Talk:Venezuela

NPOV: Is Venezuela actually functioning as a republic?
Some editors are arguing that it is superfluous information to state Venezuela is an authoritarian state in the infobox. I disagree because the sources directly tell us it is not a functioning republic and there are no free and fair elections. One of the sources which remains in place in the infobox even calls Venezuela an autocracy. So stating uncritically that it’s a federal republic is going against what the sources say. Nobody so far has challenged or removed these references, so it seems to me we are simply overriding them with editor analysis. If there are references out there that can attest to Venezuela holding fair elections, please provide them and let’s have that discussion. 25stargeneral (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's related to the endless debate regarding the difference between de facto and de iure. Venezuela in theory and paper is a federal nation, along with Mexico, Argentina or even the United States, but has historically always been centralized. The article's infobox should reflect its current political system, which doubtlessly affects the country, an authoritarian system that devolved from a competitive autocracy, as political scientists would say, which is something that has already been agreed upon in the past: Talk:Venezuela/Archive 5. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For me following what political scientists say is a no-brainer. They are the topic experts. I don’t understand the desire to discard what political scientists say in favor of the pronouncements of governments. Those aren’t reliable sources and we shouldn’t be repeating their positions uncritically, especially when they are directly contradicted by political scientists. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In my view, this is a matter of placement not content. Concerns about political scientists' viewpoints being "discarded" are not germane. Viewpoints should be reflected in the body of the article, not the infobox. The government field in country infoboxes should reflect the form and structures of government without characterization - i.e., is the government unitary or federal? Is it a parliamentary system? How many legislative houses? And so forth. The country infobox should contain the hard facts. Characterizations ought to be described in the body where there is more room for explanation, attribution, etc JArthur1984 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Should be covered in the same manner as others.... in the lead in the info box and the body of the article.. Russia, Belarus etc. Our purpose is to educate and lead our readers to sources that contain academic information. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ditto, and I'll drop also the example of Cuba in the meantime. Saying that a nation has a one-party system, for instance, or other characteristics, doesn't mean you can't explain if the government is based in a republic or a parliamentary system, and so on, as they aren't mutually exclusive. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, why is it a “characterization” and a “viewpoint” to call it authoritarian but a “hard fact” to call it a federal republic? It is absolutely a fact that Venezuela has an authoritarian system of government and the denialism of this being a fact is puzzling. What you seem to not be getting is that authoritarianism is a “form and structure” of government as far as political scientists are concerned. We can’t just call it a federal presidential republic because that would be a false “form and structure” when the elections are in fact a sham process as there is no real federalism. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I will quote and repeat my comment in the last discussion, because I think it cannot be stressed enough: The United Nations, the International Fact Finding Mission in Venezuela, the Organization of American States, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights have repeatedly and for several years documented the lack of human rights, civil liberties, separation of powers and judiciary independence in Venezuela. We can change the sources if the community wishes to do so, but this can't be just swept under the rug. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. 25stargeneral (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Republic" is rather a loose word; strictly, it just means a country without a monarch. It doesn't mean the country has elections, nor that they are free and fair. It certainly doesn't mean that the country isn't authoritarian, or a dictatorship. And having free and fair elections doesn't stop a country being authoritarian.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Democracy claims.svg'' status in the world as of 2022; only Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Brunei, Afghanistan, and the Vatican do not claim to be a democracy.]]
 * A republic is a type of Western democracy....still think best we say what type of so called democracy they claim to be....as "most countries" claim they are a democracy. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 17:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A republic is a state where power is held by the people. That can come in many forms such as a representative system or a direct democracy, but is incompatible with a dictatorial state where the people have no say. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * illiberal democracy. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 23:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, that is one term that describes a failed/failing nominally democratic state such as a republic. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. The Democratic Republic of North Korea is a republic. East Germany (the DDR) was a republic. Africa contains many authoritarian republics.
 * "Representation in a republic may or may not be freely elected by the general citizenry." Republic
 * The lede statement in that article, that "power is held by the public", is trite and unhelpful. It doesn't define "the public", and goes on to say that "representatives" might not be elected.
 * The only thing you can truly say about republics is that they don't have monarchs. That's true of all republics. That's the only reason the USA counts as a republic.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * North Korea is a republic. No, it really isn’t, it’s certainly not how academics talk about North Korea, and I don’t see how you expect to be taken seriously making such a statement. It is supposed to be a republic, and academics will say that, but they’ll also say it is in fact a hereditary dictatorship/absolute monarchy, which is a different system of government. You’d have us leave in one part of the academic information but omit this other, key, context. That is an NPOV issue. 25stargeneral (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As I said above, the only undisputed definition of a republic is a state that isn't a monarchy. Some peopler (especially those from USA?) conflate being a republic with being a democracy. Some more thoughtful americans concede that the USA isn't a democracy, instead it's a republic.
 * I agree that the USA isn't a democracy, and that it is a republic. But that doesn't mean that other republics have to appear the same as the USA; that's incorrect.
 * MrDemeanour (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said the USA isn’t a democracy, so please don’t “agree” with something I’ve never said. The USA has not even come up in this discussion until now. But the USA is a democracy, according to all actual academic research on the subject. Your opining about North Korea being a republic and America being an undemocratic nation has little basis in academic research and is not helpful to this discussion about Venezuela. 25stargeneral (talk) 18:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @25stargeneral:
 * > so please don’t “agree” with something I’ve never said
 * I didn't agree with you; I was agreeing with "some more thoughtful americans".
 * It's arguable that North Korea is a really a monarchy (an institution that Wikipeda doesn't define very clearly), in which case it definitely isn't a republic. But if te country is in fact a monarchy, then presumably they have some legal or constitutional provision that makes that clear, e.g. that the monarchy is heritable. I am not aware of any such provision; as far as I'm aware, the Glorious Leader is supposed to be chosen by a committee.
 * Anyway, this article is about Venzuela; that's definitely not a monarchy, so it's a republic. MrDemeanour (talk) 10:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Please see the following Request for Comment at President of Venezuela: --David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the presidency of Maduro currently disputed?

Discrepancy between infobox and religion section
The infobox provides percentages for religion that are as recent as 2020, whereas the section in the article on religion cites a source from 2011. There is a significant difference in the numbers (e.g. 92% Christian in 2020 vs 88% Christian in 2011) and the article should be updated to reflect that. BrilliantMinnow (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Country data advice
 P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Change {Navy|Venezuela} and {Army|Venezuela}
Well, the editors said that this was a controversial edits, so how it's necessary a consensus to make this edit and i came here to show it. 

The first one is the Army flag: i made a svg based in an article in the army site talking about the flag: Flag: Source:

The second one is the Navy flag: i think is a good idea we change the {Navy|Venezuela} template because it uses the naval ensing and not the navy flag. Flag: Source: Felipe Fidelis Tobias (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)