Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Hugo Chávez. 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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 30, 2006 and June 15, 2006.

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

I think that the redistribution of powers made by the Constitutional Assembly should be shown. Before the constitunte, Venezuela had only 3 powers. I am almost sure that the word power would be the equivalent to the branches in other countries. The 3 powers were: Exectutive - President and ministers, Judicial - courts, judges, etc, and Legislative - National Congress. The constituyente added to new powers: Morale - Attorney General + Public Defender + Procurator General, and Electoral - National Electoral Council (CNE in Spanish). Also, besides the name of the country, any institution names were changed: National Court of Justice to Highest Tribunal of Justice, Supreme Electoral Council to National Electoral Council (CNE), National Congress to National Assembly.--Ozzyprv 05:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering if it should be added to a constitutional change page, that or be more concise in just detailing the increase of branches from 3 to 5 we are still trying to trim the article.SuperFlanker 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with SuperFlanker: while we're trying to trim down the article, new information should be added in the appropriate place -- this article should deal more tightly with Chavez the person, not the new constituion per se, which can be addressed elsewhere. Again, the article is so long that editing it, and following diffs, is time consuming. Sandy 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur. I just wanted the changes to be captured in the appropriate place. I see what I can do to group that inforation under a different page. Thank you for the comments.--Ozzyprv 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not reinsert my comment about the change of the country name to República Bolivariana de Venezuela in this section of the article. But if it is not there, the comment within 2002-2004 time period about Carmona reverting Venezuela's official name to República de Venezuela does not have much sense.--Ozzyprv 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Ozzy ... until the entire thing is addressed, maybe it needs to be added back in? A daughter article on everything Chavez did to change Venezuela's constitution and democracy is needed. Sandy 14:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Ozzy, have you looked at Constitution of Venezuela? I'm not sure if it covers the points: the whole series of Venezuelan articles really need some consolidation. (For example, I just can't understand why each Venezuela article has THREE different templates, which all summarize pretty much the same information, and some have three different presidential templates ... <sigh> ... ) ... anyway, not sure if you can include your points in this article, and link to it? Sandy 17:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since there is considerable duplication in the article I propose two ways to trim it further merging the chronology and the topics.

Chronology Parent: Here the article will be divided into years as is but everything would be included inside, for every statement there would be a counter-statement that can be substantiated.

Topic parent: The article would be divided such as political impact and only relevant events would be referenced chronologically and only updated statistics (ie. whole term statistics) and recent trends (last year's improvement or worsening) would be included.

Obviously the leafs would not get a title themselves, for examples imagine the current article itself split in half. also a vote to confirm/oppose and which style is prefered would be appreciated.SuperFlanker 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to vote before I catch a plane, but I can't understand what you're proposing. As far as referenced statements, the entire article needs to be re-referenced with reliable sources (notice the heavy emphasis on Venezuelaanlysis in the references). Sandy 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Meaning that either the section Presidency 1999-present would be removed and incorporated into political impact or that these would be removed and just the Presidency 1999-present would remain. Venanalysis is a good source for a lot of stuff that is in english, of course it is one sided. SuperFlanker 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are saying either merge Table of Contents Items 5 into 4, or TOC 4 into 5, my vote would be for neither. The article needs to be completely restructured, not restricted to either of those two TOC items. The timeline of the Presidency no longer works because the other sections (non-timeline) have grown, but the other sections don't adequately cover the issues either. The solution would be a whole new look at the TOC, focusing on the defining events and policies of Chavez's impact, and utilizing *official* numbers rather than government or biased sources. As to the references, to say that VenAnalysis is one-sided is a slight understatement: it's a biased reference, yet the most heavily used in the article, along with other sources which showed very high pro-Chavez bias throughout the crises (e.g.; BBC). The source list is highly unbalanced. Sandy 19:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Official IS from the government, I fail to see anthing other than that. If there is disagreement in the government estimate it should be sourced and noted. Wikipedia is not about what source should be added or not, verifiability and NPOV means sadly that everything must be put in: the government side and the opposition's. Now what this is about is how to restructure the article, by not stating everything twice, I still don't think that the size has to do with the content, maybe it is the ton of references, pictures and tables.SuperFlanker 20:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering: why do we need two different templates that deal with Venezuelan presidents at the bottom of the page? The whole Venezuela/Chavez subject seems to be template-heavy. Can we eliminate something, to make the article easier to work on? At any rate, I still think most of the Presidency and Political Impact sections should go -- to the daughter articles, or the cutting room floor. Sandy 05:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Most should stay it is the standard for presidents/leaders to outline their presidency, however the size is mostly reference heavy but the prose is not big in itself.SuperFlanker 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

K4zem, I've noticed that you have reverted edits without reviewing or discussing them on the talk page, and without edit summaries. [1] [2] [3] Please summarize your changes with edit summaries, and please refer to and discuss consensus on the talk page here. Message left at User talk:K4zem. Thanks ! Sandy 14:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

In his user page he claims his level of english is limited to reading and not writing, I do agree with his premise however the inclusion of the abstention annex has not been justified at all, that said I think it is not as important right now. SuperFlanker 19:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperFlanker, I was concerned about that, but since I'm traveling, I haven't had time to research Wiki's policy regarding talk pages entries in other languages: does anyone know if it's OK to leave him talk messages in Spanish ?? Sandy 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If he does, I could translate them without problem. He might have some useful opinions, we never know. --Ozzyprv 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

how come every time theres a negative thing about chavez the adjetives "severely criticized", "much-criticized" and "widely criticized " appear??, shouldnt it be better to just say "criticized" or "has been criticized" to make it sound less POV?. What does "widely criticized" even means?, if it stands that everyone criticizes chavez, then doesnt that stand as a mayor chauvisnism there?, if it means that every little thing that Chavez does is criticized, then again thats NPOV+chauvinism. In the beginning it says hes been "severely criticized", thats tough, but then again (i just love it when the invisible men go and criticize public figures) do these critics have a name?... perhaps a group?... of is it that again he is "WIDELY CRITICIZED"?. Now, i dont have it in me to go word by word correcting the article, but it should be noted that there is a strong anti-chavez undertone to it that should be reverted.

First, I think you mean POV, not WP:NPOV. Second, Chavez is a highly divisive figure abroad as well as in Venezuela, is he not? Then it seems appropriate to use such adjectives. Third, the word "criticized" is used once during the intro and twice in the criticism section. That's hardly any criticism at all... :-P - Spaceriqui 05:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It uses weasel words, who are these people who criticize chavez?, do they "severely criticize" him?. There is a POV in the use of adjetives that run through the article, in its current form is just too POV. You americans could learn from the spanish version of the article, wich is far NPOV than this.

There is conflicting standards on what is the prefered size of the article. Wikipedia:Article size States that it should be less than 50kb however in the reasoning they state the size of the prose as justification, in Wikipedia:Summary style They state that the prose should not be more than 30kb. Having checked the article the size of the prose is currently 34kb (including images) and the size of the references/external links is a whopping 31-33kb, meaning an average of 0.3 kb per reference. Since the reference markup is kept hidden there should be no punishment for comprehensive referencing.SuperFlanker 16:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand this policy better, since the article is too long to edit -- my concern is that we can't work on an article that takes too long to load and check diffs. I've asked a question here. I'm gearing up to work on the article, but don't have time to get involved in working on an article whose diffs can't be checked because they take so long to load. Sandy 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that loading time can be a factor but it is not relevant to the size in question , Tony Blair is 86kb long and it takes 5 seconds from my end (387kb/s) to check the top most differential, Wheras this article it takes 10 seconds. There are differences in time to load, you must remember that there are 3 sizes, the prose, prose+ref+tables+markup (73kb) and the time it takes to render and load that rendered page, there is an inefficiency somewhere but it lies with wikipedia not the article size.SuperFlanker 18:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you/anyone know of a way we can figure out where the inefficiency lies? I tried deleting some templates yesterday, but it didn't help. I wonder if it's the pictures, the references, the tables, what? Sandy 19:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it's the Harvard referencing system that is adding so much overhead: it has a ton of extra labels, that aren't really needed. (??) I'm going to experiment with switching some of the references out of that method, to see if it reduces size and loadtime. Sandy 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tony Blair isn't a good comparison because 1) the references there are completely messed up, hence, not generating text, and 2) there aren't as many references. Another editor has seen the problem I mentioned here. If we can't move some text (and the corresponding references) out, the article is just too long to work on. I also believe the Harvard referencing mechanism is too top-heavy, but switching every one of them (see Tourette syndrome for how cite:php works) will be time consuming as well -- want to see what everyone wants to do. That's not even getting into the issue of most of the references being biased, heavy on the socialism side, and not balanced by other sources. Sandy 23:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, SuperFlanker, for adding the initial information on the mudslides of December 1999. The BBC reports, typically, are very biased in Chavez' favor, but do at least include the basic data on the extent of the tragedy, and the allegations that Chavez did nothing to prevent it because he was distracted by the referendum. I am unable to get the search engines on eluniversal.com or el-nacional.com to work, or to find other references via Google (perhaps that is why BBC is overrepresented in the references, in spite of its bias?). Can anyone provide any input on the following allegations during the mudslides: 1) Chavez refused the assistance of a U.S. Navy ship, which was on its way, and turned back; 2) Chavez compared himself to "Niño Jesús" to the damnificados at (??) Fuerte Tiuna at Christmas; and 3) some reference to the extensive looting and subsequent orders to shoot looters? Information about these allegations would counter the bias presented in the BBC reports, of Chavez as an effective military leader managing the relief effort, and explain some of the reaction against Chavez after the inundaciones. Sandy 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I heavily disagree that the BBC is biased (specially with the topic at hand), IMHO they are the newsource of record in the world, and the reason why I prefer using them are: In english, as neutral (NPOV) as humanly possible, extensive and stable archives, easy to search, free (as in beer). As for what you seek to find 1) I remember but would need to find two links again anti and pro gov. 2)Should not be included if accurate even in context(don't remember it) 3) would need to be substantiated and I don't remember it being accurate. (orders to shoot) I vaguely recall a rogue policemen doing vigilantee work but that was it.SuperFlanker 17:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I will try to fix it a bit (it does not read well) that and I will remove the extra stuff (missing etc) remember this is not about the tragedy itself but the conection with Chavez.SuperFlanker 17:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some balance, although there is still much that is left out. At least, hopefully, it no longer reads like a Chávez campaign brochure, even if there is much more that could be said. Additionally, the extreme bias introduced by the disproportionate number of socialist references still needs to be addressed. If we can settle on the new information I've provided, and do something about all the imbalance still present with socialist sources, IMO the POV tag could be removed. By deleting info that was repeated in daughter articles, I got the size down to a more manageable 65KB. There is still a lot of editorial cleanup needed in the article: it would be helpful if we could get a very good copy editor to go through the article, now that the size is manageable, and if we agree on POV issues. I'm done for the day. Sandy 05:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - the first presidential info box isn't working right, and it's not working on other presidents either. I tried to fix it, but can't figure out what's wrong with it. Sandy 05:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

America1 seems intent on vandalizing this page. I suspect he's a sockpuppet of The Middle East Conflict Man. Loisel 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bunch of [citation needed], but maybe we don't need a citation for everything. Still, anything you can find, add it. Feel free to delete the unnecessary ones. Loisel 12:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Loisel, I changed the ones I could find the correct tag, which uses { { and } }, so that they would show up in text. Nice work ! Sandy 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, I will add (today) other references for the "Chavez effect" currently evidenced in several Latin American countries, as this has been referenced on multiple media sources. Sandy 15:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SF, the 1992 event was undeniably a coup d'etat in every sense of the word (Chavez led a group of military officers, who were charged and jailed, in a violent overthrow of the government), so comparing it to the events of 11 Abril isn't valid. It was a coup: there is debate about the events of April 11. On the other hand, references discussing disagreement over the term "coup" for the April 11 events are provided, notwithstanding how the daughter article is titled. Can we stick to a neutral term such as Events of April 11, since the entire article reflects chronological order? Sandy 15:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between showing the other side (which I agree) and giving the event an obscure title (that is not easily found if they are new to the topic). Every single memeber of the media (including Fox News [4] and oposition paper El Universal [5]) calls it a coup, not to mention the daughter article has the same title, and that if that is removed then every single coup title in must be removed because the coupsters never admit doing a coup but an uprising. Just because you state it was "undeniably" a coup is could be argued here also, remember verifiability not truth [6]Wikipedia:Verifiability Flanker 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A previous editor changed the section heading to "Power vacuum", which I agree is an obscure title: however, Events of April 11 make no statement one way or another, and will not necessitate changing daughter articles. It merely reflects chronological order of the article in the most neutral term possible, acknowledging the references provided debating whether it was a "coup". Sandy 15:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - I was wondering if you know of any references that argue that what Chávez did in 1992 was not a coup d'etat, and what logic they use to justify that a violent undemocratic organized military attempt to overthrow a government (in stark contrast to the events of April 11) could not be called a coup? Sandy 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Again Wikipedia:Verifiability "It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important.If the newspaper published the story, you could then include the information in your Wikipedia entry, citing the newspaper article as your source." Calling anything but a coup is original research, you can state that those that carried it out did not consider it a coup, but arguments like "the 1992 event was undeniably a coup d'etat in every sense of the word (Chavez led a group of military officers, who were charged and jailed, in a violent overthrow of the government)" Is original research. It goes against one of the 3 pillars of wikipedia. Since NPOV can NOT be achieved on a title (neutrality is accuracy not precision)Verifiability stands.Flanker 16:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

SF, you are mixing my talk page statements with article entries. The quote above, which you cite as original research, is not included in the article, and was a question I was asking of you. Further, the statement that 1992 was a coup is not original research: it is a verifiable fact, with references provided (and no counter references). You state that the 1992 event could be arguably not a coup, and I'm wondering if you have any verifiable research to back that up? On the other hand, my article entries have not labeled the events of April 11 as anything but a coup. The heading "Events of April 11" respects chronology and doesn't label them in any direction (coup or not), and lets the reader decide, based on the verifiable research presented, including the verifiable fact that it has been argued that it was not a coup at all. From WP:Verifiability, "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." The facts, theories, ideas and claims (that 2002 was not a coup) are now presented in the article. Nothing I have included in the article labels it as not a coup: the sub-heading is non-committal, and the most neutral possible. Sandy 16:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

From what you quoted ""One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers." Every single publisher fron native to anglophone, right or left calls it a coup.Flanker 16:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, many sources refer to it as a coup, and there is verifiable research which disputes that it was a coup, which is why I'm advocating for a neutral, noncommittal term. Sandy 17:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you added a reference that the Supreme Court decision was overturned: this begs the question. Was anyone tried or convicted of a coup, as Chavez was in 1992? Who were the coup plotters in 2002, and where is the evidence? Sandy 17:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

"No, many sources refer to it as a coup, and there is verifiable research which disputes that it was a coup," Again this is called original research, Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, if every single journal says that the earth is flat but you say otherwise with all the evidence in the world it still cannot make it in. As for the TSJ decision The government is awaiting extradition of the coup leaders to proceed with the trial. Should I add to it and reference it?Flanker 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When verifiable sources are presented, it is not original research. Yes, please do provide that info, or if you don't want to add it to the article (pending discussion?), you could add your references here, as an alternative. Of course, it is known that Chavez thinks Carmona was a coup leader, but who were the military officers, what are their names, what are the charges against them?Sandy 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You have verifiable sources that the oposition claims that it was not a coup, not that it was not a coup, there is a big difference, you still have not linked to the latter. As for the generals check the TSJ ruling linked there are 4 flag officers linked Flanker 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link you wanted, a verifiable source quoting Chavez saying that it was not a Coup (1992) but a "patriotic military rebellion" [7]Flanker 19:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, the documents attesting to it not being a coup have to do with whether anyone has been charged or tried, and referencing Rincon's own words, not what the opposition says. I speak and understand fluent Spanish, but reading a 22-page legal document in Spanish (or English, for that matter, LOL!) would be risky for me. Do you have an English-language document which discusses military officers being tried for a coup? For Chavez himself to say it wasn't a coup isn't really a reliable independent source, is it? I suggest it might be helpful for us to let this discussion settle for a few days, and to see what input others might have, so that consensus can develop ? Sandy 20:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright I will try to sumarize, first of all it does not matter if any of them are being prosecuted (they are BTW "El Ministerio Público solicitó este martes medida privativa de libertad contra los generales Efraín Vásquez Velasco, Pedro Pereira Olivares, el vicealmirante Héctor Ramírez Pérez y el contralmirante Daniel Comisso Urdaneta, como paso previo para requerir su orden de captura a Interpool."[8])but that a MEDIA source that verifies claims it is anything but a coup For example: Chavez/Oposition claims that their coup was a Patriotic military rebellion/Power vacuum therefore the title should not be Coup 1992/Coup 2002 but a more neutral term Events 1992/Events 2002 despite there not being a single primary source that calls it anything other than Coup 1992/Coup 2002, if one stands then the other too, plus the Coup 1992 does not have Chavez's version either (it should).Flanker 22:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Copying question from Talk:Súmate: Flanker, you deleted a reference, indicating that "Vcrisis is not a primary source but a blog". If VCrisis references are to be deleted, than there are many dubious references in the article. I'm wondering how you distinguish, for example, an organization like VenAnalysis from VCrisis, and why, in your opinion, VenAnalysis is any different than VCrisis? TIA, Sandy 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Vcrisis is a web log[9], Venezuela Analysis seeks to be (and in my opinion is) a primary source [10]. They are both biased (although Vcrisis is far more extreme and violent) however the difference in samples is pretty evident [11]vs [12]In the end if you are not convinced check this out[13] without comment.Flanker 01:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Having used the search function further I think it is decided. He does not want to be linked from wikipedia.

"Since the 'editors' of your pages keep deleting away comments that do not meet their political criteria, I demand for all the links pointing at my site to me removed immediately and permanently from your pages. Should you have a problem locating them do visit the pages about neo-fascist Hugo Chavez.

I am not interested in the slightest in contributing with a politically partisan encyclopediae."[14]Flanker 01:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Seeks to be?" "Vcrisis is more extreme and violent?" The two samples, [15]vs [16], don't relate. IMO, VCrisis simply declares its bias more openly than VenAnalysis does, but they are equally biased, and if we are to delete VCrisis, we should also delete VenAnalysis. Actually, per all the talk page comments (above), we should try to replace all the VenAnalysis references anyway, since they are a known source of bias, and if they have anything legit to say, it could be found elsewhere. Even more problematic is Weisbrot and the partisan CEPR, but since you keep adding it back, that's not a hill worth dying on :-) I sure have enjoyed working with you: it is interesting to see other points of view. Those comments from VCrisis are revealing: IMNSHO, Wiki has been an enormous source of pro-Chávez bias, and those comments seem warranted. :-) Sandy 01:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to replace venanalysis with what I think can be found in the Mainstream media however since some are very specific some are really hard to change, you should give VenAnalysis more credit they are not all candy and nuts and occasionally post critical pieces (two of them previously linked but one deleted, may have been you ;) [17][18]

As for other points of view, I believe the editor in question is against or does not understand NPOV and Verifiability, both sides of the coin have to be put in but both sides need to be verified by a primary source.Flanker 01:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of having deleted those two, but my head is in a spin from all of these references, so it could have happened! There is still so much work to do: if I can find time to help replace those sources, I'll work on it. Gotta sleep some time, though :-) Sandy 01:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

With re: to CEPR I reverted it because you stated that it is not 'official' however it did contain official INE sources, I believe you stated before that the INE were not official and I disagree all government sources are deemed to be official sources (hence government people are called officials), even if they are propaganda, lies, infactual etc. Now they can be disputed. The second link I gave about the world bank (originally from Panorama but could not find it anywhere else but... you guessed it) is more impartial but not official. Flanker 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from User:Enano275's summary (above), to review where we are:

Below there are some of my concerns, fill free to add your own:

• Size, 88 Kb is just too much. We've gotten the article to a size that is easier to edit, but there are still complete sections missing (see Enano's list below), and addressing them could make the size grow again.
• Unstable. The article changes a lot from day to day and it's subject to a lot vandalism. On May 18 the article had to be reverted 8 times. The attention of the FARC may have helped us on this score: I've noticed many vandal fighters helping out here, and the talk page consensus, good faith, and cooperation has been exemplary. We haven't seen too much instability in the last few days, and there have been only a few (recent) bad faith edits from editors who have not used and/or read the talk page, or worked towards consensus: they have been the minority in the last few days. Considering how controversial Chávez is, and how often he makes the news, the vandalism doesn't seem too bad.
• Lacking a NPOV. From both sides (opposition and pro-Chávez), this article is very unneutral. We've made progress, but more is needed. Besides the issues mentioned by Enano, the protracted attempts to deny a legal referendum aren't covered, the damage to the economy (masked by dramatic rise in oil prices) isn't addressed, first time ever emigration isn't mentioned, and User:Ozzyprv's entire point (above) of the need to discuss how the Constitutional Assembly was effected and how it changed Venezuela is not covered.
• Sections such as "labor", beginning of presidency and some facts in "criticism" are missing their references. We've added a lot of references, but many of them are still from biased sources, and need to be re-referenced to more reliable sources, or deleted.
• I remembered the lead to be brilliant and very smooth to read, but now the lead and the rest of the article needs a clean-up and copy-edit. IMO, this is still a major weakness. The prose is not good, and we need the help of a very good copy editor (that doesn't describe me :-) to help with cleanup.
• Not comprehensive. A lot of information is not covered. Still a MAJOR weakness, although we've made progress (see Enano's list below).
  • Nothing about Lula da Silva, nothing about Evo Morales, nothing about his relationship with Iran nor Lybia, nothing about the 2005 parliamentary elections, nothing about the weapon selling prohibition, nothing about the currency control, the 2002-03 general strike information very incomplete. I have added in most (not all, but enough to make me feel a bit better about balance in the article) of the missing items that were troubling me, but Enano's list hasn't been addressed at all.
• Minor things such as
  • Chávez is spelled as Chavez several times. I believe this has been fixed, but we can do a final run-through after a serious copy edit.
  • How can Bolivarian Missions be the main article for economy? I understand how it has some economical impact, but by no means it's the complete topic of economy.The entire Political Impact section is still a major weakness, doesn't cover the topic, and doesn't use reliable sources. Economy and labor aren't worthy of a regular Wiki article, much less a FA. Foreign affairs has been improved, but it still doesn't provide a good overall sense of foreign affairs issues in Venezuela: it discusses piecemeal events, without setting an overall tone. Many sections are too piecemeal, and the article doesn't flow and isn't seamlessly integrated, although we've made a lot of progress. Repeating, one of the reasons I've been trying to move so much of the content into the daughter articles, and shorten the article, is that there are still too many things that aren't addressed at all, and the reference list is growing again.
  • Is the Peruvian newspaper really needed? When you asked the question originally, I might have answered no, but in light of recent press about the Chavez effect on Peru and Mexico, it highlights a point now made in the article.
• And I'm sure many more can be found. --Enano275 05:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Someone commented in the FARC that fixing these issues should be easy. I suspect those of us who have been cooperating and working many long days might not agree that it's been easy or quick, and we still have a ways to go. (BTW, the first presidential info box still isn't working - I don't know how to fix it.) Sandy 05:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I just found a new problem: editorializing the title of one of the references - when clicking on the reference, I found that the title was not what it was listed as in the reference. [19] So, we also need to go through and check every reference, to make sure they are what they claim to be. Sandy 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that we are doing this wrong, intitially when it was FAC it was decided (not by me) that the whole style and audience would be the same for the whole article, that the target audience was the uninitiated rather than the obssesed with the topic (us) right now things that are not relevant at all (like the 2002 quote about the referendum) are really not needed even if he had not retracted. People don't come here to understand Chavez they come here to find out the IMPORTANT facts and move on. Things related to him and not the government itself, while a case can be said that he is the government (and many have) it is actually the Attorney General and the TSJ who brought the charges and will define the fate of sumate.

The whole signature drive saga can be summarized into this: "Chavez initially rejected calls for a referendum, but later relented" It may have been a big deal for the oposition then but it is not for the average wikipedian that only cares if he won elections and if they were clean (on the election subtopic itself), then we add a single exit poll that contradicted every other poll + official results and that too takes up a whole paragraph detailing the argument and counter argument... Flanker 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"like the 2002 quote about the referendum": that quote (that he wouldn't go, even if he lost), as well as another quote not yet added (that he would take up arms again if he lost the recall) provide important (albeit only partial) context for why he is often referred to as a "dictator", even though he was "democratically elected", and partially explains some of the US stance towards him. Without that context, the article reads like a Chavez campaign brochure. (Further, the whole discussion of how he altered the Constitution to stay indefinitely in power is not yet included, and I've got to find time to get to the library to locate those sources. And I need to learn how to spell the word gerrymander). Using search engines on Spanish-language sources is hard, but (biased) English-language sources didn't always report these facts (take note, for example, that the BBC prominently announced in a headline that he "agreed to the referendum" years after he refused to respect the Constitution, but as far as I can tell, the BBC buried one obscure paragraph about his earlier refusal to respect the referendum in an earlier article, so it is hard to find these facts in the English-language press. (These kinds of things also provide the context for viewing the pro-Chavez bias that existed in the international media.) I hesitate to introduce lesser sources which did cover these facts, even though VenAnalysis is used extensively to reference other "facts"  :-). So, we have a difference with respect to whether we are fully educating the unitiated about the issues, and even what the issues are, when we leave out the facts about why he is considered a "dictator", and not only by what some refer to as the opposition. Same logic applies to your discussion of a single exit poll that contradicts every other poll: that denies the well-founded allegations of massive fraud, and the fact that the one poll was probably valid (facts reported in the press). Again, all sides of the story must be told. (Have you noticed multiple lawsuits are being initiated in the U.S. against those types of voting machines, for the very reasons raised in the referendum?) Sandy 17:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

WGee has just restored the FAC version of the page, with the edit summary: Restored the last 10 December 2005 version, as that was the day it appeared on the main page. This version offers a much better platform for improvement. The current version is just a mess. I think he's on the right track. I'll go ahead and copyedit the text, with attention to some of the issues that have been brought to light in recent weeks. 172 | Talk 16:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Including a link (for any newcomers) to the archive of the lengthy talk page discussion of the problems with the article, which was abruptly archived without talk page discussion. The items which led to the FARC by joturner are now in archive, even though the FARC is still active. Per WP:ARCHIVE, "Regardless of which method you choose, you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page." Sandy 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought that WGee's edit changed everything. If you objected to the archiving of the page, you should have reverted back to the old talk page discussion; this is, after all, a wiki. By the way, I won't object if you still want to restore the old discussion. 172 | Talk 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If I thought there was benefit from a restore of the talk page, I would have done that. WGee's edit did not "change everything", as many of the issues which were being worked on to bring the article to FA status are still present (now with the additional problem of outdated information and dead links), hence the detailing of work to be done is still relevant. But, since you've committed to doing the work, you know where to find the detail in archive. I posted the link above only to explain the situation to newcomers. Sandy 12:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Premature archive of talk page restored, as FARC is still active and discussion is ongoing. Sandy 18:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Following WGee's restoration of the main page version, I'm in the process of addressing some of the concerns brought to light in recent weeks on the talk page, in order to combine the best elements of Saravask's FAC and the recent observations. Here's what I've done up to now. [20] There's much to come. 172 | Talk 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the progress as of now [21]. The edits seem minor, but they go a long way. Working my way through the article with the sensitivity of a historian (though I am not a Venezuela specialist), the edits go a long way in addressing the conflation between stated aims and consequences. Competent attention to the historical record is the key to acheiving NPOV. By the way, I'm not close to finished; this post is just an update. 172 | Talk 18:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As of this posting, here is the most recent diff between the current version and the main page version restored by WGee. [22] 172 | Talk 20:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

172, I just realized the AD/COPEI statement I've raised on the To Do list was part of these edits. I reinserted the wording from the FA version, [23] as well as one comment from the FA version, which is still relevant. [24] Sandy 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since we are starting over with a template to work on top, I feel that the article should not be forcefully restricted. Also major changes to the article should reach consensus on the talk page first.Flanker 18:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If the prose is up to standard, long articles are great; the more relevant information, the better. There are plenty of long FAs. By the way, I believe the FA history of Russia, which I wrote, is even longer. 172 | Talk 18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

SuperFlanker, it is not clear to whom your request is directed. Anyway, I disagree. The problem with the article is not only the amount of content (which is highly POV and biased by unbalanced sources, and inserting needed balance will grow the article), but that it is slow to load, making it difficult to check diffs, history, and to follow edits. On a related note, I still don't understand why there are so many overlapping and repetitious templates and articles and lists relating to Venezuela and Venezuela presidents. I don't know what contributes to the slow load time on diffs in this article, but maybe it's all that other overhead. Sandy 12:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to check the difference between the main page version and the current version, which I have copyedited for POV. Did you check the links of the diffs I pointed out above? 172 | Talk 16:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

172, the question is, have you read the talk page history and the FARC history of the issues that existed in the FA version and still exist, in addition to new problems with the article due to it now being outdated? Time does not stand still because you reverted and made a couple of very minor changes: six months have gone by. The new and pre-existing issues raised have not been corrected. I don't suppose you need another editor to re-detail all of the information that is now in the talk page archive? Sandy 16:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Wipedia is about the readers not the editors, I know it might be a pain yo check diffs but as already pointed out it has nothing to do with the official size, this article is still quicker to edit than the last (maybe it is the more direct referncing system used) now notes don't need to be rendered, it is 50% faster actually.Flanker 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta disagree that the article size suits the reader: what reader wants to read through that much content? That's the purpose of Summary Style. The article size is outrageous, and it's going to grow even more when the wording needed to correct POV (lost on revert) is re-added, and when the Criticism section, which WGee tagged in spite of its succeeding AfD, is merged back in here. (I'm still having problems loading diffs, so I don't check the article very often.) Sandy 07:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the reader might like to read a better written article than the collection of facts the other was turning into, As for merging the critiscism there is no need for that, just balance the critiscism of Hugo Chavez article.Flanker 21:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate (with respect to size) is not whether this version (Dec 10) is better than the reverted version (June 10). We can address the POV items in this version by achieving talk page consensus, so that any changes will not turn into a hodgepodge "collections of facts" as a result of trying to combat POV. The question is whether this version is too long. Excessive length was raised when it was reviewed for FA status, and never addressed, as far as I can tell. Saravask, the editor who brought the article to FA status, indicated on the talk page that he wanted to reduce the article size by 1/3 or 1/2 (check talk page archive 9 or 8 for exact wording). The recommended amount of "prose" exceeds guidelines, even after removing the overhead. The current article is about 94 KB, and the amount of actual prose is 64KB. Contrary to what is stated above, the article size guideline is not only for technical reasons, rather: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose." Sandy 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just printed the Printable version of the article, intending to show it to my spouse for the first time. Seeing it was 22 printed pages, my spouse refused to read it, saying "this is ridiculous, I'm not going to read this garbage". No wonder we can't get economic review of the article. Sandy 16:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

One could argue that it is the most important event of his presidency yet it is not referenced at all. Here is what was added before the mayor revert.

On December 15, after weeks of heavy rain, statewide mudslides claimed the lives of an estimated 30,000 people. Critics claim Chávez was distracted by the referendum and that the government ignored a civil defense report, calling for emergency measures, issued the day the floods struck. The government rejected these claims. Chávez personally led the relief effort afterwards. Subsequent mudslides in 2000 and 2004 left 14 dead.

Maybe it can be copy edited, and references could be fixed. Flanker 22:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting is not needed. Please go ahead and insert it. 172 | Talk 22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought it did need copyediting :-)) This is an example of why I propose we establish work priorities, since there's so much to do. I'm not in favor of adding or deleting content until we agree we're at a point to begin looking at content.

"Subsequent mudslides in 2000 and 2004 left 14 dead." I don't recall who added this statement, or what it's purpose is. We need to establish why this sentence is needed, since it's adding two unrelated reference sources to the article. Is the purpose to support claims that Chávez's negligence contributed to the high death toll in 1999, since the death tolls in later mudslides (where he presumably did pay attention?) were much lower? It doesn't say that. And, if the purpose is to support claims of Chavez negligence, then that needs to be stated more clearly and sourced. Sandy 16:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I wrote it initially, there are basically two points of view, one that the government did not care (negligence), or was incompetent which is what the oposition is trying to prove, the other is that the government was caught offguard at both the tragedy itself and the magnitude, adding that further mudslides left much fewer dead in part because of government pro-activity is generally used by the Chavez as evidence that they are not incompetent, and that it was their side of the story that is accurate.Flanker 18:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I understand. But, are we comparing apples and oranges? The 1999 storms were of a magnitude not seen often, so I'm not sure it's valid to compare subsequent storms and their death tolls. And, I'm not sure how to word the sentence so that it reflects the various positions. Hopefully another editor will give us some ideas. Do you have suggested wording, to reflect the positions you're presenting? Sandy 17:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Presenting research about subsequent mudslides, in the absence of a primary source to back up whatever claims are being made, amounts to original research. There are two additional problems: 1) comparing apples and oranges (can't determine that circumstances were equal), and 2) it is a stretch to say that "the govenment was caught offguard" considering days of ongoing rain (recordbreaking, if I recall correctly?) and a previous warning issued. I'll delete the additional sentence as original research. It can be added back in if a primary source validates it. Sandy 14:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Red Cross link was not original research, and a verifiable link so it should remain as muslides in 2000 left only 3 dead. As for their magnitude they were similar with 2004 being the similar scale as 99.Flanker 14:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur that your latest edit is a good one, and takes the passage out of the realm of original research. (The Red Cross link also mentions the apples and oranges problem, discussing the lesser magnitude of the subsequent storm.) Unless anyone disagrees, I will strike Mudslides from the ToDo list, as I now concur with the passage. Sandy 16:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

After fixing the icc ruling from march I remembered that when it was FAC the article was outdated (relative to a recent event), now even more so, specially statistics (The 1% drop in GDP per capita no longer being the case). How would one deal with these additions/subtractions? should it only be on top of current prose or should new sentences be added/removed? I am not asking for permission just consensus.

SF, I only became involved in the article very recently, so I will be of little help in reconstructing what was lost from months ago. I don't know what the issue was back then, or how it was corrected. And, consensus doesn't mean much when there are no editors left working on the article (how do you get consensus out of two people?). I wish I could help you, but I really don't know how to put Humpty Dumpty back together, with no one else working on the article. Sandy 07:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I have restored the talk page, which was archived prematurely and without any discussion, in consideration of the ongoing FARC. The talk page included discussions of items relevant to the FARC that have still not been addressed. 172, I suggest that you (and WGee) might want to respect and work towards consensus in your future edits, as neither of you had participated in any talk page discussion of the article prior to your revert. As it stands, the article still contains POV which has not been addressed, uses biased references, and additionally is now outdated, and contains dead or inaccurate links. Since you have indicated, in supporting the revert, that you will be making the edits to reflect recent suggestions and corrections needed, please do us the courtesy of letting us know when that work has been completed, so that we don't get crossed up in editing. Sandy 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I began NPOVing the main page version and updating it right after WGee restored the main page version. Did you look over the changes? 172 | Talk 03:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed notable changes yet, or that your revert and restore is near complete. Sandy 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just checked the history to see if I had missed something. The last major edit made to the article by 172 or WGee was on 18:51, 10 June 2006. Are you planning on completing the revert? No hurry, just please let us know when you consider your revert complete. Since the links I happened to click on were dead, I assume you're still working. Sandy 04:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking if I will continue to make changes? I'm having trouble following you. 172 | Talk 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the diff between the main page version restored by WGee and the current version. [25] 172 | Talk 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're not following. I'm simply asking when you and WGee plan to complete the reversion you started. When you will be done, so that we won't get in your way. Since there was no talk page consensus before the revert, no one else knows how you planned to reconstruct Humpty Dumpty, when he fell six months ago. To avoid engaging in edit wars, I'm willing to stand aside and wait for you to finish and see where you are headed and how you plan to put all the pieces back together. The idea was to accord you the time and respect to finish the job (I know, it's ironic), so that anyone still working on the article (where did all the Venezuelans go?) can resume editing. You still have to (at minimum) re-reference the now unreferenced portions of the article, correct dead links, and update to reflect changes in daughter articles per summary style. There's more, but I'll wait to go through it until you're done. I guess I'm not understanding you either, because I don't understand why you continue to show me diffs with minor editing changes to a six-month old article, which now contains unreferenced statements and outdated information. Again, no hurry: just please let us know. TIA, and sorry for any confusion. Sandy 07:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course work will continue on the aritcle as it stands now. The current version is not a final version, and only posted because it is somewhat better, now updated and somewhat NPOVed, that what was up earlier. My first priority will be replacing any citation from an outlet other than a professional news agency or soucebook. 172 | Talk 18:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that work is finally underway. I have been reluctant to invest time in the article until it was referenced correctly. I hope you are also evaluating dead links, since the first one I happened to click on was dead. Sandy 13:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What has happend in the last few days is simply grotesque. There are people like me who are very familiar with the subject, spent years researching Venezuela, bilingual and have PhDs, who have been working very hard and for a long time on improving and adding accurate information to this article. It is clear that those who pretend to fix the article from an older version are completely unaware how much information is missing and misleading on the article that was originally considered to be a "feauture article". I assume your good faith, but your time has run out. You are not showing enough knowledge to do such radical edit on the article. It is time to restore the last version before the restoration of the 10 December 2005 version. Please be humble and contrbute with those elements that you are very well informed and have reliable sources. There are reasons why people like me, who have a PhD and are College Professors, are humble and do not rewrite entire articles on Russian history or subjects familiar to highschool students.(Caracas1830 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC))

If you are referring to me, I have a PhD, I speak Spanish, and I am a college professor. Stop your personal attacks. 172 | Talk 18:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you aren't reading correctly, 172. There was no personal attack. He was referring to his own PhD. I am willing to support a revert if and when WGee and 172 indicate to us that they are finished with their restore, and if they don't complete the job. How long do they need? Perhaps a two-day deadline, even though they extended no such courtesy to us? They need to integrate the new and old versions. They undertook this action unilaterally, with no consensus, so it should be up to them to reconstruct all of the dead links, correct the references, update old information, replace the missing info, etc. They indicate several times that the work is "quick and easy". Reverting and tagging articles is easy. Their actions look like they are leaving the hard work to others, after snubbing us. I suggest that, if we do decide to re-revert, one thing we might do is to then salvage some of the original prose, which is less tortured than the current prose. IMO, the old structure was also better. Had they brought this revert to the talk page, for consensus, we might have proceeded that way to begin with (re-insert entire sections from the FA version into the newer version, taking care to merge the two versions), avoiding unnecessary alienation of good faith editors. Their actions should have/could have precipitated an edit war, but in the interest of Wiki, I suggest that we not act precipitously (what they call "bold editing":-). I have repeatedly asked them when they plan to finish: we need an answer. Sandy 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference was obviously referring to WGee and me, and implying that I do not have his qualifications and should 'stay away from subjects with which I am not familiar.' Well, I do. I am not Venezuelan, but that's not a complete disadvantage, given that I can probably approach this subject much more dispassionately than individuals whose lives are personally affected by Chavez. 172 | Talk 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I accept that you may read his response that way, even if I disagree. I'm not Venezuelan either, but your life was personally affected by him: have you checked the price of filling up your tank lately? 172, would you mind refraining from charges of "personal attacks" and start respecting the civil nature of this talk page that existed prior to the revert? I think I've explained my reasons for requesting civility sufficiently to you. Be nice, and work for consensus. We may be late in coming to a consensus process, but your indignation is out of place, considering the manner in which you proceeded. Apologies always help :-) Thanks in advance, Sandy 18:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am civil and nice. I could've been more prompt in explaining my edit regarding the events of April 2002, and should not have archived the talk page the next day. But that's old news now. I don't need to be browbeaten for those actions for good, do I? 172 | Talk 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That slate is cleared. The response above was defensive, not civil and nice. Start over on a new page. There is MUCH work to be done. Sandy 18:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

As for Caracas1830's point on how qualified editors "are humble and do not rewrite entire articles on Russian history or subjects familiar to highschool students," I strongly disagree. No academic, of course, has complete complete expertise on any area of specialization. But this is Wikipedia. If we don't "rewrite entire articles on Russian history" (an implied attack against me) then high school students are going to be doing all the work. The result is not perfect, but it is better than the alternative. 172 | Talk 18:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with high school students doing some of the work? Reverting is easy, reconstructing is harder. Surely one who can take a decision to revert as his first edit to the article can participate in the reconstruction. Your defensive response is a tangent, 172. The problem is not whether you understand Venezuela, Russian history, or Mars: the issue is good faith and consensus-building. You have been repeatedly asked to answer important questions: when do you plan to finish? Please refrain from engaging in degenerating discussion, away from the topic at hand.

Additionally, I suggest that once we reach consensus on a course of action, we archive this talk page, at the same time creating a To Do list on a fresh talk page, striking items as they are completed. Either way we choose to go, there is still a LOT of work to be done. Sandy 18:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You told me in your edit summary to "let it go." I'll be happy to do that, if you guys can do the same. 172 | Talk 18:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. OK, so the matter at hand is still, when do you plan to finish? If you and WGee aren't able to integrate the new and old versions, and correct all the dead links and references, then we need to begin to build consensus towards a new plan to reconstruct the article, and decide which tags to add in the meantime, depending on which version we decide to work with. Bienvenido a bordo ! Sandy

That's fine. I've never been against radical shifts in strategies for reconstructing articles, given my support for many complete rewrites in the past. Rewriting a completely new article from scratch in a user sandbox (such as User:172/Populist movement sandbox) is an option. 172 | Talk 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hear and respect what others have to say, so that we can make the most progress in the long-term, even if that means sacrificing the quality of the article in the short-term. The article in its current form needs at least a cleanup tag and a missing citations tag, but no need to rush on tagging things -- others may jump in and fix it today or tomorrow. I haven't checked for POV, since the citations are still not there, and links are bad. I have houseguests coming momentarily, unfortunately. The past week was when I had set aside time for working on the article. Sandy 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There is never a legitimate trade-off to sacrifice the quality of an article, even in the short-run. Wikipedia is about the articles, not the editors. 172 | Talk 00:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I had guest due to arrive yesterday, and may not have explained myself well. I am referring to the process of building consensus, so that the article will not suffer again in the long-term. The current article (although I haven't had time to check today's diffs) *is* compromised in quality, because it is missing references, has some prose issues that never should have passed FA the first time, has outdated and dead links, and is NPOV due to missing content. If short-term quality were the only concern, I'd revert the article this instant, because it contains POV and is unreferenced. I'd rather focus on building long-term consensus, even though I consider in the short-term, we have an article up which may read brilliantly, but it violates Wiki's more important principles of NPOV and thorough referencing. Sandy 13:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the broken/dead links, brought some good links from the other article, updated some statistics, the prose issues aside from size are far more manageable from the last article, and NPOV is perhaps the easiest thing to fix if it is agreed to changes in the talk pageFlanker 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

On a separate but related issue, I believe topics 1 - 12 in the talk page table of contents don't reflect current issues. I don't know how to archive the talk page correctly with the system this page uses, but if anyone is interested in shortening this talk page, I would suggest that items 1 - 12 could be (cut and pasted?) into an archive. Then later, when we reach consensus on a plan to proceed, we can archive the rest. Done. Sandy 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please go ahead and do that. Yes, you're on the right track on archiving. Just cut and paste into the new archive. 172 | Talk 18:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I believe I did it right. Still learning, others should check. Although we did need to shorten the talk page, this archived comment may still be relevant to ongoing disucssions. Sandy 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still at a loss on what are the POV issues that hurt this article. Speficifics could be welcome and researching the counter argument even more so, I recall last time that the specifics of a singular and fishy exit poll and the counter argument of it being an anomaly, Was not really needed. ditto a 2002 quote on the 2004 referendum that was countered by a 2004 quote, perhaps they should be included, but not just simply adding facts that hurt the prose. In short what are the issues with regards to neutrality at hand?Flanker 21:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though loathe to put words on anybody's mouth, here are a few disagreements to get the ball rolling:

• Venanalysis is a biased source: agreed and I will try to replace them where I can with a more neutral mainstream source, but they should not be removed if they are the only ones reporting something specific since it is not against policy.
• Direct Chavez quotes circa 2002 about the referendum: disagree it is contradicted later on and in itself outdated, a NPOV stance might be "while he initially rejected the referendum, he later submitted to it"
• Penn Schroder exit poll: disagree Since it makes the oposition look even worse for that fiasco, however the current state of "documentary evidence of fraud" is so vague a reference would be needed.Flanker 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, it is well to request a detailed list. But, until we know which version we're working with, and until/unless the current version is referenced and the restore of links (external and internal) is complete, re-detailing the POV issues on an article which has larger deficiencies than missing content may not be a productive use of time. Correcting the POV involves building upon the current content, but the current content has not yet been completely referenced. I'd like to see two things happen before spending a lot of time on the POV: 1) consensus on which version we're working on, and 2) restoration of links to the current version, if that is the one we're focusing on. Because so much of the work done over many months was lost, I hope it is understandable that editors would be reluctant to put more work into the article until these things are cleared up. For example, I commend you for working on the VenAnalysis references, which was raised in the FARC many days ago and had not yet been addressed. A discussion of POV is premature if statements made, backed by VenAnalysis, can't be referenced to more reliable sources, since those statements would have to be deleted if they are found to be biased, or updated depending on what new references may say. So, my order of priority -- considering so much work to be done -- is, first, find valid references for the article; second, determine if NPOV and balance issues are subsequently resolved. Alternately explained, first, bring the article to an updated status, correct dead links to references, biased references, and incorrect external links; *then* address POV due to any subsequent omitted items. If we don't have active participation in restoring the article to a working version, addressing the POV is premature, since a new revert may be in order. The current article is incomplete, because it is an outdated version, with dead links. That should have been fixed in the original restore effort. If it's not fixed soon, the article needs to be tagged. (Note: because I have guests, and because diffs are so slow to load, I have not yet checked all of your recent edits.) Sandy 13:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again most of the edits have been to links and I beleive I am 60-75% of the way to the old standard. "which was raised in the FARC many days ago and had not yet been addressed. A discussion of POV is premature if statements made, backed by VenAnalysis, can't be referenced to more reliable sources, since those statements would have to be deleted if they are found to be biased," Again I disagree with this, Venanalysis should only be replaced with a more neutral source if available but if it verifies a difficult to find assertion it should remain, Z net and green left weekly were removed because they did not add anything and were easily replaced (with the exception of perhaps the best interview linked on the article), that is not the case with VenanalysisFlanker 14:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to try to reach a consensus on what should be added/removed beforehand, I recommend we start with an easy one, this adds nothing and I assume takes up some space and rendering time.Flanker 02:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, can you hold off on that for now? There are still problems with the article, that would make removal of that list possibly premature. I've got houseguests, so my time to review is limited today. My concern is that we not start deleting things until we review the daughter articles, as so much content was moved before the reversion. Also, it's not yet clear whether there is consensus to work on this version of the article or the pre-revert version. Sandy 13:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

All the work I have done is with the links rather than the prose (updadating from previous links, fixing broken links, replacing links of bigger/more mainstream news with more neutral links, etc)Flanker 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Very glad to hear it, as I was reluctant to spend a lot of time in the article until it was referenced and updated. If the dead links have been corrected (and note that many Wiki links were wrong last time I glanced), then I'm more willing to go through everything else. I'll do that as soon as I have time. My priority with what time I have today is to ask all editors recently actively involved with the article to come to consensus regarding which article to work on. Our opinions (you, me, 172) in particular are less important to me right now than building general consensus in the project, to assure the ongoing good faith participation of as many editors as possible, and to minimize the possibility of future edit warring. Sandy 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There are no broken wiki links and I fixed a few that could have done better Banco santander and CNE, as for opinion on the article I may be out for the day.Flanker 14:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say Wiki links were broken, I said they were wrong. They have not been checked and updated in the new version. Someone needs to go through every one of them, and compare them to the version which was reverted: this work is part of what I refer to as the "restore" and is fundamental work to get the article back in shape before we begin to work on content. The very first link I checked in the article is wrong. I don't have time to check them all, including for redirects, and updating per changes made in the course of six months ! The early life article was later split into early life and military career, presumably by Saravask, who wrote military career. Someone needs to check them all. The updated list of "Honors" is in the Presidency article, and there were concerns raised somewhere about that article. I'm not sure it's linked to in this version. If you want to delete Honors, and avoid POV by doing that, you have to make sure it's still linked in. In short, I continue to say that the architects of the revert need to restore the structure and integrity of the article -- complete the job they started -- before we begin to talk about content revisions. Repeating, it's easy to revert: now the hard work of restoring the article needs to happen before we work on content. And, I will not be involved in editing an article until we have a talk page consensus, because I won't have my time wasted again. I want to see the article structure repaired before we start to work on it. Sandy 16:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Presidency of Hugo Chávez article is now linked, and an updated Awards list is presented there. We could now delete this entire portion, if there is consensus. However, we must develop consensus, so that future editors don't claim POV is introduced by moving Honors and awards out of the article. Sandy 12:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No comments ? Sandy 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The article was reverted to the FA version of December 10th. If we are to stick with this version, it needs some rebuilding. If we re-revert back to the newer (June 10) version, it also needs work. Either way, there is work involved, so consensus about which version to work on would be helpful.

I left a talk message to recent editors of the article. I went through recent contributors to the talk page, as well as the last 500 edits. I did not leave the message for the obvious (myself, SuperFlanker, WGee, and 172). I also did not message unregistered users, one-time vandals (duh), people only reverting vandalism, or people doing Wiki cleanup rather than edits to the actual content. This list amounted to MSTCrow Bryan Derksen Bronks SkylineEvo Ozzyprv Nc11 Loisel Spaceriqui Enano275 K4zem Caracas1830.

Consensus on Chávez
Can you review developments on Talk:Hugo Chávez and let us know which version you think we should move forward with, considering that either version we pick will need work? Thanks ! Sandy 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

WGee, 172, and SuperFlanker have stated willingness to work on the current (Dec. 10) version.

I'm neutral, until I see if the current version restore is completed by those who reverted it. Since it is apparent that none of the architects and/or supporters of the revert are making the necessary corrections to restore the article correctly, I now believe the only course of action is to revert back to the June 10 version. Then rather then proceeding on a piecemeal basis as we were before, revert prose back to the superior content of the Dec 10 version, incorporating text section by section, taking care to preserve references, links and updates. I come to this conclusion reluctantly, only because none of the supporters (currently WGee, 172, and Flanker) are making the necessary changes to fully restore the article, so what we have now is, as they say in Venezuela, ni fu, ni fa. Sandy 20:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it you claim we are not doing enough on the one hand but before you were reverting all the updates, removal of broken links and changes from obscure sources to mainstream ones that I made after the major change. I am quite puzzled.Flanker 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You cannot repair the article by simply deleting references which are now dead links. You repair the article by looking for the new references. Sandy 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that the broken links were trivial, I would much rather spend my time researching more important parts than looking up every single different standard (what makes the UCAB's definitive?) out there, I could find one at the UCV that he is 23rd another in USB that he is 59th etc. I respect Savarask's understanding the intricacies of not having a clear line of succesion however it is still a trivial concept that would not damage the article at all if it were removed and it would not fix it if we added 20 or 30 different numbers.Flanker 23:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What makes UCAB's version definitive? That, my dear sir, is exactly the question! By deleting it, you give the reader no way of addressing the question of how the number 53 was determined, and what it is based on. Even if the link is dead, you tag it and leave it, and/or try to replace it with the other links you mention above, so that the reader who is interested in researching the number knows where to turn. Find the UCV version. Find the USB version. Without that, how do any of us know what the 53 is based on? Does it include or not Carmona, for example? And is Chavez's combined, gerrymandered first term being considered two terms or one? Is his return to power after April 11 considered two terms or one? Even a dead link gives the reader more to work with than no link, and the number is by no means trivial or uncontroversial. If you aren't going to reference the number somehow, you have to delete it, and that will be to the detriment of the article. By leaving the number in, with no reference, you are declaring that it *is* fact according to everyone's count, and giving the reader no resources. I don't know what the number includes, or where to find the information. Flanker, this is the sort of research where your help would be invaluable: you are there (I believe?), and you could go find a reference. Or, we can go back in talk page archives and see if there's any indication. Sandy 13:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The UCAB's link is BROKEN, the only reason I state that it was their number is because I saw it BEFORE there is no way of knowing right now if their number is 53 or 76 it is a broken link an unverifiable statement due to lack of archives, not everything has to be meticulously referenced, but if there is that much of a disagreement it can be erased. Flanker 14:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Caracas1830 asked for a revert to the newer version, but I left him a new message as well. Sandy 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of working on the current (Dec. 10) version. Nc11 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral. All I wanted to do was contribute a few small facts to a stable article, which I now realize it isn't. I'm a mathematician, not a Chavez expert. I don't even speak spanish. Loisel 19:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of working on the current version (10 Dec) and building over it than building over the (10 Jun) version.Flanker 20:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC) Note: duplicate - thanks for adding the comment, Flanker, but I had already stated your support above. Just noting this is a duplicate. Sandy 22:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the version to be used. All I can do for the moment is keep an eye on the discussion and make contributions to the article and/or Talk page when I think my humble opinion is needed. I am fluent in Spanish, lived in Venezuela until 2002, and consider myself an amateur-literate in Venezuelan politics. But being a Venezuelan makes my passionate about the subject, every time I check the page I breathe deep to maintain my objectivity. So far I think I have done well. --Ozzyprv 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer to work with the June 10th version because a lot of effort was placed into condensing the information in the main article and then leading the readers to more specific pages (I thought length was one of the big issues(?!). It was much easier to edit and to add relevant information (for example, where does the Dec 10th version mention anything on Vladimiro Montesinos and Rodrigo Granda?, both MAJOR international conflicts. I'm still in disbelief why the Dec10th version was considered a "feature article".(Caracas1830 08:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC))

Vlad Monetesinos was not that big, yes a lot of people thought he was in Venezuela and when he surfaced, or the government could not keep it a secret anymore (depening of whatever version you believe) he was repatriated quite easily, now Rodrigo Granda was big with the assortment of commerce, and diplomatic cutoffs, Fidel Castro interviening etc. However it is much easier to add it.Flanker 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer going back to the June 10th version. I have two main concerns about the December 2005 version. First, the size, 96 Kb is a lot. I know that it can be justified sometimes, but we got it down to sixty-something in the June version. Second, although the article degraded a lot from December, there has been some considerable work since the intensive cleanup began last month. It would be a shame to lose all that work, including the move of a lot of less important facts to daughter articles and the tedious work of moving to the latest reference system (which by the way, lowered the article's size very much). Also, neither of the versions are comprehensive enough (the December version is out of date now), but considering that the June version is more actual, I think it would be at higher level in terms of covering the entire topic. --Enano275 01:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tally

• Dec. 10 version, 4: WGee, 172, Flanker, Nc11
• Jun. 10 version, 2-3: Caracas1830, Enano275, and SandyGeorgia if work doesn't proceed on Dec 10 version
• Neutral: Loisel, Ozzyprv

Sandy 01:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, as promised, I sat down to spend time checking things in the article. The very first thing I find in the very first line of the article is that the reference to Hugo Chavez as the 53rd president of Venezuela is gone. Saravask gave a very lengthy (and accurate) discussion of the importance of referencing that number in the original nomination for Featured Article status. You can't just willy nilly remove references, and consider the article updated ! So, I decided next to try checking diffs. The very first diff I checked was to a lengthy update of statistics, and is the kind of change that should be reviewed on talk page first for accuracy and consensus. I am not willing to again lose so much time in working on an article if this is the way it's going to go. I suggest that, if it is decided this is the version we are going to work on, we activate 172's suggestion above, and set up a sandbox for proposed changes, which must be approved before they go to the article, as I'm not about to go through every diff on a slow-loading article to check and correct all of the recent edits. Perhaps we can set up a sandbox, and one other editor should approve of each change before it is added? Since that reference was deleted, I now don't know what other references were deleted. Now, what choice do I have but to revert back to some earlier version which is still intact, or painstakingly go through every last edit? Not only are we still trying to merge the old and new, but now there are new errors introduced into the new. This is an unacceptable way to proceed. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I seriously ask that we develop a process for working together. I am adding citations missing and cleanup tags (clean up the Wiki links to other articles, and check all links for redirects, per other discussion above). I'll hold off a bit longer for a POV check and tag.Sandy 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind and reverted to the last version I had checked. The article is unreferenced, and needs cleanup. I will tag the article if this work isn't done soon. Sandy 17:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 53rd link because it was broken, If you want proof check the original reedit of 10 Dec, not to mention it is a trivial and nondisputed subject (apologies to Savarask). As for the statistics nobody objected to the update of them.Flanker 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is a sandbox of the current version, after my edits:Talk:Hugo Chávez/Sandbox It's ready to go if we decide to use it. It does not include header and footer info: only for content.

I reverted it to my last version (minus prose changes) none of my changes were against consensus as a matter of fact I removed a lot of Zmag/Green left weekly links that either added nothing or could be replaced by a more mainstream source.Flanker 18:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to just remove references. If you *remove* a reference, you should deal with the content that was referenced , or tag it with citation needed. You have *removed* references completely, which is worse than leaving the dead links, because it leaves new editors no clues for looking for a means of updating the reference. Yes, the link is broken: you can't just remove it. The statements need to be referenced, including the fact that he is 53rd President, for the reasons originally laid out by Saravask. You don't just delete a cite unless you tag it. I will revert all your changes again. Please work on the sandbox version, let everyone review, and then we'll incorporate them into the new article *IF* it is decided this is the article to work on. Thanks for understanding, Sandy 19:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a lot of work with the references being the 2nd time that work has been erased, I made sure that everything I removed was either extremely trivial (like the 53rd ref come one not everything has to have a link) or replaced by a BBC link. I did work hard and do not want to see it all lost again so please don't revert again, find out specifically what you are against and lets remove THAT. I will stop changing ven analysis ref because that is not kosher too apperantly. Also could you be more specific as to what are your edits? thxFlanker 19:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My edits were all summarized in edit summary. I reverted to the version prior to your edits, since several of your edits contained deleted references. Then, I added back in the spelling correction of a double "from" in foreign policy (which I believe you have now reverted). Then I deleted the two sections you had added without consensus. You don't have to reread the entire thing. You only have to go back through your recent edits, which you can find in diffs, and reconstruct those that do NOT involve deleting references. The sandbox contains what is described above: that is, the last June 12 version from WGee, plus correction of the double "from", minus your two edits which I deleted and you can find on history via edit summary. Since WGee has now indicated that merging of the two articles is a possibility, again, it would be helpful if we agreed on a plan for using the sandbox. Sandy 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

WE ALL did a lot of work in the last six months that was erased. That is exactly the issue we are trying to avoid. Please stop removing references. None of us appreciate that we have to now dig back into diffs and history to find the work that was done over six months to make the corrections needed, and you're heading us down the same path we just came from. If you'll work on the Sandbox version, others can review and consensus can be developed. The 53rd ref was not trivial. Please read the original nomination for FA status before proceeding. Please stop. I have reverted the article twice now, so I won't revert it again, but if you persist in removing references, they will need to be reverted again in the future, and you will lose your work. The Sandbox version provides an alternative. Sandy 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I created a sub-topic further down, please lets continue there.Flanker 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That will only confuse newcomers reading the page. Repeating for the third time, you cannot just delete references. The article needs to be referenced. The 53rd Pres is not a trivial fact, as Saravask explained in the original FAR. Let's see: does that number count Pedro Carmona or not? Was he a President or not? What about all the "puppet" Presidents in Venezuela's history? Who is included in that number? If you delete the reference, how do I find out who is counted in the 53 ? When a reference is missing, you have to tag it or update it. You say below you are only moving "trivial" links. If they were referenced in the FA version, they aren't trivial, and the reference is needed for a reason. Sandy

I know I was here when he stated that (though not registered I found it harder to change things in anon status ;) however it is still trivial since nobody is disputing it, AND his link is broken (really really broken[26]). I originally removed that link on May 31st way before the major revert and nobody noticed it then[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFlanker (talk • contribs) 21:15, 13 June 2006

I fixed the broken link by going to internet archive. The accounting is also detailed on List of Presidents of Venezuela. Just a reminder that we don't reference an article only when someone objects, and I was objecting :-) Sandy 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I prefer that the Sandbox were used for far more specific changes as oposed to re-reading the whole article.Flanker 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following what you mean here ? Sandy 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't read the entire article to catch your changes ;) I propose you do it like I tried with the ICC, specific to the particular changes (only one sentence and ref) and not done like the dreadfull diffs.Flanker 21:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, saying "I will do x if this isn't fixed soon" is not a very productive attitude. You seem bitter because of the loss of your work, but "if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I am not being rude here; I simply want to encourage you to edit and overcome the fear of your work being lost, for it is all part of Wikipedia. -- WGee 01:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, WGee, but you are completely misinterpreting my objectives, although I have stated them repeatedly. If we don't come to consensus, we *all* risk wasting our time again and heading down the wrong path, seeing the article deteriorate again. We have plenty of time to work on the article content, but without consensus on the issues that are raising problems, we will only be adding errors on top of errors. Deleting dead links, rather than attempting to update them, is not the way to go. And the link to the 53rd Pres is NOT the only link deleted (if it were, a revert would not have been necessary). And ... if I am going to again expend incredible amounts of time and energy on the article, I'll do it what I consider to be the right way, and the way we might have done it the first time, had you asked. I'd take both articles side by side (Dec 10 and Jun 10), sit down with 'em for two solid days, and MERGE them correctly, reconstructing the best of the FA prose, while updating the references, links, data, etc.; then submitting it to a sanbox review for everyone else BEFORE reverting. Now that is more hard work than a simple revert, but would have assured a better result. Neither am I trying to be rude, but you did the easy revert, and now want others to do the hard work, in a manner that isn't proceeding well. And expending energy to head the wrong direction is not a project I'm enthusiastic about. Sandy 01:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you like. Also, I don't want everyone esle to be doing all the work; if this were a perfect world, I would be able to devote hours and hours to this article and still ace my exams. Well-faithed editors are taking the initiative to improve the article, and I'm blamed for "wanting" others to do the work for me? -- WGee 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I am planning to do exactly what you suggested (taking the articles side by side, etc), if you are willing to wait until, say, late June/early July (when the academic year ends). By then, however, I'm not sure how much will still need to be done (or if the article will be reverted). -- WGee 02:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's the first good news we've had all week :-) So, in answer to, saying "I will do x if this isn't fixed soon" is not a very productive attitude, I submit that de-constructing an article, with no prior discussion, when you don't have time re-construct it, was equally unproductive. But that's water under the bridge: I bring it up to point out that my tendency is to let others know which way I'm headed before acting without consensus. I'm glad there may be some consensus that we need to merge the two articles, taking the best of each. Had someone raised the issue beforehand (it's clear in retrospect we were not working optimally), I would have used the time I wasted to sit down with both versions, and merge them. Timing is not optimal for me, either, which is why it would have been considerate of you to raise the issue in talk before acting. So, if we agree the articles need to be systematically merged, can we ask SuperFlanker to stop "de-constructing" the FA version, by deleting references and making updates without consensus? Then, rather than having *three* versions to merge when we can all turn our collective attention to doing the work, we'll only have two. And, can we come to some consensus to use the Sandbox version, per 172's suggestion? I just don't have time to go through and correct every edit being made to what was (a few days ago) a FA version. Sandy 13:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since it was what I considered to be a trivial change Sandy objected to it so removed it from my other changes (a lot of them).Flanker 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is the old version

A ruling has yet to be reached.^[28]

Proposed change

The case was later dropped by the prosecutor.^[1]

if nobody posts in a day or two against it should be consensus no?Flanker 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Flanker, I reverted your changes because they contained deletion of references. With respect to changing , deleting, or adding content, I recommend we adhere to the proposal (see below) about using the sandbox. For now, we need to finish restoring the current version before making substantive changes to it. For example, please deal with this statement about the ICC, come to consensus, before changing:

A decision on the case is expected to be reached in October 2006. [29] Sandy 10:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is the CDIH the topic at hand is the ICC I have waited nearly 5 days for a veridict ;) this needs priority because it was added in March/April when it happened then removed due to the re-write.Flanker 20:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We've all been waiting 8 days since the revert, and WGee and 172 are both busy :-) I'm not screaming about all the content that was lost in the revert and needs to be reinstated: I'm giving 172 and WGee some time to catch up. It would be wise to patiently reconstruct a thorough article: the goal is that we not end up again with a hodgepodge of claims and counter claims, rather that we attempt to write a summary style, comprehensive article on Chavez. And, I've been busy trying to reconstruct the article since the revert, so that we have a basis from which to work, since WGee and 172 didn't have time to complete their revert.

Yes, you are correct, since I've been focusing on trying to repair and restore other parts of the article, I had not realized we were discussing two different cases. I apologize, and appreciate your patience. But, since you insist this is urgent, I suggest using wording more closely aligned to what your reference says:

The case was dropped because the allegations "did not appear to satisfy the elements for the crime of persecution". (Moreno-Ocampo, Luis. (International Criminal Court). "Office of the Prosecutor letter to senders re: Venezuela". PDF Retrieved 11 Jun 2006.) In March, 2006, three former Venezuelan government employees introduced a case against the Chávez's administration at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing that José Vicente Rangel, the country's vice president, ordered their dismissal because they signed the recall petition and, therefore, were victims of discrimination for political reasons. A decision on the case is expected to be reached in October 2006. (http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/03/14/pol_art_14187A.shtml) Sandy 21:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Again I do not want to liter the article with non-chavez quotes, Their summary of the conclusion will be stated quoteless:

Newly proposed change

I disagree with the addition of the CIDH as stated because it is almost identical as the ICC accusation, (plus the TSJ ruling, plus the Spanish super judge ruling) I propose that we all merge all 4 legal actions and give the veredict for the first 3 (all dropped for lack/weak evidence) and leave the CIDH as awaiting a ruling in October.Flanker 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another try

The first three cases are already combined in the text. The fourth case is different: victims of April 11 vs. discrimination against those who signed the recall petition. I propose:

Relatives of victims who were killed in the April 11, 2002 clashes filed a case against Chávez and others at the International Criminal Court, stating that Chávez was legally complicit in crimes against humanity. The chief prosecutor would later state that the requirements to seek an investigation for the crime of persecution had not been satisfied. (Moreno-Ocampo, Luis. (International Criminal Court). "Office of the Prosecutor letter to senders re: Venezuela". PDF Retrieved 11 Jun 2006.) In March, 2006, three former Venezuelan government employees introduced a case against the Chávez administration at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as victims of political discrimination, arguing that José Vicente Rangel, the country's vice president, ordered their dismissal because they signed the recall petition. A decision on the case is expected to be reached in October 2006. (http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/03/14/pol_art_14187A.shtml) Sandy 00:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't all of the "judge shopping" that happened be documented as well? as for the second part should that not go in Jose Vicente Rangel's article and not here? It is another bias I may have to address in the POV (bias against) thread. Mixing everything the Gov does as what Chavez does painting him as a totalitarian, but in this case in particular the parties are clearly oposition and vice-president and not Chavez.Flanker 01:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding, Rangel: valid point (particularly if you hold the view that Chavez is not totalitarian or that he wasn't responsible :-) So ...

Relatives of victims who were killed in the April 11, 2002 clashes filed a case against Chávez and others at the International Criminal Court, stating that Chávez was legally complicit in crimes against humanity. The chief prosecutor later ruled that the requirements to seek an investigation for the crime of persecution had not been satisfied. (Moreno-Ocampo, Luis. (International Criminal Court). "Office of the Prosecutor letter to senders re: Venezuela". PDF Retrieved 11 Jun 2006.)

I have started removing references to Zmag/Green Left weekly and Vcrisis, also replacing Venanalysis links with whatever BBC links I could find, The only links removed completely were trivial links (puntofijismo) 53rd president (broken link as well) The only dangling reference was oposition to US foreign policy which there are dime a plenty sources. I don't see why my work has to be erased. I was not working against consensus when I started and gave one day for people to voice disagreement [30] Flanker 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

See above for response about reverting lost references. It's not always easy to understand what you're asking. If you had proposed your exact rework of that section, you could have saved yourself the work of having to re-do it. That section was the subject of considerable debate, and it wasn't correct in either version, according to different editors. So, if you want to perserve what integrity the FA version had, please review changes with other editors, or your work may be lost on future reverts. Sandy 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I was very specific and made sure to try an not to change the prose, every single ref change was either done because it was broken, the afromentioned websites, and very rarely were they removed completely leaving out the citation the only two I left without citation were oposition to US foreign policy and dissolving puntofijismo, I can find the links quite easily once we agree what to do from now on.Flanker 20:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You still have not shown why it should be removed, nor was consensus even achieved, considering how much you critiqued the entire work lost you are doing it again to me, if you want to update the statistics (ie it shows x% when it has changed to y%) then be my guest just verify it.Flanker 14:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

We may have to request mediation, I am not familiar with the rules how would that go about happening? Flanker 15:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Goodness, Flanker, slow down on suggestions of mediation. I haven't even had time to look at this issue, and I've made no comments yet. I've only asked that you stop making substantive changes to the article, while we all come to consensus on how to proceed, since we have two versions that need to be merged. If we have to come to mediation over one paragraph, then ya'll can work on this article by yourselves, and I'll go do something productive :-)) Sandy 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The current main photo of the Man standing at booth as President is not really suitable. Look at the grim shadow! Papers might use this but surely there is a better one? Any ideas? -- max rspct leave a message 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I propose this photo even if it is smaller. The original goal was to find a an official photo with the sash, on the original FA it looked like the eyes were closed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PresidenteHugoChavez.jpg Flanker 00:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not plain enough. the article deserves a better one. It creates a possibly unsavoury impression. Surely such a 'self-important figure' would have more photos taken of inauguration or dressed up for officialdom. The flash-induced shadows are unfortunate.. The photo is like Roger Rabbit film scene. -- max rspct leave a message 01:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The sash? Is this one good enough? Old .. maybe last century. Ahhh the horse is running in the wrong direction!! -- max rspct leave a message 11:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to state the obvious, but there were long discussions in the FA reveiw about Fair Use images, etcetera ... why don't you just take the pictures from the pre-revert version?Sandy 13:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What is FA review? -- max rspct leave a message 16:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The original Featured Article nomination, here. And, since we're trying to merge the Dec 10 (current) version with the June 10 (just before the article was reverted) version of this article, why not just use the June 10 pictures for now, so we don't have more to correct later? Just copy the pictures from the June 10 version, which was the last version before the revert. Sandy 17:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the main picture back. -- max rspct leave a message 18:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo has ben changed back to shadow dominated one. Look.. its really unusable. max rspct leave a message 22:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Max, I had changed it in the interim for you, but 172 changed it back, with a note that he is looking around for a better one. The problem is that it is really hard to find a good picture that has no copyright issues, so we should give 172 some time to work on this. He wants to find one where Chávez isn't squinting: good luck. Chávez does squint, and has a (curiously, of late) very swollen face -- makes me think of medication or non-medication possibilities -- so it is difficult to find a flattering picture that is in the public domain. Everyone is aware of your concern, and I'll add it to the To Do list below, just to be sure we don't forget. Sandy 00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes Ma'am! I won't go on about it.. Just regarding the face and eyes: He is getting old and he is of Amerind descent plus has an eye condition. -- max rspct leave a message 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Matey says it looks like Bram Stoker's Dracula -- max rspct leave a message 22:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I stopped fixing references or removing broken links little has happened to the article and there seems to be deadlock on how to proceed at all. I thought there was consensus on removing broken links, re-routing old links to mainstream sources if available, or removing material that is unverifable. Obviously that changed, how should we proceed now? I propose that changes be explained specifically in the talk page or at least showing differentials, Sandy proposes using a sandbox for the entire article that makes it almost impossible to differentiatate (or maybe there is a way?). It seems like we went from extreme to extreme, from wholesale changes on a whim to none at all and neither is a positve development. Flanker 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's my take, but what I have tried to ask is that we wait to hear from everyone who is actively editing the page (that is, at least 172 and WGee, who has told us he's busy with exams). I never thought we should *remove* broken links, rather *repair* them. Also, there is a way of tagging a broken reference, that allows readers to see what the reference was, even though it's no longer available online. We need to understand how to tag broken references without deleting them (maybe a more experienced editor than myself can fill us in).

There are several statements in the article that had two different references, and I saw that you deleted (sometimes) one of them, if it was a "biased" link, leaving only the other. But perhaps *both* were needed to correctly reference the statement (recall that Saravask's version was thorough). So, I don't agree with deleting one when two were present. We would need to carefully review each before deleting anything. We did agree to update "biased" references to BBC (or other) references, where possible. But, WGee seems to have indicated that he agrees that we need a thorough reckoning of a merge between the June 10 and Dec 10 versions. That means that any work done on the article now just creates a third layer of things to go through. Again, pending hearing from other editors, it may be more helpful if you list the updated links to be changed here on the talk page, and then when we thoroughly go through the article, we'll have everything in one place?

We also have to keep future editors in mind, or we could again see the article deteriorate. I know you've expressed the concern that worrying about the 53rd reference is trivial, but if we don't take care of it now, some editor could come along in the future and tag the article for <whatever>, claiming that the number contains bias. We have to support the case for presenting that number, or at least leave the dead link, so that future editors have a starting place.

Here's how I can see using the sandbox. The current version of the article (I believe?) is the one that everyone concurs is a valid working version of the FA, subject only to changes no one has objected to (for example, what 172 calls NPOVing, although don't think it NPOV'd anything :-). We want to keep that version as intact as possible, for when we all have time to work on the merge. If we agree to use the sandbox version, we copy the current article to the sandbox. Then, we make all of our proposed changes to that version. We only transfer changes we subsequently agree on to the *real* version, thus preserving the real version in the interim as something we all agree still reflects the FA version. Then, when we merge that with the June 10 version, we only have two documents to work with.

I hope this is understandable? I know it's long. I recognize it's convoluted, which is why I would have preferred consensus beforehand to merge the two versions, when everyone had time to finish the job, rather than reversion, when no one had time to finish the job. Everyone is busy, so we must be patient.

I'm sorry if I'm not making myself clear :-) What I had asked for (several topics above) was that we come to agreement on how to proceed, archive this talk page, starting over with a fresh talk page and a ToDo list. Others may disagree: I'm open to consensus and hearing from others. At minimum, we should keep track of changes made, so that we have a list for updating when we merge the two versions? Hope this helps, Sandy 17:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your plan is pretty clear to me, and it seems like a fine way forward. In the meantime, however, we should not freeze work on the article; rather, we should continue updating/adding references for all the information currently in the article and spruce up the prose where necessary, but not condense it. In the Sandbox, we could work on adding any new information (about recent events, Morales, etc) and come to a consensus on how (or if) we will condense the article. I haven't checked the diffs or read the article today, so I don't know exactly how much of this has already been done. This weekend I'll check the progress in detail, though, and review your concerns about the references. -- WGee 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To make sure we're all on the same page: we should preserve the current article fairly intact, as we are still working on restoring it. The idea is to not introduce content changes before we have a fully-restored working version. This includes, but is not limited to, fixing and updating references (not deleting them), fixing Wiki links, restoring Summary Style, restoring things like the IPA which were deleted (mentioned below) and categorization (already done), and any other item related to restoring the integrity of the original article. We should make proposed content changes on the Sandbox version, so that we can come to consensus, preserving the FA version intact until we have completed the merge. If everyone agrees, I will update the Sandbox version to the most recent, so we can begin to work on it. Flanker, I know you are troubled that I deleted some of your edits: I will go back through them, picking up any reference updates, and summarizing your other content changes. Also, if we all agree, I suggest we now archive the lengthy talk page, bringing forward to the new talk page only items which remain to be addressed. If no one disagrees, I'll do that in a few days.Sandy 10:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I consider the current version now to be in a restored state (that is, all of the outdated links and Wiki structure have been repaired). I am hoping 172 and WGee will review the work I've done over the last few days, so we can move forward with content revisions. Sandy 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on this template (which was part of the old article), how do we get to 53 ? Sandy 21:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, look what I just found. Cuadro de Presidentes Venezolanos

That's the original reference, Flanker. (I haven't tried to mesh it with the template, but we need to figure that out.) Before deleting any reference, you should first look for it in internet archive. This is why I'd like to slow down on deleting any FA content. And, to allow for a stable referenced article, we could use internet archive for all our sources, anyway. Flanker, I hope you'll recognize that I am not going to accept an article without references, and I will revert any version that doesn't include them. You can retrieve your other changes in the history. I'm sorry, but referencing is a pillar of Wiki, and we just cannot lose references. Sandy 21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone else has time to work on this, we need to go back into talk page archives to determine why the 53rd reference was used, since there are several other ways of counting. Depending on what we find, it seems strange to have that number figure prominently in the lead, since it is not a "hard" fact. We may need to move it, with a very very very brief explanation, somewhere else in the body of the article, or to the Presidency daughter article. But first, we should locate something about it in the talk pages. Since I'm now working on the restore (sigh), it would be great if someone could dig into the archives and find any past discussion. We confuse the uninitiated reader by calling him 53, and then presenting a List of Presidents of Venezuela and template which don't come to 53. Sandy 11:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Update The 53 vs. 61 is explained in List of Presidents of Venezuela, and it contains several references. Maybe we're finished with this, now that the Internet Archive link is updated? Sandy 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Three days, no response. Unless anyone disagrees, I'll consider this item done and strike it from the To Do list. Sandy 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is an internet archive link to the referenced referred to as Government of Venezuela, which is not correctly referenced. I don't know how to update the two different referencing styles, but I did insert the internet archive link. [31] Sandy 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also corrected the referencing style. Sandy 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

On 16:39, 10 June 2006, WGee restored much of the article from several months earlier in an attempt to clean things up. However, the IPA symbols for pronouncing his name got removed. I checked to see if this had been discussed, and didn't find any reference to it on the Talk page, so I'm assuming it was inadvertent. The IPA symbols are certainly useful for the non-speaker of Spanish (although I know the language) and are often included on Wikipedia for those names which people might have trouble pronouncing. If there are objections to restoring the IPA (or any related comments), could we discuss them here? Interlingua ^talk 01:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was inadvertent. I say go ahead and and re-insert the IPA from the 10 June version. -- WGee 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Completed by Interlingua. Sandy 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I am placing the 17:56, 15 June 2006 SandyGeorgia version in the Sandbox. For proposed content changes. Structural restores on main version.

Sandbox version of current article for content revisions

It includes (please add to list if I missed anything - when I refer to "restoration", I mean to the June 10 version):

• restored categories
• restored interwiki links
• restored IPA
• correction of two dead reference links to internet archive (53 Presidents of Venezuela, and Government of Venezuela -- still need to work on 53 number)
• restoration of summary style
• restoration of the picture to the June 10 version (someone more knowledgeable needs to check the Fair Use rational for this picture).
• ref converter (there are still some references in a different style that may need to be fixed?)
• WGee and 172 edits up to June 12
• Flanker addition of mudslides, still needs work (see above)
• Flanker added Foreign Policy title
• Flanker replaced a VCrisis ref with Amnesty International
• Flanker added ICC case: I haven't had time to check where this is, per discussion above.
• Flanker deleted some external links, calling them "blogs and racist": haven't had time to review.
• Flanker fixed pendejo translation
• Flanker fixed Economist ref
• My updates (below) of reverted Flanker changes