Talk:Simón Bolívar

strange technical problem with article

Hi. I'm just wanted to mention that there's something weird going on with the way that this article is being rendered with my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.4 on a PC). Specifically, the section-editing links are getting bunched up and showing up in strange places, moving around as I resize the page. I think it may have something to do with the infoboxes on the right side. - Skaraoke 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC

What the hell that this mean?

The following sentence doesn't mean anything: "After the death of Bolivar in 1830 and the later dissolution of the Gran Colombia in 1831, Bolivar's legacy contributed decisively to the independence of present-day Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panamá, Perú and Venezuela." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.217.121 (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2008‎

I changed it with: "His legacy contributed decisively to the independence of present-day Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Panamá, Perú and Venezuela."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.217.121 (talk) 03:59, 29 June 2008‎

Infobox Portrait Discussion?

In the past few weeks there's been some dispute over which portrait should be used to represent Bolívar in his infobox. In order to avoid an edit war, I'd suggest proper consensus be reached here before further edits are made. Below are some candidates which have been under in contention. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• 

  Portrait by Francis Martin Drexel, 1827
  Pros: Contemporary; made during the life of Bolívar.
  Cons: Quite dark. Perhaps could do with some color correction.

• 

  Portrait by José Gil de Castro, c. 1823
  Pros: Contemporary; made during the life of Bolívar. More vibrant.
  Cons: Perhaps not the most accurate depiction of Bolívar. If the aim is something more true to life, this probably isn't the best contender.

• 

  Portrait by José Gil de Castro, 1825
  Pros: More accurate to life.
  Cons: Low-resolution, bad colour correction. Perhaps a better version of this portrait could be found?

• 

  Portrait by José Toro Moreno, c. 1922
  Pros: Visually pleasing, high resolution, true to life. In addition, it is perhaps the most famous depiction of Bolívar.
  Cons: Not contemporary but based on contemporary works.

• 4th portrait seems to be the best option. Despite it being non-contemporary it's pretty accurate and in line with actual contemporary works. I would rule out the 1st portrait since it looks like a caricature in my opinion. Karl Krafft (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with every point of this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• 3rd portrait I have just uploaded a much higher quality version of this image on Commons. It is among the most iconic paintings of Bolivar (and has been copied by many other painters and lithographers) which makes it well-suited for the infobox. A possible con is the full-body framing, but perhaps a crop at the waist could be made now that the resolution is higher. — Goszei (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Does anyone have any information about these paintings: [1] [2]? They appear to be copied from some original; if that original is contemporary, it would make an excellent choice for the infobox (it's a very heroic pose). — Goszei (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

4th portrait - Although the non-contemporary nature of it makes it not a great choice, the rest all look clunkier to me. casualdejekyll 01:56, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Prefer the other three over 4 - 4 isn't terrible, but it is best to have a contemporary portrait. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

• 2nd portrait - It is a contemporary portrait and it's proportions are well suited for the infobox. Alternatively, a cropped version of 3 would be good too. Also, how can you say it is not "the most accurate depiction"? Torimem (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
• 4th portrait - Just realized I never actually voted on the discussion I myself started. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• 4th portrait — Given that the 4th seems an accurate likeness, I think it’s main con of being non-contemporary is out weighed by its many pros. Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

External links

The External Links section has eleven entries. This is far above the minimum (per #3) of three or four which is usually acceptable. Sites such as Find a Grave should be used with caution and only when it is clear use of the site offers unique information not available somewhere else or that can't be used as a source. Also, YouTube should be considered with caution.

The bottom line is that the "External links" section is in need of trimming so there is not a link farm.

General references (currently seven links) are found on many underdeveloped articles but as the article evolves these need to be utilized with inline citations or they just become an addition to the "Further reading" section, that currently already has 14 links, which is governed by Wikipedia:External links.

The appendices (excluding "Notes and references") do not need to be so exhaustive as to be unwieldy or violate What Wikipedia is not. -- Otr500 (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have gutted the relevant section and reduced it to but one link. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 05:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

mouments

There are monuments in the US as well, why aren't they listed? Like this one in New Orleans: https://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/state-lhp:7656 and I work on Bolivar Street in New Orleans which is named after him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A40:5B90:1D49:A67A:1A81:CC1E (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, feel free to add it if there is a corresponding citation and it's relevant. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already a list of objects and places that memorialize Bolívar; naming names and places has previously size crept this article beyond reason, so I must defer your attention to List of places and things named after Simón Bolivar. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"current countries"

While Simon Bolivar is credited with liberating five (5) nations, the article in English fails to mention Panama -a former territory of Colombia- as one of the "current" countries led by him to independence from the Spanish Empire. In the Spanish version of the same entry, the correction has been made in a way that better reflects the extent of Bolivar's accomplishments. 2601:80:4681:5EC0:4542:5EB3:DD4C:CE54 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Translations

I saw that the Arabic version of the article is fairly comprehensive and throughly cited. Perhaps we should import some of the citations to here as well? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Simón Bolívar Day" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Simón Bolívar Day and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2#Simón Bolívar Day until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Simón Bolívar/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Fun and cool experiment in which Guerillero and I team up to tackle a GAN of epic proportions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Prose review

Going into this with the mindset that FAC is likely. I'm going to pick on redundancy esepcially, because this is such a long article we really can't afford to add more words when we don't need them.

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?
• criollo is going to be unfamiliar to most people I think, maybe a touch of context or a footnote
• "lived in several households" how essential is this?
• 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
• "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?
• Most other countries are linked, why not Haiti?
• "with Bolívar as president there and in Peru and Bolivia" all at once?
• "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?
• "Simón was born into the Bolívar family" redundant
• 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.
• "Would also serve" -> "also served". You can probably also lose the "there" at the beginning of this sentence"

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.
• "he spent two years" do we know what years?
• "run by Simón Rodríguez" - who's this guy
• 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".
• 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."

Return to Venezuela

• You can lose "there," since there's no reason to think del Toro died anywhere else
• "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)
• Nice use of the quote box here
• " Though he remained awed by Napoleon, Bolívar was disgusted" - why? This needs some more explanation
• " 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 a current event (to Bolivar)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)