Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 10

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  1998-2000, the changes introduced by the The Constitutional Assembly. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Poll:Proposal to change the structure of the article (rewrite) 

message: K4zem, I've noticed that you have reverted edits without reviewing or discussing them on the talk page, and without edit summaries.    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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[User:K4zem]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  The article is not that long 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Mudslides

message: 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)
thread_title: POV and cleanup tags

message: 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)
thread_title: America1 revert vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Citations needed

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and oposition paper El Universal ) 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 Wikipedia:Verifiability  Flanker 15:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.")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)
thread_title: "Coup"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Premature archive of talk page restored, as FARC is still active and discussion is ongoing. Sandy 18:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of main page version by WGee

message: 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.  There's much to come. 172 | Talk 18:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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,  as well as one comment from the FA version, which is still relevant.  Sandy 16:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Restoration of main page version by WGee 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request for article size exception 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A question about follow ups 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I haven't noticed notable changes yet, or that your revert and restore is near complete. Sandy 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are you asking if I will continue to make changes? I'm having trouble following you. 172 | Talk 04:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the diff between the main page version restored by WGee and the current version.  172 | Talk 04:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Talk page restore

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Archive some sections

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No comments ?  Sandy 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the titles and honors  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus regarding which version to move forward with

message: 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  Flanker 20:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Opposition to references reverts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Scary photo

message: 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.   Sandy 12:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also corrected the referencing style.  Sandy 14:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continuing cleanup:  Other missing references

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Completed by Interlingua.  Sandy 12:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA Pronunciation