Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez

edit

Self nomination. My reasons are the same as those I gave for the Hugo Chávez FAC. Thanks. Saravask 13:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object: I don't know much about this subject, so I can't comment on comprehensiveness or NPOV. Unfortunatley, the article is somewhat weak on citations, sometimes going for several paragraphs without a citation; this problem is compounded by the fact that it is often difficult to tell which sentence(s) a citation applies to. This is a biographical article, meaning that our ability to state facts is limited by the availability of sources. Successful biographies must make it explicit which sources they are drawing from. You have stated that "Hugo Chávez was raised with five brothers and sisters in a small hut...." as if this were incontrovertible fact, but it seems that the only source you've given is a single interview from Chávez. A more accurate paragraph would give basic bibliographic data from more "objective" sources (government records, etc.), and then state that "In a 1992 interview, Chávez indicated that he was raised in a small hut....". This makes it easier for the reader to track records, and allows the reader to judge the accuracy or reliability of the information. The article needs to be clearer on which information comes from which primary sources, and which has only been verified through a secondary source. The recently-nominated Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. does an excellent job at this kind of information, and presents a much more useful source for further research than this article currently does. I'm very open to discussion on this, please feel free to ask if you'd like any clarification or have any comments. -- Creidieki 01:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right that I wasn't very clear about what I was saying; I'm sorry for that. I'm not concerned with the quality of your sources; it's quite possible that, as you've said, the sources in this article are more academic and neutral than those in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.. I'm concerned about how you are citing these sources; I don't think that having footnotes is enough. This is a biographical article about events which happened several decades ago. Some of the statements in the article are as close to "fact" as we could hope for a biography (official state records, etc.); some of them are statements from well-respected secondary sources and biographers; some of them seem to be based only on interviews with Chávez. It is the nature of a biography to have this range of sources. We will never be able to independently verify details about Chávez's childhood; the best we can do is say that, in an interview, he reported certain facts. Perhaps a different interview, with a sibling or parent, agrees with these details, or perhaps it contradicts them. But I think that reporting statements from an interview as historical fact isn't the best that we can be doing. This kind of writing also makes it much more clear which facts are associated with which citations, which is difficult to tell at the moment. You're right that there are only a few paragraphs lacking citations:
  • First two paragraphs of "Family and Ancestry"; in particular, the article says that Chavez's father was an admirer of a specific politician.
  • That Chavez graduated eigth in his class of 75. This is a very specific piece of information.
Anyway, you've done a very good job gathering information and sources for this article, and I hope to be able to support it. -- Creidieki 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on the above points, and get back to you. Your first comments intitially outraged me, since I deliberately attempted to keep footnotes and sources to a minimum as a response to prior criticism of the Hugo Chavez FAC. As you probably know, I nominated the Hugo Chavez article as well, several weeks ago. That FAC got 16 support votes; meanwhile, the sole objector complained of "footnote orgy" (i.e., too many footnotes and sources). Thanks again for your input. Saravask 04:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I hadn't known that; I probably would have taken a different tone. I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that you can cite too many sources, but it's probably possible. I've spent a lot of time tonight thinking about what I'm looking for, and I think I would sum things up as follows:
  1. When the only source for a piece of information is a first-person account (journal, interview, autobiography), this should be mentioned in the prose, because the information's accuracy may be suspect.
  2. When the only source is an official publication of some government, religious group, university, etc., this should be mentioned in the prose, because the information's neutrality may be suspect. (I'm not thinking about "birth certificate" here so much as "government pamphlet").
Aside from those clear cases, I think that mentioning where information comes from can sometimes give you a good way of avoiding a separate footnote in every sentence. Since Hugo Chavez is a relatively well-known figure living in the modern age, some of the information may have multiple reliable sources available. Anyway, I appreciate your apology, and I hope I haven't been too sweeping in my previous statements. -- Creidieki 05:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've addressed your concerns via selected Harvard referencing. Saravask 11:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence, "The early life of Hugo Chávez concerns the..." is very bad writing
  • "Chávez would rise above his austere childhood" is somewhat POV, and why not say "rose above"? There are several sentences like this
  • the title seems something of a misnomer, one doesn't generally describe a life up to the age of 40 as 'early'
  • Meh. I rather preferred "Early life of"; it was much shorter and simpler, and "early" is relative enough that it's not a major issue. I understand the change, though. I guess I'd be happiest if, now that the article's newly named, we did something neat like further dividing it into "Early life of Hugo Chavez" (spanning 1954 to 1975) and "Military career of Hugo Chavez" (spanning 1976 to 1992), just because the current "Hugo Chavez" article series is a bit brief—"early life and military career" and "personal life" are the only articles besides "Hugo Chavez" that are exclusively and specifically about the life of Chavez, rather than being about his policies or his governance or opinions of him or a string of elections and other political events that he was a major focus in... But I guess that's not vital. It would just help soothe my aesthetic article sensibilities. :f -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the info box at the top is superfluous and crude
  • The infobox has been removed.
      • There have been extensive arguments about this template elsewhere. It doesn't say anything that shouldn't already be in the lead section, and to me and others looks very simplistic and dumbed down. I see you've removed it; I think that's an improvement. WP:WIAFA does not define exactly and rigorously what an FA is - there's necessarily a lot of flexibility, so just because WP:WIAFA doesn't say something doesn't mean it's acceptable. Worldtraveller 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • sentences such as "Chávez was not known to binge drink during nights nor for reckless behavior — instead, he was preoccupied with the realization of his own social and political ambitions; they then in turn governed his character and conduct" lack conciseness, and are somewhat unencyclopaedic. Much of the article is characterised by this sort of 'flabby' writing.
  • The sentence as it stands is still bloated and less than encyclopaedic in tone, and it is far from the only example of this type of writing. Worldtraveller 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything 'sourced and verifiable' is encyclopaedic. This writing is unencyclopaedic and is not concise. 'Have yet to define'? Since when have I been required to? Worldtraveller 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you decided to take the time to object. As per the top of this project page, all objections must be concretely actionable. I thus need a precise definition of "flabby" so that I may actually concretely *act* upon this now unfortunately vague point. Saravask 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the value of the lengthy notes. If the detail is important it should be mentioned in the text.
  • note and ref templates would be very helpful for the referencing, so that when looking at the reference list the reader can see which part of the text it is being quoted in.
  • Harvard referencing is by far the preferred mode of citation in academic literature. I am very much aware of and intimately familiar with simple ref/note footnoting. It is a very simplistic and crude system that lacks many of the beneficial features of full Harvard-style citation. For example, Harvard referencing significantly aids and eases ready discrimination by readers in the main text body of the relative credibility of sources (as discussed by Creidieki above. Indeed this article did once use only ref/note footnotes, but that system was converted to Harvard referencing to address just such concerns of catering to user judgment of sources. Saravask 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopaedia, not an academic paper, but anyway, you've missed my point. People have different preferences but I prefer to be able to click on a superscript to see the reference, then click on the up-arrow to get back to the text. ref and note templates allow this. That's all. Worldtraveller 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this is an encyclopedia article does not give us free license to throw out perfectly authoritative and informative sources. It most certainly does not give us free license to rob readers of their easy ability to determine the credibility of sources *while* reading the text. This is a functionality provided by Harvard references, but is not allowed by simple ref/cite. Anyway, how many people go from the footnote to the text? I would guess that most people start reading the actual article first, rather than beginning by reading the footnotes. Thus, most people would click on an inline cite to go to a footnote, NOT the other way around. Saravask 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you've understood my point. You can see what I am talking about with ref/cite templates on articles such as Silverpit crater.
  • Generally, the article leaves me rather unclear as to the importance of what it describes. If I wanted to read a detailed biography I would buy a book, but an encyclopaedia entry needs to summarise the most important details. The main article on Chávez is much too long in my opinion but is certainly more encyclopaedic than this.
  • If you cannot point out any superfluous or irrelevant information, your "objection" is inactionable. In addition, the article's title ("Early life and military career of Hugo Chavez" very much encapsulates the subject matter of this article — the early life and military career of Hugo Chavez Saravask 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I think you've missed the point. Yes, the title describes what's in the article, but the article doesn't establish the importance of what it is describing, and doesn't stand on its own as a complete article. Why is his early life so important that it needs a separate article? Worldtraveller 17:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your strident responses to comments really quite objectionable. If you disagree with comments raised, please discuss civilly, rather than trying to dismiss them as 'ridiculous' and 'inactionable'. You seem here to be missing the point that the article needs to establish the importance of what it's saying. At the moment, this reads like part of a long biography, rather than as a standalone encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 17:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worldtraveller 16:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of the objections above, particluarly by Worldtraveller, are things I've been thinking a lot about lately. This article was written to be a subarticle of Hugo Chavez. I've seen a lot of subarticles on FAC lately (Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., USA PATRIOT Act, Title II). Should these articles be judged differently because of the other articles they're attached to? Normally, I insist that a Feautred article make very clear the context and history and analysis, rather than just the details written out in a sequential order; but maybe with these articles a few paragraphs is enough? -- Creidieki 20:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raul654 is the ultimate judge of these things, since he is at complete liberty to weigh (or even neglect) support and objection votes (as well as specific rationales given by voters) as he sees fit. You should ask him directly, either on his talk page or the FA talk page. Thanks. Saravask 20:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Maisanta is best known as a life-long rebel who helped spur an uprising that, before his capture in 1922, left dead both a Venezuelan ex-president and a notorious state governor (Ellner 1999)." Prior to Chavez becoming president, nobody in Venezuela knew of Maisanta. The claim to fame is this biased as it is the result of Chavez policy of glorifying his ancestor. I am not claiming that Maisanta did do what he did. But it is fair to clarify that he has become a known life-long rebel in recent years.
  • "...be again expropriated by Maisanta's own great grandson: Hugo Chávez" Couldn't readers get confused with us ssaying that Chavez is great? Is it clear that he is the great-grandson?
  • Um, what? That's completely ridiculous. Are you saying that we can no longer use an incredibly important word in the English language, "great-grandson", because it could be construed as saying that a person is "great"? "Great-grandson" is infinitely more precise and informative than "descendant"! Just add a dash between "great" and "grandson" rather than removing it altogether, yeesh... -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The village was itself far from the oil-rich provinces that were then making northern and urban Venezuela rich. The village was like any other village in Venezuela. Oil rich provinces? In the 50s and 60s there was not much difference between villages and state capitals (with the exception of the capital Caracas). The comment could mislead people into thinking Barinas was far worse and poorer than the rest of Venezuela. To me this sounds POV as trying to convey that Chavez grew up in a place that was worse than the national average.
  • Meanwhile, Chávez's own parents' teacher's salaries were unable to adequately sustain the family How so? What did they miss? What esentials were the parents unable to provide them? They all turned out fine and with an education? Again, sounds POV to me -source or no source.
  • "Chávez also inherited didactic and discursive skills from his schoolteacher parents, the fundamentals of the oratory and rhetorical skills that would be critical for him later in life" Do we know for sure his parents had great oratory skills? Or are we assuming that any teacher has great rethorical skills?

These are some examples; there are many more things I could bring up and that I could object to here. However, I think it would be best to make constructive criticism in the article's discussion page -if only they would be well received and not answered with a hostile defensive tone. --Anagnorisis 00:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT: Not an objection ... but more like an observation: the article says that "Chávez was not known to binge drink ..." Since binge drinking can be considered an extreme conduct, why would one need to mention the extreme things one person was not known to engage in; like, perhaps we could list all the things for which Chavez is not known (which will be far more the ones for which he is known); for example "Chavez was not known for dressing in pink, drinking Champagne, engaging in bestiality, beating his wife, etc." This may be nit picking, but I think the sentence could be rewritten into something more along the lines "Chavez was known for avoiding drinking sessions with his friends ..." I really do not know. But I am sure you guys get the drift of what I am saying. --Anagnorisis 18:28, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTS:
    • He only later lost it after being arrested for his 1992 coup attempt . Twenty-five years later, as president... This could be confusing for some. They could read this as meaning 25 years after 1992 -I know you mean after his visit to Peru.
Yes, this is confusing writing. Worldtraveller 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with having a pic Che Guevara in this article. We might as well have pics of Bolivar, Castro and Marx if we want to show people that Chvez looks up to. I would center on Chavez and people close to him -like his family.
I also think these images should not be used, as they are extremely tangential. Worldtraveller 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precedence doesn't mean automatically that something is right. A repeated error doesn't become a right by being repeated again. We should sicuss this based on its own merits and not on what other articles have done (which could have been wrong).--Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. ;) Yes, a repeated mistake is just as bad as a new mistake, but the only difference is that when there's a repeated mistake, you should criticize (and seek to change, if there's time) all instances of the mistake, not just the most recent one. Articles should be edited on their own merits, but they shouldn't be edited in a vacuum—if a problem with Wikipedia articles in general is revealed during an FAC debate, that should be dealt with as well, not just the specific FA being discussed. If anything, that's more important. -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do not criticize the other (repeated) mistake because we are not discussing it. We are discussing this one. I criticize this one then. If we are to talk about the whole of Wikipedia that is another matter. But that is not the subject here. Anyway, I do not see where we disagree. My view holds regardless of the same happening in 78 other articles. When I have the time, and I find which are those other 78 articles that do the same think, I may go and make the same comment there. --Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do have access to pictures of Chavez during this period. But would I want to go through the trouble of scanning them and uploading them here? Who knows? Maybe if someone were to be more responsive to criticism of the article and ask me very n-i-c-e-l-y, I could do it. --Anagnorisis 05:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet Chávez did graduate — eighth in his class I would say that there were 75 in the class. Not same to be 8 out of 10 or 8 out of 200.
There are many sources of this. I have given then to you before. I am not going to do it again. Find a source that says he was 8 and you will find also a source saying they were 75 in his class. Saravask, your tone and your way of handling criticism for this article is becoming a bit .. well ... you are starting to sound as taking it all in a very emotional and subjective manner. I am also wondering if you are not loosing sight of what the goal here is.--Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If there are many sources for it, then you can easily find a source for it. It is not unreasonable to ask for specific information to be cited. On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to ask for information to be included when there's no reason to think that it isn't true—I say, Saravask, re-add the info, and Anagnorisis, provide a specific source for the information as soon as you can. -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, that was not really the point that brought us here. I am helping by pointing things I consider missing that should be improved. No need for Saravask then to make me responsible for improving the article. I am pointing to him what he is missing. If he wants to make this into a an article that is the very best of Wikipedia, he should listen rather than come back with these snappy comments. Besides, I had given exactly this same info to him before. That is why the snappy reply is even more annoying. He should somehow check which hand it is before he bites. --Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • After receiving his sword of command personally from the hands of President Carlos Andrés Pérez during an annual parade, Chávez entered military service (Gott 2005, p. 36). The way this is written makes me think there is something that was going to be said but ended being left out. What happened after?
You are wrong. Something happened: he entered military service. I made a mistake when reading and got confused. Anyway, I found this by reading that portion again; not thanks your reply.
Man. And people are accusing Saravask of being too snippy? Seems like the whole environment around here is downright nasty. Saravask obviously meant that nothing specific happened after receiving the sword of command (like his puppy dying or the aliens landing); his confused reply to your own misreading of the statement is perfectly understandable, and "Anyway, I found this by reading that portion again; not thanks to your reply" is unwarranted—it's his job to reply to your objections as best he can, not to explain perfectly understandable sentences in the article. -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True. I cannot argue with what you say. However the overall tone of Saravask replies now is one of being closed minded and not open to criticism in the article. I made a mistake and admited. What you call his confused reply is to me due to his overall negative attitude. But yes, I am also making the mistake of replying in kind -and I shouldn't. --Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The caption of the pic of Chavez and Arias makes one think that they are meeting moments before starting the coup, while the fact is they hand't seen each other for several days. Do we know for sure when that picture was taken? Could have been taken after the coup while they were detained?
Well, for things like this that I find confusing, I continue to object the article. Wouldn't it be easier for this to be changed so that you insure that it is not confusing for a large a group as possible -so that it is more inclusive, and not just depend on your own views. --Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In 1976, the battalion was tasked with suppressing a guerilla insurgency. It was 1977, not 1976.
You are really turning annoying at this with all your again you failed to provided a source. You are loosing it. I gave you this long ago. Actually, you even cite the source I have and that I gave you. But you got it all mixed up. I will shut you up with this text from the Marcano book (page 76): "Pero no es 1975 sino 1977 el año decisivo, cuando comienza a conspirar en serio. Es trasladado como oficial de comunicaciones, a un Centro de Operaciones Tacticas (COT) en San Mateo, en el estado Anzoategui, al oriente del pais." The mention the author makes of 1975 is due to what was being said in the paragraphs before. Of course, Marcano & Barrera could be wrong and your source is right. However, the tone with which you approach all comments here is not friendly and conductive to a broad-minded exchange of views. --Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to maintain the same level of civility you (rightly) ask for; Saravask was not trying to offend you with the brisk "No. Wrong.", he's probably just stressed-out from dealing with one FAC and another FA about to go on the main page simultaneously (poor guy brought it on himself); and he certainly didn't mean to offend with the "you failed to provide a source", because that's simply a fact. You've no doubt given him a lot of information over a long period of time regarding Chavez, and it's understandable that he'd need you to re-cite a document, especially when it directly contradicts another thing he recalls reading. Calling him "annoying", saying "I will shut you up", etc. is needlessly aggressive; both sides in this discussion are only trying to work together to improve this article, so there's no need for anger or frustration. There's plenty of time to openly discuss everyone's concerns with this article, resolve as many as can be resolved, and then move on, whether this FAC succeeds or not. -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Silence, did you know you make a lot of sense when not being one involved in the actual argument (well intended humor attempt). I cannot disagree with what you say. --Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too quote from # Gott, Richard (2005), Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Verso Books, ISBN 1-84467-533-5. On page 36, it reads: "In 1976 , the battalion was sent to Cumana to help crush a fresh guerilla outbreak, organized by a group within Bandera Roja ..."
Ok, we know from your text that the battalion went on 1976, but does it say when Chavez went? Any chance he may have stayed behind doing something else? I do not know the answer. But one source says the battalion went there in 1976, the other says Chaves went in 1977. Could they both we rigth?
  • I quote again from # Gott, Richard (2005), Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Verso Books, ISBN 1-84467-533-5. Page 36, third paragraph down: "Chavez spent the next two years [after his graduation in 1975] based in Barinas, joining a counterinsurgency battalion stationed there since the guerilla war of the 1960s." So he was stationed with the battalion. The battalion was tasked with counterinsurgency". I ask third parties to kindly make up their own minds about this issue. Regards, Saravask 04:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Saravask, anyway I read it, your own quote supports what I have been saying. Chavez went to San Mateo in 1977 and not 1976. Your source says "Chavez spent the next two years [after his graduation in 1975] based in Barinas, ..." So? if he was deployed for two years after 1975 in Barinas, how was he deployed to San Mateo (at the other end of the country) in 1976. I ask third parties to kindly make up their own minds about how this issue. --Anagnorisis 05:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the info itself is fine, I somehow do not like the flow in the second paragraph of the section Early military career (1975–1982).
Others? Why don't you consider my views? I am starting to sense a very personal reaction to all my comments. --Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just revised it again. I removed commas and dashes. Is this better? Saravask 07:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the repetition of Simon Bolivar's oath, I think it is interesting to point out that they changed the ending to adjust it more to recent times and their own views (in the original Bolivar refers to Spanish domination). At this time I do not have in front of me the exact text of Chavez modified oath.
  • If you do not have the exact text and a source to back it up, then I regretfully must inform you that I cannot compromise the standards of the article and put your claims in. Saravask 02:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Leave it as it is and continue to promote ignorance. It is you who pushes for this article as FA. It should be you the one looking for the details after suggestions are made here. Afterall, isn't that the purpose of this exchange? It seems not for you. --Anagnorisis 03:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He does have a point, though. Regardless of how true something may be, it simply can't be included if there isn't a source for it; WP:NOR is absolute and final. If an article contains original research, not only is it not a valid candidate for being a Featured Article, but it's actually a candidate for clean-up. Objecting to an FAC to try to push an uncited (even if perfectly true) view into the article is not a healthy practice, to put it mildly; since the above comment does not have anything to do with the FAC and is not a requirement for comprehensiveness, but is just an interesting side-note of sorts, it belongs more on the article's Talk page than here. -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the whole point got lost in the tone of his responses. Why instead of taking the comments nicely he replies the way he does. I can find the info. But do you think I want to after his replies? No way! Now I actually regret having given him so much information. What an ungrateful guy. I give him comments on how to improve the article and he replies with a confrontational tone. Do you think that makes me want to help him IMPROVE the article. No way. I will only point where the article misses things. Then if he wants HE can improve it. Fact is, that info would enrich the part about the oath (it is true afterall). Him not knowing it or not having ways to find it doesn't makes it less true. It is his and the article's loss.--Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I think the article still has errors that need to be corrected -note my comments above (I admit I have not finished reading it all). I would prefer if this nomination was given more time. With time, I think I would end up supporting it. My objection at this time is not based (as it may seem) over the errors and matters I disagree with, but more with what I see as the lack of "greatness." A FA should be a great article, one of the best in Wikipedia. I do not see this one yet being great. Perhaps with time. But not now (in my not so humble opinion). --Anagnorisis 21:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two words:
  1. Vague
  2. Inactionable
I really would like to see a lot less of these attempts to denigrate people's comments and a lot more responsiveness in attempting to address valid concerns. You seem so eager, Saravask, to dismiss objections as inactionable, that I wonder if you're losing sight of the aim of the FA process - not to give the main author some badge of approval but to generate quality articles which represent the very best of Wikipedia. Worldtraveller 02:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, leaving tone aside, Saravask is quite right that Anagnoris' "generally lacks greatness" comment (unlike just about all of his previous comments) is completely vague and inactionable, and as such cannot, on its own, be considered a valid objection—"it generally lacks greatness" does not meet the requirements for having an "object" vote counted, according to the FAC guidelines. I can see why you would criticize Saravask for some of his earlier commments, but the above response seems perfectly merited, and, at worst, what I'd call "terse". -Silence 04:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It may be vague, and inactionable, but it is still a valid opinion. FA articles are to be the best in Wikipedia. I could simply say that in my opinion the article does not conform to those high standard and as such I object. Simple. By the way, the article as it is, IMO does not deserve to be a FA.--Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Worldtraveller, I am starting to wonder also about the same. Saravask can do great editing work. I have seen him doing it before. However, perhaps the pressure is getting to him and he is now reacting in a negative way to criticism of the article. We will not get very far if comments are answered with this tone he now uses to reply to everything. I really think it would be best if ALL the concerns expressed here could be handled with a more open mind and a greater assumption of good faith. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 03:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have attempted to remain as civil as humanly possible. But under the circumstances (repeated attempts by objectors to convince me to mass delete heavily referenced materials (sourced to four credentialed academics, no less) and paragraphs (especially on the post-Perez economic situation), as well as repeated attempts by one of them to induce me to introduce patently unsourced claims (see the talk page)), I believe I have acted as appropriately as possible. I cannot believe that at least some of the objection points on this page, as well as the subject article's talk page, are not at least in part motivated by less than sincere intentions. I have absolutely made every reasonable attempt to satiate these two individuals. Saravask 03:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not understand. Are you trying to justify your recent snappy and despondent attitude and reactions to comments here, with the faults of others? Interesting justification. Is it possible that some are instead reacting to that attitude of yours? Anyway, if you want to push for an article to be FA, I would say that you need to have a bit of a thick skin when it comes to handle criticism -be it constructive or not. Better to react positively to all comments and by mistake treat nicely someone who deosn't deserve it, than to make the other type of mistake: treating badly someone that doesn't deserve (read about type I and type II errors). --Anagnorisis 04:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unjustified. He has been snappy, yes; as have you, and several others. Just as you have reacted to some of his angry replies to criticism, he has reacted to some of your insults and frustratingly vague critiques. Noone here is a saint (not even me, for being so blunt in my retort, and possibly taking too much time defending Saravask and not balancing my responses out more; I only do so because his own comments have already been adequately refuted where out-of-line, whereas almost no one else's have), and villainizing Saravask is hardly helpful towards improving the tone of discussion.
  • He is reacting negatively because he sees himself as being barraged with flawed and POVed attacks while working hard to do the best he can to enormously improve and expand on an article, and receiving next to no thanks or recognition for it (compare the current article to what it was before this FAC—hell, the article wouldn't exist if not for Saravask), and others are reacting negatively because they see his swift, harsh responses to criticism (and especially his questionings of the good faith of others, as above) as being too aggressive and hostile towards people who are only trying to work with him to get the article up to Featured Article status, if possible, by giving honest feedback and analysis of the current article. Nobody here is the bad guy. And nobody here who's had more than a paragraph or two of involvement has acted "as appropriately as possible".
  • Demanding that others have a thick skin, while yourself reacting hostiley and critically to negative comments, is a tad unfair. (Sorry if I'm being too judgmental myself right now, incidentally.) What good is this argument doing anyone? -Silence 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still objecting: more comments about things that illustrate why I still object.

  • Ejercito de Liberacion del Pueblo Venezuela If in Spanish, it should be written as "Ejercito de Liberacion del Pueblo de Venezuela."
  • ...aided him in drafting and distributing election materials in Maracay. He helped in distributing (actually afixing), not in the drafting.
  • Chávez continued his heavy participation in army and military baseball... What is the difference between the army and the military baseball? Are they one and the same, or did Chavez particpate in two different baseballs?
  • ...the last of which eventually won 3rd prize in 1987, after being performed at the Teatro Histórico Nacional.. It never says what it was the 3rd prize of. What was the competition? Was it a national one? Neigborhood? Military? Saying where it was performed doesn't automatically explain what it is that the prize was for.
  • ... dangerously close to Venezuela's frontier with war-torn... Why dangerously? Maybe you want to say "very close."
  • The attendees sought ways to attain power through a civilian-military power grab, a common method of power seizure in much of South and Latin America's history (Marcano 2005, pp. 93-95). In particular, the historian Marksman played a uniquely critical role in both Chávez's political and personal lives. Although Chávez told Marksman that he would never marry her — since Chávez's mother would not allow him to divorce Nancy ... I do not like the flow there. We are reading about the meeting in San Cristobal and then we jump to read about Marksman.
  • Elorza itself was situated twelve hours due south towards from Barinas towards the vast Venezuelan interior. i do not understand the part it says "towards from Barinas towards." Perhaps we wanttowait to see if others do not understand it either. Anyway, what is meant by being 12 hours away from a place? Will readers get a feeling for distance? Why is it 12 hours? Is it so isolated that it takes 12 hours to get there on by foot? by horse? Or is it that the roads are very bad and though close it takes 12 hours by car? Or the roads are fine, but it is just very far away?
  • "The sheer physical distance from his previous acquaintances" Is it really physical distance? Or is that it took just a lot of time to get out of such an isolated but relatively close place?
  • "Yet, in 1988, Chávez was again seconded to the Miraflores..." Seconded again? Is that so? had he already been deployed to Miraflores? I do not think that by this point the article has mentioned any prior time. If there was such a prior secondement to Miraflores, wouldn't it be good to have it mentioned before? I would think it would be interesting to know about Chavez prior deployment to Miraflores.

I haven't finished with my comments. I have to continue reading in detail further down in the article. However, Saravask, reading the article it is with surprise that I find that a lot of the text and the information on sources comes from information I had given you before. I say with surprise because of the tone now you use to adress my comments where you ask for sources everytime I say something. This makes it somehow ironic that you rely on information I gave you to write the article and now when I make a comment you try to discredit what I say asking for comments. Somehow, I consider it ironic to see that a lot of the article is held in place by the information I gave you. --Anagnorisis 03:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 100% spot-on until the last paragraph. Saravask never tried to "discredit" you, he simply requested that you provide sources for a couple of new insertions and changes that you were advocating, to ensure that the article's FAC isn't endangered by NOR rules and to maintain a clear chain of citations that anyone can check up on.
  • I'm sure he'll find your new clarifications much more useful and actionable, and hopefully he'll thank you for taking the time to analyze the article in such depth, even though he may not agree with all of your analysis, just as you should probably thank him for taking the time to respond to so much of your criticism, even if you don't agree with all of his responses. Or don't, sorry if I'm being too pushy.
  • Good luck to you both in improving this article; even if it doesn't become Featured, I think this discussion will result in a big win for Wikipedia, and when Hugo Chavez is featured on the 10th, this page will inevitably be inundated with readers who will be delighted by the wealth of information it provides. Great job! -Silence 04:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Readers, please analyze the above points above carefully and decide their relative importance or merits in the scheme of the Chavez story. I really have nothing more to say about this. Thank you. Saravask 04:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Saravask, your tone continues not to be conducive to having the proper discussion on this. It is you the one promoting the article. It is you the one that should be more open minded to criticism given the role you are playing in this article, instead of turning into trying to put down every single comment with pedantic responses. I admit I have said some unfriendly things, but I am reacting to your tone to my initial well intended comments. Silence, many of you latest comments make a lot of sense -though I can still go debate some points (I may do it), but I am afraid it may all get lost in this defense at all costs Saravask is mounting. --Anagnorisis 04:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I screwed up and some edit made to this page may have been lost. Not sure. But I suspect it. I think I clicked submit at the wrong time and there was an edit conflict. --Anagnorisis 04:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're probably talking about my "Actually, leaving tone aside, ", which I moved up three pages myself to directly follow the comment it was responding to, because it looked awkward to have it come after so many comments it preceded. -Silence 05:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just happen to be a few iterations aside. After I try to write something I get an edit conflict and have to go back. I am so far behind now that I do not know to what I am asnwering. Let me try to catch up. --Anagnorisis 05:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am done helping here. All I have done one way or the other is help Saravask along the way. For him to start replying in the tone he has, is unwarranted. I admit that I have said things that were uncalled for. But that was only after he started to reply in an snappy sarcastic tone. At that moment I should, instead of replying in kind with the same tone, simply have stoped helping him. Esily half of this article is built upon information I have sourced for Saravask. Instead of welcoming my remarks here as well intended comments to improve the article, he has taken a defensive tone. Why would I continue to help under this environment? Fine Saravask, take this now in the direction you want. Go ask help from the anonimous majority of people who have not given you zilch of information to use in the article. But do not expect me to continue helping you -if it weren't for my remarks, you would have many errors -no matter how small, they would still be errors. If all you want is to have FAs under your belt regardless of how exact some information is, fine, you do not need my help. Good luck. --Anagnorisis 05:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes. What Anagnorisis has said about his contributions and clarifications here is true. I apologize again for my brusque and sharp replies. I mean no personal insult to Anagnorisis, and wish him the best of luck in his continued contributions at Wikipedia. Saravask 06:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to comment (but won't help source information for this article for the time being) for the sake of Wikipedia itself -which deserves good articles (regardless of its editors). I do not have to provide a solution as a requisite for being able to point that something in an article is wrong or that it could/should be improved (which could be due to any of a variety of reasons). --Anagnorisis 07:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (continuation)

  • Article mentions Chavez graduated 8th in his class. This information is irrelevant unless it comes with the size of the class. It is not the same being 8th in a class of 10 (bottom 30%) as opposed to being 8th in a class of 1,000 (top 1%). If information regarding his class size cannot be found, mentioning he graduated 8th does not convey more information beyond the fact that at were there were 8 students that graduated.
Removed. Saravask 08:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do not know for sure when the pic of Chavez and Arias was taken (or the context), saying that it was before the february 4th coup can make readers think it was recently before that action. We could as well say it was before Thanksgiving 1991, or after La Guaira team won Venezuela's baseball chanpionship in 1990, and it would convey the same information. Picking one date over another one is capricious. If do not have a certain date, do not write one chosen without basis.
Removed. Saravask 08:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article says "In 1976, the battalion was tasked with suppressing a guerilla insurgency staged by the ultra-leftist movement Bandera Roja ("Red Flag") in San Mateo" However supporting text (above) from a source provided by main editor says "Chavez spent the next two years [after his graduation in 1975] based in Barinas, joining a counterinsurgency battalion stationed there since the guerilla war of the 1960s." If he spent two years after 1975 in Barinas, how could he be in San Mateo in 1976? For those not familiar with the geography of the country, those locations are far apart. Another source was supplied showing he was deployed to San Mateo in 1977.
Again, there is nothing contradictory about a battalion's general headquarters being in one locale (Barinas) while having personnel deployed in other areas. Compare the 82nd Airborn (headquartered in the U.S., but happens to have had personnel deployed to Iraq. Again, a quote from # Gott, Richard (2005), Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Verso Books, ISBN 1-84467-533-5 shows there is nothing factually wrong with the article's treatment of this matter. On page 36, it reads: "In 1976 , the battalion was sent to Cumana to help crush a fresh guerilla outbreak, organized by a group within Bandera Roja ...". Saravask 08:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the article is about Chavez and not about his battalion. If we say that the battalion went there in 1976, while all other information seems to indicate he only went in 1977, it would be misleading. It should be mentioned when Chavez goes to San Mateo. Important thing here is when he goes, not when the battalion goes without him, or else readers can assume he was involved in the actions of his battalion while he wasn't. For example, saying that Chavez unit was involved in establishing order during the 1989 riots would be misleading if left at that. While true, failing to mention that Chavez didn't participate because he was sick in bed, could make people think he actually participated, while we know he didn't. Simple. You have one source that says he stayed in Barinas for two years after 1975 and another one that says that he went to San Mateo in 1977. It seems some of your own sources point towards he going there only in 1977.Why are you so hung up on showing that his battalion went there in 1976 and on avoiding to say that he went in 1977? --Anagnorisis 08:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing factually wrong with the passage in question. Here is why:
  1. 1975: Chavez graduates from the Academy (Gott 2005, p. 36)
  2. 1975-1977: After graduating, Chavez becomes a member of the counter-insurgency battalion, which itself happens to be headquartered in Barinas. (Gott 2005, p. 36)
  3. 1976: Chavez, while still member of the same battalion, is sent to Cumana after the battalion is given orders to crush a guerrilla outbreak. The battalion is STILL headquartered in Barinas. (Gott 2005, p. 36)
  4. 1977: Chavez is then appointed communications officer at the Center of Tactical Operations in San Mateo. Thus he leaves Cumana and goes to San Mateo. (Marcano 2005, p. 75-76).

None of these sourced events are mutually exclusive. ALL of this is in the article. So then what is the problem? Saravask 09:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem is you are now making it look as though the matrial quoted says something different. Evidence points to you that Chavez himself was in Barinas from 1975 to 1977. But being stubborn for the sake of it, you do not want to read the quotes as you showed them before. EARLIER you quoted ""Chavez spent the next two years [after his graduation in 1975] based in Barinas..." That is your quote. It says Barinas. Neither San Mateo nor Cumana (which both are far from Barinas). Furthermore, the quote you just made above is wrong. You know the right quote is "Pero no es 1975 sino 1977 el año decisivo, cuando comienza a conspirar en serio. Es trasladado como oficial de comunicaciones, a un Centro de Operaciones Tacticas (COT) en San Mateo, en el estado Anzoategui, al oriente del pais." It doesn't say as you point above "Thus he leaves Cumana and goes to San Mateo." That is the problem. That you are looking for ways to say that some statements are not exclusive while some others clearly tell you clearly that he was in Barinas until 1977 and another one tell you he himself deployed to that region of the country in 1977. All this I say could be wrong, but I am not reading anything saying Chavez himself went there in 1976. Do you have something saying that? If not, then why are so reluctant to not take 1977? IMO it is you now who is failing to provide clear evidence it was 1976. Point here was to make sure we do not confuse things with when it is that Chavez was there. You want to say his battalion went into some action there in 1976. Fine. However, so far no evience clearly states he was there at that time with them -actually, the opposite. It seems he joined them in only 1977. I have given you ample reasons why I think there is a possibility the way it is written people could get confused. Instead of trying to sort it and try clarifying things, you are digging your heels in the ground and refusing to try clarifying matters. but it is ok. This is a small matter. Lets move on and handle other things and revisit this later if needed. --Anagnorisis 09:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One year is a *long* time. What precludes Chavez from:
  1. being in one place (Barinas) EARLIER in 1977 and
  2. being in San Mateo LATER that year?

For example. This year is 2005. EARLIER in 2005, I was in Ithaca, NY, at Cornell University until July. Now, LATER in 2005 (after July), I am in Arizona. Same with Chavez:

  1. Chavez is posted to Barinas from 1975 to some point in 1977
  2. AFTER that point in 1977, Chavez (*IN 1977*) is transferred to San Mateo. Thus, he spends the rest of 1977 IN San Mateo. Saravask 15:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would enrich the article (and correct present inaccurate information) if the editors bothered to find about the actual oath Chavez made in 1982. Perhaps they could point out how, while similar, it differed from the one Bolivar made and which of course, inspired them. They did not repeat EXACTLY Bolivar's oath. But were inspired by it and made one very similar -but at the same time different. It should be pointed out that Bolivar made the oath under a very different reality at that time -Bolivar was fighting the Spanish dominance (which he mentions in the oath). I do not think Chavez would make an oath against Spanish dominance
    • Now that you fixed it, I will be nice and give you both oaths. BTW, Who is Richard Gott? Another foreign journalist who after coming to the country and spending some time researching matters to write about Chavez is going to know more than anyone in Venezuela? He may have got the bulk right, but many details could have escaped him, like the actual oath. Careful about believing everything you read from someone is always the exact truth.
Oath by Bolivar in 1805 in Italy: "Juro delante de usted; juro por el Dios de mis padres; juro por ellos; juro por mi honor y juro por mi patria que no daré descanso a mi brazo ni reposo a mi alma hasta que haya roto las cadenas que nos oprimen por voluntad del poder español."
Oath by Chavez group: "Juro por el Dios de mis padres, juro por mi patria, juro por mi honor que no daré tranquilidad a mi alma ni descanso a mi brazo hasta no ver rotas las cadenas que oprimen a mi pueblo por voluntad de los poderosos. Elección popular, tierras y hombres libres, horror a la oligarquía." Notice how here instead of the Spanish power, the end changes to talk about going against the will of the powerfull and how he added a comment against oligarchs. --Anagnorisis 09:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many more comments to follow later on Sunday. --Anagnorisis 07:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No offense intended, but if you refuse to provide page numbers, I will need to refuse to put your version in. My version is taken verbatim from the Gott book and has a page number at least. And as for Richard Gott, he is a credentialed historian with specialization in Latin American history. Look it up. Please, all I am asking for is a page number. Then we can have both versions in there. Regards, Saravask 15:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may not inted any offense, but your whole attitude and tone continues to be one that leaves a lot to be desired. I am starting to think that you need me to dissect the text the way Silence used to reply at times (no offense to Silence). Let me get started here, and I will try to go slowly and in detail hoping this time you will understand.
  • I started saying: "It would enrich the article ...bla bla bla ..." By this I making an observation. I am giving you advicxe about how to make the article better. Instead of understanding this, you assume that this is a hostile fight where I am trying to impose something on you. NO! And you think that I have to go look for things for you so that I can prove my point. NO! YOU have to assume good faith and if you really care about the article, then you try reseraching about my claim. It is extremely easy to google for those quotes above and you will find a great number of sources. I NEVER said your quote was wrong. BUT I pointed correctly that you were making mention and quoting Bolivar's oath, while it would be more interesting to quote Chavez' oath. Now you tell me young man, where am I saying something there that is wrong? Why can't you accpet what others tell you in good faith and act on it? I could instead of wasting time here with all this iteration go and change the article myself (do I have to remind you that you do not own it?). You should be grateful that one goes to such lenghts correcting you here (by grateful I do not mean lip service - one minute you say thanks the next you are all snappy in your replies to suggestions). You can google the oaths yourself. I do not have to do it for you to be right. I have done already enough of that for you (again, you wouldn't have this article if it weren't for all the material I sourced for you). So it is time you start improving the article by googling a bit instead of asking me for pages. And if you still haven't got it, here I go again: it WOULD ENRICH the article if you quoted Chavez oath (easily found everywhere) in its entirety and commented on how it was different from Bolivar's instead of just quoting part of Bolivar's. Get it? Did I ever say your quote was wrong? Man, relax and open up (your mind). Now, if you do not want to do it, say so, Simple. Just say, I am not going to do that just because I do not want and then I know we have to move on. But do not try twisting things around defending things that had not been attacked. Cheers.--Anagnorisis 20:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns regarding the date problem remains. Read above. BTW, also, same comment about Che Guevara also applies to the pic of Simon Bolivar. Article is about Chavez and not about his heros. IMO a painting of Bolivar does not convey relevant information to this article. A picture of Maisanta, maybe that would be an interesting one, or one of his parents, or one of Chavez as a young boy. But if the article must have pics at any cost and you cannot find any, perhaps you could put one of George Washington -as the founder of the country that is now Chavez main enemy. That would go well in opposition to one of Bolivar. --Anagnorisis 08:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"On December 17, 1982, the revolutionary officers swore an oath underneath the great tree at Saman de Guere, near Maracay, repeating the words of the pledge that Simon Bolivar had made on the slopes of the Monte Sacro in Rome in 1805, when he swore to devote his life to the liberation of Venezuela from the Spanish yoke: 'I swear before you, and I swear before the God of my fathers, that I will not allow my arm to relax, nor my soul to rest, until I have freed the chains that oppress us ...'"

Now, when Gott says that Chavez and associates are "repeating the words of the pledge that Simon Bolivar had made", I assume that Gott meant exactly what he said and said what he meant: that Chavez repeated that quote in the article from Bolivar's oath verbatim. Now, we have another claim from Anagnorisis alleging that Chavez stated something different that the quote retreaved from Gott (2005). Anagnorisis has refused to furnish any credible sources for this claim that Gott is wrong. Furthermore, I did do a google search: I only got this, where the relevant text reads "At the end of the ceremony, Chávez went jogging with Captains Felipe Acosta and Jesús Urdaneta to Samán del Guere, six miles away, and there repeated the solemn oath of Simón Bolívar on Mount Aventino. "Sure, in the end, I made a change," Chávez told me. In place of "When we have broken the chains of the Spanish power which oppress us," they said, "Until we break the chains of the powerful which oppress us and oppress the people." Again, nothing here contradicts what is in the article (other than slight translational variations), and IMO does not merit its own mention. Of course Chavez revised Bolivar's oath; I knew this from the beginning. But the revision was very minor, and perfectly corresponds to the quoted and sourced oath provided by the article at present. I cannot find any radically alternate version that differs than what Gott 2005 states that Chavez recited. Others are free to try googling it and provide a source for such a putatively radically different oath, at which point I will happily include the alternate version. Regards, Saravask 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is so unfortunate that I took the above hard attitude towards comments and objection points. If Anagnorisis can clearly articulate his concern about the 1975-1977 date situation, I will hopefully come to understand any error I have made, and come to believe that this is an actionable error on my part. I am NOT infallable, and may well have made some sort of error. Please, if anyone agrees with Anagnorisis about the Barinas/San Mateo controversy, please chime in. Apologies to Anagnorisis. Because of his input, this article IS improving. Saravask 15:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello? Saravask 15:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nerves are often so easy to hit when discussing articles people have worked hard on: there's a lot of emotion wrapped up in any article someone's spent days and days improving, and most people have a hard time keeping from snapping when they get criticm that's too severe or too hard to respond to. Additional factors coming into play included Saravask's single-minded focus on getting the article Featured at all costs, propelled by his hard-won success in his last FAC, as well as Anagnorisis' annoyance at getting to spend next to no time working on the "Early life" article prior to its being nominated, because Saravask went over everyone else's heads with the surprise nom. Both sides probably feel an element of betrayal involved, Saravask because Anagnorisis is opposing an FAC for an article they've both worked so hard on, and Anagnorisis because he feels like his contributions and viewpoint are being ignored and Saravask is trying to use his hard work just to collect another FA "trophy" before the article's truly FA-quality.
  • All of this, plus the tensions of many FAC discussions in general, is the reason (I'm explaining, as best I can, because Anagnorisis said in my Talk page that he can't at all understand Saravask's motivations, and because Saravask seems a bit baffled by Anagnorisis' absence) for the current complications. Both Anagnorisis and Saravask went off to sulk after having their feelings hurt, but Saravask (who has a tendency to speak without thinking how people might react at times (much like myself :)), but is humble and self-aware enough to always comes back and apologize profusely when he commits a faux pas) came back before long, while Anagnorisis (who has a bit more trouble getting out of an argument-cycle once tensions are high) is still trying to teach Saravask a lesson, and is staying out of the discussion until he feels he's made his point properly—which is probably also an opportunity for him to take a relaxing break from the pressures of having to rush through an entire giant article and list every single problem he has with it just to justify voting "object" on an article he genuinely feels isn't ready to be Featured. -Silence 23:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, my advice is: Saravask, don't worry about Anagnorisis. If he comes back, it won't be until he's ready anyway, and you've apologized enough. Just keep working on improving the article and addressing other concerns that come up; you've gotten one "strong support" (Oldak), three "supports" (Creidieki and rspeer and Valmi), one "weak object" (Anagnorisis—note that he re-voted "object" three times, but only one counts), one "object" (Worldtraveller), so your FAC will probably succeed if you just get a few more "support" votes.
I would just like to note that the FAC process is not a vote, and an article is not promoted if objections remain unresolved, even if most people have given their support. Worldtraveller 00:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, Anagnorisis: take as much time as you need to cool down from the arguing here and put some distance between you and some of the harsh words exchanged here (though if you don't plan to return before the FAC's conclusion but plan to keep your "object" vote, make sure that you've left some somewhat actionable criticisms (like "the article's writing quality isn't good enough", not just "the article isn't good enough"), and hopefully we can resume working together in the future—you two really do make a great team.
  • Incidentally, would anyone object to moving some of this discussion to the Talk page for this FAC, since it's getting quite enormous even though only six people have voted (Raul may have trouble reading the votes with it so huge) and much of it isn't directly related to the article. -Silence 23:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't object. 71kb!! Worldtraveller 00:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Break

edit

(stop deleting what I write in this page Saravask)

I am writing this as a subsection because it is becoming more and more difficult to keep track of all that is above. A few comments:

  1. Silence, you make a lot of sense. Now, clarifying a couple of things, I never left this discussion. I just said I was done "helping" by providing a free flow of info. Now all I do is constructive criticism. ;-) Oh, one more thing, I was not annoyed by the early nomination. Jusat a couple of days ago I was asking Saravask in his discussion page how much time we had left to work on the article. But I am not going to compromise on my views on quality just cuz Sar. wants another notch under his belt.
  2. Saravask, you still seem to have problems understanding what I am saying. I do not know in how many more ways I can say it to you. Let me try again.
      1. Did I say Gott was wrong regarding the oath? No, I didn't. But I said that I thought it would enrich the article if you mentioned bla bla bla. What is it so hard to get from what I am saying? F**c! I am saying that IF (you know the meaning of IF I presume) you were to mention something, IMO it would make the article better. What then is your f****ng problem with me saying that? Why can't you say something along the lines of "Oh yes? Let me look into it. BTW, would you happen to have a handy source?" We would have saved ourselves a lot of grievance. Instead we have had to deal with your continuous denigrating attitude. BTW, your continuous apologies sound very fake. As they are immdetialy followed by another snap.
      2. You say you googled? Well, you must be terrible at it. Cuz if you want, you could have found many: [1] And another one [2] And here is the link for the whole googled thing [3]Do you need more? Oh, I forget they are in Spanish. Sorry. But if you are researching this topic, you better also rely on sources in the Spanish language. There are plenty more. BTW, the Marcano book that you often quoted in the article mentions this event. Why haven't you looked what it says? Or the Marcano book is only reliable for the things that suit your arguments? or is it that your nasty attitude has made you loose your access to it? Hey, how do you know that all you have from that book is true? Have you read it?

Once again. All I have said is that it would enrich the article if .... What is so wrong with me saying that? And do not put the burden on me of your shortcoming for researching what is true. Just because you do not want to look for it (are are unable to find it) it doesn't mean it isn't so. I could as well be editing the article and writing what I think is right. I still haven't done that. But you thinking you own the article is seriously starting to piss me off. DO YOU GET IT? Man, how many times do I have to try to get this through your head? It would be so much easier if you assumed good faith and also replied in good faith. But you are obviously not doing it. One last thing, please stop apologizing. No need to keep saying it. Actions speak louder than words. Your apologies have lost all credibility (following your subsequent actions). P.S. Silence, isn't this fun to watch ;-) --Anagnorisis 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has been inserted as an alternate rendition. Note how it is merely an extended version of Gott's version. Saravask 01:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about pleasing me or anybody else. But about doing what is right. Which is to comment on the meaning of the whole thing. Not about listing both oths side by side. Listing them without elaborating is putting the burden on the people who have no idea why we ended up having that layout and that text. But fine. If that is all you can handle, ok, lets leave it that way, no matter how silly it looks. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 01:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! See? Was it that difficult? Finally you wrote it in a way that now readers will be able to get the right meaning out of what it is that Chavez and the others did. Now, couldn't we have saved ourselves a lot of grievance, only if you had let down a bit on that attitude? I am not trying to rub it in, but in a sense I am warning that going forward, when I say something, I know I can back it up ultimately. So it is up to your attitude on how you want to move forward. Assuming good faith and a nicer attitude, will help you sort out thing faster. But up to you. Same same but different. --Anagnorisis 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your latest edit Saravask! What is it with you? We are not so dumb that you have to come babysit us. It is not up to you to move around te text of what people have said. This is a discussion page. Where each person is the same as each other. As much as you may want to think you are helping, moving around text from other people is not right. For starters, you managed to get some text from Silence to show as if written by Worldtreveller. I believe that is an inocent mistake. But point is, you are not our guardian. Leave it to each person what they want to say and where they want to say it. BTW, you have already been advised by admin staff to not delete discussion pages (you did it in your own), so please, start listening to advice. And just to make sure you understand, don't you touch and move around what I have written. I chose to post it here. It is not for you to decide where it should go. --Anagnorisis 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've never "delete[d] discussion pages". I've only deleted my own comments on old and archived discussion pages, in order to shorten the "What links here" list for my user name. This allows me to use that list to better navigate to pages where I have active and ongoing discussions. Saravask 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Are you saying I am lying? Isn't it true that you deleted your own discussion page? Which you have conveniently reinstated just about 20 minutes ago? - Could that be due to me saying this above? Do not bother deying it, it is easy to verify by looking at its history. Oh, and isn't it true that after you did it the first time, an admin left this message in your page (which you ignored and then deleted again): "Hi, please don't remove your comments from discussions! Especially not from archived pages, but on other pages it is confusing too...--JoanneB 09:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)" Isn't that a message that was left in your page by admin JoanneB? Or is it the product of my wild imagination? Maybe I am taking too many drugs and I making up things. C'mon Saravask, please. Enough. --Anagnorisis 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And I do not see what is so objectionable about moving comments summarizing the voting, etc. to the bottom of the page. So here is a copy: "my advice is: one "strong support" (Oldak), three "supports" (Creidieki and rspeer and Valmi), one "weak object" (Anagnorisis—note that he re-voted "object" three times, but only one counts), one "object" (Worldtraveller), so your FAC will probably succeed if you just get a few more "support" votes."
  • Comment. What I do with my own talk page is my own business. I think it would be least painful for all of us if we kept the discussion on topic: i.e., the merits of the "Early life ... " article. Thank you. Saravask 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REVERTED AGAIN!!! Stop moving text around. If only you would stop messing with what people write. I object to you doing it. You should not play with other people's writing. haven't you done it with mine here today? You have deleted things I wrote. That is unethical. Nobody asked you to police this page. It is not your job. This is not an article. It is a discussion page. Edit your own text, but do not edit others. Besides, you are not even admin. Again, in case it is not getting through your head, do not touch the text I write (which you have already done). Do not move any other people's text. Each person is responsible for what they write and where they write. Not you. Clear? BTW, your page is not really yours. It belongs to the community but it is assigned to you so that people can communicate with you. All the rules still apply. if you do not believe me, try breaking them in your page. Anyway, care to explain is it is as you say, then why an admin left that message there? --Anagnorisis 04:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This diff shows that I did not "delete" or "touch" anyone's text. I made a copy of Silence's text and put it at the bottom of the page. Please see the comment below. I have nothing more to say on this matter. Saravask 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Again, I will post the following comment: Please follow Wikipedia policy and list specific and falsifiable examples and rationale as to why this article is or is not FA calibre, so that comments may be speedily acted upon. In the case of objectors, as stated above:

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

Thank you. Saravask 04:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new objection: The person handling most of the edits is becoming increasingly emotional and can not handle objections and criticisms objectively. This works negatively against the article. This can be fixed by having him remove himself from the process. Now Saravask, can you fix the objection by removing yourself -as you keep showing you are not capable of handling this calmly. At least maybe take a break for a day or two and try coming back after you have exorcized your demons. --Anagnorisis 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're out of order! You're out of order! The whole trial is out of order! They're out of order! Come on now, let's be sensible. This discussion seems to be at a level of depth that it belongs on Talk:Early life and military career of Hugo Chávez. There's plenty of room there to discuss every specific instance of disputed text in the entire article; this page should be for discussing broader topics of the article's FAC qualifications only. We get the idea by now, anyway. -Silence 04:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Form the aboves responses, it does not seem to be understood that both quotes for the oath are correct. I again quote from Gott, Richard (2005), Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, Verso Books, ISBN 1-84467-533-5. From page 38:

"On December 17, 1982, the revolutionary officers swore an oath underneath the great tree at Saman de Guere, near Maracay, repeating the words of the pledge that Simon Bolivar had made on the slopes of the Monte Sacro in Rome in 1805, when he swore to devote his life to the liberation of Venezuela from the Spanish yoke: 'I swear before you, and I swear before the God of my fathers, that I will not allow my arm to relax, nor my soul to rest, until I have freed the chains that oppress us ...'"

The alternate quote, other than merely including a few more words, is exactly the same as Gott's version. Saravask 13:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am convinced now; you have never really understood what it is the discussion has been about. At least you have an excuse: lack of comprehension of what I has been saying. Yes, we better leave the oath topic as it is. You have kept going on a topic without really grasping all the nuances involved and why I kept telling you how I thought the article could be enriched (regarding adding some additional background info). You never understood. You all along kept thinking that it was an attempt at discrediting Gott. Poor young man -or boy. Never got what it was really about. No no no sad sad sad. --Anagnorisis 14:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We might as well try to remain civil (as per WP:CIVIL). If we try, we can make this a positive experience for all of us, instead of what we have now (The Way Things Are Now). We have all done wrong things. If we learn, we can better ourselves and the atmosphere here. I invite Silence to add some gentle thoughts on how to clear the air here. Thank you. Saravask 13:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Jedi mind tricks would be more effective here than gentle thoughts... This is soooo far from FAC, even special extended article improvement FAC. It is mildly interesting... --Tsavage 18:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, we could move further & faster towards FAC if Saravask took a kinder and gentler approach to the criticisms made here. Your suggestions for Jedi mind tricks is an interesting one. Pity I am not a Jedi, just a Padawan. --Anagnorisis 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. We have a deal. Silence? Saravask 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objection w/ final comment

edit
  • Object [Final comment:Chavez es un coño madre maldito After a couple of quite intense rounds of examples being furnished and "corrections" being offered, I am resting my input with my objection as it stands, based on three specifics detailed below. At this point, one of my illustrative suggestions as to writing improvement, provided in reponse to requests for clarification, has been incorporated literally, word for word, into the article, making it not better, and perhaps even "worse" for the change. This is...nutty. The article still needs significant rewriting for basic quality; I've pursued this FAC far beyond what I see as the FAC process. It's up to the Judge of Consensus. Thanks! --Tsavage 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)] This a very detailed "early life" account; the amount of information is impressive. My objection is based on writing style, with four specific areas of concern: UPDATE (Dec 6 after significant revisions): It seems many changes were made, however, my overall problem with writing style remains. I have updated three of my four original specific concerns with additional examples. However, I don't know how useful this is; eventually, if I keep listing examples and they are "fixed", some point may be reached when the problem might seem to go away, when a pretty thorough copyedit is in order, not piecemeal repairs. The writing is not atrociously bad, but certainly not great. The point is no deathless prose, just basically well-written account that favors easy reading, not wrangling...[reply]
The writing is uneven in parts, and often quite awkward - This refers to overall flow, basic sentence construction, redundancy, and so forth. Some examples, including from the lead:
  • The early life of Hugo Chávez covers the period from his birth on 28 July 1954 to the eve of his planned military coup against the Carlos Andrés Pérez government on 4 February 1992. The period covers Chávez's early life This article treats the early life and military career of Hugo Chávez. (currently, the lead sentence)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He would be educated through to..., he would also acquaint himself ..., These experiences would significantly shape... These associations eventually grew to involve electioneering and political conspiracy. Chávez eventually helped... (eventually, I might run out of examples...)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sabaneta is situated in Venezuela's Andean lowlands — with the Andes Mountains themselves to the west and south. Sabaneta is also situated... The Chávez family has roots in central Venezuela's vast llanos, home to a rural cattle-ranching culture known for being rebellious and independent.
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a young man, Chávez had only two girlfriends. Chávez's college peers generally regarded them as unattractive. These girlfriends of Chávez's.. Chávez would later recall that he enjoyed nature at this time, due to his family's proximity to the Guanare River
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chávez's first attempt to organize a coherent political movement came in 1977, when soon after his first marriage, Chávez formed... From his early childhood on, Hugo Chávez was also interested in the life (lest at this arbitrary, mid-paragraph point we've forgotten he's Hugo?)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chávez saw little actual combat with insurgents; there was little active rebel activity... Chavez's best friends were two brothers who were the sons of Jose Ruiz, who was a communist who had been incarcerated by the government of military dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez. (who was Jose again...?)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • He thus states that it was for this reason that what was initially planned Velasco also impressed them with his perceived strong bond with both the Peruvian masses (perceived?)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, Herma Marksman, who was another one of Chávez's girlfriends—and subsequent to his marriage, his mistress — for ten years of his young adulthood, has stated that... As a so-called provinciano ("provincial" — implying backward regarding the social graces) (so that's what "provincial" means!)
Revised. Saravask 01:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the age of 17, after an injury sustained during a sporting event, Chávez joined the Venezuelan armed forces, although he often recalled later that was his strong love of baseball attracted him to the military (Got it...)
That's from skimming the first few paragraphs. A fresh copyeditor (rewriter...) on this job might help... I'm not trying to mock anyone, just hopefully make the point more clearly, because the first few examples should've sufficed...
Use of unnecessary and unsupported modifiers is distracting, possibly misleading and POV - This occurs more or less throughout, perhaps simply a function of poor/hasty writing. A few examples: extensive subversive activities, significantly shape, extensive plans, unusually strong bond, fondly recall that he developed a strong love, strong baseball lover, perpetually fascinated, strong bond, strongly attached, scrupulously precise, profoundly leftist,... total overthrow, greatest childhood dreams, particularly disliked, strongly leftist, popular and fiery lectures, gathered under a large tree (well, a bit better than having the coup conspirators just "gathering under a tree"), quiet preparations, wait patiently, strongly attached, strong bond, - This happens more in the first half...and of course, there's a place for emphasis and elaboraton, just not indiscriminately or it becomes a reading hazard...
See copyedit3. Saravask 15:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These portions have all been revised. Saravask 01:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear as to sources/neutrality in "Childhood" section Here, I wasn't clear whether the text is echoing Chavez' own statements, or other sources. I'm not sure if there are biographical writing conventions for this, but it seems to me that independently documented information is different from what a subject says about himself. For example, the section begins Chávez recalls an early childhood in a small house.... Later, Chávez developed a disgust towards Jesus' depiction as a helpless figurine. The nearest citation refers to a Chavez speech. It's not clear what are his recollections, and what are "facts". This is really apparent in "Childhood", and affected my perception of the rest of the article ("is a lot of this what Chavez said about himself"?)
I just specified the inline cites using Chavez's own recollections. So now, instead of stating "(Chavez 2005)", the Harvard citations either read "(2005 interview of Chavez)" or "(Untitled 2005 speech by Chavez)". I hope this will do, as there are no other autobiographical sources in the article. Saravask 05:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the extra inline stuff just adds clutter and confusion. Readers shouldn't have to constantly consulting footnotes and even sources to get their bearings in the text. My point is, if a lot of stuff is going to come from the subject himself (and recollections are used later in the article as well), and a lot from elsewhere, then making the distinction should be clear in the writing. FOR EXAMPLE, start that paragraph with a statement like: "Chavez recalls his childhood. (period) Then make that para his recollections only, and Harvard inline it or whatever at the end. Then onwards... Reset. Next paragraph. Not "Chávez recalls an early childhood in a small house composed of large palm leaves... His family lived in a small village " where it's not so clear if he's still recalling in the next sentence. Hope that helps!
That is why this article uses Harvard referencing — so that readers see for themselves whether the material is sourced from autobiographical recollections (such as the NYC speech) or from independent third-party sources (the Gott, Marcano, and Niemeyer books, as well as the scholarly articles). This has already been pointed out above, near the top by Creideiki. Saravask 01:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some solutions regarding this problem? I am not clear as to the problem. I just note that, uh, all Harvard inline citations that state "Chavez" are autobiographical in nature. All other Harvard inline cites are independent. Thanks again. Please give me some concrete steps I can take to allow you to strike this objection point. Many thanks. Saravask 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not explain who Chavez is, and why his Early Life should be important - This is a "subarticle" issue, I suppose (should a subarticle be completely self-contained?). In any case, a minimum of general background is not present.
It does now .I rewrote the intro, incorporating material from the Hugo Chavez FA itself. Saravask 01:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, these specifics add up to a basic problem with the general writing quality. The substance certainly seems to be there, and the article is readable and useful, but it is not IMO at an "outstanding" level of quality. --Tsavage 00:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this one was anywhere near FAC quality to start with, and after all of this exhausting improvement effort, it's still not nearly there and probably needs a break... --Tsavage 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoroughly copyedited the article by splitting sentences, making clarifications, removing dashes and commas, rewording phrases, etc. It has taken me a significant amount of time. I would appreciate a timely response from Tsavage, so that he may re-evaluate his opinion. Thank you. Saravask 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The new lead is good, and a complete overhaul of what was there before. I didn't have time to fully reread the article against the rest of the revisions you've noted. I will do that soon, and reply here. Thanks for the notes on my User Talk page alerting me to the changes; I'm somewhat curious, though, as to the sense of urgency suggested by your second note, less than an hour after the first: I've thoroughly copyedited the article. I'd appreciate a prompt response from you. Thank you again. Saravask. Is a deadline I'm unaware of about to come up? In any case, I did just skim the article again, and, preliminarily, my first, second and third objections likely still stand, while I will probably strike the fourth based on your rewrite. I shall return with...more examples as necessary. I'm glad you found my notes useful; thanks again for the quick response! Later on... --Tsavage 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this FAC is more than seven days old. I think that Raul654 will be passing through these in order to collate votes and designate FAs. I would be very appreciative if we can finish fixing up the problems by next evening (just a suggestion). Again, sorry if I came across as rude. Thanks again. Saravask 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reread the article today and update my comments (my objection) here. Saravask: Your diligence in pursuing FA status for this article may be commendable, HOWEVER, leaving nearly 500 words of messages on my User Talk over the last few hours (that's, in old school real world terms, around two typed doublespaced manuscript pages!!), with info that (1) belongs on this page, as it's part of the FAC discussion; (2) is in fact mostly redundant with what you've also posted here; (3) is undeniably insistent and pressuring, does not IMO at all serve FAC purposes. I am reviewing, in good faith, FA candidates against specific criteria. This isn't (for me) some sort of shareholder battle/political race/faculty board type scrimmage... I don't need to be prodded or lobbied. That would seem to be an abuse of the process, trying in any undue way to influence what are supposed to be independent FAC participants, either by affecting the voter through pressure and confusion, or by trying to make it seem that actionable objections aren't in fact well-founded or conscientiously maintained, regardless of whether that is the case. --Tsavage 18:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi. I just finished copyediting the last unchecked portion of the text. Again, I probably need just a few examples of bad word choice or sentence format in order to check for such instances throughout the text. Please remember to reload your web browser (clear your cache) every few minutes, lest you chance upon and comment on old versions of a section, etc. Thanks. Saravask 03:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a problem and object with the description of the economic environment before the coup. The whole period is mixed and confused into a single blob. For examples source cited mention activity for 1988 (4 years before the coup) and also for the 90s as a whole (while the coip was early in the 90s). All the economic description is very POV. The article shows the economic environment as being totally negative. However nowehere is mentioned that the years of 1990, 1991 (the two immediate years before the coup) and 1992 the Venezuelan economy performed very well (as per most economic indicators). GDP growth was way over 5% for each of those 3 years. If I am not wrong, in 1991 the year before the coup, Venezuela had the largest growth of GDP of any country in the world (I think it was close to 10% - wow! that is China style economic recovery!!). CAP took over the presidency in 1989 and initiated measures that at first made the economy contract -which could be argued was necessary. In 1993 Perez he was kicked half way through the year. The 3 years in the middle of his mandate while he was in power for the full year, the economy grew. Though many people were unhappy, it cannot be claimed that his economic policies were a disaster (he failed at selling his plan). Thus painting the economy during CAP years as performing badly is a disservice to the truth and makes this article not be neutral. Anyone interested can find GDP figures for those years. And no, I am not to go look for the the data myself. Those working on the article should insure the article is not POV and should look and find the data themselves (if they really want to make the article is a good accurate one). --Anagnorisis 03:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just put in a source, reference, and prose about both the 1991 and 1992 GDP growth figures. I also removed mention of "crisis". I replaced it with "mixed socioeconomic results". Saravask 04:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tsavage's concerns and my actions to mitigate them:
  1. Awkward writing.
I addressed all the specific examples you provided. I also did an extensive copyedit to search out and revise all long sentences, sentences with awkward clause/phrase order, awkward syntax, awkward use of dashes, commas, and semicolons. Please notify me if you spot significant remaining examples.
  1. Excessive use of modifiers.
I remedied all examples you gave. In addition, I searched out mawkish or inappropriately toned modifiers. I toned down a significant number of phrases and words.
  1. Lack of clear distinction between recollections/facts in the "Childhood" section's Harvard citations.
I believe I've remedied this full stop. Please let me know if my solution may be improved upon still further.
  1. Revision of lead for clarity/background.
I've worked to address this. Again, please notify me if any aspects of the lead remain unsatisfactory.
As I noted in my comment above, I will reread for your revisions and update my original objection accordingly. Probably, sometime today. Also (discussed in the same comment, LOST i nthe sea above), I have formed the distinct impression that you are at least borderline outright abusing the basic FAC process, trying to ram "your" article through to FA status, by creating a ton of extra WORDS that make it extremely difficult to keep track of what's going on here, and by pressuring FAC contributors (well, namely, me), by leaving a string of insistent messages in User Talk that only repeat what you've posted here. Maybe you are simply extremely driven, goal-oriented, diligent and meticulous (if so, that's not been so well-communicated, sorry), but it seems like pretty silly tactics to me... --Tsavage 18:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, though I have colaborated well with Saravask in the past in other articles, I cannot say anything but that I fully agree with all that Tsavage says above regarding the tone and mood this FA candidacy has taken. While in the past (other articles) all my criticisms were well taken, somehow things have gone wrong here. I admit to having pushed Saravask at times (though as a reaction to his own negative and haughty tone when responding to criticism), however the fact remains that the article still needs a lot of work and it should be under a positive peaceful tone and without the pressures of a deadline or a "needs to become a FA no matter what" attitude. Sad, but that is happening with this candidacy. I also continue to object to what I see as POV in the article. Someone not well aware of Venezuelan recent history many not notice it, but the article IMO has what could at best be considered POV and at worst factual errors. While I keep pointing some of these things out, I do not have the time to go through all and each iteration at the speed the main supporter of the article would like it. --Anagnorisis 19:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Anagnorisis's claims about me are rather interesting. Now let us examine them concretely with actual evidence:

  • Abusive personal attacks againt me by Anagnorisis:
  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  • My edits to this FAC page that Anagnorisis has claimed were malicious "deletion" of other's comments:
  1. [6] — note how I merely moved Silence's comments to the bottom of the page.
  2. [7]
  3. [8] — Note how I merely deleted the ridiculous and nonstandard header because it disrupts the FAC list on the project page; I did NOT delete anyone else's comments.
  • Anagnorisis's deletions of comments that I had posted to this FAC:
  1. [9]
  2. [10]
  • Unsubstantiated slander by Anagnorisis regarding my supposed "deletions" of others' comments:
  1. [11]

Much of this conduct is, per Wikipedia policy (WP:CIVIL, WP:ATTACK), grounds for being blocked. I advise third parties to make up their own minds about the respective "tone" of the various parties. I may have been harsh (i.e., "negative" and "haughty") in my questioning of the validity of the objections offered above. But I have always taken care to aim my remarks at the criticism, not the critics. I challenge anyone to find evidence of my engaging in personal attacks, unfounded slander, and unfounded claims against others during this FAC. Additionally, I have never demanded that anyone should vote one way or another. Regards, Saravask 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "I have always aimed the criticism at the criticism, not the critics" Sure! As if there wasn't clever ways to do both! Get off the high horse, cuz it ain't that high. As if your pressure wasn't evident (as mentioned by others before?). And now you really are twisting the truth. You must be getting desperate. This is starting to look as one of the most pathetic, sad, desperate attempts to push an article trhough it candidacy to FA. Why don't you tell things the way they really happened? Try answering these questions: Isn't what you call my deletions of your comments, me reverting to a previous version of this page? This because you had moved other people's comments around? YOU changed the page by placing things people said where they had not placed them themselves. That is manipulating content. The comments just went back to where people had placed them. Those were not comments YOU made. Those were comments from others that YOU moved around. Now, isn't it true you modified text I wrote? Didn't you several times delete my "Break"? BTW, I do not need to go find previous versions of this page to support what I am saying. This is not a popularity contest. Now, as you are obviously convinced I lie, why don't you try this: remove all the info I gave you about Chavez from the Marcano book. Yes, how do you know I didn't make it all up? Yes, I admit it: I lied to you. I made up all that info that you included in the article. So better remove it or else you would be my acomplice in the insertion of wrong information in the article. All the info and the page numbers .... I made it all up. So? Do you have a copy of the book to verify all the information I had given you? I do not know how you could come to trust me if I am such a bad guy and rely on mi info to built the article and then turn completely around and try to dsicredit me. Or was I all along playing you? You know what? Isn't it sad that after I helped you bring the main Chavez article to FA status, you just lost your compass and turned the whole cooperation arrangement we had into this travesty; just because you became obsessed with getting more FAs. And you basically abandoned that other article. Oh boy! You really did loose your north. ;-) --Anagnorisis 21:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said you were a "bad guy". We are all human here, with our own specific faults. I would just like you to offer criticism along the lines of what Tsavage is doing. I have nothing against you. Saravask 21:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, if that is so, then start to react better to negative criticism of the article. And accept that if the article doesn't make it to FA ... well, there would be more time to improve it and give it another shot. Now, why instead of spending so much time in this article, why don't we work in insuring the other Chavez article is in top form so that it really makes all that worked on it proud when it shows in the cover page on the 10th? --Anagnorisis 21:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate: in our collaborative relationship, I was always second to you. I gave you info, comments, color and context and you wrote things the way you saw fit. I then gave you more feedback. Things worked well. You were the main engine and I was always on a support role. As leader the responsibility was on you to set the tone. The moment you didn't like my comments because you thought they could slow down the road to FA status, you started to denigrate the comments and feedback I gave you. So it was you who changed the tone first. It seems you have not yet realized (maybe you are too smart to notice) that by alienating me you have lost more than you could gain by making my comments look bad (n regards to getting the article to FA). This article would not have had any chance at being what it is if it weren't for all the info I gave you. So, better think before you start trying to teach your father about how babies are made, because it makes yoy look silly (methaphore, not meant as anything else). And the problem still is that this whole thing doesn't get resolved with apologies that are made without being followed by a change in attitude. It would be better for the article for you to swallow pride and start really listening instead of throwing aplogies left and right. For someone who seems to really want to get the article to be FA (no matter what) it surprises me the amount of time that has been wasted just due to your pride. I couldn't care less if the article is or is not FA. But what I do not want is an article that is loaded with slanted views, information and misleading and/or factual erroneous information. --Anagnorisis 21:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Why would I have given you two barnstars if I had thought differently of you? Saravask 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal of nomination. I will not, under any circumstances, be re-nominating this article. This nomination was to be pitied from the very beginning. My initial strident refusal to eagerly accept what were probably mostly good faith criticisms set the tone for the rest of this nomination. This here marks my final Wikipedia edit to any politics-related article. I hope the coming experiences I enjoy in food-, literature-, and India-related pages are not nearly as ugly as the ones I've experienced here. Saravask 18:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So much for my getting a chance to copyedit this article for the FAC? You aren't the only person in the world, you know. :) -Silence 18:51, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawal of nomination? How come? You say: "I hope the coming experiences I enjoy ....... are not nearly as ugly as the ones I've experienced here." You think this was ugly? C'mon! Didn't you notice all the comments were made in good faith and in jest? :-) I think you can withdraw yourself from the FAC process, but the article keeps going. Now, although the chances for it succeeding and becoming FA were slim, you abandoning the article now could most likely mean the "coup de grace" as you were the spark, the driver, the engine behind it. Abandoning just before a negative verdict is rendered is for cowards. You should have stayed until the end. That is my not-so-humble opinion. As to moving to other type of topics, remember what you said yourself: "My initial strident refusal to eagerly accept what were probably mostly good faith criticisms set the tone for the rest of this nomination." It may not be the topic's fault; it may be the that refusal you mention that is to be blamed. In that case, you could end up having the same overall tone regardless of the topic subject; even if the article is one analyzing why crabs walk sideways. Anyway, I look forward to the day I see articles on things like khorma, chana, kulfi, and rasgulla as FAC. --Anagnorisis 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object: i would like to read quite more of this discussion but It's TOO LONG so my principal objection is that i think that this is a complementary article of the selected Hugo Chávez article. Regards from Mérida, Venezuela. Venex 04:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) <smalls>i don't know if i canchavez is un coño made maldito vote here..., can i?[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Early_life_and_military_career_of_Hugo_Chávez&oldid=1049154077"