Jump to content

Talk:Venezuela/Archive 3

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

About the justice system

As always the censorship of Rd232 has come...

The current part of the article that deals with justice in Venezuela is limited to:
"The highest judicial body is the Supreme Tribunal of Justice or Tribunal Supremo de Justicia, whose magistrates are elected by parliament for a single twelve-year term. The National Electoral Council (Consejo Nacional Electoral, or CNE) is in charge of electoral processes; it is formed by five main directors elected by the National Assembly."

I propose to edit this paragraph to add one sentence to the justice system to mention the controversy about the independence of justice. Is seems notable enough to be in this article in one sentence. This sentence is: "The opposition accuses the judicial to be controlled by the government and used as a tool against political opponents, as shown in the Eligio Cedeno and judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni affairs". I don't think this is POV:

  • This is the clear and documented point of view of the opposition on major debates that happen in Venezuela and it deserves to be put in this article. This is also part of the justice system that it is not independent and works, according to the supreme court itself in "intense coordination" with the government. See [1].
  • The Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni affairs are also very notable and deserve to be in the article somewhere.
  • An article like this one should not be limited to simple legal structure. It should also focus on how the system really works. This is the case for all other country articles.

If Rd232 wishes to write it differently he can edit it or propose a solution, but not delete it straight on as he usually does.Voui (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary reverting you initially, "unsourced, not WP:NPOV, and not clear at all that a specific recent example should be mentioned in this brief summary on the highest-generality page for Venezuelan topics". Nothing has changed, and your decision to revert immediately, before any substantive discussion can take place, is unhelpful. Rd232 talk 15:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is not the point of view, it is the lack of sourcing and perspective. You seem to be compensating for a lack of both by adding references to the same issues (notably Cedeno, which is just one very recent case) to every article on Venezuela you can find. Every suggestion I make you essentially or completely ignore; see the section above for the most recent example. Rd232 talk 16:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you mention "other country articles", compare Brazil: it has a "law" section which links to Law of Brazil and Crime in Brazil. Neither Law of Venezuela nor Crime in Venezuela exist. Rd232 talk 16:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that you were the first to revert without discussion. I agree to work to give more perspective, so let's enrich this. The way you do things is to say that because things are not perfect we should just delete them. This is not the way it should work. We should improve the article step by step. I hope that you agree that the issue of independence of justice, which is very notable in Venezuela, deserve at least one sentence in the Venezuela page. You know wikipedia well; I am sure that you could help in finding the best way to put this issue in the page in the most meaningful way.Voui (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, disputed additions are reverted for discussion prior to them being re-added. There's an essay on the subject - WP:BRD. As to how to proceed - well I mentioned just above that neither Law of Venezuela nor Crime in Venezuela exist. In case it wasn't clear enough, that was a suggestion to proceed by creating them; and once they exist in a reasonably solid form (which would take a couple of weeks' of solid work, I'd think), then those articles would be summarised here, briefly, per WP:SUMMARY. Bigger picture for this article I already responded to in the section above ("Government"), and that would be the place to continue that issue. Rd232 talk 17:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that this method is efficient. In general, people built a page. When a subject becomes big enought to create a specific page, then it is created. If we had to wait to create a specific page before enriching a page, pages would not be enriched. This is against WP:WIP that mentions clearly:
"Somehow, we have taken what was originally blatant, and always a given – that the encyclopedia is incomplete and lacks consistent quality – and turned it into a problem. Like the inherent drawbacks of the wiki system, this problem cannot be solved without fundamentally altering the nature of the project. If we focus too strongly on how good the existing encyclopedia is, rather than on improving it, the project will become bogged down and the overall rate of improvement will slow. This has already happened to some extent. The solution is to return to the strategy that brought Wikipedia to where it is today. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Don't waste time measuring that progress, make the progress happen." Voui (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I assure you it is 10-100 times more efficient to do it properly (in the manner I suggested) than to do it piecemeal. The quality of the end result is also vastly higher, and the amount of conflict lower. It's generally a lot easier to agree on the big picture, with decent secondary sources; and arguments over details are much less heated when there is an agreed big picture. Rd232 talk 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Without a source explicitly supporting it, the addition "The opposition accuses the judicial to be controlled by the government and used as a tool against political opponents, as shown in the Eligio Cedeno and judge Maria Lourdes Afiuni affairs" is POV and original research. Do all the opposition think so? Do they present these particular cases as representative examples of their concerns? Sounds as if you were taking the arguments of Cedeño's defense and presenting them as a concern of the whole Venezuelan opposition. JRSP (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no reason not to accept this version: "Supreme Court president Luisa Estela Morales said Venezuela has moved away from "a rigid separation of powers" toward a system characterized by "intense coordination" between the branches of government. Venezuela's political opposition complains that the justice system is directed against Chavez' foes." This is reasonable, NPOV, and this is well documented by an "Associated Press" report.Voui (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The article presents opinions from opposition and pro-Chávez sides, picking up the opinion of only one side is POV. JRSP (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. The 2 arguments are presented: on the side of government, there is only "intense coordination" between justice and government, on the side of the opposition, the justice system is directed at chavez' foes. But if you want to present the view of the government differently, just do it but don't delete the view of the opposition. Please respect WP:PRESERVE: you cannot deny that this accusation by the opposition is important and notable; it should therefore be mentioned. Voui (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The comment of Morales is not directly related to any difference of opinion and has nothing to do with opposition complaints. The source presents the opinion of Chávez opposition but also adds that Chávez supporters are calling for a thorough review of the court system and that a PSUV leader stated that the judicial branch remained "in the hand of mafias". We cannot report just one side of the story. JRSP (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's make it simple:
- are you denying that "Venezuela's political opposition complains that the justice system is directed against Chavez' foes." I guess not. It is obvious that this is what the opposition says.
- is it an information that is notable and important? Yes.
So it should be there.
What I understand from what you say is that you believe that the view of the government should be presented better.
In this case, I propose to write: "Venezuela's political opposition complains that the justice system is directed against Chavez' foes. Chavez supporters say the opposition is crying foul because the justice system has caught up with its leaders". Hope it solves the issue.Voui (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not read in source that this is what Chávez supporters say. BTW, regarding Morales comment, according to this source[2] she said "division" and not "separation" and added that "one thing is separation of powers and another one is division"JRSP (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Just see here [3]Voui (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You cannot just jump from source to source picking up some phrase here and some other there. Both articles refer to different cases; the AP article does not mention the case of any political leader and chaining sources is WP:SYN. Regarding Morales words, this article contradicts other sources so I think this part must be reworded or deleted. JRSP (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is absurd! This is not WP:SYN, which is: "do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Is there a conclusion here? This does NOT combine any material, just express the view of government and opposition on a notable subject.Voui (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You take something from one source that refers to "foes" and pretend to balance it with other thing from another source that refers to "leaders". If we take some opinion from one source, and the same source reports a conflicting opinion we have to reflect that in our work, I see no need of looking for another source if the first one already reflects a balancing opinion that clearly refers to the same context. JRSP (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any issue in taking from one source for showing the views of the supreme court and the view of the opposition, and the view of chavez on another source. The point is to take the most explicit one.Voui (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
First of all, I understand that "opposition" means opposition to Chávez not to the Supreme Court. Second, You are making a big mess up mixing sources, the first source mentions a banker and a judge, none of them are political leaders so the juxtaposition of this sentences simply makes no sense. Third, you are copypasting from sources, so I'll proceed to delete. JRSP (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You are just desperate to find arguments to delete. You are going from one argument to another. I invite you to look at WP:PRESERVEVoui (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
However, I will still, again, change the text to follow your comments.Voui (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, the comments of supporters and detractors of Chávez about judiciary fit better in "politics" than in "government". Please be careful in not re-inserting the supposed comment of Luisa Estela Morales as sources contradict each other on whether she said "separation" or "division", with sources contradicting each other, it is better to apply WP:biographies of living persons and be conservative when adding material. JRSP (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
About where it fits: no I am not convinced that this is better at politics. Look at some other articles. Sine it belong to the functioning of institutions, it belongs to government more than politics.Voui (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
And as regards "division" or "separation", this is synonymous, I don't think this is a good reason not to use such excellent quote. I let you choose between the 2 words ... Voui (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't followed all of the above,

In the deleted quote:

"Critics have complained that the President has taken control of the judicial system and has directed it against his opponents.Patricia Zengerle (2009-04-23). "Venezuela says Interpol has warrant for Chavez foe". Reuters. Reuters.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)<

Are you saying that Reuters did not say this? or are you saying that the critics did not say this?

Or are you saying (now) that Reuters is not a reliable source?

Are critics allowed to say anything in this article? Can any be quoted when they appear in reliable sources? When would that be? (when hell freezes over - a little late IMO).

"Taking control of a judicial system" in a republic take a fair amount of time, unless one is willing to haul out judges and execute them. But ten years is probably long enough. This is not a recent change, nor does it reflect "just one person." Student7 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said when I removed that, "those are WP:WEASEL weasel words - and that they're taken from Reuters doesn't alter that". Reporting that unnamed critics have made vague accusations is pretty worthless. Time spent arguing about its inclusion is far, far better spent on looking for the vastly better sources which must be available on the topic. After all, nobody's denying that the justice system has issues, including politicisation (it always was); so there must be sources available. So please, someone have a crack at Law of Venezuela and/or Crime in Venezuela, with some decent secondary sources! Then it can be summarised here, without relying on vague weasel words gleaned from a random news article. Rd232 talk 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Rd323 you are not the owner of wikipedia articles on venezuela. See WP:OWNERSHIP. You are not a master that decides the agenda and what each of us has the right to do. You argument is still one more to delay and make impossible any step by step improvement of the articles. See WP:WIPVoui (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I've responded on your talk page in regard to your continuing stream of accusations of bad faith. Rd232 talk 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that this is at least the third time I have suggested creating Crime in Venezuela and Law of Venezuela, a suggestion which no-one has yet responded to constructively. Rd232 talk 10:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no Judiciary of Venezuela either. Rd232 talk 19:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Official language

The official language acording to tha national constitution of 1999 is spanish and allso recognizes a docen or so nativa indian dialects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.95.129 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fatuous comment

A caption reads "Venezuela is currently in the process of diversifying its national economy." Gee! Really? Is there any country in the world, Haiti included, that is not "diversifying its economy?" This is a vain and foolish, WP:BOOSTER type phrase that may satisfy someone ignorant, but not the quality of audience that Wikipedia seeks. My efforts to change or modify this statement have been equally vain, though with a different meaning. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. When looking at facts and not subjective opinions, all evidence point to the fact that Venezuela, specially over the last 10 years, has become more dependent on oil as it major source of income. The percentage which oil exports represent as a part of Venezuela's aggregate demand is at higher levels than those in the 1980's and even throughout the 1990's. Internal sources and figures such as the Ministry of Oil, the Ministry of Finance and Economics even confirm this trends. For further reference, there is also the CIA world fact book, or even the Forbes economic world report archives.
Furthermore, it will be accurate to mention that the opposite trend is happening, due to the fact that Venezuela's economy has been seriously affected by a massive expatriation of funds and a serious lack of confidence by investors. However, even when facts are visible and open for people to see, due resilience and proper references need to be supplied. I leave this task to my fellow academics which may offer a more concise and backed alternative. I also hope that political and ideological biases and other forms of fanaticism stop playing a part in this type of articles.

With no further ado, Sincerely, an educated Venezuelan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.109.63.146 (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC) agre>pl changehttp://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15287355&fsrc=nwl--[[user:史凡|Shifan]]<small>[[User talk:史凡|>''voice-MSN/skype''me!'''RSI'''>typin=hard!]]</small> (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Geography

I find the composition of this paragraph on the Geography section rather weird: ... The country's center is characterized by the llanos are high extensive plains that stretch from the Colombian border in the far west to the Orinoco River delta in the east. (Bold used by me). I'm way to lazy to fix it. Can anyone make it work?Josevillegascarmona (talk) 04:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)javc

Done! Uirauna (talk) 18:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

neutral??

In 1895, after the dispute over the Essequibo River border flared up, it was submitted to a neutral commission (composed of United Kingdom, United States and Russian representatives and without a direct Venezuelan representative), which in 1899 decided mostly against Venezuela's claim--[[user:史凡|Shifan]]<small>[[User talk:史凡|>''voice-MSN/skype''me!'''RSI'''>typin=hard!]]</small> (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask, how could the United Kingdom be seen as neutral in this case? EttaLove (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality Point of View violated with this article

A lot in the descriptions of History and Economy have a very partial Point of View. This is a direct violation of the Neutrality principle of Wikipedia.

I want add a POV dispute mark, but I am not an established user to do it.

By example:

On section "History" says "In April 2002 he (H.R. Chavez) suffered a coup d'état.[21] He was returned to power after two days as a result of popular demonstrations in his favour and actions by the military". The oppositionist says this was not a "coup d'etat" or coup, but a presidential resignation. These days was a lot of protests and oppositionist demonstrators killings. The Venezuelan Armed Forces Ministry (General Lucas Rincon) says in national broadcast to venezuelan people that Chavez signs a resignation letter. Days after and until today he (General Rincon) still being part of Chavez's political team, PSUV party and rewarded Cabinet Ministry. That is a demonstration that Chavez resignation was truth because, Why Chavez rewards these Generals that saying in national broadcast that he resign if they was lying??? The opposionist says that he have the resignation letter and blackmail Chavez with that.

For opposional parties he didn't returns for popular demostrations, but for military pushings.


On section "Petroleum and other resources" says "During the December 2002-February 2003 all-out national strike where managers and skilled highly paid technicians of PDVSA shut down the plants and left their posts". For oppositional people that was not an only managers and High paid technicians strike (It is an adjectivized description). It was an all level strike against bad decisions taked by Chavez and his cabinet ministries with the main and core national petroleum business (PDVSA). The Chavez's government dismiss and pay off more than 19.000 workers of all levels that was involved in this strike violating their strike rights (endorsed in the venezuelan constitution) and leaving them without any way to sustain their families. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarco (talk • contribs) 15:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


I agree with you. this is POV as is the article 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt Voui (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I must say that this is the case for many articles concerning Venezuela. Voui (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
That's a reasonable discussion to have, but it's hard to have it without sources. And the bits here should be summarising daughter articles, so if those articles have relevant information not properly summarised, that can be fixed immediately. If there is not, that needs addressing there first. Rd232 talk 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hugo Chavez is pushing the Jews out of Venezuela

This Israeli site: [Israel] tells that Hugo Chavez's policies are pushing the Jews out of Venezuela.Agre22 (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)agre22


well... the article speaks about the general problem of "la inseguridad" which covers the whole country, and is particularly felt by the Jews. Those are not pogroms or something like that, where Jews are being lynched by the mob, or the government, but a rather whole-country problem. I'm Israeli Jew myself, and you can lookup my IP here it is: 93.172.144.74 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a very good link, thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.213.112 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in Economy

Manufacturing, agriculture, and trade

" The manufacturing sector continues to increase dramatically at a rate of 26.93% annually. Venezuela manufactures and exports steel, electronics, aluminum, automobiles, textiles, apparel, beverages, and foodstuffs. It produces cement, tires, paper, fertilizer, and assembles cars both for domestic and export markets. (citation needed)"

Can somebody provide the source for the "dramatic" increase of manufacturing sector at a rate of 26,93% ? This was already on "citation needed", but still not provided. Doesn't sound credible to me, according to the last economic outlooks in Venezuela, the opposite occurs. Investment in industries have fallen "dramatically". --194.203.215.254 (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe it refers to a circa 2006 increase, so it may have been accurate for one year; but it isn't specified and I can't find any source either in Economy of Venezuela or by googling, so I've deleted it. More info on these issues would be helpful, but should be in the daughter article in the first instance, then summarised here. Economy of Venezuela is in need of much improvement, if you feel like it. Rd232 talk 11:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Zone of Reclamation

Technically, there is no Zone of Reclamation between Guyana & Venezuela. This stretch of land unambiguously belongs to Guyana. The arbitration commission made this decision in 1899 and although Venezuela was unhappy about it, in 1905 both British Guiana & Venezuela AGREED to this border. In 1962, Venezuela decided that it would no longer abide by the arbitration decision although it had previously agreed to it. Much of the recent border dispute began just after the British awarded independence to Guyana; Venezuela then assumed that it would be able to ignore the previous border decisions and reclaim the land from a newly independent (weak) nation.

Venezuelan maps continue to claim this stretch of land as part of their territory, however, it can clearly be seen that there is a large part of Brazil in between Venezuela & Guyana - should one assume that the Venezuelan Government is also claiming this part of Brazil as it's territory? In addition it's well known that Venezuela would not be interested in this piece of land if it was not rich in gold &/or diamonds. Isn't Venezuela already rich enough from it's oil reserves - why is there a need to constantly be trying to lay claim to something that belongs to another nation?

128.227.32.236 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Sources? Rd232 talk 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey boy, are you some kind of international jurist or analyst? Look: there are several reasons for the venezuelan claim, and if you want to show your PERSONAL judgements, try to demonstrate it by some sources. You can get information about this issue in the article about Guayana Essequiba. If Venezuela claims that the decision of the arbitration commission is invalid, and both british and guyanese government accepted that fact by signing a treaty in 1966, it's because there are some problems with that rule, don't you think? Furthermore, I woulndn't say an arbitration tribunal conformed by one of the interested parties (Britain) can be too fair. Hiddendaemian (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A "hey boy" sort of tone isn't really helpful. But it's a good point that this is fairly well covered in Guayana Esequiba, and if there are additional reliably sourced points to add it should probably be there (and discussed on the talk page there), not here. Rd232 talk 07:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Caracas is no longer the largest city of Venezuela. It is Maracaibo.

According to population in: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=venezuela in the largest cities list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.253.21 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) 

EDIT: Caracas is, in fact, one of the smallest cities in Venezuela. Only that it's population is absurdly huge.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.35.209.178 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

population ranking change

Please change to 43rd. Muskydusky (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Source?

The rank is linked to the list of countries by population ranking, which ranks Venezuela at 43rd. These figures for popuation are generally based on 2010 estimates (by the UN) or population clock estimate by the country in question (as in the case of Venezuela). The current official clock (http://www.ine.gov.ve/)estimates the population at 28.936.842 which would place Venezuela 43rd. If population has remained at the July 2009 estimate then Venezuela would rank 46th.Muskydusky (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8

With an eye on the upcoming selection of articles for Wikipedia:Version 0.8. I've taken the FA-class country article Germany as a model. I've started with moving stuff out of the lead that doesn't belong, and revising a bit. It needs a lot more work to summarise the article better, but I have to go now. I'll return to it later but if anyone else wants to work on it substantially in the mean time, please drop a note here so we don't end up duplicating work. Rd232 talk 12:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think the lead is now OK, and certainly much better (compare old version). I've tried to stick closely to the model of Germany, which doesn't mention any politics, but I think you can't get around mentioning Chavez or the 80s/90s economic/political crisis, even though it opens a potential can of worms of over-expansion and editor disagreement. I've possibly erred on the side of too much detail; certainly, we wouldn't want much more. Rd232 talk 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Of course, that still leaves lots to do on cleaning up and improving the body text... Rd232 talk 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Independence for Venezuala fought for by the British

Given the latest retoric from Hugo Chavez about the Malvinas and the (now non existent) British Empire, is it not ironic that independence for Venezuela was won in no small part by the British Legions? Has this part of Venezuelan history been lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.250.190.20 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, a small part of Bolivian history has been lost. A good turn deserves another. Hugo Chavez has an unmatched memory of what the Spaniards did initially when they colonised the new world. Anyone can tell me that Chavez is by no means of Spanish descentage. Do also tell us that Venezuela has never been one of the 20 most corrupt countries of this world. Anyone can have a warped view on both past and present....as I said: a small part has been lost.--88.89.69.223 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is Guyana highlighted on the map?

Why is Guyana highlighted on the infobox map? Yes, the article mentioned that there was a border dispute with the British over the region more than a century ago, but that's the same as an article on Denmark showing Canada highlighted because of its border dispute over Hans Island. Can someone revise the map to remove the coloring on Guyana? 68.146.81.123 (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Guayana Esequiba is currently claimed by Venezuela. --IANVS (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This non-UN-recognized, non-realistic "claim" by Ven. to nearly 1/2 of Guyana should not be highlighted without explanation on the locator map as it was until I added the caption. A more WP:NPOV would be a new map with no light green.DLinth (talk) 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent history

I removed the extremely biased subheadings under the 20th Century History section. Seeing that Chavez has been democratically elected, the second time with a landslide, and that many presidents in the preceding period labeled "Democratic" were instituted by questionable means, and that Chavez may well loose the 2012 election to opposition rivals, any honest reviewer will find the subheadings completely unjustifiable. Chavez is a democratic leader subject to democratic pressures of a constitutional republic. The headings are indisputably unjustifiable and cannot be returned to their previous state. --Artisticidea (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that it might be a good idea to tweak some of the subheadings under "History". Currently, the Chavez era is under "Democratic period (1958 - )". I think this may give a slightly misleading impression since reliable sources suggest that Chavez has undermined democratic institutions. Would anybody mind if I tweaked the most recent history subheading, or created a new subheading for 1998 onwards? bobrayner (talk) 11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Any suggestion that the current situation is demonstrably less democratic than the bulk of the post-58 period is founded on ignorance and/or prejudice. So, feel free to propose changes here, but please don't "tweak" without prior discussion. Rd232 talk 11:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I had formed my opinion on reliable sources rather than ignorance & prejudice; but thanks for assuming good faith! For instance:
Laws in Venezuela Aim to Limit Dissent
Hugo Chávez tightens his grip in Venezuela
Venezuelan opposition decries Chavez 'coup'
Venezuelan lawmakers OK Chavez's request to govern by decree
The president closes a critical TV station
Chávez responded by firing nearly 18,000 (PDVSA employees), replacing them with loyalists who swore oaths of allegiance to his government
Hugo Chávez, has succeeded in removing constitutional limits to his indefinite re-election ... threw the entire apparatus of government behind a blitzkrieg campaign to force it through
There is plenty more where those came from.
If you have some reliable source which demonstrates how events such as these are actually fantasies of the ignorant & prejudiced then I will, of course, withdraw my suggestion. bobrayner (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did assume good faith, and your sources precisely confirm my assumptions about your level of knowledge. Come back when you know something about Venezuela in the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc: you'll need to refer to actual academic books instead of recent US online news sources. Then you'll be able to place these sources in appropriate context and understand why I said what I did. A merest hint of what you'll find in relation to one of the issues you mentioned can be seen here: Enabling_act#In_Venezuela. Rd232 talk 12:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Taking some press articles and infering that Chávez has "undermined democratic institutions" could be original research. On the other hand, Venezuela is a signatary of OAS Inter-American Democratic Charter which calls from suspention of membership of States where democratic order has been broken, so we may assume that OAS members recognize Venezuela as a democracy. JRSP (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that rd232 still accuses me of ignorance rather than presenting even a single source. That makes it difficult to discuss the issue productively.
Even if Enabling_act#In_Venezuela supported rd232's point - it says "he passed 49 decrees in rapid succession, many of them highly controversial" - I would rather cite a reliable source than another wikipedia article which rd232 edited.
I would only wish to reflect what reliable sources say. If sources say that Chávez has undermined democratic institutions then it is not OR to say so. However, it would be OR to say that today's Venezuela must be democratic because it hasn't been kicked out of an international organisation yet.
I would agree with rd232 that other parts of Venezuela's history have seen profoundly undemocratic behaviour. However, that's other stuff. Previous sins by others do not absolve today's sinners. If current sources give a rather undemocratic message about the Chavez government, why is it under a "Democratic" heading? Why not just a heading about "Chavez" instead? I'm not seeking to make a WP:POINT in the heading; merely to adjust headings so to remove a rather severe conflict with what some reliable sources say. bobrayner (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't giving Enabling_act#In_Venezuela as a source, it was an indication of the context you appear to be missing and will find in academic sources about post-1958 Venezuela. Bottom line, many countries normally considered "democracies" are highly imperfect democracies, and that is true of Venezuela then and now, and also for example of Honduras, which curiously despite rather worse human rights violations recently seems to arouse rather little media interest. On the role of "message" from US news sources, see also Manufacturing Consent. Rd232 talk 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
PS for a starting point for reading, you could do a lot worse than The Paradox of Plenty by Terry Lynn Karl. Rd232 talk 15:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view the present headings fail NPOV test. They imply that the "democratic" period ended in 1999 and that the Chavez presidency is therefore not democratic. There are clearly plenty of argument about the quality of current democracy, but I leave that to others. How about "The Beginings of Democracy (1958-1999)" and "The Bolivarian Revolution (1999- )"?Davidships (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

English

My mother tongue is Spanish and yet I am shocked at the English level of this text. A lot of the sentences were written by people with very limited knowledge of English. It would be nice if some native speakers could help in improving the article. Please, take a special look at the part about "demography".

--Periergeia (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted; that section badly needs fixing (it also has what look like wrongly copied footnotes, perhaps by translation from the Spanish version). The rest of the article is OK I think. Feel free to help!. Rd232 talk 15:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Periergiea, please the fact that a person has born in an English speaking country is not enough reason to write or speak well the language. I'm very sorry. Actually, this is true about any language in the world. For example, a Venezuelan PHD is now the Provost of MIT (as 2011). You can take look of the reports from TOEFL and the research as http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-02-16.pdf. I, myself, am studying a Master from an University in USA. I've seen som e sutdies from ETS that shows that Scandinavians has better results in Englsih than the English Native speaker. Education makes the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EIA258B (talk • contribs) 02:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

The text states:

With the start of oil exploitation in the early twentieth century, established companies and citizens from much of the United States.

This string of words is not a sentence. What is it intended to mean? It seems that the writer was trying to assert that somebody or other established oil-related conpanies. But how can anybody "establish" citizens? P0M (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please use instead: "With the start of oil explotation in the early twentieth century, many companies from USA came along with USA citizens to manage those companies."

I think it should be "established by," but even then the English is poor. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT --JRSP (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

And the very next sentence in the paragraph is:

Later, during the war, he joined the Venezuelan society a new wave of immigrants from Italy and Spain, and new immigrants from Portugal, the Middle East, Germany, Croatia, the Netherlands, China, among others, are encouraged both by the immigration and colonization program established by the Government.

Please use instead: Later, during the World War II, a new wave of immigrants from Italy and Spain joined the Venezuelan society. Moreover, Immigrants from Portugal, the Middle East, Germany, Croatia, the Netherlands, China, among others, are encouraged both by the immigration and colonization programs established by the Government.

Who is this mysterious "he" and exactly which war are we talking about? World War II? I'd clean up the language but don't trust/can't comprehend the content.

J.R. Labrador (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I've just done a major re-write of that section. My guess is that the information was taken from another language (possibly es.wikipedia) and incompletely translated into English. Unfortunately, most of the info in the section is unsourced; I've tagged it as needing citations, but it should probably be removed if we can't get details. I removed those details that were most specific (percentages) and which seemed less likely until they could be cited. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Venezuela and the Millennium Development Goals

In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals, eight goals that combat social problems in our world today. The eight goals, ranging from eradicating extreme poverty and hunger to ensuring environmental sustainability, are supposed to be met by the year 2015. Only three years away, 2015 will be the year in which countries will be able to state whether or not they met all eight goals. One country that has made significant progress on meeting the goals is Venezuela. Hugo Chávez, the current President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, has instituted many social programs aimed at reaching these goals. While many countries, including the United States of America, frown upon Venezuela’s "socialist" policies, many of the programs have, in fact, worked. Even though many countries were set back by the economic crisis that hit in 2008, Venezuela has been able to overcome these kinds of obstacles. Currently, Venezuela is one of the ideal countries when it comes to meeting the Millennium Development Goals.

I am proposing to add a new section to the Venezuela Wikipedia page. The new section, titled "Progress on the Millennium Development Goals," would examine how Venezuela is doing on all eight of the goals. This topic is relevant because it incorporates a lot of recent information about the state of the country. In addition, since the Millennium Development Goals are a United Nations global initiative, it is necessary to look at how individual countries are doing in relation to meeting the goals. I really appreciate any of your feedback on the topic and the contribution itself. Stnicks007 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Stnicks007.


File:Estadiometropolitanocolombiausa1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Estadiometropolitanocolombiausa1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Estadiometropolitanocolombiausa1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Republics are not democracies

This is a simple matter of definition. In a democracy the populace votes on and passes laws as in ancient Athens. In a Republic (like Rome) representatives of the people make laws. No evidence has been presented that Venezuela has ever been a democracy; thus such references should be deleted. If it is a Republic, call it a Republic. Also, it is both commonly know and documented that Chavez is a dictator. The government of Venezuela then must be called a dictatorship. (EnochBethany (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC))

Please read WP:SYNTH, WP:NOR, and WP:RS. You must find reliable sources (not blogs) the say the form of government of Venezuela is a dictatorship. --NeilN talk to me 02:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Venezuela has the most oil reserves in the world

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Venezuela has overtaken Saudi Arabia and became the country with the largest proven reserves, which represent 18 percent of global oil reserves in the world, according to British Petroleum. In second place is Saudi Arabia with 16 percent of world reserves, and Canada with 11 percent in third place. Oil makes a third of energy consumption in the world.78.2.56.50 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Oil reserves in Venezuela. 212.10.73.190 (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

National anthem

I don't want to offend anyone or be accused of violating any rules (and I have been accused of both already) BUT I've noticed something that kind of irks me: The national anthem of countries that are on what some would percieve as "America's blacklist" seem to lack a streaming player of their national anthem on their respective country's page. I've noticed this with Iran, Venesuela and Russsa.

I don't want to change this fact since doing so would be an instant attack against me myself. I know that if I linked the Iranian national anthem stream player to the actual page for Iran, or the Russian national anthem to the page about Russia, I would get banned, black-listed, or threatened by Wikipedia "Admins" I won't. Please give me an answer as a reply to this question, not a threat or "warning" message.

I know this site is filled with people who like having power trips but can I have an answer to this concern that doesn't contain a threat or administrative action against me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.123.147 (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I find it strange that you claim not to want to offend anyone but immediately accuse wikipedia of deliberately excluding the national anthems of countries that are on "America's blacklist". I hardly think that it is just the US that has problems with Iran, Venezuela and Russia. Second, any bias that exists in the omission of these anthems is almost certainly systemic and not deliberate. Wikipedia users tend to come from the Western world in general and the Anglosphere in particular (and, yes, quite often from the US specifically) so that topics dealing with the West, the Anglosphere and the US tend to be more complete than those dealing with other parts of the world. There is nothing wrong with people writing about what they know. It is up to the individual wikipedian to add material where he/she has access to verifiable data not found on the site. As counter evidence to your accusation, I note that Australia, Finland and Japan also lack streaming players of their anthems. I don't think any of those three countries could be said to be on "America's blacklist". I would welcome the addition of such music to all the pages listed by either you or myself (and any others we may have missed). If you have access to such music that is usable by this site (meeting all copyright guidelines), please add it. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Brown or Mestizo?

You all know a common person in Venezuela who is defined as a "moreno/a" it's a result form for "Mestizo", I think the term of "Brown" doesn't apply in this case because that term is more for people from North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the Near East, Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia. That term as far as I know it's not used and doesn't apply for the country. I think a brown person is waaay different than a mestizo... since the mestizo it's a mix of amerindian, african, and an european (maybe other races applies) and that's what reflects the ethnicity of Venezuela, the "mestizaje". So it's better to fix the ethnic group of Brown to Mestizo --200.8.37.151 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi!
The issue is that moreno’s meaning is more closely related with skin-colour as it is only used to non-fair-skinned people, despite it implies miscegenation, it doesn’t means the same as mestizo, as a fair-skinned people with mixed ancestry would’nt classify themselves as moreno. ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 11:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

maps

I removed the maps which are factually wrong. Maps on which half of the sovereign state of Guyana are claimed to be part of Venezuela are only issued in Venezuela. This Venezuelan claim to its neighbors territory is not recognized internationally. Guyana is a member of the OAS, CARICOM, the UN, the Commonwealth etc. in its internationally recognized borders. Maps issued in Venezuela do not change these borders. Wikipedia adheres to a Neutral Point of View and publishes only sourced material, therefore such maps with territorial claims can NOT be used on Wikipedia as using such maps would be tantamount to recognizing the Venezuelan claim/POV and also would place one national source of above all the sources in the rest of the world! ergo - maps of this type need to be removed on sight. noclador (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

explanation about the maps

Nobody is entitled to define an official map as wrong, the only authority able to do that is the organization in charge of making the official maps in every country, which is IGVSB in this case. Wikipedia shows the maps according to the official maps in each country, as you can confirm in the cases of India, Pakistan, Argentina, Chile, Morocco, Suriname, or China, no matter how many maps you can find by searching on Google. This doesn't mean Wikipedia is recognizing these lands as belonging to one country, but only the fact that the country claims the area and that the claim exists. Doing otherwise would be a transgression of the NPOV anyway, since you would be supporting the other country's position, by saying that the territory is not being claimed. This would be nonsense, since the Venezuelan claim was recognized internationally and even by Guyana and the United Kingdom when they signed the Geneva Agreement about this subject, in 1966. I wouldn't like to start edit wars about this simple subject, so I hope you will be able to understand this point. Regards, --Hiddendaemian (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

constitutional referendum 2009 ?

The referendum 2009 is missing.

regards from Germany --92.231.208.211 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Will look for source to add sentence.Prof.Vandegrift (talk) 19
44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Currency deregulation

Proposed history edit

I returned to AlJazeera sources for information on referendum and recent currency devaluation. As it stands, the articles cited do not lend support to a conclusion of economic mismanagement by Chavez. Also, sought link to 2009 referendum article. I propose: Chávez also remained in power after an all-out national strike that lasted more than two months in December 2002 – February 2003, including a strike/lockout in the state oil company PDVSA, and an August 2004 recall referendum. He was elected for another term in December 2006. His supporters led a successful campaign to abolish term limits in the 2009 Venezuelan Constitutional Referendum. Chávez won a third term in October 2012.

The government implemented several currency devaluations, most recently in February 2013. Higher inflation is one expected result, along with an ease in national budget pressures. [1] CheersProf.Vandegrift (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Added four refs with mismanagement linked to devaluations. Hcobb (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to remove the speedy and awkward Maduro photo

He is hardly part of the Venezuelan history, and should immediately be removed, at the very least it should have been done with the proper resolution. I think moreso this was simply to brute force a political ideal. WP:SPEEDY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

More Latin American Ethnic Lies

In the information box it says that 49.9 percent of Venezualans are "multiracial" and 42.2 percent are "whites". Quite apart from the ridiculous precision of these figures, the only true unmixed "whites" (it should say "Europeans") make up only an insignificant percentage - those who have just arrived. The Europeans that arrived hundreds of years ago in colonial times have been mixing with the other populations - mainly the indigenous American Indians. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21740152 Look at the painting Simón Bolívar - definitely the result of racial mixing. All of Latin America is "mixed", even Argentinians. Provocateur (talk)

I admit to some apprehension about your tone here. Race is a sensitive topic and best approached through the principle of self-identification. Hcobb (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

A better article would be welcome.

In the current issue of Slate magazine, there are two articles. One says Chavez wrought an economic miracle, decreasing poverty. The other article, in the same magazine, says Chavez wrought economic disaster, increasing poverty. I turned to Wikipedia for some help in sorting out the conflicting "facts". I did not find it here. I hope someone who has solid academic credentials will contribute to this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Murduro not elected President

Wikipedia should not have the liar Murduro listed as President. He is not recognized by most of the world.74.104.157.194 (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's true (certainly most of Latin America has recognised the result); but Venezuelan presidential election, 2013 doesn't cover the recognition issue. If you want to pursue this, start by documenting there which countries have recognised and which haven't. Rd232 talk 20:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"plano-convex scraping implements"

In the 'History' section there's a sentence which refers to "plano-convex scraping implements"; does anyone know whether this refers to something very specific, or is it the case that, seeing as it's linked to Plane (tool), we can just call them planing implements? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Why are maps of Venezuela showing land area of neighboring countries?

All maps of Venezuela depicting the country Guyana to the east of Venezuela should be deleted and will be deleted in 3 weeks if it is not done. No where on international maps are past colonies or counties that make up Guyana, past or present ever shown as part of Venezuela. Individuals cannot simply make their own arbitrary maps on what they think, perceive or "going by" because of a historical border issue.

As a reference Please look at any world map. I'm sure anyone writing English (or any language) here knows how to look up a map on internet.

The main map of Venezuela on the worls map should and will also be deleted, as its being done for a political reason.

How is this blatant abuse of Wikipedia policies even allowed to being with. It is very interested how wikipedia works.Starbwoy (talk) 02:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

explanation about the maps

Nobody is entitled to define an official map as wrong, the only authority able to do that is the organization in charge of making the official maps in every country, which is IGVSB in this case. Wikipedia shows the maps according to the official maps in each country, as you can confirm in the cases of India, Pakistan, Argentina, Chile, Morocco, Suriname, or China, no matter how many maps you can find by searching on Google. This doesn't mean Wikipedia is recognizing these lands as belonging to one country, but only the fact that the country claims the area and that the claim exists. Doing otherwise would be a transgression of the NPOV anyway, since you would be supporting the other country's position, by saying that the territory is not being claimed. This would be nonsense, since the Venezuelan claim was recognized internationally and even by Guyana and the United Kingdom when they signed the Geneva Agreement about this subject, in 1966. Read the text of the Agreement on the United Nations website. I wouldn't like to start edit wars about this simple subject, so I hope you will be able to understand this point. Regards, --Hiddendaemian (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm just wondering what your agenda is? Sinse it seems you alone seem to be m,aking up and editing entire documents and creating maps on your own? The term used is "disputed Territory". why are maps being labeled "zone to be reclaimed". did the person who made the map work with the UN. and was told that the zone was being reclaimed, and a decision was made. so how come that is allowed a map. Your barking about "neutrality" seem to be long lost in your vanity and on the allowance on this and the entire Wikipedia articles about the that are being designed and written exclusively by you.Starbwoy (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

"Zone to be Reclaimed" is the translation of "Zona en Reclamación", which is the official name Venezuela uses for that disputed territory. The maps show the names according to the toponymy that each country uses in its official maps, and as far as I know, the United Nations doesn't have anything to do with that. On the other hand, as far as I'm concerned, I've not been denied the right to add information on Wikipedia. I could ask you the same question, "What's your agenda?" But I must confess I'm not very interested in your answer. Regards, Hiddendaemian (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We could say that Venezuela is a Communist State

Given that the Venezuelan Government pretty much controls all the means of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reporter librarian (talk • contribs)
05:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No we couldn't, unless multiple reliable sources call Venezuela a Communist State.
--NeilN talk to me 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see the following for more on the subject:
etc.
Even CATO says: "We Don’t Want Venezuela to Become a Totalitarian Communist State", rather than saying it is one already.
Hcobb (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Give it a year, two at the most. You'll have Green Left calling it Socialist by then.
89.142.168.64 (talk) 13:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
   N.b.: "CATO" has two legitimate flight-related meanings in English (and in Spanish it stands for an artificial heart).
   But the name of the Cato Institute (whose Web site the URL goes to) refers to the reactionary Roman politician Cato the Elder; the org'n uses
  • the full two-word name in first prose references,
  • the two words in all-caps in logos, and
  • "Cato" in headlines, headings, and subsequent references, and as an attributive noun,
and the NYT apparently uses the full two words in mixed case in headlines.
--Jerzy•t 21:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I missed the reply when it was posted. First, Socialism <> Communism. Second, does Communist Party USA mean the USA is a Communist state? --NeilN talk to me 21:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(Indigenous people)

Clearly something is wrong

In "Indigenous people" section there is something wrong. The sentence is "The total indigenous population of the country is estimated at about 500 thousand people (2.8% of the total), distributed among 40 indigenous peoples.[86]", but how 500k people can be distributed among 40 people? Sednodna (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

   Perhaps answered elsewhere, but in any case deserves explanation here: "People" is usually used as a plural noun which can sometimes be harmlessly replaced with "persons". However, "people" is also a sort of not fully either singular or plural noun roughly equivalent to "ethnic group" (e.g. the Hispanic peoples of the U.S.) or to "polity" (e.g., "the American people have spoken", which often means "those American voters who disagree are either resigned to defeat, unable to protest energetically enough to force reconsidering the matter"), or both. In this case "a people" probably means "a tribe, or linguistic or cultural group, whose members are seen (by the V'n government? by a UN body? by some NGOs or?) as unable in practice to adequately protect their interests simply by participation in the political institutions relied upon by the 97% of the population who are much better integrated into the majority institutions. In most cases that's because among the 97% several generations of their ancestors have lived among (if not necessarily having ancestors among) speakers of European languages. One tribe or linguistic group made up almost exclusively of people among those 2.8% constitutes "an (indigenous) people", and 40 such groups constitute the 40 (indigenous) peoples of V'la.
--Jerzy•t 23:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

   I see now that wikt:person#Noun, pt's 1 &2, makes the distinction well, and more briefly.
--Jerzy•t 00:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Current Protests (February 2014)

Not a mention of these in the article? Something of an omission? SmokeyTheCat 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding a note about the arrest of the terrorist murderer. Hcobb (talk) 17:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ummm... you should probably NOT be editing this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Why not include the charges?--Communist-USSR (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Because he hasn't been charged yet.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/leopoldo-lopez-the-venezuela-oppositions-new-hero "who may charge him with murder and terrorism"

Si? Hcobb (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in Venezuela

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in Venezuela!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil. :) Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Error in Location Map

The Location Map contains misplaced cities, Valencia and Barquisimeto are wrong. The selection of cities is also odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attarparn (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

New history subsection needed

The info on the protests since early 2014 is contained in a subsection of the History section entitled "Bolivarian revolution". That paragraph currently reads:

Beginning in February 2014, hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans have protested over high levels of criminal violence, inflation, and chronic scarcity of basic goods due to policies of the federal government.[53][54][55][56][57] Demonstrations and riots have left over 40 fatalities in the unrest between both Chavistas and opposition protesters,[58] and has led to the arrest of opposition leaders such as Leopoldo López.[58][59]

It seems to me that this, now half-year-long, series of protests is both notable, and explicitly not a part of the Bolivarian revolution. Seems like a new subsection is warranted.

Therefore, I propose: "2014 protests" as a new subsection for the History section of the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The current map shown is an incorrect reflection of the territory of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; although the controlled territory is shown correctly, the claimed territory is not shown. A correct revision was submitted to Wikimedia Commons; however, it was reverted on the grounds that the map reflected a "Venezuelan point of view". That's an invalid argument, as it does not represent a lack of neutrality to say that Venezuela claims the Guayana Esequiba (which is recognized by the UN); that is simply the truth. It should be represented as simply claimed territory. I don't have permissions to revert to the correct revision in Wikimedia Commons; can someone who does please revert the file to the correct version of 09:27, 6 August 2012 by Unukalhai? More explanation on this is given in the File talk page. Zozs (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Zozs (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I've nominated the map in question for deletion in Commons, unless there no clear consensus about this issue I not see the need for the existence of an alternative map that violates NPOV. --Oscar (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, There has not been discussion about this topic on this page. At second place, It can also be argued that the other file is a duplicate that violates the NPOV, since it ignores the Geneva Agreement of 1966, signed by the UK and Venezuela in regard to this border dispute. As explained previously, as well as in File talk:Venezuela (orthographic projection).svg, "it does not represent a lack of neutrality to say that Venezuela claims the Guayana Esequiba ([a claim that] is recognized by the UN)." For this reason, I request the restitution of the correct map for this article. --Leanex77 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Truth is a very stubborn thing

When I read a sentence such as this I feel like throwing up: "On 18 February 2014, the leader of mass protests, Leopoldo López Mendoza, turned himself into police after addressing a crowd of supporters estimated to be in the thousands protesting the government in the 2014 Venezuelan protests to face charges of murder and terrorism. Demonstrations and riots continue in Venezuela, leaving fatalities in the unrest (a mixture of Chavistas and opposition protesters).[54]" An encyclopedic article first and foremost must be telling the TRUTH. This sentence is pure propaganda. --Dr Ulf Erlingsson (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very much true (i was there) i don't understand why you call this propaganda, the quote doesn't speak good or bad of any side (all though it's pretty obvious)there are tons of information about this everywere on the internet, Leopoldo's surrendering is the most important political chapter of Venezuela's history since Chavez's death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.3.186 (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 declaration by Pres. Obama as national security threat

In paragraph #1 under the sub heading of "Foreign relations" I propose an addition in regards to President Barack Obama's declaration that Venezuela was a national security threat to the United States of America.

Here is the paragraph including the proposed change: Throughout most of the 20th century, Venezuela maintained friendly relations with most Latin American and Western nations. Relations between Venezuela and the United States government worsened in 2002, after the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt during which the U.S. government recognized the short-lived interim presidency of Pedro Carmona. In 2015, Venezuela was declared a national security threat by U.S. President Barack Obama. Correspondingly, ties to various Latin American and Middle Eastern countries not allied to the U.S. have strengthened.

Citations: [2] [3] [4] Pistongrinder (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Change implemented as outlined after no feedback or objection. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the article reek of right-wing bias? I see little to no mention of the positives of Chavez's programs

There's mention of the crime and inflation (I think multiple times) but what about all the social programs? Also looking at some of the sources like this (saying Venezuela is socialist when it's a social democracy) and this one show that the people writing/editing this page are extremely biased using biased sources which I don't think is what Wikipedia is about. Danotto94 (talk) unknown correct date/time

Cite reliable sources and changes will be made. The Venezuelaanalysis.com article is clearly labelled as an opinion piece, and the views in it should be presented as such if they are included at all. The rest of the sources you cited were just blogs. Do not insert commentary about the article in the article, as you did in this edit. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
What about the other sources I cited? Also couldn't you have just removed the commentary without removing the entire sentence including the link? Danotto94 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"The rest of the sources you cited were just blogs." -- Zerohedge.com is a blog, as is Countercurrents.com. Blogs fail WP:RS.
Also, couldn't you have just added the material without the commentary? Ian.thomson (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, isn't it incorrect to write "oil fund" as opposed to "oil funds"? Socialistguy (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Venezuela and Education

I would like to see a source that states that after graduating from secondary school, Venezuelan professionals are leaving the country. I'm not saying this is untrue but this is a bold statement to propose without any source to back it up. Mduno (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Mduno: Well it is pretty obvious they are leaving the country. The inflation is skyrocketing, urban violence is increasing, there is no food in the markets. I sure as hell wsould get out of that country ASAP. Incendiary Iconoclasm 00:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Venezuela devalues currency against US dollar."
  2. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/09/us-usa-venezuela-idUSKBN0M51NS20150309
  3. ^ http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=2377482&CategoryId=10717
  4. ^ http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/article13087994.html

New coat of arms image required

So, the morons at wikimedia commons discussed and decided to delete the coat of arms of Venezuela, which is used in several articles in several different wikipedias. A new one is urgently required. Incendiary Iconoclasm 21:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Music genres

I wanted to add the names of some groups that are part of the Movida Acústica Urbana genre. Please feel free to add other bands to this list.

Thanks to a new editor, katherinebanos12, who brought this to our attention even though a bot reverted her entry. I wish we could have a separate category besides "vandalism" for new editors who need to cut their teeth on this technology. We need them and don't want to scare them off. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Article needs more balance, and more currency

The article seems to be a bit out of date, and possibly a bit unbalanced as well. The early years of Venezuelan history after 1998 are described in political terms here:

A collapse in confidence in the existing parties led to Chávez being elected president in 1998, and the subsequent launch of a "Bolivarian Revolution", beginning with a 1999 Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution of Venezuela.

and the economic protests of 2014-16 are mentioned in the lede as

In 2015, Venezuela had the world's highest inflation rate with the rate surpassing 100%, becoming the highest in the country's history.[25] Economic problems, as well as crime and corruption, were some of the main causes of the 2014–16 Venezuelan protests,[26][27] which left more than 50 protesters killed.

and the political May 22016 emergency decree of the government is mentioned only in section on the current government section on Nicolas Maduro

Further information: 2016 state of emergency in Venezuela

, but only in political terms, and in terms of the government point-of-view.

Wikipedia insists on a neutral point of view and it seems a more balanced description of the current economic crises (not exclusively in terms of the maintenance of the current political regime) should be provided, as it is the topic of many news stories worldwide. It would seem the economic crises would merit coverage in the Economy section as well as in the lede. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That dreadful and miserable lead

I have removed the last three paragraphs of the lead because they violate WP:RECENTISM by focusing overwhelmingly on recent events for a nation and society that has a history stretching back several centuries. That's my diplomatic way of saying that the old introduction read like a political hit job against Venezuela. Calling that lead neutral is like calling beef ravioli a vegan dish. Here's a quick example to understand the insanity of it all. The Syrian Civil War, which has left almost 400,000 people dead, gets the following coverage in the lead on Syria:

Since March 2011, Syria has been embroiled in an uprising against Assad and the Ba'athist government as part of the Arab Spring, a crackdown that contributed to the Syrian Civil War and to Syria's becoming one of the most violent countries in the world.[14] A number of pseudo-state entities have since emerged on Syrian territories, including the Syrian Opposition, the Federation of Northern Syria and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

Two quick sentences and it's over. But for Venezuela, it's absolutely imperative that people read an introduction that says:

Economic problems, as well as crime and corruption, were some of the main causes of the 2014–17 Venezuelan protests,[71][72] which left more than 50 protesters killed.

What a horrible country! 50 people dead in three years from political protests! You know, about the same number of people that die in a typical month from gang violence in Chicago. Should we have a new sentence in the lead of the United States article every time there's a mass shooting?

Precisely because this is an article about an entire country, we have to be extra careful about neutrality and perspective. I hope we will be going forward.UBER (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no arguments from me. I've only had this article on my watchlist since tracking a disruptive IP (now blocked) way back when, but never got around to reading the article or working on it. Such RECENTISM/NOTNEWS would never get through on broad scope articles of this nature for any other nation-state. Kudos for moving some of the content to the relevant sections, but I think there's still some pruning to do on a few of the sections which should, ultimately, act as summaries of the main articles, not be the size of the articles themselves.
I have a number of ethnic group articles et al on my backburner, but I'll try to get onto this article some time in the next couple of weeks to see what other tweaks can be made. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Mistake in Article

The sentence: "the Venezuelan currency, Bolivar, is made in a country based in the UK." makes obviously no sense. I do not know if the EU or Europe is meant, but if somebody could correct this, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.31.7.232 (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Venezuela/Archive_3&oldid=1137294995"