Wikipedia

Talk:Early life of Hugo Chávez/Archive 1

< Talk:Early life of Hugo Chávez
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Saravask in topic SOS from site fan
Archive 1

I think that this article and Life of Hugo Chávez (1975 – 1992) should probably be merged.--nixie 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I just merged them into this article and put a redirect (to here) in the Life of Hugo Chávez (1975 – 1992). I also merged these topics in the Hugo Chavez article. Saravask 03:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. It should save you some time, as there are now fewer related articles to maintain.--nixie 03:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Woah! Nice job improving this article! New images and interesting information always make me happy. :3 Of course, whether the FAC succeeds or not, another option is to aim for the new Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates for the entire "Hugo Chavez" series once all the Chavez articles are up to the same level of quality as this one. In any case, very nice. -Silence 17:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed detail

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re-add these as soon as a source exists to cite this: "His father was at the time an admirer of Rafael Caldera, founder of opposition party COPEI, hence the middle name Rafael." -Silence 16:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed format for main page

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Woah. We're already discussing how the article would look on the main page? Considering that the article Hugo Chavez itself will be on the main page within days, I'd expect it to be at least a year or two before this could be main-paged. -Silence 06:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not only is that a huge exaggeration, but Belarus is a country. Hugo Chavez is a person. To argue that the former is the same as the latter is like arguing that regularly featuring articles that deal with the United States of America is the same as regularly featuring articles that deal with Michael Jackson. The chief point of featuring articles on the main page is to show off high-quality articles that many people would normally not see otherwise; having two articles on a single person appear, especially when the first one links to the second one near the top of its page almost immediately, would be beyond redundant. Heck, even if this article is featured, it may never appear on the main page, it's such a clear subdivision of Chavez himself. My suggestion that it could appear on the main page in a couple of years was an extremely optimistic one. If you successfully get this FAd, you should be happy to have done such an amazing job on two articles and to have your great work recognized, and you should possibly consider trying to get the entire Hugo Chavez series of articles to "featured topic" (a new type of Featured) standard; you shouldn't assume that you'll get it on the main page, when so many other FAs are being made every few days and so many perfectly good FAs have been around for years without appearing on the main page. -Silence 16:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

General comments regarding what is in the text

Latest comment: 18 years ago32 comments3 people in discussion

Some things in the article that may need some cleaning.

  • Descended from indigenous, black, and mestizo ancestors I do not see the relevance of that text. Most people in the former colonies of Spain and Portugal are like that. Inlike other European nations, the Spanish and Portuguese governments first sent men to conquer the new lands. These men didn't have any qualms about fornicating the local females. The results of this eventually would be a society fully mixed; of course often the dominant group was that one made of 100% whites, as the most senior people sent by the crown had the means to bring their white wife from the peninsula. However, being mestizo or for humble origin has never been an issue for advancement in any way in Venezuela. Though it is true that the top echelon of the upper class is made of only white people, it has more to do with a history of who had money when, and it has nothing to do with previous ascendants. There are many people in Venezuelan high-society that are dark enough to be considered mestizos. Most politicians from AD and COPEI were mestizos. Former presidents also were mestizos. Mentioning that is really not relevant given Venezuelan social structure (though Chavez has tried to twist all this to manipulate it to his advantage by creating tensions that had died long ago) unless one would want to sensationalize the fact to an anglo-saxon audience (as the Brits never mixed with the locals in their colonies).
    Irrelevant. Chavez IS mulatto and mestizo. This is a fact. It is sourced in the article. Your obsession with omitting all reference to Chavez's race is therefore not productive in explaining Chavez's background and family origins, a phenomenon hardly unique to this article. See for example the discussions of the racial background in the Barack Obama featured article. ← SARAVASK — 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Chávez family is descended from the mestizos and mulattos... Same comment as above.
    Again, see the Barack Obama article. Discussion of racial background is perfectly acceptable among FAs. Again, I will not allow your personal obsession with censoring all discussion of Chavez's mixed racial background to adulterate this article. ← SARAVASK — 06:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Chávez himself was born with primarily indigenous Indian blood mixed with significant African roots (Kozloff 2005). Same comment as above. Way to much is made up of this.
  • Chávez recalls being raised together with five brothers and sisters in a small house composed of large palm leaves constructed over a bare dirt floor (Chavez 2005). Very misleading as intro eventhough later this is corrected. Chavez from a very early age moved to his grandmother's house. Thus he was not really raised with his younger 4 brothers/sisters.
  • The village was itself mired in dire poverty far from the oil-rich provinces. It was just like any village that size in Venezuela at the time. At some point it should be mention that Chavez' father later on also owned a ranch -poor people do not tend to own land and other houses besides their primary residence (and this happened during the years of the AD and Copei government).
    • A source for what? That the village was like any other village? No, I know you do not mean that. But regarding the ranch, it is not so much about mentioning that (it is not relevant). I am just using that as an example to tell you that they were not THAT poor! --Anagnorisis 15:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant about his father's owning a ranch. I'm sorry I need to request this, but I've already had to deal with one objection based on unsourced information (which I removed). I cannot risk this happening again. ← SARAVASK — 16:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Chávez's own family was also very poor..." Same comment as above. They were humble, but not very poor.
    • I didn't have a source for this statement before. Now I do, and it is next to that statement in Harvard citation format. If you can find an equally credible source that states that his family was not poor, I'll be happy to revise this statement. ← SARAVASK — 11:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • died in an airplane crash—the worst in Venezuela's history I am not sure this is correct any longer -being the worst crash, after the Colombian airplane that fell in Venezuela some months ago. Would need checking. Ok, I am checking: 155 people died in 1969 ... and 160 died in the plane that fell this year. Details here [1]
  • Correction made. Not that that passage was written befor this year's major crash, and the Venezuela Tuya article does state that it was the worst air accident in Venezuela as well. But still, thank you. ← SARAVASK — 06:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 'Given that we mention that he doesn't drink that heavily, perhaps we should mention that he smokes a lot (though I never have managed to see him smoking on TV). I can find sources for this.
    • But you know what? As I think of this, it stars to become absurd that everything that is said has to be sourced and quoted. Some things are known to so many that do not need to be quoted. Would you disagree with the fact that Britney Spears is married to someone? Would we need to find a soruce to say that or can we just say it out of general knowledge. I mean, yes, I can find a source for this ... but is it really necessary? I would prefer to spend my time on more relevant things that finding a source that says he smokes cigarrettes. It may not be worth the time for the info it really ads. Who really cares if he smlokes or not? If it can be mentioned, fine. If not, fine.--Anagnorisis 15:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • as well as taken charge of his own radio program... Maybe a little context can be given to this. Or else it sounds larger than what it really was. This was in a remote location and a result of his first military posting upon finishing his studies in the military academy.
  • After his undergraduate studies concluded in 1975, Chávez entered active-duty military service as member of a counter-insurgency battalion stationed in Barinas. In 1976, the battalion was tasked with suppressing a guerilla insurgency staged by the ultra-leftist movement Bandera Roja ("Red Flag") in Cumuná. It is Cumana not Cumuna. But it was not to Cumana where he was sent, it was to San Mateo -not that far from Cumana, but not that close either. I think Barcelona and Puerto La cruz are closer to it than Cumana. However, I think though basically right the text can mislead the reader. Chavez first assignment was a head custodian for a communications unit. This communication unit was attached to a battalion involved in counter-insurgency. But he saw little insurgency as there was none in the region where he got first deployed. it was later on (in 1977 not 1976), when he joined as a communications officer a Center of Tactical Operations in San Mateo, that he got a look first hand at some counter-insurgency work. Marcano page 75 and 76.
  • Maybe it should be mentioned that after his arrest while stationed in the presidential palace he was sent to an administrative post to keep him away from troops and as punishment for his suspected subversive activities. Mention also how he was then by chance (early retirement of another officer) that he got a command with troops and despite a report detailing all his subversive activities (instead the one who wrote the report was asked to undergo a psychiatric evaluation).
  • His banishment to Elorza IS mentioned. As for your second statement "by chance ... got a command", I assume you are talking about the command of a Maracay paratrooper batallion in August 1991. In that case, it is also already in the article, and is sourced. ← SARAVASK — 06:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The intro to the Reaction to the Caracazo section though factually correct is very misleading. The economic problems were due mostly to the same mistakes made by all the others latinamerican countries (which did not have oil) during the 70s and whcih led to the latinamerican debt crisis of the 80s.
  • Irrelevant. We are concerned in this article about Venezuela's poor economic performance up to 1998 as a backdrop to Chavez's coup and political rise. We are NOT in the business of doing some sort of comparative study of economic performance among Latin American countries. Again, irrelevant and utterly tangential editorializing. ← SARAVASK — 06:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK. Please suggest ways to gracefully integrate this data into the article (or you yourself could always do it, of course). Also, please point out other misleading descriptions. Thanks. ← SARAVASK — 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant? What is it with you today? Your knowledge is actually wrong. Thus why I am trying to correct you. You mention that the economic problems Venezuela had was because of the reduction of oil prices etc. Well, I am telling you it was not because of that. Simple and relevant. I was giving you more infop so that you would know better and would know how to change it. But if you prefer to remain ignorant fine, I will then correct the article myself taking out wrong misleading information. --Anagnorisis 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet these policies yielded still further sharp economic declines I disagree. if you look at the numbers, Venezuela's economy did well in the early 90s (after the first initial shock adjustment of 1989). However, it is true that the poor felt the initial pinch badly.
  • Yes. I did take the liberty of looking at the numbers. Let's see now, a direct quote from DiJohn (2004), p. 8:

"Per capita gross domestic product declined 2.7 percent in the liberalisation period, 1990-1998. In the non-oil economy, economic liberalisation did not reverse the long-run decline in either non-oil GDP or in manufacturing growth (see Table 1). Manufacturing growth, which had been on a downward trend since the mid-1960s, declined from an annual average of 4.3 percent in the period 1980-1990 to 1.5 percent in the reform era of 1990-1998, and collapsed to minus 5 percent in the period 1998-2002.36 Non-oil annual growth did increase from minus 0.1 percent in the period 1980-1990 to 2.3 percent in the period 1990-1998. However, this rate was still well below the growth rate in the previous three decades and collapsed again to minus 1.9 percent in the period 1998-2002. Moreover, there was continued decline in total investment and particularly private sector investment"

"Very misleading"? As per the above quote, I think not. ← SARAVASK — 06:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC) I just removed the above quote from the article. ← SARAVASK — 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    • I am confused. I thought we were concerned with building up the article with data that would discuss things up to 1992. In this specific case we were talking about the Perez years and the economy before the coup. How does numbers up to 1998 help us with that? --Anagnorisis 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • the neoliberal reforms failed to lower these high rates throughout the 1990s They were really never carried. Thus difficult to attest their efficiency. The only country that really held steady has been Chile and it has done better than many. Those reforms are unfairly blame in the case of Venezuela. Truth is that Perez started a half of a real program. He didn't really do at first what he should have done. He did only half of it and not fully. This was due to the fact that he initially had some ministers (Bobby Pocaterra and Eglee Iturbe) in the economy that were from his AD party and they opposed the reforms anticipating they may not endear the people with the party (and also because removing controls and regulations reduced the possibilities for appointed government officials -members of the party- to extract money from third parties). These ministers opposed the measure of the new technocrat ministers Perez had brought from the outiside. It wasn't until well in his second year that Perez threw full support behind his technocrat ministers -and removing the other ones. The real new program was really only being implemented for less than 2 years. After the 1992 coup, Perez started also to try to backtrack a bit from a total neoliberal program by starting policies that went contrary to the neoliberal policies. He tried to juggle with both opposing styles of policies at the same time. This proved a disaster. It gave ammunition to everyone to criticize him. IMO, one of his mistakes was not to have gone full steam from the beginning. He may have had a better chance with showing results. Venezuela's growth in GDP was the largest anywhere in the world in 1991 (I think, if not it was 1990). The Caracas stock exchange was also the one with the greatest returns measured in US$. Problem for Perez was that his own party abandoned him and didn't help sell his polcicies. But I digress ... this is another topic. Anagnorisis 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a joke, right? Where are your sources? The assertion in this article on Venezuela's poor economic performance subsequent to the enactment of sweeping neoliberal reforms is now among the most heavily referenced, footnotes, and verifiable statements on Wikipedia. I've provided links to a book written by a historian, as well as links to scholarly papers (with fottnotes containing verbatim excerpts on the economic crisis of 1980-1990). These academic papers use such words as "crisis" and "downward trend" to describe the post-reform Venezuelan economy of 1990 to 1998.[2] I again quote from DiJohn (2004):
    • Not, it is not a joke. Your asking like that I find it almost insulting. I have extensive experience in the financial markets in Venezuela during that period. Experience well documented that I do not have to justify here. But suffice to say that I know more about the ecomomic performance of the country during that period than many of the experts you will find. But ... nah, forget it. --Anagnorisis 15:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I changed the language of the article by removing any reference to "decline" or "crisis". Rather, I just put in that economic results were "mixed", which I suppose they were, considering your data on the stock markets. Thanks. ← SARAVASK — 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"Accompanying the increase in ungovernability has been a severe economic crisis. In the period 1988-2002, per capita income declines have been consistently among the worst in Latin America and percentage increases in income inequality, poverty and informal employment have been among the highest on the continent. Regulatory deficiencies were also at the heart of one of Latin America’s worst banking collapses in the 1990s."[3]

Unless you can find verifiable sources to document your "thoughts", your claim above is inactionable. ← SARAVASK — 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Uh, if you have images from his early life, I'll be happy to upload them and insert them for you. Thanks. ← SARAVASK — 19:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I have read this discussion and have to disagree with many Anagnorisis' points. Many of your objections (his racial and economic background) are based on the arguement that "many in Venezuela are the same". I, knowing little about Venezuela and less about its people, am intrigued by these points. In the UK, the country from which I hail, being mixed race was (and perhaps still is) quite a taboo. It is therefore important that these points are included to demonstrate that European cultural prejudices are not relevent in parts of South America—it teaches us something of the Venezuelan outlook. --159.92.101.144 10:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Errr... I thought the articler was about Hugo Chavez. Not about educating people about Venezuela and its people. For that there are other articles. If we were to read the articles about a USA candidate, say J. Kerry, we would not have to go back and talk about the Mayflower, the Irish immigration and so on just to inform those that do not know much about the general background of the USA population. Now, if there was something that was unique to what is generally seen as common in the USA, like have a candidate that is the son of Japanese immigrants, then it would be very relevant mentioning that. But Kerry or Bush having anglo-saxon ancestors would not warrant much of a mention as it would be expected. --Anagnorisis 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Saravask, you make mistake when you address each comment here as an objection. This is a discussion page, not an objection page. I think you fail to read well at times. When I say "For this artitcle it would be good if pictures of a young Chavez could be found" I am giving you suggestions and ideas. It surprises me you addressing that comment saying: "Pictures are *NOT* required by an FA. Thus this objection is irrelevant" Who the f**k said they were required for you to come lecture me? How did you come to decide that me saying that was an objection? And worse yet, who the f**k makes you ultimate arbiter to decide what is and what is not relevant? Please do not get so defensive and better think twice before answering like that my boy. --Anagnorisis 00:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

SOS from site fan

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'm sure there's a better way to do this, but I can't figure out how to log in.

I need inforamtion about Chavez's early life and personal life (Not dirt: just dates and a few telling details for a young adult book about him) and can't manage the Spanish book that seems best. Can someone help??

Judy

  • Yes, hello. There are many, many references (both online and printed, in English and Spanish) detailed in the "References" section. There are many excellent sources among them. Regards, Saravask 20:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, I've read them: but I'm still trying to figure out exactly how he acquired his first wife and what dates the kids were born and, generally, how he got interested in Bolivar (for instance.) There's a mention (without a reference) that his baseball career was cut short by an injury, but I don't know if that is true, and one slightly dubious source says his mother beat him. Is there any way for me to talk to someone who read the Chavez sin uniforme?? J

Yes. User:Anagnorisis is Venezuelan and has read that book. You can leave him a message on Anagnorisis's talk page. Saravask 16:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Early_life_of_Hugo_Chávez/Archive_1&oldid=1136283026"