Talk:Venezuela/Archive 1

non-NPOV?
The artcile should be tagged as non-NPOV, it is largely tainted as anti-Chavez, some of the biases of the article: - it talks about the 1992 coup attempt Chavez was involved in, giving the number of fatalities, but failing to tell that it was the result of a repression of a popular uprising that left 3000 victims some years before, nor it tells that there was another coup attempt for similar reasons too - it shows an impressive picture of an anti-Chavez demo, without any picture of the various impressive pro-Chavez demos - the description of the facts of the 2001 coup against Chavez are not only extremely non-NPOV, but also plain and blatantly false; the pro-Chavez demo never shot at the direction of the anti-Chavez demo, actually both demos never got near one of the other, full wide plans (instead of short focus ones) show that very clearly, the gunmen are shooting at police forces that shoot at them; there is nobody else on the streets, nobody from the opposition demo is there; then, Chavez never "resigned", there is actually recorded evidence (journalists happened to be there and made a documentary with that data) and the government officials always told that he never resigned, there never was "power void" but a plotted coup, and president just accepted to be made prisoner so that the tanks surrounding the presidential palace wouldn't bomb it; also, Pedro Carmona Estanga didn't just "take power" to "fill a power void" but actually issued a decree that, among other things, dissolved the parliament, dissolved the governement, dissolved the constitution, changed the name of the country, and that started large scale political prossecution; the article not only doesn't talk about the very anti-democratic nature of the plotted coup, but also fails to tell why it was defeated, it was defeated because of spontaneous and massive popular mobilisation, that, at the danger of their lives (there were several killed) marched to the presidential palace and the army garrisons; when the army saw the popualr will on the streets they decided to side with the street and defeated the coup. - about the revocatory referendum, the article fails to say that it was possible thanks to the new constitution, introduced by Chavez political changes, that gives the possibility to do, for all elected charges, a revocatory referendum at mid-charge; it was not that the opposition "forced" them, as the article may lead one to think, they just excercised a new democratic possibility, introduced by the new governement. - the numbers about electoral participation are wrong, the participation in this last election is about the same that in other parlementary election, the numbers of 50%/60% are plainly wrong, and while one can argue that the opposition POV that the new parliament is "not legitimate" due to high abstention is worth to tell, then it should be told also that similar abstention numbers are registered in other venezuelian elections, as well as in other countries (actually, in almost any country without compulsory voting)

Well, much more could be said, but I don't expect perfection either, just that the non-NPOV is so blatant that I'm shocked, it gives a very bad image of Wikipedia; Wikipedia shouldn't be a propagande tool 212.100.178.141 23:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Paragraphs are your friends. Don't expect many people to read your rantings if you can't be curteous enough to make them readable.--RicardoC 01:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this article and pretty much every other one in mainstream media, participation in the previous two congressional elections (2000 and 2002) were 50-60%, compared to 25% in 2005. They make the comparison to 2000 and 2002 congressional elections because Chavez was already in power. Before then the political climate was not as tense and voter turnout was generally less across the board.  In other words, it makes for a good comparison all things being equal. - Spaceriqui 07:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for other countries, but in the US voter turnout in midterm elections run between 36% and 39%, at least for the past 30 years. Spain recorded it's lowest voter turnout at 42% since the restoration of democracy in the 1970's on approving the EU Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceriqui (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The comparisons above are not valid. In Venezuela, voting was compulsory; that is, if you didn't have the stamp on your national identity card (cedula) indicating you had voted, you could be prohibited from financial transactions, etc. Voter turnout was typically high until voters abstained in protest, which was partly responsible for Chavez' initial election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.71 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent change of name
I think in the history part, it would be interesting to mention that Chavez changed the official name of the country from the simpler Republica de Venezuela to the name in use now (this change is something that annoyed many -mostly those opposing him, and one thing that Carmona reverted during his few hours in power).

Xmegma

Origin of Name
The Venezuela name hasn't its origin on the Orinoco River indians. The history to everybody told is that was palafitos at the Lake Maracaibo, the origins of its name.

Javier

Mentioned translation in doubt. After consulting a Venezuelian friend, he assured me that Venezuela does not mean Little Venice but more something like Dodgy/Shabby Venice... I'm not a spanish speaker, but he told me also that the ending *zuela has more something of lower quality than smaller size. Any statements? My recent change was immediatly reset... so I'd like to have at least an opinion about that. Thank you,

Christian

Mujer means woman. MujerZUELA means prostitute. So, the Dodgy/Shabby Venice would be a more accurate translation than Little Venice

Daniel


 * I disagree, cazo means dipper or saucepan and cazUELA little saucepan, that's a more neutral example. Besides, for smaller size you have to add -UELA/-UELO, not -ZUELA/-ZUELO", we have to remember that Venezuela comes from Venecia (the root is Venez-). From that time is the novel El diablo cojuelo, published ca. 100 years later. Cojo means lame, and cojuelo'' would mean a lame person whose disability to walk isn't very severe.

Claiming that the name of Venezuela comes from native languages is just plain ignorance. Go and study Spanish!--tequendamia 21:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Valenzuela means Little Valencia
 * Zarzuela means Little Zarza
 * Mujerzuela means Small Mujer
 * Hombrezuelo means Little Hombre

Current Political Opinions
Segun mis anos de experiencia y cultura no tan letrada como se hace creer el Presidente de Venezuela, al tu tener una orientacion politica o creencia no se necesita menoscabar los derechos mas naturales de la vida, quien mata, tortura en tu nombre es tan culpable como el que lo realiza, Venezuela un Pais Lindo y bello, con todas las posibilidades de ser un pais Feliz, pasa por la desgracia mas grande en este momento y es bochornozo ver como sus paginas (Wikipedia) pueden dar credito y cabida a las mentiras de que es capaz el presidente de Venezuela sobre todo por: 1. Ha creado Odio donde no habia 2. Ha mentido al pais y lo ha enganado 3. Su forma de dirijirse a todos es de una forma grocera y vulgar, de esto se puede dar fe solo con ir a ver sus tantos mensajes los domingos y no es secreto para nadie. 4. Si tenemos un presidente es porque representara a la nacion y nosotros no nos sentimos representados por esa persona tan grocera. 5. Solo un 40% de la poblacion voto cuando gano las elecciones o sea no fue el pais. En esto estoy clara fue culpa de nosotros mismo por no acudir como buenos ciudadanos a votar.

Sin mas por el momento y en espera de que en sus ilustres paginas pongan datos y asuntos honorables y sobre todos honestos. Arnellys Uribe

-

sorry but what's the point in writing in spanish (i guess) on an english wikipedia and english article?

i'd love to discuss the article as it doesn't seem to be especially balanced and precise, but i'm afraid i don't understand spanish - and you don't want to know what babelfish made of your text (anos means years iirc, strange to see what overture systems made of it - and i thought in california spanish shouldn't be too uncommon ;)...

i beleive you tried to say that chavez has no democratic legitimation? from what i know he won a regular election plus two referenda with really amazing results (always near 60%), while voter turnout was also amazingly high (i wish we had such political participation over here)?

so there seems to be a really strong democratic legitimation, plus it obviously wasn't an accident, most venezuelan people seem to think that he does the right things, even years after he became president?

the opposition seems generally to form around industrials, what you usually hear from that side is allegations of civil right breaches and 'being a communist' - it would help a lot to have more substantiated criticism, obvious propaganda just teaches about the one presenting it, not the topic we're interested in...

2004 08 17 13 00

The Spanish piece is of interest to those contributors who can speak Spanish, and should remain on the talk page, --SqueakBox 17:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

-

Hi there, I was just reading wikipedia's information about my country, Venezuela. We are a divided society -and everybody can tell that by reading the person who started this discussion-. Whether you believe in one party or another, there is something we all have to agree, and it's the lack of "fair and balanced" journalism; it's just terrible... if you support Chavez, the government's TV station will turn you into a "oposition hater" and if you opose Chavez, the private media will make you want to assasinate chavez even more, with racist and biased news... pretty much like FOX News -republican- and CBS News -pseudo-democrat-. This is a HUGE country and nobody seems to realize it. The real reason of why Chavez it's so popular it's because of the majority of poor people in Venezuela. They were excluded from any real progress and oportunities and for the first time in their lifes, someone it's saying exactly what they want a president to say -something I don't agree with, but it's the truth-. I think Chavez will stay -and I know he will- for a long time and if someone sees at the hills where all the poor people live, he will now why I say that he won and that there has not been any fraud at all...

Thanks

Juan Hernandez

PS: Please, this is wikipedia, if you are going to discuss something with me about this, do it in a way where we all can get nice arguments, not with insults as we usually and awfully do in Venezuela when someone does not agree with you in politics... people here are huge fanatics

Democracy at Risk
Why doesn't this article mention the fact that Venezuela is sliding towards dictatorship? Ever since he took office, Chavez has worked to hamstring Venezuela's democratic institutions. For instance, he recently took control of the Supreme Court by packing it with his supporters, as discussed in the following article by Human Rights Watch.



This is only the latest example of Chavez's systematic efforts to turn Venezuela into a dictatorship on the Cuban model (with active assistance from Cuban advisors).

There is also no mention of the fact that Chavez is providing aid and safe harbor to FARC, the Colombian rebel group, apparently in hopes of seeing a Marxist dictatorship established in Colombia.

The fact that Chavez was democratically elected, and recently won a recall referendum, does not excuse his attempts to destroy Venezuela's democracy. Many dictators were democratically elected, including Adolf Hitler.

Edward

Except Hitler used fraud and violence to be elected. And every single president of every country tries to pack the supreme court with his supporters, just look at Bush right now. If Chavez really wants to become a dictator, then he'll be a very bad one. What kind of dictator would permit his people to destitute him? He's also done real good things in favor of democracy, like trying to dismantle the corporate media monopole. Besides, this is the Venezuela article, not the Venezuelian history or Chavez. In fact I think the part about Chavez takes way too much place here. Red Star

You don't know half of what you're saying, Red Star

Piotr


 * Unless you elaborate a bit you're the one who looks like he's talking BS.

So you're saying there's nothing dictatorial about having the government party-majority National Assembly alter the Law to create spots for government-party-aligned judges in the Supreme Court, which, in Venezuela, is supposed to be independent from all political factions. According to your way of thinking, both Hitler and Mussolini can be excused for having majorities in their respective justice institutions. Now base your claims stating that "every single president of every single country tries to pack the supreme court with his supporters".

"What kind of dictator would permit his people to destitute him?" - a very sneaky one- especially if he wants to pass off his government as democratic, wouldn't you think? This kind of measure would also serve to publicly ratify the dictator's stay in power- much like Hussein's and Castro's occasional "elections", where they would win with 100% of the votes...

There is only one privately-owned 24-hours-a-day news station in Venezuela and three others that broadcast news aside from their regular programming. The other two are a sports channel and some other random station with its own programming. There are five government-owned channels and one government-owned station, which existed before Chávez's arrival. One of these is a documentary channel. Another one broadcasts sessions at the National Assembly. Another one is an international news station that is supposed to compete against CNN and other international news stations. Another one is a cultural channel that focuses on people. And the last one, which was the one that was there before Chávez, contains variety programming, including news. There are at least seven different privately-owned newspapers. There are also over sixteen different radio stations, two of them belonging to the state, and most of them broadcast news at some point or another in their schedule.

There has never been a media monopole, unless by "monopole" you mean private media, in which case all non-government media would be lumped together as a monopole. Base your claim. A nation without private media cannot be considered democratic- not in the modern context of the word.

Piotr


 * I haven't said there was nothing dictatorial about a party trying to pack the supreme court with it's friends, I said it was common practice in every country, which means that if someone adds something about it in the Chavez article, why not do it for any other country leader who's done the same? That would mean a lot of democratic ones. I could give thousands of examples about presidents (or PMs) trying to pack the supreme court with their buddies. Being from Canada I can tell you the ruling party almost always appoints judges who share the same opinions, in the US it's also often done, and so I assume it's also the case in many other democraties.


 * The fact remains that he did permit his people to destitute him, and that when some Venezuelans tried to, he won democratically, and decisively.


 * What I meant about the corporate media monopole, is that the media was mostly owned at the time by big corporations, hostile to Chavez or any thing remotely left-wing for the matter. They all had the same interests, and so it can considered some kind of monopole.

You are suggesting, then, that packing the courts with supporters would be excusable if every democratic country did it, something which you assume but don't really know. (You can't extrapolate something of such complexity, by the way, and hope it will be accurate). Secondly, there's a difference between

-looking to "pack the courts" without breaking or changing existing laws or binding principles and

-changing the law to do so, for political ends- which is what "legal" dictatorships have done before. In any case, would you call such attempts, legal or not, democratic in the modern sense of the word?

For what purpose would he allow his people to destitue him, would you say? Someone who has repeatedly said, or used to say, that he would stay until 2021? The only big corporation in possession of a media station is Grupo Cisneros- the rest are independent companies in their own right that, in general, do not focus on any other areas of the economy, even within the media sector (radio, television, newspapers...). I would not consider them big corporations because of that. What is a big corporation to you?

A monopole is a privately-owned business which, by itself, completely controls one sector of a nation's economy. None of the privately-owned media businesses in Venezuela were ever monopoles. Even lumping them together under your definition would not have made them a monopole, as the media sector had been handled by both the private and the public sector long before Chávez's arrival- and still is.

What common interest would you say they had?

Piotr


 * Their common interests would be that they want Chavez out of office. We've seen in the past, particularly when Chavez came back from the coup, how they'll do anything they can to stop him. Maybe I should have specified that it was a monopole of opinion. And they might not all be owned to big corporations, but they sure are tied to them and have the same interests.


 * The guy allowed his people to destitute him. And when some of them tried to, he didn't even use fraud or violence to stop it, even while his opposition was relatively significant (somewhere along 40%). Maybe he used to say he'd be in power until 2021 just to annoy his opponents? No matter what, he stopped saying it, and I'm not sure there's anything in the Venezuelian constitution about term limits.


 * I'm not excusing trying to pack the supreme court with partisans by saying it's done in democracies, it's just that because of this it can't be used as an argument that Chavez is trying to become a dictator, because the same can't be said of all the democratic leaders who do it. And I think it's pretty safe to assume it's done everywhere, when I know it's being done in my country and it's neighbour. I don't quite agree with his way, though I haven't read about it in any articles here. At any rate, that's the only thing I've ever heard about his government that's close to dictatorship.

Why would they want Chávez out of office, Red Star? And what do you know about what happened on April 11th? How are they tied to big corporations? What other interests do they share?

Are you absolutely certain he used no fraud or violence? And about the size of the opposition?

Well, the constitution clearly states that the term for presidential office is six years, with only one possibility of reelection- which must be immediate. It also clearly states that two of the five branches of government are to remain independent - which means independent from any political factions: the Justice branch and the Citizen Power branch.

As I said, there's a difference between packing the courts under the binding parameters of the Law and Constitution (in which case both would be to blame for allowing such moves to be accomplished and called democratic) and packing the courts in violation of the Constitution- a constitution Chávez himself proposed- while altering the Law to accommodate it, with political motives in mind. I am not convinced it's common practice in the whole world and I refuse to believe that there are no ethical people left in public office. I do not see how you could extrapolate that. Which Supreme Court judges have been hired by the US or Canadian governments mainly because they're sympathetic to the regime and not because of their qualifications?

It can be used to suggest that Chávez is becoming a dictator, since, if you compare, most if not all dictators have done so and because such a move is most certainly not democratic.

What about the recent municipal elections, with 70-80% abstention rate? What does that say of confidence in the system?

Piotr


 * Let's see here, I think it's obvious why the big businesses are all tied and have the same interests towards Chavez, he's a socialist, they hate him! He's already nationalised the oil industry, and by creating new public media he's harming them. What do you mean what do I know about april 11th? Chavez was taken down by a coup, than the people brought him back to office. There were massive protests, some people died, killed by supporters of either side. I don't see how it's relevant.


 * Umm... Chávez did not nationalize the oil industry. In fact, he's granted more exploitation concessions than any Venezuelan president since Gómez. Nor was he brought down by a coup. The Supreme Tribunal (very much pro-Chávez) already ruled on that matter. Furthermore, Chávez was brought back largely by the same people who took him down: the military. His supporters did not take to the streets until word was out that Baduel (and thus his troops) had sided with Chávez. But whatever gets you through the night.--RicardoC 01:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And of course I'm sure there was no fraud, I think the Carter Center and OAS can be trusted. There were some irregularities of course, coming from both sides, but they were more like individual cases. And the YES vote got 42%, so yes I think I wasn't far off when estimating the opposition's size.


 * When I say governments appoint their partisans as judges, that doesn't mean they're not qualified, but they're still biased. And as for Chavez trying to change the constitution into allowing him to name any judge he wants, I've yet to see any info on that, and if he does with the people or parliament's support, he can. If people are angry at him, then they'll just have to ditch him in the next elections (Next year I think?). We'll see then if he's really trying to become a dictator. But based on the last elections he ran I don't see why he'd cheat, or even why he'd have to in order to win.


 * As for the municipal elections, it seems to me they usually get the same abstention rates around here. I'm not sure about Venezuela, but municipal politics are boring, very few people care.

Chávez is not a socialist, but proclaims himself as one - and? What does this mean, RedStar?

You seem to know very little about what happened on April 11th, if you let me say so. Chávez was not deposed: when he was held by members of the Armed Forces who refused to carry out the Plan Avila (a military city defense plan meant to restore order when the National Guard and Metropolitan Police are unable to do so) after turning himself in to them, he either chose to resign or was pressured into doing so. At that point, with the Vice-President having seemingly abandoned his office, a power vacuum appeared, which Pedro Carmona Estanga chose to fill.

"The people" didn't bring him back. The same military who held Chávez brough him back, both disgruntled by Carmona (who they initially supported after he stepped up) and pressured by the situation at the Palace (troops loyal to the Chávez government stormed the Presidential Palace in the wake of the Carmona government and called for Chávez supporters to "come down from the hills"). Chávez was returned later after Diosdado Cabello, the then Vice-President under Chávez who had seemingly abandoned office before, was instated as President, as the Constitution demands under the resignation of the original President. Cabello named Chávez his Vice-President on his return and then resigned, leaving Chávez again in office as the President of Venezuela.

What about the gross irregularities denounced by the opposition, the obstacles placed on opposition voters (some being sent to vote outside the state they reside in), the privileges ascribed to Chávez voters (being brought to the voting centers by buses specially payed by the government), the huge campaign for the NO vote funded by the state, the huge delays brought about by the fingerprinting machines, the meetings between Carter, the government and Gustavo Cisneros, the paper by consitutional lawyer Tulio Alvarez discussing and describing the irregularities and cases of fraud in the referendum process, and, most recently, a recently published book about the referendum using official CNE data that has a pie chart which ascribes victory to the YES vote by 59%, just to name a few? The copies are being reclaimed by the government to be destroyed.

The oil industry was already nationalized before Chávez's arrival- in fact, PDVSA has always belonged to the state. Concessions under varying conditions, usually very strict, have been granted to foreign oil companies over the years, however- and still are today.

I haven't said he tried to change the Constitution to suit that- I said his government changed the Law. the Law and the Constitution are two different things. The former is subordinated to the latter and cannot supercede it, except by constitutional amendment under some conditions (and which still cannot override the principles upon which the Consitution is based).

And about the partisans- that's the point! A very significant number of these partisans you speak of are not qualified under Law to serve as judges in public offices. And yet they are appointed judges, because of their outspoken support of the administration. Villamizar is an example. Which judges in Canada and the US have been appointed under these conditions?

A country that had been flaring with political participation and low abstention rates in the past two years? I don't think so. Abstention is embraced today by a significant amount of members of the opposition- mostly within the Civil Society. It is used under the rationale that under the current conditions- where the government party controls the CNE and thus the procedures and final outcome of the voting process-, voting is useless as it serves to ratify the regime and the system through the manipulation of the votes. Another portion of the opposition rejects this abstentionism, mostly within the political parties, arguing that, regardless of conditions, the opposition has to do all it can through elections to prevent spaces within the government to be claimed by those who support Chávez. Yet others choose to vote simply because they consider it civic duty. It still says nothing of the accusations of fraud by Chávez supporters against other Chávez supporters- where they claim that the some of the winning candidates from parties other than the government party were let down in favor of candidates from the government party.

Mark my words- I think Chávez will win the next elections. With four of the five powers virtually under his command- Electoral, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial-, with a substantial amount of popular support- some of it gained through clientelist means, using state resources- with dubious voting machines that can be easily manipulated by those who know how- how could he lose? And with his global ambitions, aspirations and plans, - how could he afford to lose?

[] - Part of an opposition demonstration in Caracas on August 12 2004.

[] - Voting lines on August 15 2004 in Chapellín, Caracas

Piotr


 * Damm Wiki, all I wrote was deleted because of an error. Oh well, I think I'll try to remember. Well first your links don't work, and second, about april 11th, I personally think that, when you're forced to resign, it's the same as being deposed. And since his resign caused popular uprisings, which the Presidential Guard, who retook the power for him. I think it's safe to say he wouldn't have come back without popular support.


 * I was wrong saying he nationalised the oil industry, what I meant was the reforms he underwent. They weren't really popular among business people. Though he did nationalise a few things, like that paper company I forgot the name of. Really, I think it's obvious he's a socialist, what with his friendship with Castro, his social programs. It's certainly not for no reason that he finds his support among the lower classes while the opposition is centered around the rich.


 * I've yet to see anything about how he appointed non-qualified buddies to the Court.


 * As for the referendum, I still stand by the OAS and the Carter Center. What's it supposed to mean that Carter met him a few days beforeteh vote? That he was bribed? Of course he had to meet him, to make sure he wouldn't use fraud or anything. You didn't say whether the irregularities you mentionned were large scale or individual cases. Had they been the former, there's no doubt an important enemy of Chavez such as the US would have jumped in hurryingly to denounce him. Besides, the opposition can't be trusted anymore than Chavez. They don't seem to care about what's legal or not to oust him. And of course they're always to claim there's irregularities, they're his opposition! There were irregularity claims against them as well anyway. ANd regarding Chavez supporters being bused to voting stations, I think there's a logic behind that. His support base consists mostly of peasants and poor people. Peasants live far from urban areas, while the poor live in slums and don't have cars, so it's fair that both should be able to get to voting stations. Middle and upper class people have their own cars. There's dozens of reports out there demolishing the claims the opposition, really I've got nothing else to say about it.


 * Now I feared Chavez would become a bit crazy following Pat Robertson's show of stupidity this week, but it seems he didn't care about it. I was afraid because he is a bit paranoid, but not nearly as much as Castro fortunately. Of course that could be because he's yet to have his own Bay of Pigs or trade embargo.


 * But anyway, why are we even debating this, isn't this simply the Venezuela article?

Hm...that's funny...the links used to work...oh well. They should work now.

First, the "uprisings" were not nearly as spectacular as they are claimed to be. Second, the military in Venezuela don't need popular support to enforce what they want. They were already dissatisfied with the Carmona regime, to say the least. Let me remind you that Chávez himself was a coupster, has lied on repeated occasions, stands trial for human rights abuses, has violated the principles of the Constitution on many occasions and is in charge of a party that controls four of the five powers (which also violates constitutional principles of separation of powers). By the way: nobody wants the old parties (AD and COPEI) back in the government, except fot the parties themselves. Their politicians are usually no more serious than most MVR members (actually, some AD people defected to MVR when it was founded). It would be absurd to say that a majority of Venezuelans would want these people back.

The opposition is not only made up of political parties. A significant part of the the Civil Society, made up of individuals with no political affiliations, also make up the opposition- not to mention that, unlike the government, the members of the opposition often have strongly differing opinions on the way a country should be run. There are radical left-wingers, socialists, christian democrats, Marxists, liberals, capitalists, and militants within the opposition, not to mentions other ideologies and stances of varying complexity.

Chávez supporters, while mostly from the poorer "classes" (in part due to clientelism and "relief" from an economic climate the government has helped to foster, as well as limited "inclusion" into the political system and support for autonomous collectivization measures) also exist in the well-to-do and even in the wealthier "classes" (those cutting deals with the government, as well as government officials who have "mysteriously" become very wealthy). The opposition comes mostly from the well-to-do and the wealthier, and also from some of the poorer "classes"- especially those who have become significantly poorer because of economic conditions (businesses shutting down and jobs being lost, inflation, price controls...).

Two years have passed since the national work stoppage and the oil industry still produces less than it did before it. After all the mass purges of generally qualified workers and management, Venezuela still isn't anywhere near maximum production. He nationalised the Venepal paper mill- not the company- after the factory workers invaded it and began production on their own, wresting it from the management. How would you like it if they did that to something you own, something you had worked hard to finance, build and establish? For what reason would a government allow or sponsor something like this? Now I don't know the history of the company or the reasons behind this takeover, so I can't say whether the mill or its owners were involved in any illegal activities- but what do you make of this?

What kind of socialist is he, then? What classless society is Chávez trying to build? Socialism did not fit in Venezuela as conditions that preceded it do not even qualify as the staging ground for socialism: the private sector had been well diversified since over forty years, with small, medium, and larger businesses in place. Now that has changed, as many, many smaller companies have had to declare bankruptcy in the midst of generally disastrous economic conditons and government controls over the last years. Those that have remained have either been able to adapt or cicumvent government controls, or have had large enough reserves to survive harsh economic conditions- as is the case of many bigger companies. If anything, he has theoretically helped create a staging point for socialism- an economic climate dominated by larger companies that control the means of production (well, in the case of primary and secondary sectors. There is no "production" in the tertiary sector, although collectivisation of that sector might be possible, albeit a lot harder. Another thing his government has helped do is to is accelerate an increasingly informal economy). What he calls 21st century socialism is little different than what previous governments had promised to deliver (and some actually tried): Venezuelan presidents since the 1960s had all been populist and their rhethoric favored wealth redistribution, especially oil wealth.

As for those irregularities:

Being sent to vote out of state: individual cases. Bus transports: mostly individual cases. Fingerprinting delays: generalized (large scale)- The NO campaign: generalized big-time- Tulio Alvarez paper: describes both general and individual cases and irregularities and claims how the fraud was perpetrated. Cisneros, Carter, Chávez: Chávez and Cisneros were discussing something, Carter was mediating. What the heck would these two meet for? the book: Well, the CNE has declared the pie chart a printing error. Would a printing error justify reclaiming the books to destroy them if this printing error was generally thought to be regarded as such?

Say the US had denounced fraud in the referendum. How would they look after both the OAS and the Carter Center ratified it, especially with their then already disastrous and on many counts unjustifyingly deserved international image? Not to mention that a change in the political spectrum at that point would have possibly destabilised exports and imports- especially in the possible case of a civil war, as some feared might have ocurred. It might have been in the US' best interests for Chávez to stay in power at that time. They did ratify the results with little difficulty- unlike now, where they have been hesitant to make any official statements on Venezuela- or Pat Robertson.

Boy, you really must be a stranger to Venezuela. Since gas in Venezuela is cheaper than water, just about every family owns a car of some sort. Well-to-do families usually have two or three decent cars, the wealthier families usually have four or five good cars, and the poorer ones usually have only one (car/truck), old and run down (there are no safety restrictions on cars as there are in the European Union or the US, so you see cars that are over twenty or thirty years old running around)- and those in extreme poverty have none. There is a lot of commuting going on as well, so many people need cars or some other source of transportation to where they need to go. I must admit I had not thought of your hypothesis, though, that some people might need extra transportation to get to the voting places. What I think is wrong is the specific mobilization of NO voters with the use of state funds, while opposition voters had to get by on their own- some perhaps even living as far away as you state.

Well, actually, while Chávez himself might not have made a big deal out of it, his government has demanded that the US punish Pat Robertson and immediately condemn his comments. One of Chávez's chancellors, Alí Rodríguez, has even said that Robertson's words and the US' ambiguous apology are proof that there is a US-sponsored assassination conspiracy against President Chávez. The US State Department has yet to issue an official condemnation, but has denied any plans of magnicide. In addition, the Venezuelan government might also file a lawsuit against Robertson.

Well...we are debating this because it seems, to me, irresponsible when someone speaks so assuredly about something he or she knows so little or nothing about.

Piotr


 * Look, if I knew so little about this subject I wouldn't have continued this debate. But right now I'm getting real tired of it, and I'm not sure I want to spend any more time researching about this. But I want to know where you get your facts from. Chavez's lies and violations of the constitution, human rights abuses, that NO voters specifically were bused to voting stations because of their opinion (How did they do that anyway?), the OAS and Carter Center's lack of credibility, the clientalism, etc. About the cars, I don't care that rich families have 3,4,5 or 6, my point was that the poorer ones, which form the majority, don't have them. As for the poor people who are in the opposition, mainly, like you said, because they lost their jobs due to his policies or since he came to power, the difference here is that it wasn't his intention to make them suffer. He is trying to undermine the power of the rich, no one else. And it's not, as far as I know, deliberate from his part that oil production has slowed (although he could do it just to rise the prices). There's been a lot of instability since he came to power, and he can't be blamed entirely if the economy isn't going too well. And it has to be said that as a socialist he doesn't take the economy (or more specifically things like the GDP) as much into consideration as other people would do. But I don't know how what he's doing with the economy here is relevant. What about how he's doing in other domains like health and education, or other things? He did for example hire a couple thousand Cuban medics. That's another way of improving the life of the poor.


 * What are those pictures supposed to mean anyway? I can come up with pro-Chavez marches too, how about this one from April 11th? 1


 * I can't make an opinion of the factory occupation as I don't have all the facts concerning it, I might research it someday, though I already suspect the workers have occupied the factory for an other reason than simply wanting the profits for themselves.

You could try searching Venezuelan media articles if you're looking for more specific output than foreign news organizations. Or you could try becoming a Venezuelan citizen and see what conditions Venezuelan citizens live under.

In Venezuela, some neighborhoods have, in greater part, political inclinations. In most of the Chavez-oriented neighborhoods, the community gets organized. Municipal leaders may organize Chavez-oriented activities using state funds in order to respond to that community's need to support the government.

Aside from Venezuelan media, cases and reports of human rights abuses can be seen in the Human Rights Watch website (http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas_pub&c=venezu) and the Amnesty International website (http://www.amnesty.org/results/is/eng).

You seem to have not gotten my point that cars and other motor vehicles are fairly common in Venezuela among the population, regardless of wealth.

Chavez is systematically trying to undermine the interests, power and influence of anyone not associated with his administration. This includes most of the private sector, individual opposition members from the Civil Society, and political parties. It is not a matter of wealth, but of government support.

You do know that the economy is not only the domain of the private sector, don't you? It is an integral part of any country and a critical sector of interest for any government. Of course Chavez takes the economy as something important. How else would he finance his programs and projects? For instance, those Cuban doctors he's bringing in are not there for free, you know; they're exchanged for very low-priced oil under an illegal Cuba-Venezuela trading agreement (it did not receive the approval of the Venezuelan national bank, the Banco Central de Venezuela, as required by the Constitution-which makes the agreement a Constitutional violation). Suffice it to say as well that many of these doctors are not qualified to serve as such under Venezuelan laws, and that they focus more on preventive medicine than anything else? (Is this the type of health care system you would find appropriate?)

Piotr


 * This has gone insane, we've taken more than half the space here and it's not even a Chavez article! Anyway, from what the health care system was before Chavez took power, I think what he's doing is a big improvement. There was nobody to treat people living in the slums before. I also never said Chavez didn't care about the economy, of course he does, I said that as a socialist it isn't his only concern. as opposed to most Latin American right-wing governments that existed which worked on nothing but the GDP, often at the expense of salaries and such things. You said about cars in Venezuela that the poorer people didn't have ones, well last time I checked they were the majority. People living under the poverty line (2$ or less a day) are almost 50% of the population, those with less than 1$ are more than 20%. I don't expect too many of them to own a car.
 * I'm aware that there's human rights abuses in Venezuela, but can we call Chavez a dictator for that? Maybe we should call Bush a dictator because of Guantanamo? Also maybe Chavez wouldn't be trying to undermine the power of the banks, entreprises, trade unions, if they hadn't shown their intention to take him down whichever way possible.
 * Now like I said earlier I'm really getting tired of this, and it has nothing to do in this article, and I don't give interest enough to the Venezuelan situation in particular to spend more than 5 minutes on it each time I go to my computer, so I think I'll end this now for my part, unless I'm really bored someday. Anyhow, salutations tout le monde!

Read what I wrote if you haven't done so already:

"Well-to-do families usually have two or three decent cars, the wealthier families usually have four or five good cars, and the poorer ones" "usually have only one (car/truck), old and run down (there are no safety restrictions on cars as there are in the European Union or the US," "so you see cars that are over twenty or thirty years old running around)- and those in extreme poverty have none."

By those in extreme poverty, I mean that 20% of the 50% living under the poverty line. And by the poorer ones, I mean the remaining 30%. Did you not understand that? And if this were the amount of the people in the country that are poor, then they would not, effectively, make up a majority of the population, now would they?

Aside from other, formerly argued reasons, you could call Chávez a dictator-(read this entry) because most of these abuses are politically motivated. The Venezuelan government is sliding towards outright dictatorship (as opposed to a cloaked dictatoship) if it hasn't done so already. Read the definitions and nuances on what a dictator is. Having been elected into office does not mean a person is democratic- and being elected into office makes no difference in determining whether someone is or not a dictator. Also: have you read the entry on presidents?

If you brought interest into this, then you must defend this interest to the end until a viable conclusion appears. You brought this on yourself. "Salutations tout le monde".... I'm reminded of a French "lounge Communist", who casually holds up Communism because it is 'chic' and fashionable while eating caviar at the same time. Avant que tu dises n'importe quoi, cependant, je dis que je ne viens pas de t'appeller un communiste.

Piotr


 * Ok, I wasn't supposed to come back, but I did check a few things about Venepal, and apparently the company had gone bankrupt, and it owned wages to its workers and unpaid taxes to the government. It's understandable then that both should want something back, especially if wasn't going to be used anyway.


 * Anyway, why were we even talking about cars in the first place? First, the exact number I had was 54%, which is the majority, of course it didn't make sense otherwise. So do you mean that only roughly 20% of Venezuelans don't own cars? And were car owners bused to voting stations?


 * I know I brought this on myself, but I don't have time anymore, vacation time's over. This place isn't a political messageboard anyway.


 * <> WTF?? French is my first language you know.

Your stance reminded me of those who applaud such types of regimes without ever wanting to live under one like it. "French lounge Communist" is a term used to describe such types of people, a reminder of how fashionable "discussing" and applauding socialism and communism became during early and late XXth Century France in some circles- circles which did by no means want to live under communism or socialism, but which were more likely reacting against the established, more capitalistic regime (Late XIXth-Early XXth Century), then the American Bloc (Cold War), and then the United States (post-Cold War. "My enemy's enemy is my friend" kind of thinking).

We were talking about cars because you suggested that most people, especially those in remote regions, had no cars and needed the buses to go vote. I suggested that cars are no rarity in Venezuela as gasoline is so cheap (comparatively cheaper than water) and there are no effective restrictions on the age or conditions of cars. I used first-hand experience, your statistics and logic to back this up. I also added that because many, remote and not remote, Chavez-supporting neighborhoods get organized, many municipal leaders would probably choose to provide buses in order to respond to the community's need to back the President. While this might seem reasonable, it is unconstitutional on the grounds that it is a direct politization of State funds, as these funds are being used to support a political figure (this sort of thing- use of State funds to politically support the President- also happened during the NO Campaign during the referendum, for instance).

Car owners living in such neighborhoods could have probably preferred going on the buses, as it is, of course, easier to do than doing the driving themselves.

So...seven, almost eight, years, in power and all the government can show for itself is that the poverty level in Venezuela, according to you, still remains very close to what it was when Chavez came into office (around 55%)? If I were to judge from my observations, I would say that it, along with unemployment, has increased.

A public health system in shambles? I'm not talking about the short sighted, limited-reaching Misión Barrio Adentro- I'm talking about the infrastructural, bureaucratic, with-actual-doctors, staff-and-so-on, theoretically universal public health system that the previous 40 years of Puntofijismo built. Like the governments from the final ten or so years of the former, the Chávez government has unoficially left it to erode (hospitals crumbling down, outdated equipment, understaffed facilities, etc- underfunding...!). What an improvement, eh? What about the farther reaching ambulatorios, which could access the physically more out of reach sectors of Venezuelan society, eh? Some sustainable, well-thought out health care system...30, 000 or so imported family doctors serving the more remote or neglected sectors of Venezuelan society.

Meanwhile, businesses have been closing on an enormous scale, the informal sector of the economy has increased, the national economy has become more dependent than before on the prices of oil, the dollar has remained practically off limits, and taxes in general have increased. The government has in turn used these conditions to implement its 'Misiones' and use them as a platform to support and justify the 'revolution' and '21st Century socialism' as a response. Undermining the economic and political independence of the bulk of its populace. Very democratic, eh?

You are right, though...this isn't a political messageboard.

Piotr

I totally agree on your view my friend Piotr, I could not have summarized Venezuela's current political situation better myself. Nevertheless, I believe that its a waste of time trying to argue or to convince someone who is obviously blurred by complexes and misguided by an obsolete political and economical point of view. My advice for this ignorant Canadian is for him to go and live in Venezuela before making highly opinionated judgements. I may also suggest a quick visit to Cuba on his way down, all this as a quick voyage into what sane people call objectiveness.

PS: My dear canadian friend, speaking in french doesn't make you seem any smarter, and doesn't provide any veracity to your arguements. Au contraire, quand mon ami Piotr emploie cette belle langue, il le fait d'une facon bien intelligente car ses arguments sont logiques, clairs et objectifs. Merci.

Sincerely,

An educated Venezuelan

I think anyone interested in the current news about Venezuela, should read this article by Andrés Oppenheimer: 

Dictatorship?
quoting Edward:

Why doesn't this article mention the fact that Venezuela is sliding towards dictatorship?Italic text

Because wikipedia it's known to be an unbiased way of information. Whether you think Venezuela it's heading to a dictatorship or a Cuban/Nazi style government it has nothing to do with that. Not everybody thinks the way you do and that's why those remarks should not be in wikipedia because if they do, the other side -Chavez' supporters- will have the same comment you just wrote complaining the same way you did... and who is wikipedia to determine who's right or wrong when it comes to politics?

Juan Hernandez

I think it would only be appropriate if there was a clear, objective measure of 'sliding towards dictatorship'. The fact that there's disagreement, however, is certainly worth noting. User:Peter Grey 10:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recall Referendum (latest vote)
To the anon. who wants to add doubts about the recall referendum, what does it mean to "certify the voting process"? The Carter Center did extensive audits of the entire process, including auditing voting machines, et cetera. Anyway, this material is better addressed on the revote page. This is the main page on the entire country; we don't need details like this.

DanKeshet 07:35, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am the anon submitter (sorry, I am new and not totally familiar with the process of IDing oneself or creating a homepage) who altered that section (and noticed that someone cut it right out afterwards). I do find it ironic that someone on the left is complaining about the neutrality of the Venezuela entry, when it is my comments questioning the legitimacy of the election that have been removed.

Addressing DanKeshet's issue, yes, the fraud material is better placed n the referendum page; however, since the main Venezuela page claims that


 * Leaders and supporters of the opposition refused to accept the results of the election claiming fraud, despite international observers that endorsed the election as free and fair. Although the Organization of American States and the Carter Center certified the referendum, disillusioned protests continued. (See Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004).

Well, if you are going to claim that on the main Venezuela page, shouldn't the fact that a) there was an exit poll that shows serious, legitimate doubts about the election and b) that the Carter Center neither addressed the poll's findings, nor even believes in exit polling be there also? Why is it OK to mention the Carter Center's findings on the election on the main page but not a respected polling firm's findings?

And how the hell is an audit useful if the whole system were - for argument's sake - compromised? The electronic voting in Venezuela is held in a central server. I am no hacking expert, but logic suggests that it is possible to throw an election to the point where an audit wouldn't find it, but exit polling would.

- UCLAJD

Please take some time to look at the Spanish Wikipedia page for Venezuela. That is an example of what should be a countrty entry in an enciclopaedia, free of political comments and propaganda. By including the (Chavez) regime propaganda, I think Wikipedia undermines it's own usefulness. I propose a compromise: don't include pro-chavez or anti chavez content, rather than favor one view as it is now.

MANOS FUERA DE VENEZUELA! Can I suggest that the majority of this debate is pointless as only a half-witted fool would take wikipedia as an academic resource of any kind. However it is interesting to see from some of these poorly informed rightist rantings that Reagans public diplomacy machine used so viciously to discredit the popular Sandinista government of Nicaragua is still alive and well in America. What was it Reagan called the Contras? 'The moral equivalent of our founding fathers' I believe. Surely these couldn't be the same Contras who committed scores of massacres, slitting the throats of women and children. For example,I have recently heard senators claim that Venezuela is becoming a hotbed of islamic fundamentalism, what better way to keep the easily rattled US public scared and turn opinion against Venezuela. However, a brief glimpse into a history book will illustrate that socialist states and islamic fundamentalism are not the easiest of bedfellows, the Mujahadein after all were not too fond of the Soviets if memory serves. The fact is that what the misguided negative reflections of Chavez you can read here amount to is no more than a simple fear in the eyes of americans. Fear that the rest of South and Central America will follow the example of Venezuela, resisting the external pressures of the market, foreign political intervention, the development of underdevelopment and the inequality of redistribution, in order to provide a better quality of life, while at the same time reducing Americas economic grip on the world. You have only to remeber the anti-american demonstrations in Mar Del Plata in November to see how well sewn the seeds of discontent are in Latin America. As we begin to move into an age when the USs stranglehold of the global economy is under threat, primarily from China and the far east but also now from Latin America, its government will do ANYTHING to keep its unproportionaly fat slice of the pie, and 'Public Diplomacy', being selective with the truth (lying to you and me), is just one action of an increasingly desperate hegemon in decline. I advise you treat all US opinions on Venezuela extremely suspiciously, their concern is not for its people but to line their own pockets! MANOS FUERA DE VENEZUELA! VIVA SANDINO!

Achieving NPOV (Re: Juan)
Wikipedia should not take sides on politics, but it should report major political developments. The fact that large numbers of people (including large numbers of Venezuelans) and major international organizations believe that Venezuela is moving towards dictatorship is certainly a major political development and should be included.

Also, the fact that Venezuela is supporting the rebels in Colombia's civil war should certainly be mentioned, since it may lead to war. The government's denials of this support are strictly pro forma.

Edward


 * Edward: 1) The history of Venezuela from independence to Chavez is covered in two sentences; Chavez to present in multiple paragraphs. Why?  There are plenty of articles on Hugo Chavez, the history of his presidency, the MVR, etc.  If you want to expand on the conditions in present-day Venezuela, let's start there.  2) We definitely need an article on the Rodrigo Granda affair (though an article on Rodrigo Granda himself would help too).  If you start it, I'll join you. DanKeshet 06:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * There, I started it. If you want to add more about Venezuela's relationship with Colombia and FARC, that's a good place to start. DanKeshet 06:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should not take sides on politics, but it should report major political developments. The fact that large numbers of people (including large numbers of Venezuelans) and major international organizations believe that Venezuela is moving towards dictatorship

Large numbers of Venezuelians? Not the majority and by far though. Major international organizations? Like the Carter Center and Organisation of American States? Red Star

Edward means organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

If only the majority of a country were important, then democracies would be no more than mob rule. We are not in that state, as you know: other factors, or ideals if you will, either take precedence over or are held as important as the majority idea, such as freedom, social equality, and civil rights- to name a few. Wouldn't you agree that a democracy that can provide good and honorable opportunities to all its citizens needs to behave this way? If you can agree, then you cannot deny that that sector of Venezuelan society, the opposition, needs both to be heard and to be taken into account, if their justifications have merit. If the government won't do it, then what does this say of the political framework?

Piotr

Facts? or is it taking somebody's side?
Quouting

--- Also, the fact that Venezuela is supporting the rebels in Colombia's civil war should certainly be mentioned, since it may lead to war. The government's denials of this support are strictly pro forma. ---

It is a fact for you, not everybody thinks or agrees with you on that. There should be something like "there are theories about Chavez and the FARC", saying it's a fact it's taking someone's side. By the way, this is wikypedia, if you'd like to see it, just put it in there :D

Juan ==

This page (the talk page itself) has been getting consistent vandalism, spread across months, from IPs within the range of the school district of San Mateo County, California, United States. I'm going to assume it's just some kid and we can simply revert and ignore itt, but if it gets really bad, we can contact the county tech. office, and they'll probably be able to track it down and stop it. DanKeshet 20:35, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Map
I don't think any of the maps are suitable for use in this article, as none of them show Venezuela's territorial claim over Guyana. That claim is still not settled. PapaLemming 16:28, Jul 20, 2005 (UTC)

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 16:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the lower Kelisi version, --SqueakBox 17:06, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the lower one is too busy; perhaps we could separate it out into a political map and a geographical map, one with the states, the other with the rivers? Do we have the source for the original? DanKeshet 17:31, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

The uppeer map is from the CIA, Image:Ve-map.png --SqueakBox 17:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I found a map that could do well in the page... maybe. It's the third one below. What do u think ? Alex Coiro 19:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's beautiful, but unfortunately appears to be copyrighted with all rights reserved, based on the website linked from the Image: page. Too bad. DanKeshet 19:34, July 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I found the third image from a different source, released without copyright and into public domain; I've replaced it in the page. It's not as big like the below one, but I think it will do, I guess. Alex Coiro 08:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)



An anonymous user added the text of this article to the talk page. The text is too long and probably infringes on Toro's copyright, but I'm guessing their goal was to get people to read it. So read it at the link. DanKeshet 20:42, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Too much Chavez
The paragraphs about Hugo Chavez are way too long,I doubt he's that important (to the extent of taking half of the history section) in the history of his country.
 * True - Wikipedia has a strong bias towards the present. If you have the time, do help expand the historical sections! Rd232 20:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a very exhaustive article about Chavez himself, so my proposal would be to just briefly mention the most important events from the last 10 years and otherwise refer there. Besides, it's not so much part of Venezuela's history than of its politics. --Emilio floris 12:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board
I would like to announce the establishment of the Caribbean Wikipedians' notice board. Anyone with an interest in the Caribbean is welcome to join in. Guettarda 1 July 2005 04:15 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
South America is currently nominated to be improved on This week's improvement drive. You can support the article with your vote.--Fenice 12:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

City names format
This seems as a good a place as any to get the attention of our Venezuelan and Venezuelan-interested editors. At present, most of the Venezuelan cities that need disambiguating are located at (e.g) Mérida, Venezuela, Barcelona, Venezuela. Some of them have redirects from the state names, using the North American "comma-convention" -- eg, Barcelona, Anzoátegui. Is that in accordance with they way things are done locally? Or do they use parentheses, as is common in some European countries (eg, Mérida (Mérida))? So, question: Awaiting your comments. –Hajor 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it be useful to set a guideline supporting whatever convention is used locally? (NB: only when disambiguation is needed; Maracaibo would, of course, stay where it is.)


 * OK, a month went by with no comments. I plan to move them to Barcelona, Anzoátegui, Mérida, Mérida, etc. -- ie, we adopt the US/Canada city-state comma convention for those Venezuelan cities that require disambiguation. Obviously, there will still be redirects from Barcelona, Venezuela, etc. Any objections? –Hajor 03:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You made the right choice, this is the local naming convention, for instance, "Maracaibo, Zulia", also "Maracaibo, Edo. Zulia". "Edo." is an abreviation for "estado".

New Template for the 23 states / Political Divisions section
Hey.

This is my first time getting into the discussion page. It's 10.34 pm here at Caracas and with a friggin' headache for working on the Political Divisions section.

First of all, I want to spam the notice that on wednesday I designed a new template for the states. See, the one in current use Template:VenezuelanState seemed pretty good to me, that was a nice work, Hajor, but like I felt that more juice could come from that, I relocated the name of the state, added a space for the flag and the coat of arms of the state, added the cell "Created", relocated the Capital cell, added the website cell and the footnotes. This is the link: Template:VenezuelanState New. If you like, change the  State cell into spanish (Estado ). Tell me what you think. If you like it, then fill the information and apply it.

So what's with the Political Division section.... I replaced the image, EstadosVenezuela02.JPG, with a more eye-candy and illustrative one (hoping), and numbered the states.

But I have a problem with it: the layout resembles to the States section of Germany and México (the table at the left, the map on the right). I realized that yesterday, when passing articles. I left it that way because I already tried everything to look different. I think the Venezuela page must have a unique aesthetic layout, or someone is gonna say that we copied from Germany or México. But anyway, tell me what you think.

Last, but not least, I definitely agree with everyone that the history section must be rewritten. I just don't feel ok with the fact that almost 500 years being told in almost two paragraphs and the modern era crisis and you-know-who more extensively. I will luckyly start to work on it, perhaps next week.

Comments and suggestions are welcome.

I will look a map that contains the Essequibo in the Reclamation status.

Saludos.

Alex Coiro 03:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work on the new template! Don't worry about overwriting the previous version I'd placed there -- wasn't my work, just something I copied from wikipedia.es. I'd like to see how the new one works in an article: if you want to test without destroying what's already there, you could use the talk page or a /temp page (for example, Miranda State/temp. Only thing I'm worried about is if it's too wide, or will the width reduce once the fields are filled in?


 * As to whether it should say "Estado Vargas" or "Vargas State" at the top, I can't recall whether that was a conscious decision on my part or just something I forgot when I copied the Spanish template. If you're the Venezuelan, go with whatever you think works best.


 * Got any thoughts on how we should be standardizing the naming of Venezuelan city articles? Barcelona, Venezuela, Barcelona, Anzoátegui, or Barcelona (Anzoátegui), etc?  See the section above. Oh, and is the naming system used for Venezuelan states clear, correct, and in accordance with local custom? See ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (subnational entities), which frequently mentions Venezuela as an example. Cheers, –Hajor 05:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Template Test
Following Hajor's advice, I'll test the new templates on this page. I'll use Zulia State and Anzoátegui State as examples. Note: i haven't uploaded all the flags and all the coats of arms. I will do so this week.

Here we go...

Zulia

Anzoátegui

Alex Coiro 23:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice. Rd232 10:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Alex, I fiddled a bit with Zulia. Compare it with Anzoátegui so you can see what I did. Still looks very good. When are you planning on putting them in the articles? –Hajor 20:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I already did... on thursday. Thanks for the suggestions. I'll work on them. Alex Coiro 16:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * can this be made smaller? Other infoboxes are not that wide in general. And it takes up a third of my screen here.
 * Naming: more in line with WP usage would be "Template:Infobox Something", maybe for the next template ;-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 20:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Culture section
I have added Heritage and Art to the Culture section and title as they apply and are really 'two sides of the same coin'. I have followed the same format already in place, by adding 'main article' sections to the Heritage and Art sections. So these are new entries for Venezuela. I have also added some commentary on Heritage, Culture and Art on the main page, leaving in place the comments already written. No edits there. Feel free to edit and or comment on these additions. --Chandra brown erlendson 16:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Culture section is ready. Rearrange it; write anything additional that's missing or shorten it so the section gets perfect. I think I wrote too much.

Alex Coiro 22:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, poor Chávez
"Chávez has only slowly been able to gain control of most branches of the government, due to the power of the corrupt public service bureaucracy. The government has often had to create new grassroots public services in the form of "missions" to avoid going through the corrupt bureaucracy."

Are you kidding me??? The bureaucracy IS corrupt, but it was put in place by this administration. Chávez has been in power for nearly seven years now, for crying out loud. The paragraph, as it currently stands, paints a picture of an embattled Chávez trying to fight his way through a legacy public bureaucracy, which could not be farther from the truth. Thanks to the Constituent Assembly, the powers were remade according to Chávez's explicit wishes, and he's never had trouble stacking them in his favor.

Behold the National Assembly passing what should have been an organic law (and as such would have required a qualified majority of the vote) with a simple majority, instantly expanding the supreme court by 12 justices, all of which would also b selected by a simple majority. Or the president of the supreme court overstepping his bounds and having the court appoint the new electoral authority (again, stacked in the government's favor.) Or the election he forced on the supposedly autonomous CTV. Or his televised dismissal of the PDVSA brass prior to the April 2002 ouster. Or...

Also, the mention of Chávez's letter of resignation having never surfaced is inaccurate. A handwritten letter bearing Chávez's signature and stating his intent to resign, as well as his dismissal of Diosdado Cabello as vice-president does indeed exist, though of course its veracity is disputed. I would think such a document would merit at least a passing mention. Chávez denying having resigned despite numerous testimonies to the contrary, does not make it true.

Not only is the Chávez segment of the Venezuela article overlong, it's also borderline propaganda.--RicardoC 04:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Politics Section
I think all but the first two paragraphs of this section should be deleted or replaced by a single paragraph about recent/current Venezuelan political events. Perhaps just a link to the main article on the 2002 coup attemp. JRSP 18:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. As it stands, we learn a lot about the 2002 coup attempt, something about the referendum, and nothing about the current political situation. I don't think I even learned the name of a single political party other than Chavez's. People hear a lot about Chavez in the media, but they go to an encyclopedia to learn the details: what's going on in parliament? What political obstacles has Chavez faced in carrying out his "bolivarian revolution"? The very idea of the "missions" should be of special interest in the politics section, as it seems to be a way of doing politics that is fairly unique. Can someone who knows about such things fix this? --Skinny Fists 03:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Venezuela's map
A has been created for Wikipedia, the new one include the "Guayana Esequiba" zone and the political division, i guess this map can be use in the States article, you decide, Regards from Venezuela. Venex 13:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

States info in template
I may be a bit late in saying this, but though I appreciate all the work that went into making the very colorful template with the information of each state, I think a lot of it is not really relevant here (perhaps in the state own article). I mean, a reader that wants to learn about the country as a whole is not going to give a hut about the flags for all the individual states. Besides, most Venezuelans do not have any clue about the flag of the state where they live (I didn't even know we had them). The names, population, land extension and any other real info I think should go into a more simpler table that doesn't look so cluttered by such a carnival of colorful flags and emblems. --Anagnorisis 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Tierra de gracia?
The article says: "It has been claimed that Christopher Columbus was so enthralled by Venezuela's landscape, when arriving to its coast in 1498, that he referred to the land as Tierra de Gracia (Land of Grace), which has become the country’s nickname." This should be corrected because though often claimed, it is not exactly true. What Columbus called the area of Venezuela he explored was "Isla de Gracia" which means "Isle of Grace" and this was because (once again) Columbus made a mistake and thought that the continental land he had in front of him was an island. Read the Macuro article for info on this. Anagnorisis 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Dates are wrong (politics)
The oil strike began on december 2002, not 2001. The very same year of the coup.

Voter Turnout
My sources for low voter turnout of 25% in the 2005 parliamentary elections, compared to 50 to 60% are and I believe pro-Chavez groups are saying that it is much higher.

On another note, can we move the political debate to another page? (ie. Bolivarian_Revolution or Politics_of_Venezuela) It takes too much space in the main article. Spaceriqui 06:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Given that government employees, of whom there are a great number in Venezuela, were forced to go to the polling places, 25% may be an exaggeration of Chavez's popularity. However, the question is now moot since Chavez now controls all power, except some media which is now partially coerced. El Jigüe 12/30/05

One could say the very same things--and worse--about US-Republicans. (payed off media, released media ownership controls, ties to the voting-machine companies) DO a GOOGLE search: Hugo Chavez, Approval Rating "A poll carried out between Feb 19 and March 2 [2005] put Chavez 's approval rating at 70.5%". . . 77% ... 68% ... These are Gallup-style polls, not voting booths. ..

The criticisms of Hugo Chavez should be toned down--would you put anti-Bush sections in the article on the USA? 05:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)1/4/06

So why don't you say such things on the US page? Just because they're not mentioned somewhere does it mean that they shouldn't be mentioned here? Do two wrongs make a right?

And what does the US have to do with anything? Why bring that up? What is this international obssession with the United States?

Piotr

Politics vs. Gov't
I suggest breaking up the politics section into a government and politics section, in an effort to make these chunks more manageable. We should focus more on the Gov't aspect on the main page, and eventually move the more controversial sections of political life (ie Chavez) off the main page.

Check out the United States and the Venezuela entries as examples. What do others think? - Spaceriqui 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I added some info on the coup
I added that all but one tv station was owned by the gouverment

The State tv owned station hade been run over

And that the private stations lied, they said that there were people bellow the bridge and that the people on the bridge were fireing on the people bellow the bridge

First they did not show that the people on the bridge hade been fired upon earlier by snipers from a house

Second they did not show that there were no people bellow the bridge

Third they did not show that the snipers hade wounded and killed some of the people on the bridge

The offices of the state owned television station had noticeably been left deserted, which brought the attention of some of the media (some reporters entered the VTV building in los Ruices with their camera crews to show this before the national guard arrived to protect the television equipment from raiders);

The people on the bridge were indeed firing below, and there is nothing to indicate that there were no people under the bridge at that time. Where you there when it happened, in the demonstration?

As to the rest, I don't know where you are getting that from.

Piotr

It hade not been left deserted it hade been over run

on the swedish version of the discovery channel the knowledge channel they showed the whole thing

It hade not been left deserted it hade been over run

And the other camera view is not disputed i saw it with my own 2 eyes they showed the whole picture

You could clrealy see that there was no one bellow because the video shows that no one is bellow whilst the guy is fireing see there were many cameras from many diffren angels and some showed the whole picture whils others didnt

And the fact that you didnt know that the gouverment tv station hade been over run is an indicator that you do not know the full story maybe because you live in Venezuela or the USA

I will try and find the diffrent videos and upload them for you so that you can see with your own eyes what happened

The knowledge channel showed both what the private owned channels showed and also showed what really happened

Deng jan 16 2006 08.50 CET

Also the swedish nation channel made a docomentry about the whole thing in 2003 and that docomentry won several international tv prices

If you can read swedish you can read about some of it here

http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=9405&a=229307

Also if i fail in finding the videos you can allways write to the swedish television via email and ask them to send you a copy of the video.

Deng jan 16 2006 09.10 CET

So, let me see if I understand here- you are telling me about what happened in my country, where I was, where people I know were touched by the events? You, who most probably had no clue that on that April 11th what was happening was happening? ¡No, chico!

http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200311161345

http://www.vcrisis.com/?content=letters/200311242008

If the station was overrun, then why was there no one to resist the invaders?

Piotr

First you shouldnt put your feet so deep into your mouth because when i get the money to copy the VHS tape which i got to a dvd disc and then upload the pictures you might choke on you ankles.

The gouverment agency was overrun by military supporting the private industry, no one can fight the military they have guns tanks and artilery so resitance would have meant death but i do believe when you see the pictures you will change your mind but who knows maybe not.

Deng 21-01-06 10.45 CET

Really now? Does it say who those military where? Where do you reckon they were "military suporting the private industry", hm? I think I have not seen the very same video you describe, but I reckon that it was the National Guard, as I said before, rushing to protect equipment from raiders (raiders are a common menace to property in my country, especially during troubled times). The station was DESERTED when the other media that had arrived; IE, THERE WAS NOBODY FROM THE TELEVISION STATION THERE WHEN THE NATIONAL GUARD CAME IN.

I think the question you should be asking yourself is "how could a President bring into effect military equipment, guns, tanks, the works, against unarmed civilians already well-contained by the National Guard and other security forces?" That is the reason that the bulk of the military high command disobeyed Chávez; they refused to massacre the populace. While there may have probably been several conspiracies to untrhone Chávez, the events of April 11th were not the result of one of them. Chávez was seeking to declare a State of Emergency, which would allow him to rule by decree, when he ordered the activation of Plan Avila as well as the shootings from the rooftops, he wanted to create the illusion of a civil war. This you can all gather from the hearings of the military high command, the President's general attitude as well as one of several months prior, the government's refusal to allow investigations into the identity of rooftop snipers (even by independent entities- all attempts have been silenced), the pre-recorded national network chain (presented during the shootings so as to prevent the broadcasting of the images), the sudden and illegal decision to pull the plug of the signals of all network stations after the splitting of the screen, etc. Carmona had no aspirations to the Presidency; this can be evidenced by the fact that he had no new government plan prepared prior to his nomination to the Presidency by the Armed Forces (his decrees were hastily drawn and declared in a few hours). Chávez was gone, as well as his loyal military right hand; the laws dictating what should be done in this case were hazy and unclear; thus, there was nothing illegal in the naming of someone to the post of President in this situation. Carmona´s big mistake, of course, was dissolving the main institutions formed under Chávez, or, rather, the main government institutions in place (such as the National Assembly). It was this in part that caused the high military to withdraw their support for Carmona, and which also in turn allowed for Chávez's loyalists to storm the Presidential Palace.

I bet the video you watched "neglected" to bring up much of this information. If not, then they were as misinformed as the rest of the world.

Piotr

WikiProject Venezuela
I'm looking forward to found the WikiProject Venezuela. I had the idea of creating it when I first made the portal. The project will have the main objective of centrating efforts into a more complete information and a higher quality of the articles in Wikipedia, other media in the sister projects, and the portal itself.

However, the rules say that I should have at least five to ten members willing to integrate and contribute to the wikiproject. So if some of you guys want to join in, then leave me a message, or in this page. I will be back in a few days to see how things are going on.

Go to Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects and list yourselves if you are willing to join.

--Alex Coiro 05:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

New flag
The new 8 star flag is posted, but could someone change the crest. The white horse is now facing leftward head looking forward instead of facing rightward looking behind. 69.51.153.89 18:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's best if we wait until we have an accurate flag and COA image until we switch them out. If you can help provide information as to what the new COA & flag should look like, Commons:Image talk:Flag of Venezuela.svg would be the best place to share that info, though I'll watch this page and relay what should be. &brvbar; Reisio 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just heard about this too. It was in the Newspaper in Barbados today. Chavez's revolution galloping along - CaribDigita 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This section says that the eighth star on the new flag represents the province of Guyana. When I click on the link for "Guyana," it takes me to an article on the country of Guyana, not the Guiana Highlands or whatever. I know next to nothing about Venezuela (which is why I was reading the article!) but I think that, unless the Guyana province referred to here represents the land disputed with the country of Guyana (the land west of the Essequibo river), that this link may be misleading. Also, btw: is there a "province of Guyana"? I could only find articles on Venezuelan "states", but nothing on "provinces". Is this province one that would be created after Venezuelan annexation of the trans-Essequibo region? Some kind of clarification on this stuff would be helpful. Thanks.

Pending the creation of an article on a province called Guyana to which this word could link, I've made the link to the nation of Guyana into plaintext. If this was the wrong thing for me to do, please feel free to revert it. Rinne na dTrosc 02:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this BBC article and a comment here, the new star is for the former province of Guayana (note the a before the y) which consisted of today's Venezuelan states of Bolívar State, Amazonas State and Delta Amacuro State. There is also a mention of this province in the article on the First_Republic_of_Venezuela. Dayv 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there any resason not to update this article with the new graphic displayed at Flag_of_Venezuela? Dayv 02:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Heraldically, the terms "left" and "right" are the opposite of what an ordinary person would use. They're for the imaginary knight holding the shield -- his left, his right. This came up in the USA when a federal shield with a bison on it was reversed by James Watt under some Republican administration. The image shows the horse facing the heraldic right. Now this may have been done because it faces to the left for the ignorant viewer, but a source is needed to verify this detail. But always in describing shields, it's the heraldic terminology that is used.

Having 3 different articles
Im proposing a new way of handling this topic. On the main page, you give some UNPOLITICAL facts about venezuela, much like cia world factbook. Then, the reader can choose between a number of more detailed articles of venezuela WITH POLITICAL BIAS. For example, you add 3 buttons at the bottom of the main text with LEFTIST, CENTRIST and RIGHTIST point of view of the political/historical events. Readers can now choose whatever view they want to click on and read on. This NPOV thing simply doesnt exist when one is discussing politics. Its an illusion to think that you can take a neutral stance when it comes to venezuela. And i think that this "LEFTIST RIGHTIST CENTRIST" concept should be introduced in ALL politically loaded articles. 131.130.138.246 14:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Korreboy


 * Now you can come and argue what is leftist and what is rightist, but i think that its easier for rightist wikipediaists to find a concensus-article among themselves, and publish it, rather than for rightists to try to find a middle road with leftists. Besides, its more informative to read different opinions rather than one so called NPOV article heavily contested such as this one.131.130.138.246 14:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms
May someone post the right coat of arms? I removed the coat which was included in the infobox template because it was inacurate (the horse is facing forward in the new coat of arms). Thanks. Equinoxe 23:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I found the new coat of arms on CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/03/12/chavez.flag.ap/ Although I do not see the African machete or other editions said to have been added. Imperial78

Editing the infobox?
Excuse my ignorance, but how do I edit the contents of the infobox? I want to put the numbers into SI (ISO 31, ISO 1000) format. I can't seem to find the contents on the Edit pages.Blaise 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here --84.249.252.211 17:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Err...
"There are hundreds of thousands of people living in Venezuela, and most are from African countries." What the hell is that supposed to mean? --84.249.252.211 17:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume it means that there are hundreds of thousands of people living in Venezuela that can trace their ancestry to African countries 67.53.75.42 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that is true, but still the statement "There are hundreds of thousands of people living in Venezuela, and most are from African countries." is not accurate.--Ozzyprv 05:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Continent Map
The Continent map (where Venezuela is colored green) is wrong. Notice Lake Maracaibo, the "hole aperture" at the top of the lake is too wide. This map needs to be redone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.22.213 (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Old snapshot
I've just finished copyediting a 1914 encyclopedia article on Venezuela. It's not much practical use, but it may interest some as an example of what was being written about the country 90 years ago. I note it contains a section on education; whilst we have a list of universities in Venezuela, we don't seem to have an education article for the country at all. Hmm... Shimgray | talk | 22:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
This Page needs to be rewritten and updated. badly.

Bolivarian?
What does Bolivarian mean in the name of the state? Could this be explained in the origins section? --Eddylyons 19:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Simón Bolívar, obviously. ;) &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 00:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: It's already explained in the infobox, but it was likely unreadable to you due to the double-small text size. I've changed that. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 00:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)