Jump to content

Talk:Venezuela/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Frequent Vandalisim

Could somone with the proper authority please switch this article so that it can only be edited by established users. There is too much vandalisim on this page and it is interfering Veertlte —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC).

Hi, such requests are posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. You should try asking there, and see if your request gets approved. Also, as a side note, new threads in talk pages should be added at the bottom, not the top of the page. Finally, you can sign your posts with your name and date easily by typing ~~~~. Hope this helped, 2help (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

older entries

According to the Japenese 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).

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)

Change of Name

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).

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


Not true, he has stated on tv that "bolivarian" and "socialist" are the same, so that name change its just not true


Venezuela has had some really bad episodes with capitalism and I can see why the people want to change ideology and the super long horrible American recession/depression that has consumed the entire earth is just pushing them deeper into that ideology. Honestly, I think we should let them do what they want and I think we should lift the Cuban embargo. Its not very humane. America is suppose to be a nation of faith and if we really follow God, we would treat people BETTER. Could we show the good sides of these changes to Venezuela? Maybe let people see the other side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadapathy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes

--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."

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).


HELLO MY FRIEND

Baseball

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. --Glumbert 23:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.114.35 (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

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)


Someone erased the whole article and replaced it with what their wearing and the fact that their listening to their ipod. Wikipedia needs to establish strciter editing rules, this is rediculous, to have immature preteen's messing around on websites because they're desperatly trying to find a social networking site and have assume they can do this here. Utterly disgusting and annoying.--User:Andokool12

Reverted to latest version by Rompe due to strange edits from three users since. See talk page.

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

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)

Made the section on the new flag neutral

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)

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)

What would be needed for the article to reach Feature status?

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Current Demographic problems

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Death penalty

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)

I'll read it and work on the grammar. Sandy 02:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks JRSP 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Commentary not appropriate here

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)

Hepatitis A figures

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)

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)

New flag and new coat of arms

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)

I think the flag looks good but i dont think it was right to change.

Area figure

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)

Highest point

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)

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

Etymology

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)

Privatization

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).

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

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.

Hugo Chavez

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)

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)

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))

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))


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))


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:

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)

"""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"".

I am here to say, that it really doesn't matter what the educated Venezuelan thinks, because the people have voted Hugo Chavez in with a majority of 63%, and he has only continued to win democratic victories with the Venezuelan people. Obviously, because he is doing good things for the country.

An Intellectual

Dear "Intellectual": the day when Chavez's supporters as yourself would be no longer able to utilize the argument of Chavez being "democratically elected" to justify your personal and buyest agenda, has come close. Not to bother in reviewing the questionable circumstances in which Chavez was so "democratically elected", let me shift my response to what is my moral obligation as a fellow citizen: school you in your ignorant intellectuality. It is not the means by which a leader has reached his position, but the result of his actions that should influence one, objectively and freely, to decide weather or not, this leader deserves his place. As you may recall, Adolf Hittler was elected democratically by a large majority, and propelled economic and military might in Germany, during the late 1930's. However, this doesn't justify his actions. I am sure your "intellectuality" allows you to see the analogy, that being only after you are able to separate yourself from your complexes. While Chavez is far from being Hitler, he shares a fundamental characteristic that makes him unfit to be a good president (something many wish and even believe he is). This characteristic is no less than the pursue and obtention of unchecked power. You can bring forth any argument about Chavez's achievements (even when economic indicators will compromise your credibility) and still not be able to deny that the president of Venezuela has unchecked power over Venezuelans and their country. In Consecuence, you will realize that Chavez has become a contemporary reflection of that same evil Simon Bolivar lived to fight against.

Sincerely, An Educated Venezuelan

Dear Educated Venezuelan,
Hitler was not "elected democratically by a large majority", never once. In fact he lost votes during the last democratic election in that period AFTER he was named Chancellor of Germany. The wretch Hitler had a "plurality" not a "majority". Chavez has a "majority". Hitler coming to power meant the removal of power of the majority of Germans (in fact all Germans). While it's true that Chavez maybe "more" powerful than previous leaders, he is also empowering people who were discarded when the rich ran Venezuela and used it's resouces as a piggy-bank to send to their kids to college in the US and go on their shopping sprees to Miami. In fact, it is STILL going on. This is my obvservation. More people are EMPOWERED than ever before and for once, ther is a real, free trade union movement. Venezuela has never been more democratic. Bravo!

216.203.27.99 23:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)DavidMIA


Dear David, It is indeed a shame that all Venezuelans have suffered from corruption, and that poor people were in fact neglected during previous governments. Now, let me remind you that these leaders were elected by unquestionable "majorities", unlike other leaders who fund their campaign, and that of others, with state resources, not to say the least. However, what is truly shameful is that some say that it was the rich people who are responsible of past negligence, all because they were sending "their kids to college in the US" and going "on their shopping sprees to Miami". This statement comes across not only as a clear sign of resentment from your part, one fueled by envy on those who have the luck of enjoying such privileges, but also as a big discriminative, dividing, and absurd generalization. According to you, being "rich" (which seems to be traveled and educated) equals being corrupt and responsible for poor's people conditions. Sorry my friend, but this line of though is food for ignorance and while it might propel demagogy, incompetence, and tyranny, it will rarely prevail. The truth will always prevail, and the truth will set Venezuela free. An educated Venezuelan

PS: If you still feel anger towards a specific Venezuelan minority, please consider the following thought by Lord Acton: "“[Liberty] is the delicate fruit of a mature civilization...At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous...The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities...Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.”

Infant Mortality

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).


Improper censorship

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

Can you show us a reliable source describing Venezuela as a "socialist republic"? JRSP 21:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
It would also help if you kept a cooler head. Viewfinder 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
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)

Information to add?

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)

Venezuala

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)

Dictatorship

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

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

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)

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


Anyone who uses Fox News as their source is a gullable fool no offence. Fox News is such a strong conservative station that it tows the government line all the time. And conservative America doesn't like Hugo Chavez as he's stumped their economic ambitions for the country. Having said that the US did back and prop up many dictatorships in Latin America such as General Pinochet's and toppled democratically elected governments such as Nicaragua's. But then they did back the coup against Hugo Chavez which was then defeated by protests from the people in favour of Chavez. I think i'll let the people of Venezuela decide if Hugo is good or bad not the US or its media.

A dictatorship doesn't mean a bad thing, however from what i've seen from more neutral point of view media, Hugo Chavez is not the malevolent person the US is making him out to be. He appears to have the people's interests at heart unlike the US. Mabuska 22:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Voting is not compulsory

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)

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)
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)
Here you have more sources, these are in English: [9][10] --JRSP 06:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks. Saravask 06:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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

As a venezuelan, this discussion embarasses me. Friends, there is no dictatorship in Venezuela, you cannot say that as long as there are elections and popular vote. What you could say is that there is not a complete democracy. Let's stop the biased comments shall we? 190.75.42.89 (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "bias" and "truth". From my point of view, with family members who are just as Venezuelan as you are, Venezuela is a dictatorship, or at least is fast becoming one. Ever try to travel out of Venezuela? Notice how you can't take any money with you? That's called tightening the borders, and that's what Hitler did. If the citizens of Germany couldn't take any money or possessions with them, they would be less likely to leave. It's the same thing- obviously, Chavez is trying to keep all of the Venezuelans in Venezuela until it's too late for them to leave. Alinnisawest (talk) 14:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Please avoid discussing your opinions, focus on improving the article. JRSP (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tierra de Gracia

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)

chavez

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).

And your sources for that (seeing as they're thick as thieves today) are?... 189.142.87.252 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)Alinnisawest

Communist State?

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

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))

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)

Another note is that Chavez is purging all opposition to his rule, as noted by the shutdown of the indepentent RCTV network. He has also made open threats to "eliminate" all of those opposed to his rule, which would be similar to what Joseph Stalin did in the Soviet Union during his time in power.


chevere-

venezuela is NOT a communist state, at least not yet, chavez hopes it will become one so far it's being ruled by a demi-god that has full power so it's more of a dictatorship


It is my impression that the RCTV which Chavez shut down was responsible for publicly espousing the coup which, although initially successful, was reversed by popular outrage. Perhaps we can leave this discussion to a rhetorical exercise: what do you suspect would be the fate of CNN if it publicly called for a military revolt to depose the president of the United States?
---mks

Errors on Venezuelan page

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).


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

People's Republic of Venezuela

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).


Government Censorship

Why is there no subarticle regarding censorship of the media by the Government of Venezuela? As stated in this article, the government is, and has been, forcing non-government alligned media outlets to either sell out to the government, or shut down. [12]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.114.206.48 (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

a tv channel has been shut down by chavez (dressed in uniform)

saw this in the news. i think the military dictatorship theory is making its way. this guy is a new Nasser. Cliché Online 11:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

channel is RCTV which is the country's 2nd channel and a private one. Cliché Online 11:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I`ve got 3 things to say about that topic.

1. Nobody has shut down RCTV. It still can be watched via satelite or cable. Yes, many people dont have satelite-tv or cable-tv, but the channel is still available.

2. If in the USA a TV-Channel would actively support a coup-d'etat in order to violently remove and kill Bush and his Administration, would the Government allow that bunch of terrorists to continue broadcasting?

3. Think about that a little bit, and tell me something about freedom of media!


1. Nobody has shut down RCTV. It still can be watched via satelite or cable. Yes, many people dont have satelite-tv or cable-tv, but the channel is still available.
No but if, ooh I dunno George Bush for example, closed-down a station critical of him and then said "Hey, it's okay, you can still watch it on satellite! I just stopped it broadcasting nationally" would you accept the inevitable claims of his supporters that it wasn't censorship?
2. If in the USA a TV-Channel would actively support a coup-d'etat in order to violently remove and kill Bush and his Administration, would the Government allow that bunch of terrorists to continue broadcasting?
I don't think supporting the coup, whilst a despicable thing and criminal thing to do, is the same as calling for the execution of the President and terrorism. Having said that I agree there should have been action taken against RCTV for supporting the coup but not removing the station from the air, simply arresting and charging those involved. Incidentally, the Venezulean government (according to the BBC) has said its issue with RCTV was that it didn't support Chavez generally and was thus "destabilising the nation". The coup wasn't their single issue with the broadcaster and not their single stated reason for not renewing its license.
3. Think about that a little bit, and tell me something about freedom of media!
No matter how much I think about it, I can't accept that closing down a popular TV station is anything other than censorship.
Incidentally, I popped over to this article to find out some facts about Venezuela and noticed that the RCTV incident has spawned a few paragraphs of arguing pro and anti Chavez views dressed as encyclopaedic fact and lots of uncited statements. I've done the dirty work of cleaning it of kulturekampf (for now) --Zagrebo 16:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point - it was censorship, no doubt. Let's not forget about the Hutu radio station that promoted the Ruandan genocide, or the "embedded" press that are routine in every modern US war. 88.217.84.33 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of RCTV, it is not censorship that is at issue, rather it is the question of the legal government of Venezuela administering use of publicly owned airwaves, on which RCTV formally operated. Censorship may overlap somewhat with this legal reality, however it is not a direct case of censorship, as RCTV still operates in many forms, just not via PUBLIC airspace anylonger - and as has been pointed out the 2002 coup was the MAIN reason for this, the license RCTV had in 2002 was valid until it expired in 2006. If the government wanted to "censor" RCTV, which they would have most likely had a mandate from after the coup it simply could have shut the station down the following day after the restoration of the legal constitutional government came back into power - however this is not the history - RCTV was not formally in completely legal terms denied access to public property, after the government's assessment that RCTV's actions interfered with the privilege (not right) to use such public property.

In the US such websites as Indemedia have been for time to time shut down for strictly content purposes, which is censorship. I to this date have not come upon a case of this happening in Venezuela. (and by strictly content I mean not otherwise illegal: childporn, drug sales, etc things already under legal censorship)- sj

Pro-Government mob attacks one of last opposition TV stations

Video of a pro-government mob attacking one of the last opposition ( Globovision) TV stations is found at: [13] El Jigue208.65.188.149 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In the case of RCTV, it is not censorship that is at issue, rather it is the question of the legal government of Venezuela administering use of publicly owned airwaves, on which RCTV formally operated. Censorship may overlap somewhat with this legal reality, however it is not a direct case of censorship, as RCTV still operates in many forms, just not via PUBLIC airspace anylonger - and as has been pointed out the 2002 coup was the MAIN reason for this, the license RCTV had in 2002 was valid until it expired in 2006. If the government wanted to "censor" RCTV, which they would have most likely had a mandate from after the coup it simply could have shut the station down the following day after the restoration of the legal constitutional government came back into power - however this is not the history - RCTV was simply formally in completely legal terms denied access to public property, after the government's assessment that RCTV's actions interfered with the privilege (not right) to use such public property.

In the US such websites as Indemedia have been for time to time shut down for strictly content purposes, which is censorship. I to this date have not come upon a case of this happening in Venezuela. (and by strictly content I mean not otherwise illegal: childporn, drug sales, etc things already under legal censorship) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.135.189 (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Current event

I reverted to the last version by JRSP on June 2 ([14]) while also updating the referencing mechanism and adding the current event (May 2007 RCTV protests) to See also (since this country article doesn't have a Media section). Here is the compare between JRSP's version and my revert. The RCTV closure isn't part of "History"; it is a current event which already has its own article. Also, lost in there was one strange deletion of text in the lead, contrary to WP:LEAD being a stand-alone summary of the text. I'm not sure how to recover another edit that was made in between these additions of a current event to History, [15], because I don't understand what this edit does. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The text which would be better incorporated into May 2007 RCTV protests (correcting errors in WP:FN and WP:DASH, and text that is largely replicated at the RCTV article without wikilinking) was: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Current event text removed

On May 27, 2007, Chavez refused to renew Radio Caracas Television's (RCTV) VHF Channel 2 broadcast license, citing as the main reason its support for the 2002 coup that temporarily ousted Mr. Chavez—a democratically elected president—from power. As cited in a Los Angeles Times article by Bart Jones, "Hugo Chavez versus RCTV", May 30, 2007, RCTV's role in the coup was as an echo chamber for those eager to remove Chavez from office.[2] RCTV gave over its airtime to protesters and strikers calling on Chavez's removal, and to commentators condemning Chavez.[citation needed] It also aired ads encouraging people to attend protests,[3] while it blacked out news of those that came out to support Chavez.

Despite the Venezuelan government's decision not to renew RCTVs broadcasting license, the 53-year-old TV station retains the right to broadcast on cable and satellite, albeit to a much smaller audience. RCTV's Channel 2 was the country's most-watched TV channel[4] airing highly popular soaps, known as "telenovelas", and game shows, such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?. Seventy percent of Venezuelans rejected Chavez's decision to take the channel off air, even though his approval rating for March, 2007, was 65%.[5] Nevertheless, RCTV has the legal right to continue to produce soap operas and other programming via its production company, Coral Pictures, which exports many of its products abroad. After losing its broadcasting license, RCTV began delivering news on YouTube.[6]

Chavez's refusal to renew the nation's most popular TV station's broadcasting license and expropriate their equipment and building set off five days of street protests in the capital.[citation needed]

On RCTV's last day of broadcasting, and in the days after, tens to hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans (reports vary) took to the streets in support of Chavez.[7][8][9]


Text removals/alterations: Public Health

I altered this text:

"Under the Chavez administration, the state is creating a national universal health care system, free of charge to all citizens, this is incorporated in one of the must popular social programs He has implemented in the country, like Mission Barrio Adentro, which incorporated over 20 thousand cuban doctors to offer care in the barrios 24 hours a day. This program is also rehabbing all major hospitals in the Country, opened CDI (diagnostic centers) and rehab center, in every neighborhood Venezuela."

Which is unreferenced and , in my view, exaggerated and unbalanced, for this one, which is more brief (and somewhat more balanced, I believe):

"As had previous administrations, the government is attempting to create a national universal health care system, free of charge. The current vehicle for this idea is Misión Barrio Adentro."

Piotr (Venezuela) 19:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Piotr, while its true what you state, so was the text you changed. Including the role of the Cubans is important to this article as it is, in fact, for and against, in Venezuela! It's a major aspect of their health development, again, for better or for worse. You are sanitizing and article by dumbing it down, not making it more accurate.

216.203.27.99 23:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)David

Text removals/alterations: History

I removed this text:

"Chavez remains very popular for his decision to democratize the radio electric spectrum. The new channel 2 is a Social TV station which invites wide participation of popular sectors and civil society. TVes Channel 2 will set an example for public social television in the hemisphere."

Because I feel it is blatantly political; ie, it reads more like propaganda. The sentence I have the least problem with is the second one, however.

Piotr (Venezuela) 20:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Tag

I've removed the "unbalanced tag" at the top of this article because reading over this article I don't see much reason to why it should remain. I remind people that this is an article about Venezuela, a country who's history dates back to the early 1500s. This is not an article about Hugo Chavez and as such this should not be used as a battleground in favor or in opposition to his government. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Puntofijismo

The article says Puntofijismo has been sidelined after the 1998 election of Chávez. In fact, Puntofismo didn't have a sudden death. In the 1993 election, Rafael Caldera won with a coalition of minor parties. Of course, he was the founder of COPEI and he had to ally with AD in the congress to achieve governability but one can consider his term as a step towards the end of the Punto Fijo pact. JRSP 20:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true; he won as a candidate for "Convergencia", and not COPEI. I think this should be reflected somehow. Piotr (Venezuela) 03:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

the flag is worng

the coat of arms should be on the top left corner of the flag

Both versions with and without the coat of arms are fine. See: [16] Article 3. JRSP 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the information about unemployment and poverty does not belong in an introduction. It should be moved to the economy section.

Public health

I think it's worth adding comparisons to other Latin American countries rather than highly advanced countries like Sweden. If we don't put Venezuela into its local perspective, we risk a developed world bias, making it seem worse than it would the "average eyes", i.e. worse than could be expected. Especially since its politics are highly charged, with many accusations of mismanagement by foreign powers such as the US, some local perspective on Wikipedia would be invaluable, no, necessary. laddiebuck 15:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Time Zone

"Venezuela in September will turn clocks back by 30 minutes as it switches time zones to boost the amount of natural light to residents, a government official said on Thursday." .[10]

At timeanddate.com, Caracas is noted as being scheduled to change as of December 31 at the end of that date. It will change from UTC-4 hours to UTC-4.5 hours, a shift "westward". The change was evidently postponed due to complex work required to implement. At midnight, the clocks will be set back 30 minutes, making December 31 a 24 hour, 30 minute day. To those who don't adjust their equipment until midnight, they will also have to reset the date. It would make more sense to change it late in the evening, but before midnight, or if missed, wait until the clock shows 12:31 a.m. GBC 18:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

History section

In the February 1992 coup, Hugo Chavez, a former paratrooper, attempted to overthrow the government of President Carlos Andres Perez as anger grew against the President's economic austerity measures. Chavez was unsuccessful and landed in jail. In November of that year, another unsuccessful coup attempt occurred, organized by other revolutionary groups in the Venezuelan Armed Forces and those that remained from Chavez’s previous attempt.[16] By 2002, the tables had turned, and Hugo Chávez, now a democratically elected president, was temporarily ousted from power by his opponents. The current president Hugo Chávez, who led the first unsuccessful coup in 1992, was elected as a reaction against the established political parties and the corruption and inequalities their policies created. Since coming to power, Chavez has attracted some controversy through his reforms of the Constitution, the implementation of his "Bolivarian Revolution," and his assumption, approved by the elected Nacional Assembly, of powers to rule by decree.

a) There needs to be uniformity in using the accent over the A in Chavez or not, and this goes for the whole article, not just this paragraph. b) Only the first appearance of his name in this entire article should be wikilinked; several need to be delinked. c) this paragraph doesn't make sense, using his name so many times... "By 2002, the tables had turned, and Hugo Chávez, now a democratically elected president, was temporarily ousted from power by his opponents. The current president Hugo Chávez" - this reads as if the 2002 ousted Chavez is a different person than the current president, which I don't believe is the case. In addition, "By 2002... Hugo Chavez, now a democratically elected president..." doesn't work either. If we're talking 2002, he can't be "now..." he has to be "then...", or "at that time..." whereas it's in the past. TheHYPO 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

References

Just a note, I fixed the Reference #17 that was "bleeding" into the list of references due to improperly formatted tag, but mislabeled the edit summary as "fixing external link bleeding."Archen 20:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

MOTTO

Venezuela's motto is not Patria, Socialismo, o Muerte... Venceremos (Fatherland, Socialism, or Death... We shall succeed). thats the motto of the government, of our president... but it is not the motto of our country! I think someone has to change this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.211.47.122 (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so why don't you search the real motto of Venezuela and change it yourself. Supaman89 23:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)`
Venezuelan government's motto isn't "Fatherland, Socialism, or Death... We shall succeed", is "Venezuela ahora es de todos" ("Venezuela now is of everyone", or something similar). "Patria, Socialismo, o Muerte... Venceremos" is a unofficial slogan very popular between Chávez's followers, and it may will be the motto of PSUV. Venezuela don't have a official motto. I'm sorry but my english is very bad (en-1), I hope you can understand me. Goodbye. Tomatejc 14:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Fatherland, Socialism or Death IS the official motto, i already sourced it, it's the official military greeting, not only the PSUV or Chávez motto, until someone finds a better source i'm changing it back, i know it's embarrasing to us venezuelans, but it's the way it is, the source article says an official military order commands that every greeting, speech, or internal documents be introduced by the motto "Patria, Socialismo, o Muerte".201.208.43.216 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The source you provided (http://www.abc.es/hemeroteca/historico-12-05-2007/abc/Internacional/orden-militar-de-utilizar-el-¡patria-socialismo-o-muerte!_1633064365093.html) does not say this is the national motto, it just says that El comandante de la Armada venezolana, vicealmirante Benigno Calvo, ordenó a sus subalternos en una nota interna que hagan de «uso común» la consigna «¡Patria, socialismo o muerte!», según informaron ayer varios diarios locales., in the best of cases it could the motto of the Armada. Actually, in your footnote you say "[...]no official motto exists[...]". By the way, the source does not say it is "seen in must public buildings" or that "internal documents [must] be introduced by the motto" as you claim. The article has to be accurate and consistent, there is no reason for putting a motto with a footnote saying that no official motto exists. JRSP 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that the fatherland, socialism..... is the official motto, i could provide photos of public buildings with gigantic prints with said motto, anyway, i'm not gonna enter into an edit war with you source whores, as the motto becomes more obvious in the country ( though i don't know how more obvious can it get, just check the wiki article for CUBA and see the motto) more and more people will edit the article. 201.208.43.216 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I repeat, Venezuela doesn't have an official motto. Chávez's administration have a motto but it is "Venezuela ahora es de todos" (look the logo). You can see the pages of the venezuelan executive and in all you will see this banner or similar:
Government pages who don't have that banner are:
Why those pages doesn't have the banner?, because those are pages of legislative, electoral, judicial and citizen powers respectively. "Venezuela ahora es de todos" is the official motto of the executive power.
"Patria, socialismo o muerte... venceremos" is more like a president slogan (don't executive motto, just the president). Chávez's followers use it informally, and maybe inside military forces used it (because the President is the Commander in Chief) but informally too, it is not official in anyway, not official for military forces, not official for executive power, not official for government and, of course, not official for the venezuelan state. If you want to say that a motto is official for the state, you must found it in the venezuelan constitution, if you don't found it... is original research.
I'm sorry but I cant explain me well in english (my english is very bad). Tomatejc 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
For those of us who don't speak Spanish, Venezuela ahora es de todos means Venezuela now belongs to everyone.
What is the motto of the United States - this large yellow arc I see everywhere, or rather Coca Cola? ;-) 88.217.84.33 (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

That "Homeland, Socialism bla bla bla" is most definitely not Venezuela's motto. Venezuela does not ahve a motto, and both the "Fatherland..." and "Venezuela now belongs..." are phrases coined by the current government and used to promote their programs and to stick it in every building, webpage, car and any other tangible asset owned by the government. Just because it is used a lot does not mean it is an official motto. It is not in the constitution, it is not in any official document acknowledging it as the official motto of the country. In fact, I challenge you to find any official document that states that "Homeland, Socialism or Death" is the official motto of the country. The most you will ever find is that that sentence is the official motto of the PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, or United Socialist Party of Venezuela). Until an official document is cited this motto must be removed. Period. This is Wikipedia, not a "I think this is right, so it must be right" encyclopedia.141.133.4.104 (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Socialist republic?

Venezuela is not officially a "socialist republic", at least, not yet. Although some changes to the Venezuelan Constitution have been proposed by the President and approved with modifications by the National Assembly, these changes have yet to be approved in a referendum on December 2nd and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so I undid several edits related to this. --JRSP 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

new article on protests from this week

I have added a new article 2007 Venezuela demonstrations has been created. please feel free to add to this. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 17:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No explicit mention of the Caracazo in history

I noticed that there is no mention of the Caracazo in the history section. Given that there is a whole Wikipedia article on this and that it seems to be an important part of Venezuelan history (at least from some people's perspective) it seems worth at least a sentence in here somewhere:

A number of failed economic policies and increasing corruption in government and society at large, has led to rising poverty and crime and worsening social indicators and increasing political instability,[14][opinion needs balancing] resulting in three major coup attempts, two in 1992 and another in 2002.

Here's what the History of Venezuela article has to say

Unfortunately, Naím began at the lowest rung of economic liberalization, which was freeing controls on prices and a modest increase in that of gasoline, which in Venezuela is sacrosantly very low. In February 1989, barely into his second term, Pérez faced a popular uprising, which he had the army crush with a death toll of around 200. It is known as the “caracazo” (from “Caracas”), where the rioting and looting was on an unforeseen scale.

If I don't hear any objections, I'll add a sentence about this in a week or so.

mennonot (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Minor Change Made in Culture section!

"Venezuelan culture has been shaped by indigenous, Spanish and Italian, and some African influences."

I deleted the extra word and and deleted the word some. I find it more to the point and consistent now. I also found the word some minimized the African influences to the Venezuelan culture. If you are going to state that one culture had some influence them also state how much of an influence the other cultures had.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by NitaReads (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Many of the citations are not correctly formatted, and while on a technical level I know how to fix them I'm not comfortable just ditching the information I can't figure out how to format such as first name and ISDN. So if someone could fix them, that'd be great.

Mystic eye (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now the citations are working?

Mystic eye (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Electronic voting widely used?

In the August 15, 2004 presidential recall referendum they used touchscreen voting and paper vote simultaneously, for recounting purposes. Paper optical scanning had been used before. Where did the large number (32%) of invalid votes in the 2000 parliamentary election come from? How widely used are voting computers?

P.S. Senior Observer Jennifer McCoy's account states that "15% of polling stations ... used the old-fashioned manual ballot" in the 2004 Chavez referendum. 88.217.84.33 (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms

Please check designs at Venezuelan official site http://www.gobiernoenlinea.ve/venezuela/perfil_simbolosp.html. I left the merchant version of the flag as it doesn't require the CoA in the corner while we can get a version with the CoA OK. The coat of arms is still wrong because it should have a machete, a bow and arrows but this detail is hard to notice so I think we can leave this image until a proper one is available. JRSP (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this external link does not add any encyclopedic content. If restoring, please justify why it should be included:

JRSP (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)== Socialist Republic == Venezuela is not a socialist republic. This was a designation proposed for the Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 which was not approved. I reverted this to it's previous designation (Federal Presidential republic ) JunCTionS 19:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Independence

The infobox says "from Spain July 5, 1811". Isnt it 1821?--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sources

To cite the Venezuela Information Office as a source is a violation to NPOV, no original research and reliability of sources. The Venezuela Information Office is a lobby and propaganda front of Hugo Chavez in US soil according to own record of activities, filed with the Foreign Agent Registration Unit of the US Department of Justice. Alekboyd (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Alekboyd, I have the teeniest suspicion that you may not be entirely NPOV on this yourself. Would I be right? Just to, you know, put our cards on the table, so to speak. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Is this not an encyclopedia that strives for objectivity and neutrality in its content? I am merely pointing out facts, are these discomforting for you AlaisdairGreen27? It remains factual that the Venezuela Information Office is a propaganda outlet, totally funded by the Venezuelan government, according to documents filed by own Venezuela Information Office employees with the US Department of Justice. It is even on its website! Wikipedians can chose to ignore and delete comments in this respect till the sky turns red. However, any article linking to the Venezuela Information Office must, at the very least, include a disclaimer pointing this out, for it is not an independent and neutral source. As per my own opinion, I have expressed none in this article, so whether I am neutral or not is entirely irrelevant. But since you request that I put my cards on the table care to put yours? Care to tell what credentials have you got vis-a-vis Venezuelan history or its contemporary politics?Alekboyd (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Venezuelan Information Office is a primary source as it is linked to the Venezuelan government but Venezuelan gov sources can be used in articles about Venezuela as long as their statements are properly attributed. However, in this particular case, their statement is a well-known fact that can be checked in other sources so I don't understand what the fuss is all about. JRSP (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The following disclaimer can be read in the Venezuela Information Office site: NOTE: The Venezuela Information Office is dedicated to informing the American public about contemporary Venezuela, and receives its funding from the government of Venezuela. More information is available from the FARA office of the Department of Justice in Washington DC.
However there is nothing to the effect of informing about this simple fact when using the Venezuela Information Office as a source. As its disclaimer states it is not an independent source and its views need be taken under this light.
The quote from the main article The government is attempting to create a national universal health care system that is free of charge. The current vehicle for this idea is Misión Barrio Adentro.[33][34] is misleading for it implies that there was no national universal health care system free of charge before Chavez got to power, which is false. This remark is compounded by the fact that a non independent source is used to sort of confirm the validity of the argument.
Since there are, according to JRSP, other sources I do not see the reason why Wikipedia should use a biased and compromised one instead of independent ones, for the Venezuela Information Office violates NPOV, RS and NOR principles.Alekboyd (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Alek, I agree with JRSP that this is a bit of a storm in a teacup. But if you are so worried about NPOV and so on, why do you use The Heritage Foundation as such a prominent source on your website? Oh, I forgot, that's right, you're the one that said that Pinochet was "a prime example of what a hard right dictator can achieve. The left hasn't got such examples to showcase so it attacks. Little do they talk about the real changes in real terms for the people of Chile, much less about how Fidel Castro's puppet Allende was but another Chavez. The question remains though, where's our Pinochet?" Case closed ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Using primary sources does not necessarily violate WP:NPOV, WP:V or WP:NOR, they must be used with care but they are not forbidden. It all depends on the particular statement being sourced, if the statement can be crosschecked; sometimes explicit attribution is necessary but primary sources can be used in Wikipedia articles. JRSP (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
You see AlaisdairGreen27, what I publish in my blog is my opinion, as much as what the Venezuela Information Office publishes is the government's opinion. Is Wikipedia a blog or an impartial, neutral and objective encyclopedia? Your attacking my opinions detracts from the issue, which is, let me remind you again, that the Venezuela Information Office is nothing but a propaganda arm of Hugo Chavez. What they do is not illegal, since according to US legislation its employees must provide detailed log of activities, people contacted, Congressmen & Senators lobbied, amount of funding received, etc. So if what they do is not illegal, and their activities and source of funding are public, why do you have such a problem admitting the facts? Moreover, what makes you an authoritative source on Venezuelan issues to decide whether or not this case is closed? It's beyond you I'm afraid, and your 'outraged' position on remarks about what the Pinochet dictatorship did in Chile, while failing to condemn in equally vehement terms the admiration that Hugo Chavez professes on a very regular basis for Latin America's longest and most brutal dictator (Fidel Castro), let alone the billions of Venezuelan public money wasted in propping up a failed communist state, leaves you in an untenable situation.
JRSP, since you spend so much time patrolling these pages, why don't you crosscheck with truly independent sources what the Venezuela Information Office has to say?Alekboyd (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd
I've already done that. The article on David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies corroborates what VIO says. JRSP (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Alek buddy, since you love balance and NPOV, how would it be if, whenever you add your comments moaning about Chavez or VIO or whatever, I put a quote from you just underneath - you know the kind of things we're talking about. Just since, obviously, you love balance. Fairness. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
AlaisdairGreen27, I'm not your buddy. Second, you're trying to deviate from the discussion, which is the only thing you can do in the face of factual evidence. Wikipedia is not AlaisdairGreen27's blog, or JSRP's blog, or my blog. I do love balance and fairness and so does Wikipedia, as far as its guiding principles are concerned. This is not a place to advance chavista propaganda, for that you have many officially funded chavista sites around. If you have a problem with Wikipedia's impartiality, reliability and objectivity tenets, I suggest you raise the issue with Jimbo Wales. Besides, what is disturbing is your concerns about my citing facts about source of funding of the Venezuela Information Office. Tell us who you are, what credentials make your opinions more valid than Wikipedia principles, and what the blind defense of Chavez has in it for you.
JRSP, thanks for cross referencing. That must be done with every cite, as far as Venezuelanalysis and the Venezuela Information Office are concerned.Alekboyd (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

my dads girlfriend is from venezuela!

my dadas girl friends name is sam and she is from venezuela most venezuelan girls are really pretty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.117.71 (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

venezuela arts

venezuela is a contry that have many arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.157.63 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I cleaned up a vandal that deleted all the material and replaced it with "thiscountryisapieceofshit[...]". I propose this article should be locked for the time being. Babylonian Armor (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Crime

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.[11] 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. [12] 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. [13] JRSP (talk • contribs) 12:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

There should be some facts about the crime, insecurity or lawlessness in the country, since they became the major issues in the very recent years, probably troubling daily life more than anything (for instance politics):
La delincuencia y la inseguridad continúan siendo el problema más importante para los venezolanos a nivel personal. Si bien las cifras aportadas por diversos estudios de opinión pueden variar en cuanto al porcentaje que se presenta, todas coinciden en señalar que para la mayoría de la ciudadanía el de la inseguridad es el problema más importante del país, por encima del desempleo y el desabastecimiento de productos de primera necesidad.
("Informe Anual 2007-2008 situación de los derechos humanos en Venezuela" (in Spanish) (PDF). P R O V E A. p. 6. http://www.derechos.org.ve/publicaciones/infanual/2007_08/131 seguridad ciudadana.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-12-31. Is mentioned as source the link below)
Although the information that had been stated (and is now erased) might be biased and not totally accurate, it contains some of the things that should be there IMHO. A look at the List of countries by intentional homicide rate, Venezuela holds one of the top positions of those countries that have figures.
However, if http://www.travel.state.gov/ is not considered as a valid, third party source? That automatically disqualifies http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/de/Laenderinformationen/Venezuela/Sicherheitshinweise.html (German office for exterior issues, travel information) as well, although it gives good facts. So why those are not third party? Are there better sources? It is no secret information, though scientific articles will be hard to find.(130.238.140.4 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Quick-failed "good article" nomination

Per the Good Article quick-fail criteria, any article with numerous cleanup tags such as {{fact}} must be failed forthwith and without an in-depth review. The tags in History and elsewhere clearly demonstrate that there are issues to be dealt with before the article is ready for GA status. Once the issues brought up by these templates have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel this decision was in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you for your work so far, VanTucky Talk 04:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Once this article fixes those minor things, I definitely think it should be renominated 68.36.144.32 (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion

OK. I'm going to try and offer a third opinion.

I can see nothing wrong in citing VIO as a source, in an article that also has CIA as one of its sources.

If the source is misleading, it is appropriate to bring other sources that show that (if there was already a national universal health care system free of charge before Chavez got to power, it shouldn't be difficult to source that information, in which case the biased nature of VIO information would be actually demonstrated, instead of merely stated).

The source should not be removed. Ninguém (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O only works cases with only two editors involved. JRSP (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There was indeed a free national universal health care system before Chavez got to power Gobierno en Linea. Moreover, article 76 of the Venezuelan Constitution of 1961 reads "Art. 76. Todos tienen derecho a la protección de la salud. Las autoridades velarán por el mantenimiento de la salud pública y proveerán los medios de prevención y asistencia a quienes carezcan de ellos". See here. There is plenty of evidence that both health and education were free of cost before Chavez got to power. So why the historical revisionist attempt in an encyclopedia that's meant to be factual, neutral and objective?
The source should not be removed, but properly identified as a propaganda outlet.Alekboyd (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion Ninguém. So the biased nature of the Venezuela Information Office is demonstrated. You have said that the source should not be removed in an article that also has CIA as one of its sources, and I couldn't agree more, in so far as people are informed that VIO's statements must be appraised under the same light as those of the CIA. Everyone knows that the CIA is a US intelligence agency, however very few people know that the Venezuela Information Office is a propaganda outlet totally funded by the Chavez government. There is a clear distinction between the two, for no one disputes what the CIA is, and whose position it advances, but all of you seem to have a problem in disclosing the official nature of the Venezuela Information Office. To present the VIO as an independent source is as ludicrous as to argue that the CIA is.Alekboyd (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)AlekboydAlekboyd (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, where in the article is there a doubious statement from VIO? I can only see one reference which is backed up by an independent source. JRSP (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Alleged misinterpretation of reliable sources

AVN, in your recent edit[17] you have alleged a non NPOV interpretation of sources. Please explain; for instance, Schuyler's paper says on page 10 that "during the last two decades, low oil prices, rising debt and lagging foreign investment drove Venezuela into an economic crisis", I cannot find in this sentence or anywhere else in the paper any hint that justifies your addition of "in a minor scale" to qualify the private sector debt. Also, I'm not sure why you changed "instability" to "uncertainty". I have to agree that the BBC article does not fully support the previous text but it doesn't support your additions either. You also don't justify why you say the 2004 referendum was "much" disputed. JRSP (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Venezuela pronunciation

Hi, I wonder if a native Venezuelan can add a voice file for the pronunciation of Venezuela? Thanks a lot Rosswood40 (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A very expensive country

Everyone that visited venezuela, in the last years, told me that this country has anything very expensive.Agre22 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)agre22

Government

The organization of the paragraph "government" seems to me bizarre. In general, articles separate "government", which is the description of the institutions, and "politics", which is about elections and the political life of the country. Also, there is no reason to put "Public Health" inside "government": this is a policy, not related to government organization. Military and Foreign Relations should also be separated. I propose to separate government from its sub-paragraphs.Voui (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Or we could put all these under the same paragraph: "public affairs"Voui (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
In truth, the whole thing isn't very good, lacking proper summaries (eg education), extraneous details like "Chavez requested that the people take three minute showers" (really? that's important enough for this article??), out of date, poorly sourced, poor structure.
I'd move "politics" out from under "Government", and leave the rest there. "public health" is a complete mess, mixing travel advice, public health statistics, and crime figures. Don't know what to do with that immediately, split it I guess. (The crime figures point to a need for Crime in Venezuela to exist, so it can be linked to from here.) Rd232 talk 14:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Public health is generally a separate subsection. I suppose the reasoning is that the government is not inextricably linked to all facets of promoting good health.
Probably the others are usually linked with government, though. They mostly have article of their own, right? The idea is 1) not to have several dozen subtitles at the second level and 2) to resemble other articles outline, more or less, to make the reader feel comfortable. Military and foreign relations at the federal level, seem to properly belong here as well. Student7 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ FAO.org Venezuela. Accessed 20 September 2006.
  2. ^ "Television's role in the coup against Chávez", The Guardian, May 26 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  3. ^ Hutchison, Gordon (May 25 2007), "Venezuela's Press", The Guardian {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. ^ Bradley, Theresa (April 26 2007), "Chavez RCTV Closure Rejected by 70% of Venezuelans, Poll Finds", Bloomberg {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. ^ "Poll: Chavez Approval 65%, Despite 70% Rejection of TV Channel's Non-Renewal". Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  6. ^ "Silenced Venezuelan TV station moves to YouTube". Retrieved 2007-06-04.
  7. ^ "Chavez supporters take to streets to back TV network shutdown", AFP News, June 2 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  8. ^ "Chavez supporters back TV closure", BBC News, June 3 2007 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  9. ^ Ingham, James (May 28 2007), "TV row widens Venezuela's rift", BBC News {{citation}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  10. ^ "Venezuala to change time zone by 30 mins in September". Retrieved 2007-08-23.
  11. ^ [[Category:]]US State Department Country Profile: Venezuela - Safety and Security[[18]]
  12. ^ Colombian Crime Statistics(2005)
  13. ^ [[Category:]]US State Department Country Profile: Venezuela - Safety and Security / Crime Sections[19]]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venezuela/Archive_2&oldid=1078758641"