Talk:Venezuela: Difference between revisions

Venezuela received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Venezuela B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

To-do: E · H · W · R Updated 2024-05-13 Feel free to add, remove or object to any of the to-do's below, but remember to discuss controversial topics here. More tasks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Venezuela/To do

pooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooop page, I'll at least show my view on the discussion:

According to the Brazilian Press, Venezuela is rapidly moving to a military dictatorship. The most important Brazilian newspaper, Folha de São Paulo, criticized the hypocrisy of Foreign Ministry, when relating to Venezuela as a democracy (Folha de São Paulo, 21/01/2007). The Democratic Clause of Mercosur generated a debate if the Foreign Ministry has ignored it. Rede Globo network (Brazil) is also making daily critiques to the authoritarian position of Hugo Chávez. The same newspaper informed that the middle class of Venezuela is afraid of expressing any opposition to the regime, and that they are planning to leave the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.7.51.10 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Folha de Sao Paulo and Rede Globo are well known puppets of the right-wing opposition. For any doubts you could just check Beyond_Citizen_Kane where its pretty well described Globo's cumplicity with past brazilian dictators. Chinablasts 04:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez will change the name of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to Socialist Republic of Venezuela —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.146.109.52 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Ace. I'm really interested in reading the article stating so; got any links to them?

That is PURE BULLSHIT the name of Venezuela will remain as Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

-G

once again >.>Italic text yo mama so ugly that she thinks shes as ugly as yo mama (mickel jakson) yo mama so ugly that when she saw maddona madona turned to stone

This is HomeSkilleBiscuit. I have to tell you something about cheeseburger and ketchup...I AM VERY HUNGRY!!!!!!! I want to go to nicole's house and get something to eat..Oh yea her grandma put my bookbag outside on the steps...

--lucasleobas 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I've just added the following phrase, as the Venezuela's status in the Mercosur has just changed: "Venezuela partially became a member of Mercosur in December 2005, although it had yet to finalize policy changes in order to gain voting rights. Venezuela's full membership was finally effectivated in July 2006."[reply]

Hey, no offense but I don't think "effectivated" is a word. Probably activated. Gmlegal

Or even "made effective" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.168.234.214 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

HELLO MY FRIEND

--Glumbert 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Although I understand the references to baseball, I think it is inappropriate to make them in the context of the United States. It would be appropriate in an article about Latin American baseball players, but not in information about a country's history. Instead, the baseball info should exist purely within the realm of it existing nationally as a sport and only a minor reference and link to their success in American baseball.[reply]

I'm also pretty sure that "sheep raping" isn't a national pastime..

User:Carlos Villamizar vandalized the page adding "Fuera el Dictador Hugo Chavez!! ²" as the motto. It was reverted by Enano. --A Sunshade Lust 03:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted 4 edits in a row from 3 users.

• user:SndrAndrss for some reason replaced the flag with one without the coat of arms.
• user:Juanvillalobos replaced again the flag, but this time with the old one (7 stars, old coat)
• user:Carlos Villamizar replaced "Bolívar" with "Bolivar"

Edit: Forgot to mention that user:Juanvillalobos wrote "Fuera el Dictador Hugo Chavez!!" as the motto, which is vandalism, so I left him a message in his talk page. --Enano275 03:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But acknowledgement goes to Guayana or Guyana? I changed it to Guyana, as it would make more sense to me, but I have no idea. If someone knows, please edit with the proper word. Best wishes. --A Sunshade Lust 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guayana is the one that gets credit it is mostly a region summing up a few states, Guyana is a neighboring country to the east.Flanker 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine current politcs is left to a daughter article, what else might be needed? compared to other country FA status?Flanker 23:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to contribute you could start by expanding the military section. After that, in-line referencing, a huge copy-edit (just look at the first paragraph of culture, it mention the word heritage six times... hehe) and a peer review would lead us to FA status. Otherwise, I think that this article is not bad. --Enano275 04:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably do something about the military version, I will also try to avoid it being like an almanac.Flanker 19:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely help. I'm also noticing that there are too many lists, some are necessary, but the regions and national symbols for example, can be converted into paragraphs. We could probably build a to-do list here that would ease improving the article. --Enano275 05:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I added a quick to-do list (see top), it's probably incomplete but it's a start.--Enano275 06:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any source about the said problems? I've been looking for it but no luck. Venezuelans know that at least there's a 60% poverty in the country (and yes, the goverment earns $$$ yearly, but nothing to be seen) but I have yet to find a good source to post it there.ErKURITA 01:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty is not a demographic problem it is a socio-economic one, statistics vary depending the statistical meassure used, The government defines poverty as income below a canasta alimenticia X 2 that stands at 37%, one should avoid apples to oranges statistical comparisons.Flanker 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez changed the measure of poverty, which helps obscure the extent of the problem. Any statistics in current use mix apples and oranges. See Boston Globe, The Economist, and Reuters. A more thorough analysis, not available for free on-line, is found in Foreign Affairs Magazine. [1] (I think you can download the article for about $5, or get it from your library.) Sandy 15:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently poverty is a demographic problem. Look at this Slums,More Slums and More Slums. This is a demographic problem because Venezuela is propense to have heavy storms, and any landslide at the top of one of those mountains could wash it away and leave it like new. People has been living like this for years, and it is not only a time bomb, but the source of most of the crime in the capital.ErKURITA 20:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demography is population and its makeup, poverty is socio-economical, it does not mean it is irrelevant jsut that it is not the same or at least a subset, Sandy we have debated poverty for ages, you show no evidence (just accusations) that said the world bank report dispells the notion of fixed statistics.Flanker 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuela was not the 1st nation to abolish death penalty. Some other states did it before but either they don't exist today as independent states(Tuscany) or re-established the practice at a later date(Portugal) [2] JRSP 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read it and work on the grammar. Sandy 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JRSP 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept it simple and minimal, since the wording is very tricky. Anyone who really wants more detail will probably look at the refs. Sandy 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed from this lead of Venezuela: it belongs in Mission Barrio Adentro once it is appropriately referenced. Please see WP:FN

Venezuela's leader in 2006 has been criticised[3] for expending considerable effort in making international trips to alter policies in other countries, ironically at a time where the country itself needs considerable attention in the areas of public health and environmental protection^[1].

Sandy 21:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From article. Source says the sample is only from the city of Maracaibo:

Hepatitis A incidence exceeds 46 percent among Venezuela's youth, with greatest incidence associated with poorer people[4]

JRSP 23:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to decipher some of the health edits made by PhaseChange. Somewhere, I asked him/her to stick more closely to the sources, but I stopped checking them. (New account -->). SandyG 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section looks like a personal essay. Self-contradicting from the first sentence: The eighth star is because of recent political change or because of Guayana's contribution to the independence? Is there any source for the cristall ball statement of "leaving thousands without the means to travel out of the country"? JRSP 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 70s-early 80s there were a study of the Venezuela-Brazil border line, both countries agreed that some 4000 km2 did not belong to Brazil but to Venezuela. That's the reason why some sources report 912k Km2 and others 916k Km2. The right figure should be the latter JRSP 01:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Venezuelan government link giving the true height of Pico Bolivar, 4981m, is no longer live. The well known author of this page has told me that he obtained a 4,981 m GPS reading in January 2006. But he has not published it so there may now be a verifiability problem. But there are many verifiable errors in the CIA highest point source; imo, this should not be used. I amended to an NPOV c.5000. Viewfinder 02:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site [5] claims it is 4979m high, but I do not know if it is reliable JRSP 02:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to my above comment, the GPS reading was in fact 4979m. But I went with the government site. Perhaps, now that this has been removed, we should amend to 4979m, but I do not think that GPS is accurate to 2m so I am not really bothered either way. But I firmly oppose support for anything over 5000m. Viewfinder 13:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

c.5000m is fine IMO until a reliable report appears. Another possibility would be including the different reported heights but this would be better for the Pico Bolivar article, too much detail for the Venezuela article JRSP 14:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Herrera Luque's pejorative interpretation of the origin of the name Venezuela, the suffix -uelo/a (not -zuela BTW) is basically a diminutive which may or may not have a pejorative meaning. Cazuela, one of the examples in the article does not have a pejorative meaning at all (just a vessel smaller than a cazo); muchachuelo/a (little boy/girl) is even affectionate. Accordingly to DRAE (http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/), -uelo is 1) diminutive, 2) sometimes pejorative. I wonder if there are more notable adherents of Herrera Luque's theory, otherwise the article would be giving too much weight to a minority view JRSP 22:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This material is supported by a biased source( US DoS) and a primary source (Colombian Police). Per WP:V material must be based on reliable third party sources:

In recent years, Venezuela has been plagued with the increase of violent crime, particularly with murder and kidnappings. The country currently has the unfortunate and notorious reputation of having the highest per-capita murder rate in the world.^[2] Almost all murders go unsolved. In 2005, over one thousand kidnappings were also reported, about 200 more than neighboring Colombia reported during the same year. ^[3] Even Venezuela's largest airport, Simón Bolívar International, which initially brings most of the international tourists into the country through Caracas, is considered dangerous and rampant with corruption. Based on the recent surges of murder and kidnapping levels, it has remained mysterious that some countries, (i.e. the United States) have decided not to issue travel warnings in order to alert their citizens of dangers and avoid travel there. ^[4] JRSP (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Venezuela is one of the South American countries with some privatization experiences:
- Electricity: Electricidad de Caracas, SENE...Presence of foreign companies as Endesa (Spain), AES and CMS (USA)
- Water: Some operators have had experiences in water privatization in Venezuela as Saur (France / Lara state contract), Canal de Isabel II (Spain /failed Maracaibo contract), AAA (Colombia), FCC (Spain / Monagas contract) and Veolia (France)
- Airlines: Iberia entered in Viasa in 1991 (60% stake)
- Telecoms: Bellsouth (Movil Celular/ 1991), ATT and Telefonica (CANTV / 1996) and Verizon (CANTV too)
- Banks: BBV and Santander are two spanish banks present by acquisitions Banco Provincial and Banco Venezolano, both in 1996)
- Solid Waste: Onyx- Veolia from France and FCC from Spain as well as Dragados from Spain too are participating in privatization in the solid waste market in Venezuela in the states of Zamora and Valencia
- Parkings: Central Parking Corporation (USA)
- Education : the Kaplan company is present in this market in Venezuela
- Hospitals: Generale de Sante in managing one hospital
For more information in Privatization in Venezuela see Privatization in Venezuela —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lesanges (talk • contribs) 16:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have removed that link you were spamming in a number of articles. Please see the policy on external links. —Dgies^t c 17:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new in Wikipedia, you are saying I cannot refer to the source of the article, a book with a copyright? So you are saying I can write the article and not refer to the book? May be I should mention the ref. of the book instead of indicating a Link. I can write articles on each country with serious privatization but it is time and effort, I got a PHD on this matter, and I would not like to be treated of spammer for that.

Howcome I don't see anything about Hugo Chavez??? I mean, one of the craziest people on earth and is not even mentioned... I don't have the time to do it myself so if anyone wants to add some information, you're welcome. --Supaman89

Congratulations for the good choise for choosin the socialism as system for your country! It is good for every people if there is freedom of speech and no political prisoners.We know how it was in S.F.R. Yugoslavia during the socialism. It was better then in USSR! Just keep reaching it but make it democratic! (Darko from R.Macedonia)

Yeah, people would think that Venezuela is enslaved by Hugo Chavez, but the truth is that they keep electing him for president, oh well... Venezuela goes on the right track to becoming the next Cuba, but what do I care I don't even live there. lol Supaman89 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some information about the dictator, but they simply erased (probabily, the department of censure.

If you consider Chavez crazy, then Bush is a homicidal maniac.

Bush being a homicidal maniac or not has little to do with President Hugo Chavez. This kind of statement is the typical response that comes from a person who tries to justify an immoral act by citing another one. It is a pity that this approach is the only means by which Chavez and his followers try justify their actions. On the other hand, an educated and responsible citizen would merely expect little more than maybe a decent level of personal security, a coherent economical policy, low inflation, a good quality of life, autonomous governmental bodies, freedom of speech, proper healthcare, and good education. These mere and petty conditions, recognized as necessary for sustainable development and overall human growth, appear to be simply secondary to an obsolete ideology. Deeply troubled by the blindness that only arrogance together with ignorance can propel, I say to you gentlemen of deep thought: two moral misdoings do not make a moral act.

Sincerely, an educated Venezuelan.

Chavez is anything but crazy. He comes across as the most competent of the Latin American leaders and while socialism is, IMO, misguided his call to Latin American integration is inspired. Calling him a dictator is silly unless one believes that democratically elected leaders can be dictators, SqueakBox 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, it is truly inspiring to see a man who was elected through an electoral body presided by the same man who is now the vice president of the republic. Isn't that something? After all, impartiality is just a word for someone who is so busy being the most competent leader of a region. I recommend the writings of one Lord Acton, who stated that “power tends to corrupt” and that “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Furthermore, the writings of the so cited Simon Bolivar, who once said: “flee the country where a lone man holds all power: It is a nation of slaves”. The question of where or whom is granting the power is no longer a question, power becomes the problem, and absolute power the absolute problem.

An educated Venezuelan.

If there is a reliable source that reached that conclusion, please share it. This discussion board is to talk about how we can improve the article. Our personal opinions are of little importance here for we are not the ones to define the situation depending on our backgrounds but merely to deliver the information provided to us by outside sources.

- Not a self-proclaimed educated Venezuelan (24.242.221.231 22:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dear not self-proclaimed educated Venezuelan, in other words, uneducated Venezuelan: if names as Simon Bolivar and Lord Acton do not qualify as reliable sources for the conclusions expressed in my previous comment, then I truly apologize. However, if you assume that the conclusion is implied rather than explicitly stated, then it is my duty as an educated countryman to inform you that whatever you, the reader, derive from a comment, cannot be qualified as the writer’s conclusion. It is rather called a personal interpretation. Furthermore, it is also my duty to inform you that discussions are constituted by the presentation of opinions. If in any form you feel alluded by my commentary, again I apologize. Nevertheless, if your intent is to silence an insightful and properly backed-up opinion with another one, then you unsurprisingly fall in the same category as the ones being criticized by the two great thinkers mentioned above. With nothing more to add to this discussion, for now.

An educated Venezuelan.

Please sign your posts. Also, as a friendly reminder, this is not a forum and we should abide by Wikipedia policy and etiquette. (Antonio.sierra 21:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Maybe we should note, in one of the first paragraphs of the article, that "the country's president, Hugo Chavez, is a very controversial and polarizing political figure in the international eye as well as withing Venezuela." Or something along those lines. Regardless of anybody's sympathy or opposition to Chavez, I think we can all agree that he is highly controversial. (Antonio.sierra 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An essay that could prove useful: In Search of Hugo Chávez from the American journal Foreign Affairs (ChuDeLaChu 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)) From the essay:[reply]

To his most ardent backers in Venezuela and among the international left, Chávez is a hero driven by humanitarian impulses to redress social injustice and inequality -- problems long neglected by a traditional political class intent on protecting its own position while denying the masses their rightful share of wealth and meaningful political participation. He is bravely fighting for Latin American solidarity and standing up to the overbearing United States. With charisma and oil dollars, he is seizing an opportunity to correct the power and wealth imbalances that have long defined Venezuelan and hemispheric affairs.

To his opponents -- the embattled domestic opposition and many in Washington -- Chávez is a power-hungry dictator who disregards the rule of law and the democratic process. He is on a catastrophic course of extending state control over the economy, militarizing politics, eliminating dissent, cozying up to rogue regimes, and carrying out wrong-headed social programs that will set Venezuela back. He is an authoritarian whose vision and policies have no redeeming qualities and a formidable menace to his own people, his Latin American neighbors, and U.S. interests. ChuDeLaChu 17:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"""He is bravely fighting for Latin American solidarity""" I would strong disagree with this statement. It sounds more like propaganda than fact. Chavez is more likely challenging the control over natural resources in Latin America against other competitors such as Columbia and Brazil than forming any type of 'solidarity' with them. Maybe better said, he would like to see some sort of unification of Leftist leaders (De Silva, Kitchner, etc) under some pro-Cuban/anti-American cooperative agreement. However, this is not the same thing as ""bravely fighting for Latin American solidarity"".

Our Infant Mortality is not 22 deaths per 1000 births, actually, it's 16.1 deaths per 1000 births!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gabokool (talk • contribs) 23:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you insist on reverting my accurate edits to the Venezuela page? It is either a socialist republic(which Chavez has referred to it as on more than one occasion, and now that he rules by decree that effectively means it is in fact a "socialist republic" simply on his saying so) Your censorship of my edits without explaining yourself is unprofessional and furthermore, it negatively impacts Wikipedia's role as a collaborative BUT accurate resource for all users. "Sending" the dispute to the discussion page is an attempt to postpone the inevitable conclusion: you are wrong and Venezuela is NO LONGER a federal repblic because its leader (one person) rules by decree and himself referrs to the country as a socialist republic. Just because you have some aversion to the term, it IS accurate and theres no good reason for masquerading it in intellectually-vacuous language that conceals the true nature of things. This is not opinion either so don't try and justify your censorship that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.177.126 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us a reliable source describing Venezuela as a "socialist republic"? JRSP 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would also help if you kept a cooler head. Viewfinder 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time the official status of Venezuela, as both stated by the Venezuelan government and accepted by the international community, is that of a republic. The constitution still guarantees the right to vote and requires the National Assembly to convene on a consistent basis. I will concede that the true rights of citizens have dramatically decreased and seem to exist only as a formality (as of January 31 the National Assembly granted president Hugo Chavez new executive powers, including the power to rule by decree). Even considering mounting evidence that would support a ‘Socialist Republic of Venezuela,’ Wikipedia cannot pass judgment. Hugo Chavez plans to alter both the constitution and the country’s title later this year. Until that time, however, we must accept Venezuela’s status as a free republic. Kugelmass 15:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former USSR's constitution openly declared itself democratic, and even contained assurances of civil liberties. History is witness to the fact that this was a facade that had nothing to do with reality. Hitler referred to his political movement as National Socialism, but it had little to do with Socialism. Pegging Wikipedia's official position to the "official" status of a country in order to evade arriving at a conclusion about the truth, is cowardly. We must make an effort to arrive at language that truthfully represents the facts, not the propaganda by either side! The quandaries before those participating in this discussion who are interested in accurately portraying the truth to the readership of Wikipedia, are as follows:

Whatever you may wish to call Venezuela, one cannot honestly call it merely a "republic" --- which is merely a way of saying it is not a monarchy --- and say nothing more. One needs to explain the reality of the situation, with all its facets (both good and bad of *both* sides), if one is to elaborate truthfully on its government's real nature. To fail to elaborate thusly constitutes a dishonesty of ommission. Furthermore, Venezuela certainly is not a true democracy, where the legislative and judicial branches (which are indisputably in the control of Chavez supporters) object to nothing proposed by the executive, and where there is never a threat of change (or even pressure to change) from an opposition completely emasculated by its own divisions arising from greed and ineptitude. Notice I am not saying those who oppose Chavez are wonderful. Quite the opposite: They are directly responsible, through decades of corruption, neglect of the poor, and numerous other sins, for placing Chavez in the position of power he finds himself in. But my point is that, although one should plainly provide a "why and wherefore," in the end a lack of opposition equals de facto complete control by Chavez, which in tern means there is no functioning democracy. It doesn't matter whether you support or oppose Chavez: He has, with astounding success and cleverness, created a political mileau where he (for whatever reason) rules without any risk whatsoever that his wishes on any subject will be denied. To merely call such a singularly one-sided political system a "republic" to avoid dealing with the actual realities, is intellectually lazy at best, and dishonest at worst. To call such a system democratic, in the absence of effective opposition, is genuinely self-deluded.

Napoleon grasped the reigns of a chaotic French Revolution, and established a dictatorship under his effective control. He went ahead to implement a number of exceedingly civilized and enlightened changes to society that impact us all positively even to this day. But to deny the fact he was a dictator, whatever good or bad he may have done, is simply not adhering to the role of a reporter or an encyclopedia. Chavez appears to have created a role not unlike that of Napoleon. He is now poised to utterly change Venezuela through numerous initiatives following the inspiration of Cuba. Whether those initiatives are good or bad, is no concern of mine. Certainly both sides should be discussed in the article. But whatever the ultimate worth of Chavez's initiatives, let us not delude ourselves: A man who can rule by decree for 18 months in a time of peace is not the head of a democracy with a functioning opposition. And even if we ignore his new power to rule by decree, a man who has a legislature and judiciary so compliant as to give him whatever he wants without any risk of denial --- well is no different than a dictator either. Good dictator? Bad dictator? Come on! Lets state the facts and let the reader decide. 2 March, 2007 (UTC)

I was born in Venezuela. Most of my family still lives in Caracas, where they belong to a quickly dying middle class. I have seen the results of Chavez's totalitarian social reforms first hand. I despise what Chavez is doing to my country and to my family. Like so many others, I see him as a dictator. A traitor to his own country.

That being said, I stand by my previous remarks: Wikipedia cannot pass judgment. Wikipedia and its writers must rely on reputable sources for all articles. Accurate citations and objective conclusions are what give this medium the distinction of encyclopedia and not Jimbo's Big Bag of Trivia. Kugelmass 03:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are reliable sources that provide information for use in this article, there is no need for primary investigation and/or anectdotal evidence. (24.242.221.231 21:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As was mentioned above, Chavez refers to Venezuela as socialist. Go to http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/misc-view/index.pag, the official webpage of the Venezuelan (oops, Bolivarian ) government and you will see that on the column on the right there is an icon (4th icon down) that says 'Rumbo al Socialismo Bolivariano'. If you click on it, it will direct you to a webpage in which Chavez more or less describes the 5 motors of his socialist reform. Guiki 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that you all regular editors of this article might want to add a few quotes from the following New York Times article before it is taken down from their site -- "Venezuela Spending on Arms Soars to World’s Top Ranks":

CARACAS, Venezuela, Feb. 24 — Venezuela’s arms spending has climbed to more than $4 billion in the past two years, transforming the nation into Latin America’s largest weapons buyer and placing it ahead of other major purchasers in international arms markets like Pakistan and Iran.

Venezuelan military and government officials here say the arms acquisitions, which include dozens of fighter jets and attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, are needed to circumvent a ban by the United States on sales of American weapons to the country.

They also argue that Venezuela must strengthen its defenses to counter potential military aggression from the United States.

...article continued...

--172.128.25.32 03:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has Venezuala, Liberia, Iran or any of the other recent " With Us or Against Us" nations created their own wikisite? To get out their point of view?

I think NCANN should be abolished and the UN takes it over. Odessaukrain 12:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The place has been under one for quite some time. Go to FOX News. 65.173.105.125 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh but notn according to teleSur, SqueakBox 03:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to disappoint you squeakBox, but objectiveness is not defined by the lens of a camera but by the reality suffered by the people. For a mere glimpse of what I am trying to say, you might consider a trip to Cuba, maybe the state of the art education system that they posses may enlighten your perception.

P.S. on your way there, please let me know if you see anybody swimming from Miami to Cuba.

Again, an educated Venezuelan

Hi, 149.68.147.24 ... welcome! Registering an account will make it easier for the rest of us to communicate with you and separate you from other anons posting from the same account; Venezuelans who share your views of Chavez don't seem to stick around Wikipedia very long, so it would be stupendous if you registered an account and got involved. Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who lived in Venezuela until 2001 I can tell you Venezuela is currently under a dictatorship. There is no dispute about it. No person can go against Chavez in Venezuela without fear for his or her life.

I am not a resident of Repiblica Bolivariana de Venezuela, but I have friends and family who reside there and visit every other year or so. And I’m not sure what people mean by “dictatorship”. Yes, power is allocated into a single entity, as it is in any other nation... but is it malevolent? I don’t see an evidence of it. My cold hard feeling is that the United States is worried about a more stronger and united Venezuela. I just pray to God that no one thinks they have to come and "liberate" the nation.

-G

By "dictatorship", I'm sure they mean "someone is in complete control of the country and pretty much is doing with said country whatsoever he/she feels like". Which, according to my uncle (who actually is from Repiblica Bolivariana de Venezuela), is what Chavez is doing. Alinnisawest 02:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Alinnisawest[reply]

The article states that "Voting is compulsory for citizens 18 and older...". This statement relies on the interpretation of a primary source, specifically in the meaning of the word "deber" (duty). Multiple reliable secondary sources say voting in Ven. is not compulsory[6][7]. Also, this press release from the TSJ says it is not compulsory.[8] JRSP 06:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This guy claims it is. Before he came along, the article read "voting is not compulsory". Please clarify which one of you is correct. Thanks. Saravask 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the press release from the TSJ is actually quoting its president( at that time). He says "En Venezuela antes el voto era obligatorio, ahora no..." (Formerly, in Venezuela the vote was compulsory, not now...) JRSP 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have more sources, these are in English: [9][10] --JRSP 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Saravask 06:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle (who is Venezuelan) has told me in the past that voting in Venezuela is not exactly compulsory, but is, well, encouraged. Meaning it is compulsory without them coming out and saying it. Alinnisawest 02:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Alinnisawest[reply]

Although it is true that Columbus referred to (Eastern) Venezuela by that name, it can hardly be considered "the country's nickname". This source says it is just a historical or literary reference: "El nombre de Tierra de Gracia, aplicado a Venezuela o a una región de la misma, no perduró. Hoy suele ser empleado como una referencia histórica o literaria" [11] JRSP 11:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chavez paid groups of mans to poison fidel castro —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.144.60.191 (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comparing Hugo Chavez' usurpation of power and, more recently, seizure and redistribution of land and purging of political opponents in Venezuela is frighteningly similar to the actions of the most well-known communist leaders of the past century: Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

While the government of Venezuela is defined as a "federal republic," this definition only exists on paper. In reality however, Chavez has transformed Venezuela into a communist state using Cuba's system as a model for this transformation. His aspiration to spread his "Bolivarian Revolution" throughout the Western Hemisphere is another classic example of similar communist doctrine used previously by the Soviet Union; Chavez' meddling in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua corroborate this theory. 67.169.155.123 14:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Wxstorm[reply]

Venezuela held elections for governors, mayors and the president. The majority of Venezuelans support Chavez. And other countries, such as the USA, have spread their ideology all over the world; this does not make them communist nations. In spite of what is said in Venezuela's free opposition press, this article must remain objective. (24.242.221.231 20:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dear uneducated countryman (User:24.242.221.231): If you cannot express your argument in a coherent manner please refrain from posting. This space is meant to propel a discussion, yes, but a proper and coherent one based on respect for others. If the coherent and mostly backed up opinions showed tend to differ from your way of thinking, that does not make them subjective. In any case, who are you to define objectiveness if you cannot even express your ideas in a coherent manner? Furthermore, who are you to silence the voice of those willing to contribute to a better site and a better Venezuela? Please research on the word pluralism and for once look at its real meaning and not the one that better serves your purpose. Again, this is a serious site, please be respectful of the people who recur to it for information. Always yours,

An educated Venezuelan

I changed this line, "Sucre, who won many battles for Bolívar, succeeded him as leader after his death", to something more like "Sucre, who won many battles for Bolívar, went on to liberate Ecuador and become the first president of Bolivia", seeing as how Sucre died before Bolívar.

Piotr (Venezuela) 04:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VENEZUELA IS NOT A PLURALISTIC COUNTRY
94% of its population is ROMAN CATHOLIC
the rest are either atheist, protestants, jews or with native believes

should not be called 'multi-cultural'/'multi-ethnic
approximately:
50% of the people is of spanish/italian/portuguese ancestry... BUT venezuelans have developed their own culture.. VENEZUELA IS A COUNTRY OF 400 YEARS
49% is native
1% is either black or asian —The preceding

thats why I deleted that

(Anthony Berardinelli) unsigned comment was added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree with even though there is a village in Venezuela called Colonia Tovar and is mostly people of German ancestry.

is this accurate? —The preceding

thats why I deleted that

(Anthony Berardinelli) unsigned comment was added by Tony0106 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]