Talk:Simón Bolívar

Lead

• The link to Libertadores from El Libertador feels a bit easter eggy, as it turns out to be about a group of people rather than about Bolivar's specific nickname - maybe rephrase to clarify if you want to keep the link?

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• criollo is going to be unfamiliar to most people I think, maybe a touch of context or a footnote

•  Added –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "lived in several households" how essential is this?

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure you need del Toro's death, but if you have to keep it, maybe trim to "died of yellow fever" - if she died of it, she of course contracted it

• Revised. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "proposed gaining Venezuelan independence to other wealthy creoles" - this clause reads awkwardly, but I can't figure out how to fix it without revising the whole sentence. "Upon his return to Venezuela in 1807, Bolivar began encouraging his wealthy criollo peers to consider Venezuelan independence." Maybe something like that?

• Shortened to "promoted independence". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Most other countries are linked, why not Haiti?

• Oops, edit scar. That used to be a link to a specific Haitian state (the republic Petion was the pres of) but later got removed as I streamlined. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "with Bolívar as president there and in Peru and Bolivia" all at once?

• Yes, though the period in which this is true lasts about a year or two. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "distanced from them because of his centralist ideology" I know this is the lead and we can't pack too much in here, but were there any notable specific beliefs that caused him to split?
• You have a large section about personal beliefs in the body but almost nothing about that in the lead
• I think there's some redundancy in the legacy sentences. Removing it would allow you to include a little more detail. What about something like:

• His legacy is diverse and far-reaching: he is regarded as a national icon throughout Latin America; the nations of Bolivia and the Boliviarian Republic of Venezuela are named after him; he remains a subject of academic and political analysis; and he has been memorialized worldwide in art and geography.

Early life

• What did his parents do, if anything?

• Well, his father was in correspondence back in the 1770s or 80s (I forget) with Miranda about revolution in Venezuela, specifically Hancocking a letter to Miranda asking him to come and throw the Spanish out. I left that out, though considered a footnote, because I was (and am) desperate to keep this article below 10,000 words. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Simón was born into the Bolívar family" redundant

• Moved/combined with final sentence of this paragraph. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure we need the sentence about "In 1588–89, he joined the staff..." - we can just end the prev sentence by saying that de Bolivar later moved to Caracas and prospered.

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Would also serve" -> "also served". You can probably also lose the "there" at the beginning of this sentence"

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Education

• Not sure we need "even before". Can probably just say "before", as it wouldn't be that surprising for him to have some education before his mother died.

• I trimmed this myself and also moved a sentence. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "he spent two years" do we know what years?

• I... uh... I don't know. None of the sources I consulted there say; they also say "two years". They also use "Even before...". I'll have to consult some Spanish sources for more information. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "run by Simón Rodríguez" - who's this guy

• Clarified. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure the detail about the ship's docking and stuff is really needed, as it doesn't sound like anything came of it. It would be different if the blockading incident somehow became the trigger for Bolivar wanting to overthrow the Spanish or whatever. You can probably sum it up as just "after some delays, the ship docked in Spain in May 1799".

• Trimmed a bit. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Given how concerned you are about word count, I'm surprised you didn't trim this down even more. I really think it's worth ditching, as it doesn't seem to be of any consequence to Bolivar's future. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• God, look at those eyebrows
• "Uztáriz accepted and Bolívar, who moved into his residence in February 1800, was thoroughly educated" this is a hilariously dry way to say this, but I'm not sure it's quite encyclopedic. I think you can lose the first bit (it'll be obvious he accepted once we say that he educated Bolivar) and revise to "Bolivar moved into his residence in February 1800, and Uztáriz provided him with a thorough education."

• Done as suggested, with some clarifications as requested by SandyGeorgia. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Spanish place names, just like proper names, shouldn't be italicized. So Real Audiencia should be Real Audiencia. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:56, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is Bolívar's wife's surname "del Toro" or "Rodríguez del Toro"? The former is used throughout the prose, but if its all one last name, it shouldn't typically be shortened. Granted, I'm not incredibly familiar with the more archaic old system of Spanish naming (Bolívar himself is an exception). How do the sources refer to her? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources I consulted refer to all the del Toros as "del Toro". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Venezuela

• You can lose "there," since there's no reason to think del Toro died anywhere else

• Revised; how's it look now? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "By July 1803, Bolívar decided to leave Venezuela" It should be "had decided", as we're talking about a decision that had occurred sometime up to that timeframe. (I'm not a grammar expert and I had to do some reading after googling, but see pluperfect)

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice use of the quote box here

• Thanks! The full quote is badass. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• " Though he remained awed by Napoleon, Bolívar was disgusted" - why? This needs some more explanation

• Errrr this was supposed to be part of a larger "Historical assessment" section that I cut from production because it would be too immense, so I'll cut this part out.

• " where the plebs had seceded from Rome" - you need to be careful to clarify here that this was in the 4th century BCE, because if you didn't know about this beforehand, you might think it was contemporary to Bolivar

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Politics and military

• I won't die on this hill but shouldn't the top few paragraphs get their own subsection and title?

• No. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Year for the portrait please

•  Added :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Emparán's government, while friendlier...was also resisted by" - passive voice, plz activate

• ACTIVATED. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "and moreover was using his talks with the Venezuelans to secure access to Spanish American markets for British merchants from the Spanish regency" Should he not be doing this? It's written like this is a dick move, but I'm not sure how - isn't this the kind of thing diplomats are supposed to do?

• Clause cut. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Miranda, whose return to Venezuela the British government did not desire but could not prevent" This sentence feels very tangled up in itself. Maybe something like "Although the British government wanted Miranda to remain in Britain, they could not prevent his departure, and he arrived in Venezuela in December."

• Copied over this suggestion. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As a general comment for this and other sections, since you have the room, it might be nice to include images of other important figures like Marino, although I won't fight you terribly on it if you're opposed

• "Helping to create the Patriotic Society" - what is this and why do we care that they created it?

• Clarified. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "which opened a breach between Bolívar and Miranda as Bolívar and del Toro were friends" - I don't understand why. If Miranda and Bolivar are buddies, and Miranda appoints Bolivar's buddy to kick the ass of some guys Bolivar doesn't like, why is Bolivar mad about this?

• I completely fumbled here. Miranda was the butthurt party here. Del Toro was appointed over Miranda, who actually had military experience, because the old Creoles didn't like Miranda. To rub salt into the wound, the del Toros and the Mirandas were old enemies and Bolívar sided with his old buddies the del Toros. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Miranda replaced del Toro" - with himself, I'm assuming? It's ambiguous

• Yes. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "As a condition of..." This is the first time we're hearing that Bolivar was commanding anything. Who's making it a condition to remove Bolivar, and why?

• Clarified; it was Miranda, for the above reasons. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, this works now with the above clarification ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if it's of interest to you, but the Spanish version of the earthquake page has some images that might be useful.

  I also wanted to comment that Venezuelan painter Tito Salas has a painting of the earthquake, depicting Bolívar if I'm not mistaken. I'm surprised to find that it apparently is not in Commons, since it should be in the Venezuelan public domain. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If Bolívar was (I'm assuming) helping the Royalists by arresting Miranda, why does he have to escape La Guaira and hide from being arrested?

• La Guaira's governor was another Crouching Patriot Hidden Royalist and defected the very night Bolívar and the gang threw Miranda in the clink. He closed the port on Monteverde's to stop Republican exiles like Bolivar from escaping Spanish revenge. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Link Curacao and maybe a tiny bit of context that it's an island nation

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we mention that the United Provinces of New Granada were (I think?) west of Venezuela

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "a Royalist invasion of New Granada" was that likely or was Bolivar being paranoid given the later advance I guess it was likely but perhaps we could explain that earlier? (Maybe when we talk about Bolívar's services? "Bolívar offered their services to Granada in anticipation of an invasion from Venezuelan royalists" perhaps)

• "their services" refers to a few guys who got out of Venezuela rather than just Bolívar. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "that secured control of the Magdalena River" from whomst? Venezuela?

• New Granadan Royalists. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Who did Cucuta belong to? Was Bolivar taking it, or taking it back?

• From the Royalists; clarified now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "was unwilling to recognize Bolívar" why?

• Clarified here. Mariño saw himself as equal to Bolívar and did not want to take orders from him. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Legion of Hell" hardcore Western soundtrack kicks in now
• "he sailed with Mariño" wait are they friends now?

• No this was like when you and your rival spill the punch at the party and after you get kicked out you have to go home in the same car. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 20:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Marino x Bolivar enemies to lovers high school AU fic when

• "Bolívar arrived" I think you may wanna split this paragraph here

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bolívar began a six-week siege of the city [es] that allowed the Royalists to regain control of the Magdalena." Wait, now Bolivar is fighting for the Royalists? Or did he fuck up so bad that they took the whole river off him

• The latter. Clarified. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "escaped assassination when his manservant mistakenly killed his paymaster as part of a Spanish plot" OOPS
• "There, by 14 July, his forces were defeated and scattered by a Royalist force that then captured Ocumare and the Haitian supplies." This sentence feels a bit redundant in places. Do we need defeated and scattered? Actually, do we need either? I think the reader will assume he was defeated if we say that Royalists took the city back. "He held Ocumare until 14 July, when a Royalist force recaptured the city." (I removed the supplies in my suggestion since they don't seem to come up again but I could be wrong)

• Trimmed down as recommended. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "deposed by Mariño" so they're not friends?

• curse your sudden and inevitable betrayal –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 19:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I might say "was turned back at Clarines" just so the link isn't an easter egg

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "who then reconciled with Bolívar" okay, so now they're friends – "Mariño as supreme commander of the Republican forces" never mind – "who pledged loyalty to Bolívar" okay Starscream I've heard that before>
• Anything of interest in the third bout of assassinitis?

• Not really. There's the arrest and torture of the slave, who said he was paid by a Spanish agent to off Bolívar (iirc Lynch said this was likely the truth). There's also a story I read in The General in His Labyrinth that at the time of the assassination, Bolívar was having the moves put on him by a British woman on the island who was supportive of his cause and had caught wind of the plot. Great book, I recommend it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, I forgot about the event you're referring to. No, there is really nothing more to say. Bolívar got licked in a battle, fell back and in the retreat was almost killed by Royalists who had infiltrated his camp. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• What is the "Páramo de Pisba"? Since there's no English link to follow, some context would be nice. It is a mountain? A mountain pass? Something else?

• The páramo is an alpine tundra unique to the Andes. I've just removed this bit since it just adds more names for little value. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "he learned that Santander had executed Barreiro and other Royalist prisoners on 11 October" - is this strictly relevant to Bolivar? It never seems to come up again. Noting it in the interest of conciseness, since you're wanting to limit article length

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've split some paragraphs and made some minor changes to sentence structure here and there
• Manuela Sáenz has a lovely painting on her article, can it also be in this one?

•  Added –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is likely going to take some rejiggering with the wording and the source placement, but I recommend putting the clause about Bolivar rallying support for annexing Guayaquil into the following sentence. Right now it reads a bit like he's doing the rallying in the meeting, making the following sentence a bit confusing. Also, it's not immediately clear from the first sentence that San Martin isn't already there, so when you hit the second sentence about San Martin having to travel there, you kind of have to revise your thinking.

• I've made a more minor fix: I've changed the prose to read "...Bolívar traveled to Guayaquil in anticipation of a meeting with San Martín to discuss the city's status and to rally support for its annexation...". Hopefully that is much clearer. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 24 October, Bolívar received a letter" - er, why did they do this? Was it just because of the strained relationship with Satander or was there more?

• Santander and by extension the Colombian congress was pissed that Bolívar had accepted the dictatorship of Peru. I thought I had put that/left that in the article, so I'll go ahead and put it back in. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 01:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "named Bolívar President" is he still dictator of real Peru? What about his offices in Columbia that he didn't get fired/resigned from?

• Yes. As for the other offices, those are resolved later. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "convened without his attendance" - why? Did he bail or were they fucking with him?

• He- OK. The Congress of Panama is a whole ball of stupid. Bolívar did not want to be present because he thought being there would unduly sway the convention. Bolívar was a poor politician. So he had it convene in Panama, while he was in Peru, and it predictably went absolutely nowhere. I really did not want to get into that on this article (wordcount). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay fair ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "found the city hostile to him for violations of Colombian law" this needs to be clarified or expanded

•  Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bolívar was deposed as President in Peru and his constitution was repealed." is this related to the Guayaquil mutiny? Otherwise, this seems very abrupt.

• Yes; clarified. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "was again sworn in as President of Colombia" but they rejected his resignation, wasn't he still president?

• Yes. Since, on review, no real change in Presidency occurred, I will omit this clause. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "as Bolívar declined to campaign" do we know why?

  There were rumors that, after marching into the city with an army, Bolívar would try to seek absolute power, like Bonaparte did, so he avoided to campaign as an assurance of the contrary. Vami IV might be able to give more information on the issue. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes and the reason was dumb: he didn't want to be seen to be, as Mike Duncan puts it, tipping the democratic scales with his sword. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "to have a Bourbon succeed Bolívar" you may want to clarify this to "member of the House of Bourbon" for people like me who primarily know "a Bourbon" as an alcohol

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Did Bolivar's letter encourage people to secede and exile him? I don't get the connection

• Removed the bit about the exile. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If Congress hates Bolivar so much why do they keep rejecting his resignation? Are these people medically stupid?

• Reworded. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Kludging these together since they're fairly short sections
• "The Quinta near Santa..." does that not belong more properly in Legacy?

• Moved as suggested. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Personal beliefs section feels relatively short - this guy is a huge deal, his political philosophy has influenced an entire continent. Similar sections in Gandhi and George Washington (comparative father-of-the-nation types that are both GAs) are much longer. Is there really no more to say about his philosophy and thinking?

• There is much to say about his ideas and their development. To illustrate how much, I think that the study thereof may warrant its own article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair, I'm not gonna beat on it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "unworkable in Spanish America because of the effects of Spanish imperialism on Spanish Americans" - how so?

• He believed that Spain had left its colonies developmentally stunted since it had ruled so directly and harshly. I could clarify more, but would it be brief? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I think the revision is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm normally big on plausible redlinks but I feel like the one for the legacy is an oddity. I might remove it for now, unless you're planning to create that article shortly.

• Cut, for now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I recognize the difficulty in writing the Legacy section, and I understand why you decided to keep it short. However, it feels odd to call out an American soldier but to gloss over everything else that's named after him. Two whole countries and the currency of Venezuela feel way more important. I think you may need to expand this section some more, because right now it feels a bit underbaked.

• I'll see what I can do; a lot of what I cut was cut because the sources I had were just bad. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Finally got this sorted, thank God. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Same thing with the academic analysis - only couple sentences about criticism and then we're on to the cult of Bolivar, and then quite quickly we're on to political legacy. It needs fleshing out, and I think the political legacy should be its own paragraph.
• There's quite a bit in the navbox that isn't touched on in the legacy, including the cultural depictions and the International Simón Bolívar Prize. For this article to feel complete I think you at least need to mention them.

• I'll see what I can do about the cultural depictions, but for now I have talked briefly about that prize. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I think I can live with what's there for this and the above point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I wonder if a "Personal life" section wouldn't be an appropriate addition, where you could get into his relationships and affairs in more depth? Right now that feels very absent in the article.

• I really did not want to have to pause every other sentence to say "and then Bolivar slept with this lady" and do not feel a section about this adds anything of value, either. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per our conversations elsewhere, I can live without this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. At long last, the first pass is done. I'm sorry it took so long. I noticed that I often found myself asking why certain things were happening. I'm not sure if it's just me being dense (and I am, self-admittedly, somewhat dense when it comes to history as a topic) or if it's a consequence of trying to save words and glossing over things. But especially with all the flip-flopping of loyalties, it feels important to me to explain to the reader why people are doing stuff. Aside from that, my major criticism is the last few sections, which do feel like they could be increased a bit (as I noted). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass done. Everything sorted is hatted. Anything unhatted is either not resolved, or I have done something and am leaving it for your review in case you don't like what I've done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Right. I think we're okay to go here. Anything not addressed is really outside the grounds of GACR, and not worth holding up a long-deserved promotion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Guerillero)

I am going to be focusing on 2a, 2b, 3a, and 4 here:

Masur (1969)

This line of questions is meant to be a conversation. I am not suggesting any actions from you. I don't think it will be needed for GA, but it will hopefully reveal things that future FA reviewers may ask.

All of your dead tree sourcing is from the last 20 years except Masur (1969). (Aside: you are missing that it is the revised edition.) It has been 74 years since the first edition and 54 years since the revised edition. For any source, that is a long time. With all of the recent scholarship that you have included, I worry that the field has moved past it. In your research, does Masur's biography still hold up as well as it did when he died in 1975? Do the contemporary sources speak of it? If so, in what regard? --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used Masur because his biography of Bolívar is foundational to his English historiography. There are other, older biographies (one from 1910 comes to mind), but the two foundational texts in English - as far as I am aware from reading other works on Bolívar - are Masur and Salvador de Madariaga's Bolívar. The latter is notorious for its bias against Bolívar and apologism for the Spanish Empire, drawing as it does on the biographies of Bolívar by guys he had alienated. As for the content of Masur's biography, it does cleave to the tone of the other four biographies I read except that it is less critical of Bolívar and, unfortunately, has incorrect views of indigenous cultures. I have balanced this against David Lynch's work, which is much more critical.

That said, I'll quote Lynch here (Lynch 2006, p. xii): "In English Salvador de Madariaga's interpretation, extensively researched but basically out of sympathy with its subject, was soon overtaken by Gerhard Masur's more balanced work, which held the field for half a century before it began to show its age."

I have no problem with removing Masur's work from active citation and instead relocating it to #Further reading if it's asked of me down the line. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English vs Spanish scholarship

This line of questions is meant to be a conversation. I am not suggesting any actions from you. I don't think it will be needed for GA, but it will hopefully reveal things that future FA reviewers may ask.

With the exception of Cardozo Uzcátegui 2011, you exclusively rely on Anglophone scholarship about Bolívar. In your research, are there any major differences between it and the Spansh-language scholarship? Are we missing anything --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are doubtlessly missing things because I didn't know who to consult out of a lack of familiarity with Spanish-language historiography of Bolívar beyond a couple names. Cardozo Uzcátegui there is a glaring example, since none of the English-language sources I consulted really dwelled on Bolívar's time with Uztariz. I was only familiar with that because of Mike Duncan's Revolutions, which formed the core of my bibliography for this project. The English-language historiography covers all the basics, but if you want anything more granular, anything more esoteric than the life and times of Simón Bolívar, you have to consult Spanish-language sources.

As you can imagine, the Spanish-language historiography is very extensive, but the true scale is even larger than the uninitiated could imagine. This is one of the reasons why you cannot approach Bolívar with the idea that he is merely the Latin American George Washington. Venezuela poured an immense amount of time and effort into obtaining Bolívarian sources and artifacts, researching all of this, compiling and studying it, and then publishing their work. The works (in English) I have consulted - Lynch especially - have sung the praises of Germán Carrera Damas, who is at the top of the list (with Conn 2020) for scholars I'd consult for Legacy of Simón Bolívar or even Historiography of Simón Bolívar. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All this said, there is a lot of specialty writing in English now, from Simón Bolívar: Travels and Transformations of a Cultural Icon to essays I saw on JSTOR when I went looking there for more material. Examples that stick in my mind are analyses of his work from a gender studies lens. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vami IV on this question I highly recommend consulting with ReyHahn and NoonIcarus; because there is such extensive scholarship on Bolivar they might have recommendations. I suspect the sources you have used are adequate for GA, but if you are planning to approach FAC, a comprehensive literature survey will be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, Krisgabwoosh and 2x2leax would probably also be interested in this review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of Bolívar is, admittedly, surface-level outside of his interactions with Bolivia, where he only stayed a few months, so keep that in mind with my suggestions.

In general, I'd say that the English sources aid in employing summary style, at least for this to pass as a GA. I understand Vamí is looking at potentially getting this to a Featured Topic, so more detailed Spanish-language sources could be reserved for individual articles.

In terms of getting this article itself to FA, I agree that more Spanish sources will probably be needed. Looking at just the section on his time in Bolivia, a lot could be expanded on his work drafting the Bolivian constitution, for example, especially as he viewed it as 'legacy' of sorts that could be applied to the other Latin American nations—this is touched on later, but there's no real mention of what exactly was in the final document.

For this, I'd recommend consulting some sources by Bolivian authors, and I imagine that Bolívar's experiences in other nations I'm less familiar with could similarly be expanded on using works by historians from those countries. You indicated an interest in creating a Historiography of Simón Bolívar article. My suggestion would be to do that before tackling taking this to FA. That way, you'd have an already-organized library of potential sources to consult. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the ping, Sandy. I'm interested in participating the review, to read the article and the suggestions so far, but since I'm not sure when I will be able to do it I wantted to comment on this first. I seem to recall that Tomás Polanco Alcántara [es]'s biography on Bolívar was among the best. Germán Carrera Damas, Elías Pino Iturrieta, Caracciolo Parra Pérez [es] and Guillermo Morón are superb Venezuelan historians too, and I'm confident that there must be English versions of their work that can be consulted and could help with the article; I believe Damas' El culto a Bolívar and Iturrieta's El Divino Bolívar can be very useful specifically for the Legacy section. Last but not least, The Bucaramanga Diary [es], by Peru de Lacroix, offers a first hand account and important details about Bolívar's personal life. To put an example, I think I remember content about a visit by Bolívar to a brothel in England. I really hope that these resources can be easily accesible. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Web sources

• "Ley Disponiendo Que El Ejecutivo Comunique A Bolívar La Abolición De La Constitución Vitalicia Y La Elección De Presidente De La República, 22 de Junio de 1827". 22 June 1827. needs to be built out more

•  Done –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Council on Hemispheric Affairs a RS publisher? Think tanks pretty much publish whatever they feel like
• Radio Rebelde is state owned
• I would find a better source than https://www.kln.gov.my/web/ven_caracas/news-from-mission/-/blogs/simon-bolivar-s-birthday-24-july-2008

   Removed –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Radio Rebelde should not be used at all (state-owned in Venezuela is an NPOV problem) nor should the Malaysian Embassy. On the Ley Disponible, the Venezuelan editors might fill in the details. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Radio Rebelde is Cuban and moreover is used for a simple statement of fact. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My apologies for the shortcut: Cuba and Venezuela as relates to state-controlled or state-promoted propaganda are one and the same in modern Venezuela, and Radio Rebelde is used to support the Chavista meme about Bolivar's poisoning, which had a goal of raising public ire. That section needs to be balanced (see the other source I provided below, where even Chavismo contradicts what Radio Rebelde says now), and using Radio Rebelde introduces POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Re "simple statement of fact", see #Radio Rebelde and death conspiracy theories below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source text integrity / copyvio

Good enough for GA, but I worry about the over cite issues for FA --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misc

If the plan is to approach FA, filling in more of his personal life might be warranted ... mention of numerous other mistresses besides Manuela and more on the importance of her role is his life.

Perhaps more balance could be given to the Cuban- and Chavez-promoted death theories. [3]

Before approaching FAC, I recommend review by ReyHahn and NoonIcarus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bolivar and his many, many dalliances - I opted to banish all but Manuela from the article because I could not conceive of a way that this article would have a #Personal life without it becoming scattershot, since his wife's death has been such a key moment in the historiography. I wish I had more to say about Manuela, because she is very colorful, but this is not an article about Manuela and thus I feel I have said what needs to be said of her role in Bolivar's life as regards our purposes. That said, my work is imperfect in this regard; I dread having to do this later for Manuela since I don't think it would be right to make her article about Bolivar when it's, well, hers. As for the other mistresses, they ultimately did not matter. Bolivar enjoyed the honey without staying for the moon.

Among the many other things that made Manuela unique was that she did her damndest to stay in the limelight. She honestly loved Bolivar and the scholarly consensus, at least in the works I have consulted, is that he loved her too. But how much of this is proper for inclusion in our encyclopedia? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Venezuelan editors might have more to offer on which bits might be worthy; she's a bit of a legend in the "cult of Bolivar".

The word entered stood out to me as overused; perhaps you can find ways to vary it ... he enters Caracas a lot ... returned to Caracas, traveled to Caracas ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and Vami IV: The first time around I only get to see the pings regarding the sources. You're on point about Manuelita, starting with the fact the she probably saved his life during the Septembrine Conspiracy. Even with his eventful love life, none other lovers can come to the top of my head, save only for Fanny du Villars, who is a footnote compared to Manuelita. I vaguely recall that the moment they met when Bolívar entered Quito might be notesworthy, if we're considering filling personal details. I think she threw a bouquet of flowers at him while he was on horseback, but I would have to check that. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! He was parading through the city when a wreath of laurels landed on him from somewhere above. He looked for the thrower and saw Manuela, but it was only a brief glance. He really met her later that day at a ball hosted by Manuela's father and danced the night away. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a detail that could be included, and I'm sure there are plenty more. If Sandy agrees, it can be added. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary

• Hey guys, as much as I'm sure the pre-FAC commentary is a treasure trove for Vami, can we perhaps move it every so slightly to be on the article's talk page instead of the GA review? Tom and I were trying something experimental by dividing the this up, and I don't want the GA review page to get overwhelmed with additional commentary. Also, if the GA review is ever un-transcluded from the talk page, all of these ideas will be that much harder to find for someone checking the talk page. Cheers, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, one of the first things I would check is the GAN, which is conveniently stored and easily found in {{Article history}} (similar to a peer review), which avoids cluttering the talk page with an unnecessary duplicate transclusion and the necessity to troll through past archives. I think this an optimal place, for example, to store a record of sources that would/could be consulted. Alternately, it hits FAC and people think, "oh, it passed GA". The GAN now provides a record of sources needed to meet comprehensiveness, as well as a record that the most knowledgeable Venezuelan reviewers haven't (yet) had time to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Rebelde and death conspiracy theories

I am separating out my 28 March commentary from above, as it has not been addressed. The article says:

• Its findings, that Bolívar had died of histoplasmosis, a fungal infection that manifests symptoms similar to tuberculosis, which was aggravated by arsenic poisoning, were announced by Vice President Elías Jaua on 25 July 2012. (Source: Radio Rebelde).

1. Radio Rebelde is Cuban = bias with respect to chavista claims, conspiracy theories and publicity stunts.
2. Elías Jaua did not announce what our text states. As one example (a reliable one), Christian Science monitor says:
   • "Now the results of the forensic analyses are out, and they are inconclusive. 'We could not establish the death was by non-natural means or by intentional poisoning. None of those who say this could prove it,' said Vice President Elías Jaua, in a ceremony aired across Venezuela.
3. Further, the Radio Rebelde source does not state what our text says it states, which makes me worry that all Spanish-language sources used in the article might need checking. It never mentions arsenic poisoning at all, and does not confirm that he died of histoplasmosis either. The source deals mainly with the facial construction, and regarding his death, says only:
   • La Dra. Yanuacelis Cruz Calcaño, cirujana y miembro del equipo de investigación, significó que “se realizaron estudios detallados del tejido óseo, pruebas histológicas, radiológicas y toxicológicas, para evaluar los agentes que pudieron haber afectado a Bolívar, y determinar si padecía tuberculosis u otras enfermedades infecciosas. “Los primeros resultados, nos permiten asegurar que Bolívar padeció una enfermedad de tipo respiratoria crónica que se agravó con un proceso infeccioso, y le produjo dolor torácico, fiebre y secreción. Esa patología, deterioró el proceso respiratorio y la insuficiencia renal, y le provocaron un edema cerebral, con la compresión de centros importantes cardio-respiratorios a nivel de sistema nervioso central, situación que lo llevó a la muerte. “Bolívar no murió de tuberculosis, -- confirma la Dra. Cruz—no obstante, la investigación está abierta para el estudio de la histoplasmosis, un hongo que tiene la particularidad de dar una sintomatología muy similar a la de la tuberculosis”.

Right now, the article is reflecting a chavista/Cuban bias on this issue, and one that does not even accurately present what the Cuban source says. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• New York Times
• And New York Times quoting the author of the medical report cited in the article:

  It matters little that Dr. Auwaerter says his research has been misconstrued, since an ingestion of arsenic could have been unintentional through arsenic-containing medications common in that era or contaminated drinking water. “I do not agree with President Chávez’s theories,” he said by e-mail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The Guardian

  "Auwaerter, however, has distanced himself from the idea that Bolívar was intentionally poisoned."

• BBC, same. ("They found no proof that he had been deliberately poisoned.")
• More of same from Time magazine.
• Sydney Morning Herald
• Reuters

With ample reliable sources, there is no need to use a) biased sources, and b) primary medical sources. This article is interpreting Auwaerter's primary source work (see WP:MEDRS) rather than using secondary sources which have done that more accurately. Radio Rebelde should be completely removed, not the least because the article deals with the facial reconstruction (naturally, because they irritated most Venezuelans by digging up and cutting up their hero without finding any evidence of Chavez's conspiracy theory, so they focused instead on rebuilding Bolivar to make him look more indigenous) more than the conspiracy theories, and because reliable sources are available. The primary medical source could be used as an adjunct to what secondary sources say about it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record I want to stress my support with this. If I recall correctly, the academia and the historian community in Venezuelan widely reject this theory, and in essence this has been a fringe theory that has been part of the government's historical revisionism: the idea that Bolívar was assassinated by a oligarchy. The paragraph needs to be balanced accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not addressing this sooner. It appears I have grossly misread the relevant literature for the matter of Bolívar's death, particularly Auwaerter's report, and not given over enough time to grabbing more sources for consultation. As you can imagine, by the time I got to Bolívar's death, I was in a mood to finish and be done with initial drafting as soon as possible (I had been working on this article by then for almost an entire year). I have in recent days become addicted to Genshin Impact, but will make time today and tomorrow for addressing this section.

While I'm here, it may become relevant that the Spanish Wikipedia has an article on Bolívar's death. It appears that this topic (as Conn puts it in the subtitle of his 2020 book on Bolívar's historiography, Bolívar's "afterlife") is probably independently notable from Bolívar himself as a subject of political and academic contention. Thoughts? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are on it, Vami IV.

Re your other query, his death probably warrants its own article, but I wouldn't judge that based on the Spanish Wikipedia (I wouldn't judge anything based on the Spanish Wikipedia, but an extra note of caution is in order for Venezuelan topics on es.Wiki -- besides the usual problems of non-reliable sources, misrepresentation of sources, undue weight, copyvio et al, the POV is rampant.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Spanish Wikipedia article doesn't go over his afterlife, just his death and burials. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 16:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that; mine was just a general info note. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: At long last, this has been effected. Let me know what you think of the new paragraph. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me; I think you've done a fine job so far. (Unsure if it is yet FA material, as Spanish-language sources may need to be considered). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg links

The extensive use of interlanguage links (ILL) to the Spanish Wiki is most impressive and to be commended, but hiding the actual names of things/articles/battles/campaigns behind Easter-eggy links should be minimized. It's also possible via an ILL to name the article as it would be named on en.wiki (although I forget how). Generally, the Easter egg links could be minimized throughout (not just on ILLs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been effected. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 23:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]