now that you respond to this above, and hope that it's become clear that the quotes from MoS aren't relevant (since your notes are numbered). If there are problems remaining in this area, I may be able to help with the footnotery, but not in the next few days, I'm afraid. Bishonen | talk 02:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns are appreciated. The contents of the Presidency of Hugo Chávez have been deleted and the link to it from the main article (Hugo Chavez) has been removed, since the are merely a collection of information from the other daughter articles. Take a look at the other daughter articles, and I believe you will find that the only "problem" articles remaining are the Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez (slight reorganization needed) and the Media representation of Hugo Chávez (which simply needs headings. I will take care of both of these by tomorrow. Also, the matching of the note numberings is still in progress. Cheers. Saravask 02:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I just finished with the footnote numbering. Please check it out and reevaluate your statements as necessary. Saravask 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have tested all the footnotes to see if each links to a matching number correct counterpart. All of them are in the correct format and are no longer garbled. When one clicks on an inline cite, it takes them to the appropriate matching number footnote. Saravask 04:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I tend to think that due to both, Saravask's response to the feedback given here, and to his own good judgement, he will make the changes to the article that will prompt me to change my opinion and give it full support for FA status. Keep up the good work Saravask. --Anagnorisis 05:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment All the daughter articles have been thoroughly refurbished, and are in their present form presentable as articles attached to an FA main article. Please investigate them and revise your votes/comments accordingly. Regards, Saravask 06:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would expand a bit the section on Foreign policy. It is a bit short. And for Chavez his foreign policy is becoming a great part of his recent efforts. The daughter article has some good info that may not hurt having it also in the main one. Some of the anecdotes are telling of Chavez and could add flavor to illustrating his style (like his comments about Bush and Condy, and about Katrina). By the way, I noticed that the comments about Condolezza were not described in detail. Was that on purpose? If not, and you do not have the details about what he said about her, let me know and I will pass them to you. On another topic, I have read the comments about the notes, and though I do not know for sure what to suggest, they look a bit .... like too much. I think they may be better placed also at the bottom; afterall some of the other links may interest the readers more than the notes. I would follow the order of other featured articles: References (with 'See also' between References and the next section, and not before 'References'), External links and then Notes (just checked today's FA for an example). Not so sure of what I am saying last making sense, but maybe worth checking. --Anagnorisis 08:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Will do, Anagnorisis. I'm working on adding rebuilding the "Foreign policy" section right now. And yes, please give details about the Condie remarks (I've never heard of them before in my life). As for the location of the footnotes, when anyone clicks on the inline citation numbers, the browser is supposed to move down and center on the corresponding footnote. This doesn't work if the footnotes are at the very bottom. That's why I had to move them back up. Sorry. Thanks. Regards, Saravask 08:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I actually did move the "Notes" section down to the bottom, because what you said makes sense. In addition, since the notes are now numbered, we do not need to rely on the browser hypertext alignment to match footnotes with inline cites. I expanded the foreign policy section by two- or three-fold. I did a web search of the "vulgar sexual innuendo" that Chavez aimed at Condoleeza Rice. I found two sources, which I put in. I could not find a direct quote, however. I will see about transferring the material about his response to Hurricane Katrina. As there is now only one objection (whose sole remaining concern I've just addressed), it seems that less changes will be made, and I can address Anagnorisis's concerns more fully. Saravask 11:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment It is done. All single paragraph sections have either been built up, merged with other topics. or eliminated. I would wish that this finishes Bunchesofgrapes last point of objection. In addition, all daughter articles have been refurbished and are now presentable, as requested by Bishonen, meeting the requirements for finishing her objection. Regards, Saravask 09:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt fixes to the daughters and the footnotes, I'll be striking out those concerns above and changing my vote to Support. I disagree with your expressions of regret above about the article being so focused on Chávez' political life, and even more with the suggestion that it needs to be renamed on that account: a biographical article should focus on the aspect that makes the subject deserve a biographical article in the first place. This is also practice. I congratulate you on the job building up/merging the sections, it's just what I was about to suggest. Only there is no keeping up with you, bah! ;-) Bishonen | talk 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It's so fascinating. Anagnorisis and I were talking about this issue off this talk page, and we both came to agree that the article should absolutely include more personal information. I'm sorry if I came off above as saying that there should absolutely not be more personal material here (I think there should be). I was just asking him whether I could include the anecdotes from Chavez interviews about Chavez's closeness to his grandmother, his continued passion for baseball, etc. But the majority of this material comes out of his mouth, and I was wondering whether it would be encyclopedic to include such stories as hard facts. Is it real feeling or propaganda? Are there more reliable sources out there than Chavez himself? All of the biographies and books on him deal almost exclusively with his politics, to the point that they barely mention his children or even when they were born! This is a big problem. Saravask 10:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Marvelous and exhaustive! *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 14:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Fantastic. I'm not sure I've ever seen that many references. Unfortunately it reduces readability somewhat, but eh, who cares—an article this well researched deserves to be featured! --Spangineeres (háblame) 05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


Saravask, I found good "sources" for the speech where Chavez made fun of Condoleezza Rice suggesting she needed a man and that him (Chavez) was willing to give "it" to her. It was on January 23, 2005. He joked a lot about all kind of things addressed at her; many of a sexual nature Here is the link to where you can find the speech (it is from the Ministry of Information itself!): http://www.minci.gov.ve/alocuciones1.asp?id=251 You have to download the Word.doc file at the bottom. In case you do not speak Spanish, for a translation of the relevant parts you can go here: http://www.vcrisis.com/print.php?content=letters/200502071648 By the way, you are making progress fast making the article a very good one. You are very close to getting my full support fot it being FA. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 21:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

More comments. Saravask, I hope you do not mind making comment after comment. Here is another suggestion: perhaps mention the terms 'Chavismo' or 'Chavista' in the Bolivarianism section. It may be interesting to mention that while Chavez talks a lot about Bolivarianism, most of the country (both supporters and opponents) talk about being (or not) Chavista and about supporting (or not) Chavismo. People locally identify the idiology and policies more with Chavez than with Bolivar. Thus the names used. But up to you. A side note that it is not relevant to this discussion, but thinking about Chavez .... I would wonder what he would say regarding Manuel Piar, a great General of the independence war (and the only mestizo general at the time) who was ordered shot by Bolivar because he tried to get a movement going against Bolivar's all-white leadership. Piar wanted more for the mestizos (just like Chavez) and criticized the upper classes (just like Chavez). Somehow, Chavez reading of Bolivar's thinking is very selective. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good advice. I just added the material about "chavismo" vs. "Bolivarianism". Of course, as you said, I cannot add the material about Bolivar's racism. Thanks. Saravask 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — As suggested by nixie, I put in several instances of the note_label and ref_label footnote templates in order to avoid listing duplicates of the same reference source. Also, I will be importing some images from the Wikipedia Commons. These new images will not be fair use; instead they will be ones where the copyright owner allows usage for any purpose (Agencia Brasil photos). If there are concerns about this, please let me know. Thank you. Saravask 01:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just added the quotes and material offered by Anagnorisis about Chavez's sexist/sexual innuendo towards Rice. I also merged the "early life" and "life between 1975 and 1992" sections, as suggested by Petaholmes. Saravask 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Full support. I am changing my views on this article. From a weak objection, I am moving now to full support. Changes have been made that have greatly improved the article. I believe now that it is deserving of being FA. One more comment though: I do not like two pictures so alike. If we are to have two different pictures, they should be different. i.e. showing two different traits of his persona. Perhaps one would have him dressed informally surrounded by the people -showing him as one more among his people; and the other one dressed formally with some other president, or at the UN, or something that would show him as a 'wordly' leader. Good job Saravask! BTW, did you get the additional info that I sent you? --Anagnorisis 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, yes. Thank you for the emailed information. I added select pieces of the remark, and I just removed the new Wikipedia Commons picture. I'll find another one. Regards, Saravask 04:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. That was wrong of me to state on the Hugo Chavez talk page that this FAC was part of an attempt to get the first article treating a Latin American individual an FA status. That was just a side comment, and was never my motivating intention. Indeed, I'm not even Latino/Hispanic and have never been to Latin America or Venezuela; rather, I'm Asian instead. I agree with Anagnorisis above when he stated that this article should stand and fall on its own merits, and not rely on the potential novelty of its being the first FA article to be in this or that category. Saravask 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This may be nitpicky to the highest degree, but isn't there a better photo of Chavez to put on the lead? He's clapping, for crying out loud! I mean, surely as president there would exist official government photos (you know, the stuff they hang on government buildings) that are public domain? Borisblue 08:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I used Google's image search multiple times to try and find such images — I haven't found any. A long while ago, I uploaded the image Image:Chavezbyv.jpg, showing Chavez speaking at the UN in September. After you posted your comment, I switched the lead image to the Image:Chavezbyv.jpg image. The site I found it at stated that they allow free use so long as they are given credit. Yet just now, I found an exact duplicate of this picture at the official website of the 2005 UN World Summit — thus I now unfortunately have reason to doubt that "Biografias y Vidas" (where I originally got the image from) really are the ones who took that image (and thus reason to doubt that they hold the copyright). The UN's image use policy explicitly states that republication of their images is NOT allowed, so I had no choice but to switch back to the fair use image (the one with Chavez in the red shirt). If anyone can help get a better image than this, please be my guest. Regards, Saravask 09:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

--Anagnorisis 16:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This one looks good. Venuzuelan govt photos ARE pd, right? Borisblue 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. That is exactly the same -and even from the same link- as one of those above. --Anagnorisis 17:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the new image, Borisblue. Regards, Saravask 22:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Borisblue, I just looked up the Venezuelan government webpage. A direct quote: "© Copyright 2004 C.N.T.I. Todos los derechos reservados." No free use has been granted, and thus the image you provided is most certainly not PD. In addition, the image you provided does not have nearly the level the resolution we need from a lead image (I tried increasing the size, but only got an extremely ugly and pixelated portrait). I have no choice but to restore the old image. Now that I think about it, I don't see why you are so concerned about his informal dress &mdash unlike most other heads of state, this IS how he dresses most of the time (in a distinctive red shirt), while he is carrying out his presidential duties. His red shirt is EMBLEMATIC of Chavez, just like Che Guevara's beret and chiffon scarf tied ascot-style is emblematic of him, or Napoleon's (or, later, Karensky's) pertly tucked arm is emblematic of him. Chavez in his informal red shirt is the most defining, characteristic, and representative image available on him, and tells us the most about his style of governance and his behavior. He wears a red shirt to on his talk show, at rallies, at conferences, etc., etc., etc. Chavez in a suit is a much rarer sight. I am thus changing the lead back to the old version. Regards, Saravask 22:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Too many pics now. And a few of them do not add anything to what the others show already. One is a pic of the back of Chavez! I do not see the point of that one. The one at the bottom is of poor quality and similar to others shown. I do not see anything wrong with showing a pic of Chavez looking like a stateman; afterall he is a president and conducts a lot of business in suit and tie. His red shirt thing is for his TV program on Sundays and for when he goes visit los barrios. But he never meets ambassadors or other heads of state or foreign bussinesmen with the red shirt. So many pics that are all in the same style make the article look as if being one promoting his cult. The intention of a pic is to convey some flavor, color or information the words cannot. Article should be fine with few pics which are all very different.--Anagnorisis 01:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing with the images is giving me a big headache. So many people are saying different things. Just now, someone started adding fair use images again, right after I had to delete them because of an objection to the FAC (there were too many fair use images to begin with). I trust your judgment, since you are Venezeulan and I am not. Could you please handle the images and change/delete whatever images you feel necessary? I only know about his life, and I suppose not so much about how he dresses (I've only seen a few episodes of Alo, Presidente! for example). Most of the images are from the Wikipedia Commons, meaning that there are no restrictions on their use. I would think that most of those should be kept, as they show Chavez shmoozing with other heads of state. I also think that there should be at least one picture of Chavez interacting with a crowd, speaking at a lecture, etc., since that is a large part of his presidency. But then again, maybe you know more about these things. Regards, Saravask 02:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think we should just have a vote on the image issues (including which picture should be the lead image). Let me know what you think. Saravask 02:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment as long as the images are free, I'm not fussy. I could see the arguments for a more formal depiction in the lead, I suppose. I don't think there are too many pictures - it's a long article; they break it up. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I still feel, if at all possible the picture in the lead should be the official government photo. He IS a leader of a country after all. Borisblue 04:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect then, with Bunchofgrapes together, that my desire for the red-shirt picture is out of the question, and that we need a more formal picture. Anagnorisis stated that we should use the UN image, since he stated that that site says somewhere that, as long as one does not use images for advertising, using their images is fine. So I switched out the lead image to use the UN image. But we cannot use this image permanently, since this image is not PD. So I ask people to put below free images (with verifiable documentation that they are free) below, and people will vote for them accordingly. Saravask 06:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I say, take out both yellow shirt pics and replace them with the red one you had before on top. Anyway, the article is fine. The pictures as long as you don't get them 'really' wrong, should not make it or break it. --Anagnorisis 07:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed both red-shirted pictures (one of which was fair use) yellow-shirted pictures, as suggested by Anagnorisis. Still, I think we should have a vote, since I wouldn't exactly say that the UN picture qualifies as free use (since it cannot be used in advertizing). Is this correct? Saravask 07:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think a vote is the best way of resolving this, please see Don't vote on everything. It's time to cut this Gordian knot. Saravask, my suggestion is that you use your best judgment as informed by the arguments that have been made here. Then see if anybody reverts you. Bishonen | talk 07:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Aye aye. Agree. --Anagnorisis 08:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Image:Chavez bandera.jpg
  • Comment. I really hope you guys like this one. It took me hours to find, but I did find "the one". Let me know what you think. Saravask 12:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Good one. Go ahead. --Anagnorisis 16:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to re-object as it stands now - the new, fair-use, image is in Template:ChavezInputs. As per (way) above, fair-use images should never be used in templates. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Heh, I was just going to get off my lazy *ss and stick the template contents into the article, but it looks like Saravask got there first. :-) Looks good. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I inserted the contents of template:ChavezInputs and placed them directly (together with the call to the image) into the Hugo Chavez article itself. I also blanked the contents of template:ChavezInputs. There are no image calls in any templates now. Saravask 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Eh... Not too spry right now myself. But I was wondering if an administrator could help speedy delete the ChavezInputs template since it is not being used anywhere else (it is an "orphan" template). Perhaps because it was edited by others, it cannot be, though. Thanks anyway. Saravask 17:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

  • Comment.I just put in a paragraph on it in the "Foreign policy of Hugo Chavez" article, and will wait until major consequences actually ensue before making the minor updates necessary to the main article. Hope this helps. Also, this page should be used only to talk about the FAC and people's support/objection to it. It should not be used to talk about article updates. Comments on article updating should be pasted onto the Hugo Chaevz talk page. But still, thanks. Regards, Saravask 17:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • After all, this is already (if not itself the longest) among the longest peer reviews at least I have seen. It is physically impossible to make this review any longer. And this comment I'm making now certainly does not appear to be helping the situation ... Saravask 17:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, lets get on with it. What else is needed to move this along? --Anagnorisis 17:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work. This article has come so far. The only thing that makes me nervous is that this FA will require constant, constant vigilance, both from vandals and because Chavez is in the news every day. But those are no reasons not to show off the best of what Wikipedia can be. DanKeshet 17:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. With so many days past and having changed views a couple of times, I wanted to make sure my support now is clear. --Anagnorisis 03:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this FAC opened the page has had well over 500 edits. Considering the subject is still a president of a country, and in international news, it probably isn't the most stable article out there. The article is not balanced well between Hugo the President and Hugo the Man. There are two section headings without any text or explanation for their existence. Sections are supposed to discuss themes. If the section acts as a collection of sub-themes that combine for one major theme (like the impact of the Chávez presidency as a major theme and various policies being sub-themes that combine to illustrate the impact) then summarize what the reader will learn after reading the following subsections as an intro under the major heading so the reader knows what what to look out for (ie. evidence of the conclusion summarized in the intro). That is to say, keep the subsections and all that but give the reader a hint about what the common theme will be (expand the title of the section into a couple of sentences). Regardless, I support this for as FA because it is an excellent and comprehensive article. --maclean25 08:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, maclean25. I really do appreciate this advice. I just added one such summary/overview paragraph for the "Presidency ..." section, and am planning to add another muy pronto. I have enjoyed reading through all voters' and commentors' suggestions and feedback. It was a true pleasure. Again, my regards. Saravask 10:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I just gave Anagnorisis a comment on his talk page about my purchase of a Chavez biography. I expect that this book also will be heavily biased towards Chavez's political life, but what personal details about his adultery, coup plotting motivations, personal tastes and habits, etc. that I can glean from it, we (the main contributors) behind this article will add within a few days. Thanks again, maclean25. Again, you are absolutely correct. Regards, Saravask 11:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. I know it, and I suspect it now. As soon as I say this publicly, there will be a flurry of edits to prove me wrong and make us (main contributors) look absolutely ridiculous. But here it is: when we are not contributing and editing to address comments in the FAC, the article really is remarkably stable. There have been no POV-based edit wars or daily acts of mass vandalism. Usually, only one or two vandalisms a week have occurred over the past two months, and among those, most are simply "stupid edits" where a few words are added or an image is changed. The most heated discussion and argumentation has occurred over such outrageously controversial issues as superscripting of ordinal numbers and whether the TOC should be left-floated. For such a controversial (and non-standard) subject, this is truly rather interesting. And just as another notable fact, this article is, as of 17 Nov 2005, the 65th most edited article with 2618 edits (two more than Albert Einstein). Saravask 11:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oops, amid all the discussion I totally forgot to support Borisblue 18:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. This is one of the very best articles I have ever read in my time on Wikipedia. It concerns me somewhat that parts of the article may have a slight pro-Chavez slant, but certainly not strong enough to object. Ambi 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind complements and the advice about pro-Chavez slant. If you could just point out the problem sections, we could fix them immediately. I'm sure that Anagnorisis (who is sternly anti-Chavez and has contributed regularly to this article) wouldn't mind giving those sections another read-through in order to correct slant. Thanks again. Saravask 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. A new record for amount of footnotes if I'm not mistaken, and completely over the top. Prose, not footnotes, should be used to establish the uncontroversial, or (painfully) obvious. Notes should only be used to explain rather obscure or very controversial (real world-controversial, not Wikipedia-controversial) statements. Here are some examples of over-usage of notes just from the lead paragraphs (a full list would include at least half the notes):
    • 1. A source confirming that he is the 53rd president. This is about as useful as footnoting that his name is Chávez and that he is, indeed, the president of Colombia (rather than Burma or St. Vincent and the Grenadines).
What appears at cursory first glance "uncontroversial" or "(painfully) obvious" for a Swede — who comes from a land where one head of state always calmly succeeds another, with no coups or dictators — who is unfamiliar with Venezuela's bizarre and tumultuous political history is most certainly controversial among those more familiar with Venezuelan political history. Venezuela has had many, many dictators, coup plotters, and tyrants seize control from democratically-elected leaders. At times, Venezuela has had two sitting presidents in office simultaneously, while at other times revolution and war meant that de facto presidents were not to be found. Often, "puppet" presidents have served at that behest of de facto dictators, who held real power ...
There is right now by no means universal agreement even on how many presidents Venezuela has had! Official and many academic sources (such as the one the footnote in question links to) say that Chavez's second term is the 53rd. Other non-official sources and lists state that he is 61st. Thus there is heated disagreement about what number president Chavez is (which refutes your point), and a footnote is most definitely needed. An example of such controversy I have linked here (in Spanish) or here (in English). If you take the time to read these, you will see how different Venezuelan history is from Swedish history.
Just one reason why the ordering is subject to dispute: some lists claim that Pedro Carmona was a president of Venezuela, while others (including official sources) deny that his two-day rule as president counts. In addition, some lists count consecutive terms by the same president as different terms, while others count them as different (following the American system of presidential ordering). The first system gives 53, while the second gives (counting Carmona and other skipped presidents) 61. If this is not controversy that merits a footnote, I do not know what else would be ... Saravask 03:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 2. This is supposed to be a summary of the article content. Why would it need a separate note at all? Hardly controversial and not even remotely obscure.
"Hardly controverisal" ... right. Footnote two establishes why the first paragraph is phrased as it is. Wouldn't you say that different people have different dictionary definitions of a political figure of such polemical import as Chavez? Why were the terms "democratic socialist" and "anti-imperialism" chosen and not other aspects of Chavez's rule? It is because of the material in the footnote that those decisions were made. The footnote also concretely links Chavez to these philosophies,and establish them as keystone and guiding ideologies that underlie Chavez's domestic politics, his international diplomacy, etc. Again, I really do appreciate your comments, and anticipate your responses. Regards, Saravask 03:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 5, 6, 7. That's three' notes for one snippet of a sub-clause. Not even a full sentence. All seem to explain merely the extremely uncontroversial "...and survived the 2004 recall referendum..."
You apparently are not familiar with the extremely bitter dispute surrounding the referendum. Anti-Chavez organization such as Sumate, some international media outlets, and others continue to dispute the outcome of that referendum — to the extent that anti_Chavez activists actually convinced the Carter Center (who vetted and approved the recall referendum initially) to do yet *another* audit of the election. The results confirmed the Carter Center's initial findings. Yet to this day allegations of mass electoral fruad during those elections (most notably that the Carter Center what somehow "duped" by incredibly slick machinations on the part of Venezuela's national electoral authorities) continue to be levelled. Based on this dispute, we can say then that the results of the 2004 referendum is most certainly a disputed fact that demands a footnote to settle the matter. Just because there may be no one in Sweden calling fruad on this event does not imply that there are not millions of Venezuelans who do dispute this, including Sumate. Saravask 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 8, 9, 10. Same as above.
Again, same deal as above, with the 2004 elections. Your relative ignorance of Venezuelan political discourse (as exhibited above) do not necessarily translate into objective and valid objections. Regards, Saravask 04:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • 12. A note that establishes what high school he went to; pedantic, to say the least.
Right. Let me point out that the footnote is not exclusively dedicated to establishing which high school he went to, but rather establishes authoritative sourcing for the material in the preceding several few sentences. Thus, I did not label each single fact with its own footnote — I only listed on footnote for a group of several sentences when most or all the material therein originated from that source. "Pedantic"? Try "well-sourced" and "referenced". Regards, Saravask 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Several footnotes also cross-reference to several statements in an extremely confusing manner. 11 points to no fewer than five seperate passages. It's a confusing jumble of references and really doesn't serve to make the article more verifiable, but rather less so.
This is precisely the multilinking style used in the Canberra featured article. This present note_label and ref_label usage format was suggested by User:Petaholmes. It seems, due to precedence (usage in many other FAs), to be a perfectly acceptable setup. Regards, Saravask 03:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
And for goodness sake, think about article size! 88 kB is not summary style, which is one of the requirements of the FA criteria, and is over the top for any biography, even one of a major politican. Even excluding the huge note section it's at 68 kB. This is, to say the least, daunting even to the most patient of readers.
Peter Isotalo 02:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This is, needless to say, a vague claim. Unless you can provide a concrete quote from WP:WIAFA delimiting some putative "maximum" size that an FA can be, your point here is absolutely inactionable. WP:WIAFA only mentions that an FA must be of "appropriate length" — it does not state explicitly that 88kb disqualifies this article from reception of FA status. In addition, "appropriate length" is most certainly different depending on the topic treated. For example, a treatment of shoe polish probably need not be as long as 90 kb, while a topic as massive as Hugo Chavez (with a plethora of daughter articles linked before appropriate summarizations of subtopics) will most definitely need to be considerably longer in order to meet another FA criterion: that it be "comprehensive", which "means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details". Saravask 03:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Again, let me sumarize the above response: unless you can kindly point out details in the article that constitutes extensive tangential material that contains few or no necessary "major facts or details" (the presence of which would concretely establish this article as "excessive" in length), your comment is patently inactionable. That is to say, please point to the material that you believe to be superfluous, and furnish the appropriate sourced explanation for why you label it so. Then you will possess some semblence of a concrete argument to underlie your allegation that this article size is "huge" and "over the top". Regards, Saravask 04:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm tempted to make a dangerous blanket claim: the more sourcing footnotes, the better. They are footnotes. You don't have to read them. But if you are trying to verify an article's information for accuracy and sourcing, the more the better. One of the biggest complaints against Wikipedia is "how can you trust it?" This carefully-sourced article is a model of how you can. In short, I think objecting due to "too many footnotes" is downright harmful to Wikipedia. On the other hand, I think your objection due to length isn't entirely without merit. I and many others thought it didn't harm this article, but it's a reasonable point of view to take. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. The subject of article size has been a point of raucous (but also amicable) debate between User:Anagnorisis and I. Anagnorisis has, after many debates and good arguments put forth on his part, rightfully deleted vast amounts of tangential material and material that is better left for one of the daughter articles to explain. I myself have been active in summarization. For example, the lead was once five very large paragraphs — yet now it has been reduced to around 250 words. Similar well-considered and debated shortenings have occurred throughtout the articles. It is not as if the article's contents were sloppily thrown together overnight, without any regards to flow or historical narrative. I can assure everyone that the presence of each and every paragraph and topic has been scrupulously evaluated, and it was determined that all of them furnish important materials. In addition, see nixie/Petaholmes's comments (way above) about the article's size. The actual body of the text (not including footnotes) more like 60-65 kilobytes, a figure which could hardly be labelled as freakishly large among comparable FAs. My regards, Saravask 03:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. One final note on the article's "huge" size: when the references and notes sections are removed, the article is 63 kilobytes long. For comparison with current featured articles:
    • Noam Chomsky — currently 83 kilobytes long (with very few references).
    • Tony Blair — currently 63 kilobytes long (again, with very few references).
    • Mahatma Gandhi — currently 84 kilobytes long. Again, this article has very few references. Thus the actual text (main body, excluding references, footnotes, etc) is almost 20 kilobytes longer than the Hugo Chavez article's non-reference main text as is stands now.
I'm not going to accept one type of transgression just because there are (a few) examples of others available. The solution is obviously to try to fix those articles as well, not to accept even more articles to get bloated. As for Saravask's counter-objections, I don't find them satisfying in the least. They're at best nitpicky and at worst harshly polemic and uncivil. And I can't agree with Bunchofgrape's comments about "more footnotes is better" and that trying to keep the amount of footnotes and references down would be harmful. The more references you have, especially the bewildering type of multiple cross-referencing used in this case, the harder it is to dig up the information you actually want. Redundant referencing is not a good thing in an encyclopedia. We're supposed to be writing summaries, not academic papers. The footnotes break up the text quite seriously, and if you claim that they really should be ignored for the most part, then I question the motivation for keeping them in the first place.
And, please, please, please stop trying to haggle and juggle bytes when discussing article size. There's really only one figure that's really relevant here, and that's the total byte count. There's no point in trying to subtract one section or another, especially when the result still is a whopping 60 kB+. It's just a huge text by any standard. Try printing it out for a sense of scale.
Peter Isotalo 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Comment. Silence has *finally* come on board in order to make some slight refinements and tweaks on the current article as preparatory work. Please, if anyone has any gentle input to offer for his efforts, it would be greatly appreciated. My warmest regards, Saravask 12:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Another small request. We were having a discussion about a confusing issue concerning Chavez's birth. I was suggesting that he was certainly born in Sabaneta (which is what the official biographies state) and that he continuously dwelt in or near there. However, please read through the following discussion:
"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).

It seems then that we have a strange problem in how to explain this, in that none of the sources state what this "outside-of-Sabaneta" area is called. I'd appreciate help from others good in crafting sentences that juggle around such strange issues, since neither of us can figure it out. Regards, Saravask 12:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. I just saw another very good point regarding this process and its possible impact on future user contributions. Enjoy. Regards, Saravask 12:51, 18 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)"
    • I must say that I am in complete agreement. I have noticed that since we've started editing, the number of non-primary editors has more and more declined as the article has (IMHO) steadily improved. Please, everyone is absolutely welcome to come and contribute what they need to. Anagnorisis is, once again, a source of impeccable logic and tenacious calm. Truly, cheers to that. Saravask 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. High-quality, well-researched article that meets every requirement for FAC. How long it is or how many kb it has is irrelevant if it is a better article longer than shorter (and I've seen no evidence that it isn't); it's already heavily summarized and expanded-on in distinct articles. Thoroughness is a good thing, not a bad thing. Plenty of successful Featured Articles have been as long or longer, like History of Poland (1945–1989); what matters most is what would serve the specific article and its subject matter best, not trying to enforce an arbitrary size limit on every article in existence regardless of the article's content. -Silence 16:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Support Great article. - FrancisTyers 16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)