Talk:Politics of Venezuela

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaylaself11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Next election
It says here that the next election will be held in May 2010... this is obviously outdated, but I don't have the correct information. Someone should fix it. Etaoin 21:15, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Cannot wait Loveisbright (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Originator?
The information this page contains is perfect for a paper I am writing for a class. The problem is that I do not know who originated the information. Can anyone please point me to specific internet sources that verify the information on this page for a student essay style bibliography? Thanks, BR

CIA fact book - but probably edited by us. Secretlondon 21:16, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Odd word
Pluriform is not a word. At least not recognized by dictionary.com

I had no idea Loveisbright (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Update needed
Hello. (next to be held 28 May 2000 under new constitution) 'next to be' should be removed.--Youssef 19:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
I would like to suggest copying in part or moving the article to Government of Venezuela. What I see on similar pages, is that the Government page deals with the administration, function, authority, organization, and the system of the governing body. While Politics deals more with the activities, affairs, methods, tactics, engaged in or managed by the government. In other words, the Government page should deal with the structure of the bureaucracy, while the politics page can discuss the heated political climate in Venezuela. what do others think? - Spaceriqui 20:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

Support : for the above reason Spaceriqui 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Support : for the above reason LuiKhuntek 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Support : for the above reason Ashwoods 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose: There is a Politics of page for every country and it is not only about government. It's also about the legislature and about the opposition. Please add what you miss on politics. Electionworld 18:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is definitely true, there is a politics page for every country. But there is also a Government page for every country, which is not the case of the SA countries.  So, this leads to a mix of heated political debate in what should be strictly a page dealing with the structure of the gov't. -Spaceriqui 19:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

!!Move request has been withdrawn. Needs to be reconsidered. Spaceriqui 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I went to the Venezuela article and then here to look for information about the Seniat, the Venezuelan tax agency. Please consider creating a separate Government of Venezuela article for the reasons given by Spaceriqui, especially if that is a standard. --Rj 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: There is a "politics of" page for every country in the world - those for South America are listed in the template at the bottom of the article. There is a similar one for "Government of" articles - these are often, but not always, redirects to the politics articles - see the template below. Personally I prefer keeping these separate, with "Governement" focussed on the civil service, ministries etc and politics focussed on elections, political parties etc. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

==Discu

informacion porfavor
What is the exact percentage of seats elected in districts to those elected proportionally?--M i c 06:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 60% district, 40% proportionally "Sistema Electoral/ Sistema de Elección: Los Diputados a la Asamblea Nacional fueron electos bajo un sistema de elección denominado de Representación Proporcional Personalizada (Sistema Electoral Combinado: 60 % Mayoritario - Nominal y 40 % Representación Proporcional - Lista). (Artículo 15 del Estatuto Electoral del Poder Público 2000)". JRSP 11:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Material removed from Code Pink article
We recently removed material from Code Pink after determining that said material was off-topic as far as Code Pink was concerned. An editor identified the material as being more appropriate on this article. If you're interested, here's the diff where we removed it:. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alejandro Suáre
Is Alejandro Suáre the Venezuelan election candidate really Alejandro Suáre the Mexican long distance runner?

If not, the hyperlinks from this page, and from the Elections in Venezuela page, need amending! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.11.121 (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Venezuelan constitution forbids people with multiple nationality to run for President so they can't be the same person. I delinked all minor candidates, I don't think they're notable enough for having their own article. JRSP (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between Government and politics
About half this article belongs in a "Government of Venezuela" article. I concede that there is some overlap, but how the constitution and statutes say that the government is supposed to be run is definitely "Government." Who has what duties: legislative, executive and judicial. Politics involves political parties.Student7 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "Government" is how children are taught that the country is (should be) run. No names. Quite dull. "Politics" is how the country is actually run! Names. Lots of action! Student7 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've degutted the article, removing "Government." It now needs to be restructured to show the messiness of Politics. "Citizens" is now a stranded section. It's just all structured wrong. The current sections have nothing to do with the article anymore. Student7 (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Elections of 2008
An editor keeps censoring the fact that the government would not let every eligible candidate run in the election of 2008. This is a true statement and important.

An editor keeps censoring the fact that the candidates took their issue to the Supreme Court. This happened, It is true and important. It is true and important that the court agreed with Chavez.

An editor keeps censoring the fact that the Washington Post, in an editorial, denounced the election since popular candidates were not allowed to run. The government has learned to model elections after Iran and other totalitarian states who routinely suppress the opposition for fear that the people would support them. This opinion did not originate with the Washington Post editor BTW. It is widely held outside Venezuela.

Please stop censoring it! 23:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, the government in Venezuela has several branches, I see no problem in being specific about what branch of government banned the candidates and why they did it. An opinion article in the Post is just an opinion: Who says that? Is his/her opinion relevant? Your comment that "The government has learned to model elections after Iran" is WP:POV. JRSP (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Was my opinion in the article? A quote was.


 * Are you saying that there is no impediment for any government to blackball candidates it doesn't like under the OAS? As far as being expelled from any international organization goes, this doesn't happen unless they are fairly blatant in their action. Was Cambodia every banned from the UN after executing half its population? I'll bet not. Nor can I think of many or any bans from the OAS thought there have been planty of violations. Student7 (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An editorial in the Washington Post only proves that someone thinks the Inter-American Democratic Charter was violated, however it is OAS and not the Post that must decide that. The UN does not have anything similar to the Inter-American Democratic Charter so the Cambodia example does not apply here. According to the Inter-American Democratic Charter any OAS member that violates the charter is suspended from OAS and Venezuela has not been suspended. The 300 people were banned from public office because of irregularities in their function as public servers, most of them were not running as candidates. JRSP (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As in most controversial articles, the phrase read that "critics said that..." In this case, only one critic, the Washington Post was quoted. And they are left-wing. It would not be hard to come up with more WP:NPOV critics.


 * Does the OAS charter say that candidates cannot be suspended without a conviction or does it not say that?


 * Were many (most?) of the 300 candidates convicted?


 * As far as "multiple branches" go, we are all familiar with that ploy. Ancient Rome's government was horribly complicated. Real democracies have learned to "keep it simple" but have a balance. All real democracies have three co-equal branches. Iran does not. Venezuela does not. Doubtless, the other tyrants of the world have long since followed suit. And some WP:RELY authority must have commented on that BTW. Student7 (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Inter-American Democratic Charter does not say that. IMO, your concept of "real democracy" reflects local bias and therefore POV; for instance, in parliamentary democracies the executive is not co-equal with legislative. I could also say, for instance, that a country where the people cannot elect directly their Chief of State is not a "real democracy" and I could find lots of WP:RS editorials supporting that claim. JRSP (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of Venezuela" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

About political conditions
An article about politics cannot be only about the elections. Politics is more than that and includes the political life outside elections. The fights on the other fronts, like freedom of the press, fighting opponents with the justice system etc. are part of the political fight. All these fights have their place in an article about politics. Look for example at politics of Georgia (country). The comparison seems to me appropriate because Georgia, like Venezuela, is a country where you have elections but the political life is marked by strong fights outside elections. This is why I propose to have a paragraph named "political conditions", like in the Georgia article. Voui (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "An article about politics cannot be only about the elections." - quite true, and in fact the bare listing of election results is pretty worthless, they should really be left somewhere else and summarised in prose as part of a discussion of the, well politics ("politics" does not equal "elections"). And indeed in the many "Politics of..." articles there are a few which have sections titled "Political conditions"(search). But the vast majority don't. Anyway, the section in Politics of Gabon is a much better example of the sort of content (whatever the section is called) which should be added, and which is much more common in "Politics of..." articles: a summary of the political history. For instance some discussion of Venezuela being an "exceptional case" in Latin America for its long-lived democracy (and then the subsequent re-evaluation of that when the partyarchy crumbled). (In fact I've written some content on that today in my userspace draft.) And of course there's much to be said on the nature of the political reconfiguration since 1998, the (changing) relationship between the grassroots social organisations and the Chavista movement and the new socialist party, etc.
 * But my concern is (and your most recent edit encourages that concern) that you want to duplicate very similar content as you want to have in Human rights in Venezuela. Duplication aside, that content is even more inappropriate here; you need to "zoom out" even further, as it were, and relate those general concerns to the politics, at a very general level. I would find that hard to do; and you've shown no interest in even trying - you're happy to have the small details ("examples") from primary sources, rather than the big picture from secondary ones. That's even less appropriate in this article. Rd232 talk 20:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, in other words, seek to develop your interests: but do so with reference to high quality, independent, secondary sources which are very general. Think, say, "football", not "one player's 2009 knee injury". Rd232 talk 20:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, these are only reasons not to allow mentioning things that you don't like about Venezuela political system. Please put that aside and accept to mention everything that is notable, even what you don't like.Voui (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is duplicating the same issues that we're discussing at Human rights in Venezuela. I really don't see how this is helpful, either in terms of duplicating the content, or in terms of duplicating the effort of discussion. I've left a note at WikiProject Politics asking for input; we can also pursue other dispute resolution (since you don't seem interested in addressing my arguments, preferring to accuse me of bad faith). However the content should stay out in the mean time, because it really doesn't belong here. As to the dispute resolution - because of the duplication of the discussion elsewhere, I'd hold off on that too in favour of a more general discussion of how to take the article forward; but if you really want, propose a draft text for an WP:RFC. PS I've added a couple of see alsos, including Human rights in Venezuela. Rd232 talk 12:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you are misrepresenting facts. I did not accuse you of bad faith. I mentioned that we wish to delete more or less anything that is against the Chavez government. This is only a fact and you are proving it again. You have always technical arguments. They are always different, but they always lead to the same result: deleting and reverting. Voui (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "these are only reasons not to allow mentioning things that you don't like about Venezuela political system." - your comment at 21.23 15 Jan. This is an accusation of bad faith; and your denial that you are accusing me of bad faith is followed by a repetition of the same accusation "we [I guess you mean "you"] wish to delete more or less anything that is against the Chavez government." followed by the claim that this is "fact". Rd232 talk 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And the most funny thing is that you argue that it should not be here because because it should be in the Human rights in Venezuela page, but at the same time, you refuse to have it in the human rights page ...Voui (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, what's funny/tragic is the way in which you decline to engage with the arguments made at that page; persistently edit war against consensus, requiring page protection, and start up again as soon as it's finished; come here to do the same thing with the same material, which is even less appropriate here; and try and add the same to Venezuela, besides creating a blatant POV fork of Human rights in Venezuela in lieu of collaborating with others on actually resolving that dispute. Rd232 talk 18:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not true. I am prepared to engage as much as you want. In fact I have never reverted any information that you have added to this encyclopedia. I am just trying to insert a few notable things that you just do not want there. You have never answered my questions. You always delete delete delete. Even JRSP was recognizing that such information has its place in Politics of Venezuela. And please when you disagree, don't revert immediately but discuss.Voui (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I am prepared to engage as much as you want. In fact I have never reverted any information that you have added to this encyclopedia." Perhaps that's because my content is generally good, appropriate, well sourced and otherwise meeting policy. And by the way that definition of "engagement" is highly idiosyncratic - you keep walking away from conversation about your problematic content. Rd232 talk 21:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Voui, please do not misquote me. Saying that your content is not appropriate for the "government" article does not mean that I think it is appropriate here. JRSP (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked again at all the arguments and I cannot see any arguments against mentioning political conditions in the country. You mention my "intention" but we are not talking about intentions but about content... Voui (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * All these material is a lot of allegations: "opposition complains", "there were accusations", "there are allegations"; this text says nothing concrete. Sources include Human Rights Foundation, a polemical organization whose founder has family ties to a prominent member of the Venezuelan opposition. If we included this material, what prevents someone adding any Chavista "allegations" against the opposition? JRSP (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In wikipedia, the issue is not so much whether this is true or not, but rather whether this is notable or not. Everything that is here is notable, as proven by all the press material on this.Voui (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And BTW, if you wish to add some notable allegations concerning the opposition, please don't hesitate to enrich this page!Voui (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability is not the same that a few recent press releases, notability is permanent. Additionally, wikipedia's policies do not work in isolation; you cannot say the allegations of a political faction are notable while disregarding what the other faction says. JRSP (talk) 16:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. Please do it! Add what the other faction says, for example. Let's enrich the page by having something concerning the political conditions, not only elections. Voui (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you're getting the thing wrong! Mentioning that Venezuelan politics is highly polarized around support/opposition to Chávez is fine, multiple reliable sources support that; however, we must not engage in the polemic itself. We are not here to support either side. A litany of arguments and counter arguments from political factions is not "enriching the page". JRSP (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

RCTV and Political Prisoners
There are political prisoners, even in the U.S., the freest country in the world.

RCTV was shut down because they didn't pay their license fee, their taxes and they participated in a coup to overthrow the government. If that happened in the U.S., the leaders of the station would be executed. 76.180.61.194 (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point. This is something for the USA page! It seems to me that the issue is not so much whether this is true or not but whether this is notable. But this point can be added to the article.Voui (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The view that if this happened in the US, the leaders would be executed, is unsourced speculative opinion, and not suitable for adding anywhere. Rd232 talk 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When did the USA become "the freest country in the world"? --Oddeivind (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

User Lindorm
Hello, this short message to inform you that the user Lindorm has been infinitely banned from it.wiki for systematic insertion of politically biased contents as Single-purpose Account. This user is acting as SPA across several wikies, as clearly evidenced here, editing on the same set of articles with clear political bias and reacting in the talks with personal attacks and strongly politically biased arguments (see this discussion in it.wiki, where another administrator blocked him at first for 36 hours). For this reason, his last intervention (biased content without sources) has been undone. L736E, administrator in it.wiki (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

regional variation
It would be interesting to have something on how politics vary within different parts of Venezuela. For example, in the recent elections it appears the PSUV candidate's state-by-state results varied from 37% (Táchira) to 65% (Portuguesa), but afaict no Wikipedia article discusses the political geography of the country. --Delirium (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Why
Why do people want brnie sanders Loveisbright (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

1958 - 1999: Factually incorrect statements.
Under the section it clearly says "Democratic Action led the government during Venezuela's first democratic period (1945–1948).

However, this contradicts YOUR OWN other wikipedia article where it says it was clearly done through a coup see Wikipedia Article on 1945 Venezuelan Coup