Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 8

message: I am happy to tell anyone who may have read the prior exchanges in this page between Silence and myself, that we have communicated directly, we have made peace and are moving on. Things were not intended by either one as bad as they may have looked. There are no hard feelings and we are happy to continue working together in this article. Silence, please correct me if I am wrong. --Anagnorisis 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's easier to have a sense of humor among friends than among enemies, I've found. I'm glad we were able to resolve this peacefully in the end; I was about to give up hope on ever seeing a happy end to our dispute, and then you suddenly left that very nice note on my User page! A pleasant end to a mediocre day. (Well, it's 2:51 AM, so I guess it's a bit past the end of the day. Oh well, same difference.) -Silence 07:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We are moving on

message: Because of its length, I have subdivided "1999-2002" into two sections: "1999" and "2000-2001" (2002 wasn't actually addressed in this section, and it's already gone into in "2002 coup" and "2002-2004"). This was surprisingly easy; there's an extremely obvious distinction, both topically and chronologically, between these years. I feel that this will help a lot with getting readers to stick with the article after the first few sections (which are, by comparison, extremely short and compact, probably because they have sub-articles to move details to, unlike most of Chavez's presidency years). However, there's another thing I feel we should work on to get more readers to go through as much of the article as possible when this article goes on the main in a couple of weeks.
"1999" and "coup of 2002" are the two sections that I see as needing a fair amount of clarification and explanation for the typical reader to read through easily. This is important, because many of the sections afterwards are very smoothly and clearly written, so it won't do to scare any readers off with complex, unexplained economic terminology before they can get to most of the article! It may also be a good idea to shorten these sections a tad, considering that "1999" is given so much more coverage than any other year of Chavez's presidency (which is made very clear by my separating "1999-2002" into two sections). Of course, it being longer isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it was an enormously important year, but making it a little shorter would probably be a good idea. Shortening "coup of 2002" somewhat, of course, should be easier, since it does have a sub-article to move any non-vital details to: Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002. But yeah. What do you think of those ideas? I've finished copyediting the "Presidency" sections, which is why I bring this up now. I'll be moving on to copyedit the rest of the article next, but I feel that clarifying and tightening up these two sections is an important goal, at least for us to keep in mind, to maximize the important information we convey, minimize the less important information, and make sure the important information is as clearly-explained as necessary for readers who aren't already familiar with this topic. -Silence 19:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with the changes. Another fair use image wouldn't hurt. Saravask 14:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "1999" and "Coup of 2002"

message: OK, once I started playing with restructuring and renaming the Presidency subsections, I couldn't help continuing! Please feel free to immediately revert my latest change; I almost put it on a separate test-page or reverted it myself and just linked to the previous edit where it would be, because it's such a big reorganization, but in the end this is really the easiest way to compare this and the previous version yourself and then decide what to do. What do you think? I changed the following sections:
*1999–2002
*Coup of 2002
*2002–2004
*Recall vote of 2004
*2004–present
to this:
*1999: Economic crisis and new constitution
*2000–2001: Reelection and reform
*2002: Coup and worker strike
*2003–2004: Recall vote
*2004–present: Focus on foreign relations
This involved separating the first section into two sections (because it was too long; specifics above), merging the second section and the beginning of the third section into a single "2002" section, properly labeling the "recall vote" section as being a long process spanning 2003 and 2004 (and also added the remaining "2003" info to the beginning of that section), and added general titles to each section to give people new to this article a general idea of the most major events or trends in each time period. I welcome any criticism of problems with the new system, and am certainly not trying to impose such a major change too quickly if there are any problems with it (though it'd be nice to settle this before this article goes on the main page, certainly); let's discuss the best way to handle the section names and organization. Currently, the main problem I see with my new system is that it makes the "2002" section too large, considering that we seem to have absolutely zero images from that entire year that would meet the image requirements for an FA. I left one image at the top of that section in my reorganization just so it wouldn't be completely barren, but there's no relationship between the text and the image, so it will probably have to be moved. If we could find an image or two from 2002, this problem would be solved; there are three on Venezuelan coup attempt of 2002, but apparently they're Fair Use and thus unacceptable (which is unfortunate, because the top image on that page in particular is fantastic, and I think very well-known—plus almost all Featured Articles I've seen do use plenty of Fair Use images :P). Incidentally, even if we leave the page organization more or less as it was before my new change, this was already a pre-existing problem (though not as bad because the "2002" section wasn't as long, so we got away with putting an image next to the "worker strike" stuff by having it be a general image for that whole 2002-2004 period): an image isn't vital, but I think it would help a lot, considering how long the coup section is. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough (for now!). Thoughts? -Silence 20:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with the changes. Another fair use image wouldn't hurt. Saravask 14:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major reorganization of "Presidency" subsections

message: *his ribald promotion
:*<sigh>. Fine. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *By the way, you realize that none of these are my suggestions, right? I just summarized the ones that were in the recent contentious edit that someone made to the article. I put them here to make it easier for us to review them all individually, not necessarily because I endorse them. Just wanting to make sure you realize that; your bellow comment on the "the the" edit makes it sound like you're talking to me. -Silence 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK, considering that Chavez's own election doesn't lend much credibility to Chavez's claims that the system was excellent at "political exclusion" Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re-adding to article as "two-party patronage system". -Silence 05:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Re-adding to article. The policy itself seems to be what he's changed, not the "procedures", how the policy is followed. -Silence 05:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK, although such trivial or small changes should just be done directly, without asking permission. Never mind. You did delete the typo. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *A clear improvement. Re-adding to article. -Silence 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK. Again, a trivial change. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I kind of like this one the way it was, though... But I agree it's a minor point. -Silence 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *An improvement. Re-adding to article. -Silence 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: **Good. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK. Again, trivial. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Actually, I think we should keep the dash. It's standard English to do so: "Chavez was newly deposed" wouldn't have a dash, but when used adjectivally, as here, "the newly-deposed Chavez" is preferrable. -Silence 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK. Again, trivial. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, very minor difference. I have a very slight preference for "amidst" in this case (it gives more of a feel of general mood), but both versions are fine by me. -Silence 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *A clear improvement. Re-adding to article. -Silence 06:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK. My typo/mispelling. I jusdongnow my spelings and gramars to guud, ya gnow. ;-) Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *OK. Trivial. Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Disagree with this removal. "Neoliberal" is, IMO, a very precise and NPOV descriptor for the specific set of policies advanced by the Washington Consensus. Removing it makes the target of Chavez's critique vague (which it is not). Saravask 06:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, let's keep it. -Silence 07:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removals (that don't also involve additions)

message: *of both what he calls Latin American integration (he means to forge an anti-U.S. alliance) and anti-imperialism,
:*That's an interesting claim, and such details and elaborations, properly cited, belong in their respective areas of this article, not in the lead. :) -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** I think something along those lines could go without the need to find a source. He has said things along those lines that is like Bush talking about the axis of evil. No debating saying he didn't say it. --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: **What is this about Chavez being "anti-U.S."? Is Chavez "anti-U.S." in a manner similar to how Adolf Hitler was anti-Semitic? Does Chavez want to exterminate all people in the U.S.? Or perhaps does Chavez only oppose the financial interests of the tiny minority of Americans who are rich/elite, while repeatedly in his speaches demonstrating his love and support for the vast bulk of Americans (ordinary poor, working, and middle class) through his foreign aid and his repeated and documented professions of love and support for ordinary Americans? Is Chavez perhaps, with the above evidence, only anti-neoliberal and anti-imperialist and anti-Bush? People, let us please get our pathologically vague terminology straight and precise here. Saravask 06:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *** Actually not (to your second question). So in that sense you are right. He has always been careful of saying he is not against the US people. But he is very much against the current US government. So yes, he is basically anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist and anti-Bush. But please Saravask, you are smart, please do not fall for his "his speaches demonstrating his love and support." He knows how to play the media game for his own benefit and how to atrack attention with those things. I have doubts about how honest his "good" acts are. But that is another subject --Anagnorisis 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *The "bitterly and aggressively" is clearly unnecessary. I'm also deeply confused by the "what he calls the Washington Consensus"—is this a term he'd made up? I know "neoliberalism" can be a loaded term at times (though this editor seems to go a bit overboard in removing it), but I was under the impression that everyone called "the Washington Consensus" that. Now I'm really lost. -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *What? Even if Chávez is the only source for his supposedly doing that, why on earth would he lie about something so trivial? In fact, the fact that it seems trivial to me (if it has some significance, please tell me, I apologize if I'm just looking stupid right now) is why I've been heavily considering just moving that tidbit to Early life of Hugo Chávez, as I've moved many other details from that section there. The only reason, in fact, that I haven't done it already, is because that note is footnoted, and I've have to go through and change every footnote from the same source (changing "b" to "a", "c" to "b", "d" to "c"...) if I wanted to remove the info and the footnote, and I'm a terribly lazy person. :3 -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *This doesn't make any sense to me. "Supposedly"? Either they're inspired or they're not. And how can a philosophy be "white"? I didn't realize that ideologies came in colors. -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. I guess maybe he meant to say "inspired supposedly by ...." --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Totally unnecessary. We've already explained that he and his college/military buddies coined the term "Bolivarianism" above, and his platform really was to end corruption and poverty; political platforms rarely have anything to do with what the candidate actually ends up doing, but those empty promises are still just as much the platforms of the candidate in question. :) -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: * I think there is no need for this change. --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *This seems accurate, from what the article currently says elsewhere; later in the article it mentions that Chávez has provided no evidence that any of these coups and invasions were actually planned. Just putting "claimed" may not be the best way to do it, but we should certainly make it clearer that these are just things Chávez has said have occurred, as our current phrasing makes it look like those things very likely did occur. -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Agree with Silence. But also not sure how to say it best. Perhaps say "undocumented" or "not proven." I don't know .....  --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *Pointless and blatant editorializing. -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Agree. --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *This is more POVed than the original version. Using "quotation marks" and other grammatical (?) tactics to subtly discredit what some term 'ideas' is "discouraged" on so-called Wikipedia. -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *If this is accurate, an NPOV way to state this might be "His administration had also reported increased primary school enrollment by one million students." Then we make it clear that the administration's the only source of this supposed statistic, but without using the POV "claimed" (which implicitly suggests that the claim is false). -Silence 06:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Well, the problem now in Venezuela is that many people are very skeptic even of official numbers given by the government. Just as an example of how bad are things now with official figures, recently in a newspaper was a piece of news about an official release from a government agency with the figures for crime for the previous (year or quarter - not sure now if it was for Caracas or the whole country) saying it had increased by X%. In the same page was a senior government employee talking about the progress in crime reduction saying that the previous period (same as the other article) crime had gone done by Y%. Yes, I think that it makes sense doing something along what Silence says. But not sure about it being the only source. It may be the only source with THAT number. Thus it may make sense to say that that is what the government says (or claim or states or whatever) it achieved. --Anagnorisis 06:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: **Well, let me answer with this: People are very skeptical about U.S. unemployment, economic growth, and productivity figures as well. Such figures as Noam Chomsky, Stan Goff, Michael Ruppert, and others have picked apart these figures as often inflated or doctored. Does that stop all the U.S. related pages from using these figures? Why should figures from the U.S. government be treated any differently from that afforded the Venezuelan government figures, especially noting that I know of no statistical *evidence* that Venezuelan government figures are doctored. Thus I say this, it may be true about your crime example in municipal Caracas, but until hard evidence is presented that casts doubt on the enrollment figures, I don't think we can but "claimed" in front of every Venezuelan government statistic and not do the same for U.S. Census data, U.S. government economic figures, etc. If evidence is presented that less than 1 million were enrolled, then I'd be more than happy to then put that into the article, as well as the word "claimed". Saravask 16:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *** Do you remember the official figures regarding the economic of China's progress during the 60s and 70s? What about North Korea official numbers? It comes a point where for some cases, government figures start loosing all credibility. That is why the figures from different government are at times not treated equal. --Anagnorisis 23:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing plain text to "what he calls...", etc.

message: *by fostering alternate leftist collectivist models of economic development
*where he was first acknowledged by his peers for his fiery lectures and uniquely radical-leftist critiques of Venezuelan government and society.
*During this period, Chávez placed much greater emphasis on alternative leftist economic development and international trade models, much of it in the form of extremely ambitious hemisphere-wide international aid agreements.
:*I actually kind of like these changes. "Alternative" is not only a bit too generic, but also, for me at least, has positive connotations of ingenuity, progress, and creative problem-solving. It brings to mind an underdog fighting for unpopular but valid new ways of thought. It's a very subtle POV, but I think it's there. For at least one of the above examples (nothing wrong with mentioning "alternative" once), as long as the "leftist" description is accurate, I'd support the change. -Silence 06:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Agree. --Anagnorisis 06:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removals of "alternative", additions of "leftist"

message: *However, Venezuela's lower, middle and upper classes have severely criticized Chávez,
:*Same deal as per my comments below: the edit is not supported by empirical evidence. Meanwhile, the negation of the edit's claim (i.e., the lower classes have by and large not criticized Chavez) is empirically supported through the results of nine elections that Chavez supporters took in landslide victories (see below). Saravask 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I presume that when we refer to the lower class, we are referring to what the majority of them do or how they react. So for example, if Chavez "alienate[s] Venezuela's lower ... class", then I presume that user:Sandalistawatcher means to say that the majority of the lower class are repelled by Chavez, and that the majority of the lower class (which consitutes more than 80% of Venezuelan society) haved joined Sumate, are actively organizing against his re-election, etc. Under the empirically documented circumstances, this is a rather peculiar statement to make, considering that Chavez received 60% of the vote in last year's recall referendum. Saravask 07:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ** What user:Sandalistawatcher says is true for most of the middle and upper classes (but a minority of people from the middle and upper class do support Chavez). Chavez popularity is greater among the lower class. But by the same token, he is not liked by all the poor. The thing is that the poor that like Chavez are much more passionate about liking him that those poor that do not like him are about disliking him. By the same token those in the upper classes that like him are more passionate about disliking him that those that like him are about showing it (am I making any sense?). Then the end result is that the ones that make noise about liking him are the poor while those that make noise about disliking him are the rich and middle class. Sounding elitist, some people say that the poor that dislike Chavez are the poor that are smart but as they are surrounded by other poor that like him, they keep quiet (I myself know of first hand accounts from poor people that dislike him and the trouble they endure in daily life in their dealings with Chavistas). --Anagnorisis 06:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims that Chavez is unpopular among the lower class

message: You know, really, :Image:Chavez-WSF2005.jpg would be a fantastic main-page image if someone just upped the contrast in Photoshop or something. Or at least we could try that to see if that would make it look better for this article, anyway. Can anyone do that? And, heck, for that matter, what's wrong with using the full-sized image :Image:Chavez Tachira.jpg? It seems like the best of all the close-up images of Chavez we have, doesn't it? Only issue is that it's not on the main page, and if it's acceptable to add to Hugo Chavez, we could certainly do that.... -Silence 16:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see what I can do with it right now. Saravask 16:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: left|100px|Hugo Chávez (2005)How's this? We can change the one in the main article to this version as well, so that Raul654 won't object. Let me know if contrast needs to be upped further. Saravask 16:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 10, 2005]] 

message: * Comment: I was reading one of the sub-articles and perhaps it is time that once we are done with this after the FA date, some of us spend some time correcting in those some of the same type of early mistakes that were present here early on -like the undue relevance some things are given in the articles when compared to the local reality. Any of you guys candidate for continuing doing some work on those?
* Question: Do you still want more of that random information I have supplied at times? Or it is a bit later and perhaps better not start including new material so close to FA date? Please let me know; I could go fish for some more. Anagnorisis 04:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it its time to clean them up of their whitewashing, undue focus, and POV. Yes, we could always use more info. I'm putting your's into the "early life" article right now. We could also always make the "Early life of Hugo Chavez" article into an FA, and make it appear on the main page so that Anagnorisis's work is displayed. Thanks. Saravask 11:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment & Question

message: I think this is an interesting thing to show ir regard to what Chavez says of his petro-diplomacy -perhaps in the foreign policy section: Chavez told the Argentine newspaper Clarin last month that Venezuela has "a strong oil card to play on the geopolitical stage" He said, "It is a card that we are going to play with toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States." It comes from the Washington Post. Here is the source 
:I converted the source to ref/note format. Saravask 11:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting quote

message: Early life? Or perhaps good for the 1992 coup sub-article (we do have such a subarticle, right?). I am not sure some of this info below could perhaps going into the "early life" sub-article. Some of it maybe, but other may be too specific to the military coup attempt of 1992. Perhaps we can use some of it in that sub-article. the info is from the same Marcano book I have mentioned before.
* By 1986 - 1987 it was clear that Chavez and Francisco Arias were the leaders of subversive organization they had formed earlier: Bolivarian Revolutionary Army - 200. It was already then that they decided to go ahead with a coup attempt half way through the next government (regardless of who would win the elections). The reason they said was because mid-term governments were at the lowest popularity level. Page 98.
* Leaders of extreme left party Causa R, like Pablo Median, started meeting regularly with Chavez from 1985. Page 98.
* Medina says in their meeting Chavez was a person who was always jovial, but spoke little. He didn't have his own opinions. he was like a sponge absorving information. He always asked for a copy of all documensts that were shown. Page 99
* In 1987 Chavez now with the rank of mayor is sent to work as an aide to Miraflores Palace (the building where the president's and his staff offices are). Page 99.
:*Er, you mean "major", right? Saravask 09:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a 1992 coup article at Venezuelan coup attempt of 1992 that could use a lot of expansion, yes. -Silence 03:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Anagnorisis. I'll put these in now. Saravask 05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More random info

message: На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил!
:Totally. --Descendall 21:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  На правое дело он поднял народы 

message: It is interesting. A while back, Anagnorisis was pushing for two additions:
#That Chavez's father admired Rafael Caldera, and thus his middle name "Rafael"
#That there are exactly 75 people in Chavez's graduating class.
I want to know *exactly* where these came from, and *what their sources are* to corroborate these. The objector has picked up on these two things, oddly enough, as currently unsourced. If no sources are provided, I will need to delete these. Thanks. ← SARAVASK —  14:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just move them to the Talk page until a source is found for 'em. They're not vital details, and it's easy to re-add them anytime, easier than re-nominating for FAC. -Silence 16:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for additions??? 

message: Last week in Venezuela (in the city of Puntofijo, Falcón State to be more accurate) an agreement was reached between Hugo Chávez and colombian president, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, for the construction of a binational gas pipeline (the cost will be around three hundred million dollars paid wholly with venezuelan resources), with which Venezuela will provide gas to Colombia in a very favorable deal for Colombia; it's apparently an attempt by Chavéz to "help a brother country". Maybe you'll like to include this on the "Foreing Policy" section of the article.Rosameliamartinez 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  True. But besides the recency effect, I do not think it is that relevant. There are always all kind of agreements with other countries. From a diplomatic standpoint, more interesting to mention could be the delegation of US congresmen that a few days ago after landing at the airport, going on an official visit to meet even Chavez, were not let out of the plane -which was in the tarmac for about 2 hours- after which time the occupants got tired and bored and left. --Anagnorisis 16:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Foreign Policy 

message: Last week in Venezuela (in the city of Puntofijo, Falcón State to be more accurate) an agreement was reached between Hugo Chávez and colombian president, Álvaro Uribe Vélez, for the construction of a binational gas pipeline (the cost will be around three hundred million dollars paid wholly with venezuelan resources), with which Venezuela will provide gas to Colombia in a very favorable deal for Colombia; it's apparently an attempt by Chavéz to "help a brother country". Maybe you'll like to include this on the "Foreing Policy" section of the article.Rosameliamartinez 04:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Foreign Policy 

message: *I think we have to be as careful with the captions that go under the pics as we are with the article itself. I notice under one picture that the FTAA has been shelved. I would say that is not correct. That is what  Chavez wants to believe, but if you ask other countries, they would very much say "NO, IT HASN'T BEEN SHELVED." I suggest instead of "the recently blocked"  to change it to "their recently opposed." Hmmm.... I will make this change myself. Revert it if you disagree. --Anagnorisis 18:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked? Hmmm .... better ... but was it really blocked? Or is it that they just opposed it and managed to postpone real progress. They just didn't reach consensus (which is what many would like). 29 countries support it as it is. 4 (Mercosur countries) want changes, and 1 alone really opposes it fully (Venezuela).
*The latest edit made by user 200.11.242.33 re. the coup attempt is not accurate. The number of people that died during the coup attempt were 14. Chavez later in order to underline how low the number was said himself "February 4 there were 14 dead. That is less dead than any weekend in Caracas (referring to vilolent deaths resulting from crime), less deaths than the children that die of hunger in Venezuela in one month. In this way I carry with my violence, it is up to the others to carry with theirs. I have neved evaded it (meaning responsibility). Do I have my hands stained with blood as somebody said? Yes, the hands and all of me is blood ..." This is in the Marcano book pages 127 and 128.
*There is a mention that says that half the military forces were with Chavez during that coup. The first coup attempt was only carried by army forces (not navy, not air force, not national guard), and the amount of people confirmed involved one way or the other only amounted to 10% of the army. Also from Marcano. pages 123 - 124.
*The other coup that the same user mentions was in November of the same year and that one incluuded men from other groups (air force, civilians, etc.) But I do not have hard data with me at the moment. Anyway, those details of the November coup I do not think are relevant now in this article.--Anagnorisis 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: Was this article written by the Venezuelan Ministry of Popular Enlightenment? "Known for his democratic socialist governance"? Puh-lease. "Known for being an authoritarian demagogue and thug" is much nearer the truth. Opposed by the middle and upper classes? What about the general strike? Were the 75% of the people who boycotted the elections all "upper class"? Does this third-rate Mussolini really deserve this vast, eulogistic article? Plus a whole separate article on his early life? And another on his foreign policy? Adam 22:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam, if you find redundancies than remove them instead of criticizing the lenght of the article. If you think the article doesn't cover enough the general strike, the boycott, etc... than you can help. If you think the article is biased than explain that in lenght. But I am not sure you'd succeed to do so while comparing him with Mussolini. Cheers -- Svest 22:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have been meaning to bring this up for quite some time. Although the article is good on an informative level, Chavez is, to put it mildly, not without his critics, and those voices seem to be silent in this article. From official blacklists of opposition members, financial irregularities at the PDVSA and Citgo, violent confrontations between "Chavistas" and opposition protestors, the judicial coup, and Chavez's warm relations to every maniacal despotic government he comes in contact with, clearly there is more to the "Fifth Estate" than is being told here. TDC 22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  TDC, I tend to agree with you. However I think more of those things are mentioned in the article. If they aren't, please include them. But try writing them in NPOV style and it would be good if you can provide an outside source (which I know there are - one just has to go look for it). --Anagnorisis 03:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: TDC, recently, I would've agreed with you.  But just about all of the criticisms you suggest are already in the text: Chavez' friendship w/Castro and his visit to Saddam Hussein during OPEC, the "judicial emergency committee" of 1999, corruption allegations, the "blacklist", clashes between pro- and anti-Chavez forces around the 2002 coup.  Those stories are already being told. DanKeshet 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Read the critiscism section, a lot of the accusations are documented there, regardless of veracity. SuperFlanker 03:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Adam, do you think it is a good reason to say that this article doesn't deserve this lenght because Fox's is much shorter?! -- Svest 23:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well find yourself in for a fight if you rewrite this one, Adam. People do not tend to take kindly to major changes (let alone rewrites) to featured articles, particularly ones supported by so many. Ambi 00:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I'm 100% sure that only the middle and upper classes criticize Chavez.  Poor people would never criticize a socialist leader, right?  Why would they?  Everyone knows socialism helps the poor.  Seriously, can anyone justify that phrasing? 24.162.138.238 00:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Easily. A majority of the lower-class majority in Venezuela seems to support Chavez, while a majority of the upper-and-middle-class minority in Venezuela seems to oppose him. Although there are also a significant number of exceptions to this generalization (and common sense tells us that by nature statements like "the upper class X" or "the lower class does Y" must be generalizations, making stating it explicitly unnecessary), these exceptions tend to be much less outspoken than the rule does. It may not be perfectly Politically Correct (what a loss), but it's Neutral and seems to give a pretty accurate description of the social conflict and class struggle in Venezuela that people unfamiliar with Venezuelan politics vitally need in order to understand events in context. Nor does "popularity" indicate that a certain course of action is correct, or even that the poor are being helped by the policy; try reading the rest of the article, the intro paragraphs along can't possibly address every little nuance of such a complicated and controversial figure and the reactions to him. -Silence 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, so I guess the poor don't criticize electoral fraud, human rights violations, and political repression.  Somehow, I think that claim needs a citation. 24.162.138.238 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oy. You rather miss the point. Chavez's supporters don't acknowledge the existence of electoral fraud, human rights violations, or political repression. And, again, I'm sure quite a few lower-class people criticize Chavez and accuse him of all those things, but those people are, overall, exceptions, since almost the entirety of Chavez's support is based in Venezuela's poor majority. And I wouldn't mind adding a citation for the claim, I recommend you contact either Mr. S or Mr. A for a nice source to link to, as they are the two chief contributors to this article. I'm just here to keep things in good condition during their absence. It's a dirty job, but... -Silence 01:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 
So if part of the article needs to be cleaned up, how on earth did it become a featured article?Dr. B 02:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I added that tag about 15 minutes ago? :) I could easily add the same tag to almost any other Featured Article on Wikipedia. I have quite high standards, and just about all long articles don't meet them at least in various portions. Feel free to remove the tag if you've read the text in that section and disagree with it, but the point of the tag is to draw attention to the area of the article that needs the most attention and fixing-up, not to go to such a silly length as removing the FA status of one of the most overall thorough and well-written FAs on Wikipedia. I previously attempted to create the same effect with a To-do List mentioning a few areas where the article could use improvement, but the list was hidden by Mr. S, and most of my requests to focus on improving that section of the article over the last few weeks were ignored, so I've taken that new step to highlight the article's chief weak point so that it can be dealt with quickly. Again, if you disagree, feel free to remove it, and if you agree, feel free to improve the section so that the tag won't apply anymore. The point of this entire process is to improve articles so Wikipedia will have better content for its readers, not to argue back and forth forever about something as trivial as whether the article's "Featured"; I can think of reasons to remove just about every article's FA status, but only a handful really deserve it at this point. -Silence 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, I'd hope that an article wouldn't have its FA status removed for problems that could probably be fixed in a half hour of work. :) -Silence 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gee, that's not POV 

message: If you look by "Impact of the presidency", you'll find this little thing
:
So if part of the article needs to be cleaned up, how on earth did it become a featured article?Dr. B 02:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I added that tag about 15 minutes ago? :) I could easily add the same tag to almost any other Featured Article on Wikipedia. I have quite high standards, and just about all long articles don't meet them at least in various portions. Feel free to remove the tag if you've read the text in that section and disagree with it, but the point of the tag is to draw attention to the area of the article that needs the most attention and fixing-up, not to go to such a silly length as removing the FA status of one of the most overall thorough and well-written FAs on Wikipedia. I previously attempted to create the same effect with a To-do List mentioning a few areas where the article could use improvement, but the list was hidden by Mr. S, and most of my requests to focus on improving that section of the article over the last few weeks were ignored, so I've taken that new step to highlight the article's chief weak point so that it can be dealt with quickly. Again, if you disagree, feel free to remove it, and if you agree, feel free to improve the section so that the tag won't apply anymore. The point of this entire process is to improve articles so Wikipedia will have better content for its readers, not to argue back and forth forever about something as trivial as whether the article's "Featured"; I can think of reasons to remove just about every article's FA status, but only a handful really deserve it at this point. -Silence 02:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'd hope that an article wouldn't have its FA status removed for problems that could probably be fixed in a half hour of work. :) -Silence 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questioning this article's selection for featured article

message: The following text is being repeatedly re-inserted into the article, even though it seems to be unnecessarily trivial and is poorly-formatted:
:On November 10, 2005, Chávez, stated regarding Mexican President Vicente Fox in a talk before supporters in Caracas that he was saddened that "the president of a people like the Mexicans lets himself become the running-dog of the empire" for what he alleged was Fox's obsequience to U.S. trade interests in his promotion of the newly stalled FTAA. (The word Chávez used, cachorro, literally means "puppy dog", but it was the standard translation offered in Spanish Communist discourse for Mao Zedong's  zougou.)
Please consider:
#Moving this information to Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez. It is fairly trivial, and makes an already-quite-large article (and an already-quite-large section) even larger. There's plenty of room on the sub-page for such details.
#The fact that the actual translation of text is more important than the "official translation"; if he said puppy dog, he said puppy dog, regardless of any subtle (or claimed) connotations.
#This article's current notational system. If you go through the article, you'll note that there is not even a single external link in the entirety of the article's text; all of them are in the "notes" and "external links" sections. If we are to link to your above website, we will have to do so in the exact same way: by using the Note system and including both the explanatory paragraph and the link below, in Notes—which will require renumbering many of the other notes to compensate, another reason to consider adding the information at the sub-page instead, where it will be much easier to fit in). -Silence 05:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Puppy-dog / running-dog

message: way to go!--Capsela 05:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Brilliant deconstruction by painman

message: The brief mention of poor progress with unemployment and the economy should mention that this happened at a time when oil prices boomed which would normally have caused a burst of economic activity, revitalization, and at least temporarily low enemployment none of which has happened. -- M0llusk 15:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  economic criticism should mention oil boom 

message: Just wanted to congratulate the people who worked to bring this article up to Featured Status.  I guess the main page summarized it well as Chávez remains one of the most complex, controversial and high-profile figures in modern politics. and it's important that Wikipedia is able to recognise that and provide a great article on him.  I knew bare-bones details before, but just thought I'd stop by and thank those of you who worked on it, as I've learned quite a bit, and presumably so have thousands of others. Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations on Featured Status

message: :See User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump
================================================================================
LinkFix Dump
Hugo Chávez
2005-12-10.13-43-48
================================================================================
5   President of Venezuela -> List of Presidents of Venezuela
21  President of Venezuela -> List of Presidents of Venezuela
23  Venezuelan coup attempt of 1992 -> [[1992 Venezuelan coup attempt of
Hugo ChÃ¡vez]]
25  Criticisms of Hugo ChÃ¡vez -> Criticism of Hugo ChÃ¡vez
25  Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004 -> [[Venezuelan recall referendum of
2004]]
25  Liberator -> DISAMBIG
45  Iris -> DISAMBIG
50  President of Venezuela -> List of Presidents of Venezuela
55  Social welfare -> DISAMBIG
67  OPEC -> Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
78  Consejo Nacional Electoral -> DISAMBIG
112 Rio Grande Do Sul -> Rio Grande do Sul
116 Putative Venezuelan coup of 2004 -> [[Putative Venezuelan coup attempt
of 2004]]
130 Nestor Kirchner -> NÃ©stor Kirchner
166 PetroCaribe -> Petrocaribe
166 Telesur -> TeleSUR
170 FTAA -> Free Trade Area of the Americas
180 Telesur -> TeleSUR
213 Personality cult -> Cult of personality
238 University of Brazil -> Universidade do Brasil
239 Russian Federation -> Russia
240 Beijing University -> Peking University
537 Bronx -> The Bronx
661 President of Venezuela -> List of Presidents of Venezuela
661 Pedro Carmona Estanga -> Pedro Carmona
662 President of Venezuela -> List of Presidents of Venezuela
# DONE
Some weird unicode trippiness, I'll investigate when I get a chance. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  LinkFix Dump 

message: Opening up another can of worms: calling him an "anti-imperialist" is silly. It's 2005; EVERYBODY is anti-imperialist -- or at least says so. No world leader, no academic, no editorial writer would describe him- or herself as "imperialist" today, not even Chavez' bitterest foes. So to call Chavez anti-imperialist is not newsworthy. What IS newsworthy is that he views US foreign policy as being imperialist. See my point? Bush et al. wouldn't counter Chavez by saying "imperialism is good"; they'd claim "we're not imperialists." The problem, then, with calling him an "anti-imperialist" is that it is either irrelevant (if we take it at face value) or creates the impression of pov (i.e. the only way for it to be relevant is if we adopt a Chavezian POV and assume that the US is imperialist.)
Note that the above is not in any way a comment on the merits of the various arguments; I'm not making a political point -- just a nitpicking one about good writing. Doops |  talk 20:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you answered yourself there.  Being "anti-imperialist" in this context doesn't just mean "being against imperialism"; it means that you describe others' actions as imperialism and you oppose them on that basis.  Similar to how being "anti-Communist" doesn't just mean you aren't for communism; it means you're actively opposed. DanKeshet 20:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. This is also extremely similar to Chavez's opposition to "neoliberalism", since many of the "neoliberal" policies he opposes aren't described as neoliberal by anyone else. The reason these terms are used is because they're the terms Chavez almost invariably uses himself. -Silence 20:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying the terms shouldn't be used; it should just be done in Chavez' voice, e.g. "Chavez has strongly criticized US foreign policy as being imperialist", etc. Scare-quotes is another way to do it, but it's not very professional-looking. Doops |  talk 21:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, a week's gone by. I'm going to try doing something about this. Hope it works. Doops |  talk 06:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "anti-imperialism" 

message: So, the article's main-page stay is over, and I'm enjoying look back at how much the article's improved in such a short period of time, to an enormous extent thanks to Mr. S's edits and Mr. A's behind-the-scenes work, and also how much it improved over a long period of time thanks to dozens of other editors who have slowly built the article up over the years. Assorted moments in the article's history:
*April 12 '02 : Creation of the article (during Chavez's brief deposal)
*December 7 '03 : Status two years ago
*June 1 '04 : Status a year and a half ago
*January 1 '05 : Status a year ago
*June 10 '05 : Status six months ago
*August 10 '05 : Status four months ago
*October 3 '05 : Status before Mr. S's first edit
*October 11 '05  : Status two months ago
*October 30 '05 : Status before first Peer Review
*November 9 '05 : Status when nominated for FAC
*November 19 '05 : Status upon completion of FAC
*December 3 '05 : Status one week before appearing on main page
Pretty neat. (Anyway, sorry for the pointless digression. Back to work! A Wikipedia article is never done!) -Silence 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Silence, thanks for your kind words. However, I do not think I deserve so much credit. I just gave some info and made a few comments. I actually think your work in the past weeks has added a lot more to the article and you deserve more praise than I do. Cheers and thanks. --Anagnorisis 03:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're a madman, Mr. A, but that's why I loves ye. Let's do this again sometime, K? Ciao! -Silence 05:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: In 1992, right after Chavez' failed coup there was televised Congress session to condem the attempt. That session is crucial to understand the events of following years. 
During the debate, ex-president Caldera (a for-life senator by the 1961 constitution) condemned the coup but he also sorts of defended it asserting that he understood the reasons that had lead the group of militaries into rebelion. 
Caldera's intervention lead to an intervention by Aristobulo Isturiz (then from the leftist Causa R party, if I remember correctly) in which he told that congresspeople had agreed to unanimously condemn the coup, but that he had changed his mind after listening to Caldera's intervention. Both Caldera and Isturiz took the opportunity to condemn government corruption and ineficacy, and to denounce poverty and injustice. 
I can't remember if other congresspeople followed suit, but it is obvious that that Caldera's speach paved the way for the other two coup attempts, the impeachment of president Perez, Caldera's victory in the next presidential election, and more. 
After the coup and the congressional debate Chavez' became a sort of "popular hero", with the green uniform and red berett becoming one of the favorite disguises worn by kids in the Carnival cellebrations of 1992. Caldera's electoral win lead to Chavez' disimprisonment, and the popularity lead to Chavez'landslide win in the presidential elections of 1998.
Another congressman, David Morales Bello, shouted "¡Muerte a los golpistas!" (Death to the rebels!) during his congressional intervention, and that meant the end of his political career.
I'm not posting this information to the main page because:
* It's all from memory, and I think references should be used.
* I'm still not well familiarized with the pages's content.
Juanco--201.211.96.173 00:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people I know can't wait for Caldera to croak. Not me. I hope he lives to be 150, so he can never escape the hell his political opportunism unleashed.--RicardoC 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that hell was unleashed by others way before, and that it totally broke loose during the riots of 1989. There was no way for the "Pacto de Punto Fijo" (the Punto Fijo pact) to subsist after that. They tried to keep it going any way, and the result is what we have, a complete swing of the pendulum. --Juanco 22:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The 1992 Congress Debate after the Coup Attempt

message: We need a citation for this extract, added on December 19 by Alexescalona:
:However, the opposition challenged the validity of the results [of the 2004 recall], calling them fraudulent. Claims of fraud were backed by documents, reports of irregularities in polling centers and even one study that challenged the results using statistical analysis. Complaints ensued over the delay between the voting and recount process, which took place three days later, as well as footage that showed what appeared to be members of the FAN, the National Armed Forces, handling voting boxes in an undisclosed location.
If this is true it needs to be cited properly. Andrew Levine 00:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, there were several statistical studies that aimed to prove that the election had been fraudulent. All of the studies were rebuted by qualified specialists. The OAS comissioned two revisions of the most publicized study (Rigobon&Pericci if I remember correctly) and concluded that there was no statistical basis for claiming fraud. All the information should be available at the OAS web site. --Juanco 17:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation needed

message: This section is full of grammatical oddities and should be rewritten by someone who has an idea what the paragraph is trying to say:
 
"Media gave Chavez full publicity after his coup d'etat in 1992, making him a star media, trying to use him to defeat traditional political parties. Because of Chavez's political agenda asking Venezuelans to not vote in any election, he fell in a low popularity that took off attention from him until he accepted to participate in democratic elections in 1997. Some newspapers that gave him the opportunity to express himself until 1998 are now prosecuted by his government [| La Razón Newspaper case]"Katsam 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chávez and the media

message: Why put a picture of him with his eyes closed at the head of the article?Katsam 13:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: I would like to suggest merging the politics section in Venezuela into this article for the following reasons:
* Most of the information is redundant 
* this article is much better written and list sources
* Long political debates shouldn't be in the main page of the country.
I think the usual 60% consensus for page moves should be sufficient
===Voting===
:Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support : for the above reasons Spaceriqui 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
A far better idea would be to summarize the sections on his presidency here and recreate Presidency of Hugo Chávez. This article, as is, is way longer than necessary to efficienty cover its subject. See Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. -- mav 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested Merge

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support : for the above reasons Spaceriqui 00:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: :Add any additional comments
A far better idea would be to summarize the sections on his presidency here and recreate Presidency of Hugo Chávez. This article, as is, is way longer than necessary to efficienty cover its subject. See Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Article size. -- mav 23:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm interested to find out what happened here, as that bastion of accurate journalism, OfficialWire, has published an article describing a controversy. Can someone give me a breakdown of what happened here? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the OfficialWire article itself, the guy spammed Jimbo complaining that the article didn't meet his standards and when he stopped getting responses, posted a "I have information that nobody else has, so change the article" comment above at #Here's a question for the Chavez pundits, got shot down for NOR, and has decided to write about his awful mistreatment on the web.  For those Wikipedians who don't recognize the name "OfficialWire", check out QuakeAID for the beef. - BanyanTree 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on here?