Talk:Venezuela/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Acting President of Venezuela Juan Gerardo Guaido Marquez

There is a discrepancy of information the acting president of Venezuela is Juan Gerardo Guaido Marquez as of January 11, 2019. He is also the National Assembly president and as stated in his Wikipedia profile “As President of the National Assembly of Venezuela, on January 10th 2019, Guaidó assumed the role of Acting President of Venezuela under Article 233 of The Constitution of Venezuela.” This has to be amended immediately as the Venezuelan constitution articles 333, 233, and 350 allow for this scenario to be official. For a more formal reference contact the Organization of American States (OEA) whose president Luis Almagro recognized Acting President of Venezuela Juan Guaido as of this afternoon.

(Above was unsigned)

I believe this would be premature.

31.50.104.133 (talk)

Imaginary President Juan Gusano already has his own page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:a442:581e:1:1d02:5e6:f97a:b4f3 (talk) 06:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Several Latin American member states and observer states of the OEA have also demanded the resignation of Luis Almagro specifically for his conduct regarding Venezuela and Nicaragua, in violation of the OEA charter which requires non-interference and peace, so I'm not sure he's exactly the authority here. Perhaps we should take into consideration that Nicolás Maduro was democratically elected to be president and is recognized as the president by the overwhelming majority of the world's governments. -- SatanicSanta 01:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh also he has had a nice career working for the CIA and DEA: http://www.redvolucion.net/2019/05/01/luis-almagro-el-agente-secreto-de-la-cia/ -- SatanicSanta 01:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

uprisinging in venezuela

The offical and acting president { for the most part anyway ] has had a uprising in venezuela with opposition troops and protests and on the last day of apirl even more since its national workers day and so far i can see that havnt been added in yet.

It's true that on April 30, Guaido attempted to exercise his claimed presidential authority over the armed forces. The outcome showed who actually holds power in Venezuela, and it is NOT Juan Guaido. Yet the infobox on this page of ours still has Guaido's name directly under the heading "President"... How to move forward on this? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

The infobox on the page 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis describes Maduro's team as "incumbent". Seems a concise way of describing the factual situation, which news media express in phrases like "clinging to power". The infobox on the page Nicolás Maduro also calls him "incumbent". Why not use the same word in the infobox here? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong flag and coat

The coat of arms should bear machetes and bows in the yellow field. Vaatdoek93 (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Escudo_de_Armas_de_Venezuela_2006.png#mw-jump-to-license Vaatdoek93 (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Aircraft registration code/Road vehicle code - YV

I've just learned the aircraft registration code for Venezuela is YV. Indeed, YV seems to indicate Venezuela in some situations, e.g., on a sticker on one's luggage to indicate one has visited that country. Or road vehicles. I am unsure how to edit this article to include that information. See, e.g., YV, or ISO_3166-1_alpha-2, or International vehicle registration code. Bdushaw (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Article reads as if written by CIA/U.S. State Dept

This article is so laughably biased in a reactionary right wing pro-U.S. government vein as to utterly lack any accuracy or balance. As another person has mentioned below, there is not a single entry in the article that details the ongoing U.S. government sabotage and interference in Venezuelan elections, economy, and politics. Right now some of the most extreme sanctions have been implemented by the Obama and Trump regimes totally crippling the Venezuelan economy. But does this crap Wiki entry mention anything about these crushing sanctions when bitching about how bad their economy is? No! Nothing. It is obvious that the US government is trying to do another one of their 'regime change' operations in Venezuela through sanctions to force an internal coup; but Wikipedia is so infested with State Dept trolls that they won't allow these important basic facts to be discussed here. The whole article seems like it was written by a U.S. State Dept employee. Probably not a single actual Venezuelan worked on it. Total crap hit piece. Disgraceful for rubbish such as this to be pawned off as "encyclopedic". This came directly from U.S. Ministry of Propaganda :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deschutes Maple (talk • contribs) 14:33, 09 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular you'd like to see changed? Remember that anything you want to add should be neutrally written and verifiable in reliable sources. Cheers, -- irn (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It might help if sources like Granma and TeleSur were treated as RSes to the same extent that American papers are. Or if, alternatively, we cut all the newspapers out of the sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree. -- SatanicSanta 01:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you trolling? Hegsareta (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Trolling is the internet word for winding people up, a kind of typed out prank phone call. I don't see what's "trolling" about pointing out that the United States is not the Arbiter of truth. 2A02:A442:581E:1:1D02:5E6:F97A:B4F3 (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia was invented by citizens of the United States. We will write whatever we want in our encyclopedia. 173.31.203.116 (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. I encourage people to compare this article with those of other Latin American countries, the anti-Venezuela bias is immediately obvious. Just check out the intro for the article on Colombia, you would think it was a paradise and Venezuela an absolute hell hole. Also the sources used are laughably flimsy. Almost no peer reviewed articles or articles / books by regional experts, but rather fluffy hit pieces from CNN money and Bloomberg. Give me a break. They're about one step away from using Fox News as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.165.198.121 (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The spanish version of the site reads alot more true to fact, and by being true to fact it, in an unbiased way, properly describes the degradation of the country under Chavez and Maduro. I don't know where you're getting your news from. If you have any doubts I invite you to Medellín, Colombia. We have tons of our venezuelan brothers here who have fled the repression, starvation, and violence endemic now in the country. Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is also one-sided, i think; but the source dw.com normally tries to be neutral; and it seems to still be a nice overview (and many useful further links). Maybe it is worth to add to the 'See also' links ? But again, it does seem one-sided and i don't know. --- A visitor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.107.223 (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that using Bloomberg, or the Wall Street Journal as a source for a socialist country is a joke. These sources are mouthpieces for the capitalist agenda. If it's a socialist country and you want to express a socialist opinion use a socialist newspaper like the Militant, which has been around for 75+ years, or others. Then you will get an opinion which matches the country. This entire article reads like a pro-reactionary pro-USA propaganda piece. I signed up to have a Wikipedia profile just to try and fix this article which was so badly anti-revolutionary Venezuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwickman76 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

US Dollar as a currency

Should we add the US Dollar as a currency? Studies have found over 50% of all transactions in Venezuela are conducted using US Dollars, and even Maduro acknowledged the dollarization of Venezuela in an official speech two months ago. Thegunkid (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Crime and Organized Crime

Besides the usual purse snatching crimes, Organized Crime has now resorted to direct 80 to 90 dba acoustic overload through the use of none compliant generators in residencial zones (45 to 55 dba) to force residents to sell cheaply.

Some of those targetted are those with guard dogs that hindered night entree and robbery, others, those alleged to have 10 bucks per day more to live on then them. Other Organized Crime bosses target Dollar sections, demanding any amount to reduce harashment, and use the poorest sections in society to putz that harashment in a very, very similar form that that was done by white/arabic/mediterranean descendent crime bosses in Colombia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.127.72 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The "A murder takes place every 21 minutes" is frankly absurd to put as the first sentence here. -The already questionable source makes no mention of such a by-minute statistic. -It's stated in the present tense as if the source isn't over 6 years old. -It's phrased in absolutely the buzziest, least professional way possible. -It's not even strictly accurate, no use of "approximately" or "on average" make it comes across like literally exactly every 1260 seconds a person is murdered, like by some deliberate sacrificial time keeping machine. You could cut this line entirely and the subsequent sentences still make it clear how high the murder rate is and do a much better job of explaining it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinetalPies (talk • contribs) 11:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Roman coins?

The wiki page for Pedro Alvares Cabron includes this remarkable claim;

' Roman coins have been found in today's Venezuela, northwest of Brazil, presumably from ships that were carried away by storm in ancient times.'

If this is true, then surely it should be included in Venezuela's pre-conquest history?Dean1954 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh - what wiki page: Pedro Alvares Cabron? Vsmith (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC) OK - this one Pedro Álvares Cabral. Vsmith (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC) and I've made a redirect page for the one lacking the Á now. Vsmith (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 'Cabral' But how reliable is this claim of roman coins in Venezuela? Should it be in the history of the country, or is it just a rumour?Dean1954 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2020

Hi,

Please update the population of venezuela since it is not correct. Change <<increase>> to <<decrease>> Current sources indicate population of venezuela to ~28.4million for July 2nd of 2020 (today). Change the IMF source since it is not of 2018 but of 2019. Current national official projection dates back to a projection made in 2011. Population world ranking and other statistics are impacted.

Thank you.

Best regards, Santelli 20:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide a direct link to the source you are referring to. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (sock)

Hi,

Please visit https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Files/1_Indicators%20(Standard)/EXCEL_FILES/1_Population/WPP2019_POP_F01_1_TOTAL_POPULATION_BOTH_SEXES.xlsx and see that the current estimation is different: 28887117.

The current national authority for statistics webpage is partially unavailable, for some browsers or locations, you have to turn ON/OFF cookies or do private navigation in some browsers to avoid the bugs on that webpage. That's why.

In such case of partial unavailabity: Why don't we put for the case of Venezuela an UN projection stat since access is more stable and current one (2020) ? Please note the projection of Venezuela that was made on 2011 by the goverment was a static projection until 2050, this disrupts factual information. (see the webpage file http://www.ine.gov.ve/documentos/Demografia/SituacionDinamica/Proyecciones/xls/Entidades/Nacional.xls)

Regards, Santelli 09:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Hi, the user that responded to your request was a sockpuppet. The estimates of the UN and the gov't seem to be off only by one person, so I'm not sure its necessary to make your edit.

Order of the major cities

Hi

The real date acording with stats of the INE are:

1 Caracas 2 Maracaibo 3 Barquisimeto 4 Valencia 5 Ciudad Guayana 6 Maturín

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debray05 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Massive American PSYOPS social media campaign shut down by Facebook

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/09/06/cls-strategies-facebook-propaganda-venezuela-bolivia/

This is apparently the first time an American social media campaign has been shut down as astroturf by a major social media company.

Is there any evidence they were editing here? 2601:647:5E00:C5A0:8D53:B3C1:D158:57FC (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably. Carptrash (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 16 September 2020

Please change "In December 2017, President Maduro declared that leading opposition parties will be barred from taking part in next year's presidential vote after they boycotted mayoral polls" to "In December 2017, President Maduro declared that leading opposition parties would be barred from taking part in the following year's presidential vote after they boycotted mayoral polls." It's not 2017 any more. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:1CF3:805E:2FE:FEF9 (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Please change "the Trump administration indicted Maduro and several Venezuelan officials with drug trafficking" to "the Trump administration indicted Maduro and several Venezuelan officials on a charge of drug trafficking". Correct grammar. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:1CF3:805E:2FE:FEF9 (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2020

Recommendation # 1: Recommend the following notes be removed: "Notes

1. Recognized as president by the National Constituent Assembly, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the National Electoral Council, National Bolivarian Armed Forces and the United Nations.[3]
2. Recognized as president by the National Assembly and the Supreme Tribunal in Exile."

With the exception of the "Supreme Tribunal of Justice in Exile" (a group that has no legal authority in Venezuela), none of these groups/orginizations has declared support for Juan Guaido's claim to the Presidency. And in fact, as groups and organizations have supported the Maduro Presidency since 2017.

In addition, the only reference cited ("...United Nations.[3]") is a report of the UN Credentials Committee officially recognizing Maduro's appointed ambassador.

If the notes are left to stand, they need to be sourced, not posted as stand alone statements.

Recommendation # 2: In view of the fact Maduro remains the duly elected, de facto President, has authority over the country's military and other governmental agencies, and is recognized as the de facto President by the United Nations, recommend that the statistical column on the right side of page remove Guaido's name as a President of Venezula and maintain that of Maduro (remove "disputed"). Guaido's story and claims rightly belong in the body of the page text, but not recognized by Wikipedia as an actual President.

"Government Federal dominant-party

               presidential constitutional republic

• President Nicolás Maduro

              Remove:
               "(disputed)[n 1]
               Juan Guaidó
               (disputed)[n 2]"

• Vice President Delcy Rodríguez

               (constitutional position disputed)"

Errol1014 (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Wikipedia is not recognizing Guaidó as the legitimate president. We are merely representing what the reliable sources say, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. See WP:NPOV. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Under external links, an archived version of the Gobierno en Línea web portal is given because the website was down for several years.

It has been re-launched and is available at http://gobiernoenlinea.gob.ve/

Please replace the archived link with the current, working website. Thank you!

--23.28.91.150 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC) 23.28.91.150 (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

All set. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Socialism

If we ever get to the point to explain why Venezuela failed, we should say socialism ABruhRandomUser (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

...any concrete suggestions for the article? That's what the talk page is for. It's not at all a secret that Maduro is part of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela and he is quite often blamed for Venezuela's current state. But this article is about the country in its entirety. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

Include English as recognized language. Fernandmendi (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see reference in language section. English is the only compulsory language other than Castillan Spanish taught in schools at a national level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Venezuela#cite_ref-ReferenceA_5-0Fernandmendi (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

A mandatory subject in school, a subject students have to study, isn't "recognition". Largoplazo (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a mandatory subject in syllabi nationwide that all local students have to not only study, but in most cases, master at some point. Especially for the high-skilled workforce. In addition, Venezuela is a tourist destination in the region where the main language spoken with visitors is English. That's what defines the word "recognition"Fernandmendi (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Mathematics and history are also subjects all students have to study and, presumably, are expected to master. But that isn't what "recognized" means. (Imagine saying that Latin was ever a "recognized" language in any part of the US or the UK just because secondary schools required students to study it.) That English is important for international business communications and talking to tourists is generally true around the world and is a simple fact involving no bestowal of recognition.

When it comes to languages, recognition implies, roughly, some formal provision allowing them to be used for specified purposes, requiring services to be supplied in them in specified circumstances, or granting support to communities using those languages:

• allowing them to be used in courtroom testimony
• allowing them to be used by legislators in session
• providing that civil servants be available to offer services to citizens in those languages
• offering public education in those languages to students who primarily speak them
• allowing municipalities to conduct their official affairs in those languages
• and so forth.

Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Definitely, English may be broadly taught, in a very "passive" manner (more on that in a moment), but it is not widely spoken or recognized. You cannot expect to be able to work only in English (except in very specific circumstances, for example, as an English teacher or as an employee in an Embassy or Consulate), to run errands in English, to do shopping in English... Some people are able to handle the language fluently, but they are a minority. English is taught in most schools in a "passive" manner: Students are presented with a simplified English grammar, and they repeat pre-built sentences and structures over and over and over without being required to use their brains to speak the language in a constructive way. They memorize some vocabulary, they learn patterns, they learn conjugation of some verbs... and they use all the information just to pass tests that they have to pass (if they pass them), but nothing else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.119.82.61 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Private Sector

In the Economy section, it is noted that, "The private sector controls two-thirds of Venezuela's economy." The source is the 267th reference, which is attributed to the Associated Press in the corresponding footnote but links to this Fox News article. The article itself provides no source for its statement; it merely claims the Central Bank of Venezuela has estimated the private sector's proportion to be such. I scoured the Internet and could not verify this statistic. Unless anyone else can, I see no reason why this sentence should stay on the page. Wiki Vicki99 (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Guaido's claim

It's been over two years now & there seems little to no chance, that President Maduro is going to be replaced by Guaido. Perhaps it's time to delete the pretender (for lack of better word) from the infobox & make similar edits to related articles? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

While the start of the claim was an attempt to remove Maduro from power, the presidential crisis undoubtedly continues and it has had repercussions in the appointment and recognition of diplomats abroad (most notably the Organization of American States, where up to this day Guaidó's ambassador represents Venezuela). As such, the note should stay to acknowledge the dispute. Regardless, there are currently talks between the government and the opposition in Mexico and there are regional elections scheduled for November. A change of this dynamic could be expected in a couple of months, if not weeks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

There is an information about 2 million Venezuelans have left the country that is now shown as six million Venezuelan in the same reference Ravensteind (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2021

change "The government populist social welfare policies were bolstered by soaring oil prices,[16]" to "The government's populist social welfare policies were bolstered by soaring oil prices,[16]" Andrewhshade (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Largoplazo (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Related RfC

Please see:

• Talk:Juan_Guaidó#RfC:_Is_Juan_Guaido_still_interim_president_of_Venezuela?

--David Tornheim (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I've put in an overdo request for closure on that RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"Dictatorship" claims?

What basis or evidence is there for the claims made in the infobox that Venezuela is under a de facto dictatorship? It feels like these biased edits, in spite of Wikipedia's clear WP:NPOV laws, are made more and more frequently on this page despite evidence in Venezuela to the contrary, including a democratic mega-election that happened just under a month ago in which prominent opposition parties participated and were even elected to multiple local and state governments in some states.

The only foundation I see for Venezuela living under a current dictatorship is the narrative coming from biased Western media, which of course is not a viable source and continuously undermines the democratic process in the region. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

Please Change The election in 1973 of Carlos Andrés Pérez coincided with an oil crisis, in which Venezuela's income exploded as oil prices soared; oil industries were nationalized in 1976. This led to massive increases in public spending, but also increases in external debts, which continued into the 1980s when the collapse of oil prices during the 1980s crippled the Venezuelan economy.

To The election in 1973 of Carlos Andrés Pérez coincided with an oil crisis, in which Venezuela's income exploded as oil prices soared. The country enjoyed for a while accelerated economic growth, improved living standards and significant immigration from neighboring countries. As in other oil producing countries, oil industries were nationalized in 1976. This influx of money led to massive increases in public spending, but also increases in external debts, which continued into the 1980s when the collapse of oil prices during the 1980s crippled the Venezuelan economy. Pedrimonto (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, here is a quote that might help:

"Venezuela was one of the main profiteers of the commodities boom during the 2000s, with oil going from $10 to $140 per barrel between 1998 and 2007, earning over one trillion dollars in oil revenue in a decade for the government. GDP grew 18% in 2004, 10% in 2005, 9% in 2006 and 2007 – not even China managed to reach 18%."

Source:

The Venezuela Economic Miracle: A Realistic or Unachievable Dream? | Cornell Johnson Pedrimonto (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago

I suggest adding the word "offshore" to the sentence listing neighboring states and waters, so it reads "...Trinidad and Tobago offshore to the North-East, and ..." for clarity. Rdelwiche (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Largoplazo (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

German colonists

Working on unGermaning this ... Which is definitely a terrible machine translation from somewhere, perhaps the German-language source in that section. Still need to check that. I am in here at the moment to mention that the wikilinked articles in that section contain fairly lucid accounts of these events. Note plural: they are not completely in agreement with one another. I find this bit of history interesting and notable, but perhaps not completely WP:DUE for a top-level article. On the other hand I don't want to just paste in from the daughter articles, because what's the point of that? For the moment I think that I -- and anyone else who chooses to work on this problem -- should straighten out the facts, then work on summarizing. There is also the question of where the text is that was translated, as it is very very similar to that in one of the daughter articles, and should be checked for a copyvio. Other questions: was the money a loan, and the rights given as payment, or was the territory collateral for the loan? Was this king/emperor prone to executing his creditors? Wasn't El Dorado in Mexico or Central America? Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I have verified that the text was not translated from the German-language source. Elinruby (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Angel falls

It is the world's tallest uninterrupted waterfall, with a height of 979 metres (3,212 ft) and a plunge of 807 m (2,648 ft). The waterfall drops over the edge of the Auyán-tepui mountain in the Canaima National Park (Spanish: Parque Nacional Canaima), a UNESCO World Heritage site in the Gran Sabana region of Bolívar State. The height figure, 979 m (3,212 ft), mostly consists of the main plunge but also includes about 400 metres (1,300 ft) of sloped cascade and rapids below the drop and a 30-metre-high (100 ft) plunge downstream of the talus rapids. 60.254.0.158 (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• National anthem of the Venezuela.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

change "In the 16th century, during the Spanish colonization, indigenous peoples such as many of the Mariches, themselves descendants of the Kalina, converted to Roman Catholicism" to "In the 16th century, during the Spanish colonization, indigenous peoples such as many of the Mariches, themselves descendants of the Kalina, were converted to Roman Catholicism" under German colonization. Ipsitad (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2022

Change "for by president" to "by president". It's been wrong since: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Venezuela&diff=1040938757&oldid=1040754781

 Done Largoplazo (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Venezuelan Government.

I don't think a federal republic would just cut it. Venezuela is definitely more authoritarian, with its rule being described as dictatorial. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree personally. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It got added thankfully a couple days ago. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Government

Under its government it should say ”Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship” instead of just “Federal presidential republic”. 67.246.161.112 (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea. That involves some pretty complicated value judgements that we'd best avoid. Carptrash (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done as per content in lead and article .....more sources added to bulk up and for educational reference. Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian regime

References

I disagree. A statement like "authoritarian regime" is a charged statement subject to heavy debate and, like Carptrash stated, vulnerable to NPOV discussions (not the most neutral of statements). Venezuela is also not a semi-presidential republic, because it has no prime minister. It is a full presidential republic. I think Venezuela should be classified a federal semi-presidential republic as before and left to interpretation of its situation through the lead. -HandIsNotNookls (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Any source for this POV? /// "heavy debate " is BS. Lets stay clear of guess work and fallow the sources. Lets not remove sources because we dont like the content....leave the sources so our readers can learn about what is going on. Very odd to blank sources out of the blue 3 times you have removed this longstanding content.Moxy- 13:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I've removed this info 3 times because this same discussion has already been had to exhaustion multiple times on this talk page. The consensus each time has been to remove anything except the mention of a federal presidential republic to maintain neutrality. This is not "longstanding content" and is not consensus on this Wikipedia page.

Suggesting that I'm removing this information because I "don't like the content" is a disingenuous argument and unfortunate to see on Wikipedia. De jure, regardless of opinion, Venezuela is constitutionally a democratic presidential republic with regular elections. Whether these elections are actually valid or not can easily be discussed in the lead or within the article's body. No need to skew the reader's opinion by putting one side of a heavily disputed argument in the lead of an article's infobox. Readers should be able to appreciate both sides of a situation.

Again, for the record, I vote to remove the "authoritarian regime" excerpt from the article's infobox, as previous discussions have yielded. Another suggestion could also be to place a note in the infobox stating that the current government's validity is questioned and that some consider it authoritarian. But I do not agree with writing it directly in the infobox.

I hope this added to the discussion. Let's try to please keep a healthy, constructive dialogue from here forth. After all, this topic interests all of us the same. HandIsNotNookls (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Need to refute the sources. Cannot simply ignore them at a whim. Moxy- 00:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I started looking at the sources and one seems to be by an opposition leader, hardly neutral, and another states, "Ever since Hugo Chávez came to power, scholars and policy experts have debated about whether the regime in Venezuela should be characterized as an authoritarian one." Again, not really a ringing endorsement. I agree with HandIsNotNookls, that stuff should go. Carptrash (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Bull shit ...got a source for that POV. see List of freedom indices

Country	Freedom in the World 2022	2022 Index of Economic Freedom	2022 Press Freedom Index	2021 Democracy Index
Venezuela	5 not free	5 repressed	5 very serious situation	5 authoritarian regime

Moxy- 14:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The quote I included is from a source already there, #2. Also I think using language such as "Bull shit" is not a good idea. Carptrash (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

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) 22:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

References

"President Nicolás Maduro (disputed)"

Presently the infobox gives "President: Nicolás Maduro (disputed)".

Seriously, this isn't much disputed anymore, is it? It is like saying in the US article: "President: Joe Biden (disputed)", as Trumphers still dipute the 2020 election.

If I don't have any serious objections: I will remove the "disputed" link, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Huldra (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The 2018 Venezuelan presidential elections were internationally questioned, while Trump's challenge to the presidency had far less repercussions and support. I'll restore the subtitle. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Fix misspelling

Under German Colonization, fix 2nd to last line: The Welsers transported German miners to the colony, in addition to 4,000 African slaves to paint sugar cane plantations.

to The Welsers transported German miners to the colony, in addition to 4,000 African slaves to plant sugar cane plantations. 2600:1702:9D0:A40:DD19:F5BC:CDBA:E82F (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Largoplazo (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Venezuela Product Exports (2019).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Etymology - Little Venice

In the 16th Century there was a colony called Klein-Venedig (q.v.), which is the German rendition of Little Venice. So it would help the discussion of the Little-Venice theory of the name Venezuela if the existing discussion had dates for when the two different etymology hypotheses arose and for a bonus, it would help if the German colony's name would also be accounted for. Cardiffman (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19

It would help to have a history update, including the country's response to the pandemic as well as more recent financial conditions. Kdammers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Telenovelas

I think there used to be a section for TV in Arts where Venezuela Telenovelas under the industry Venevision was put but now I can't find it; if not I think it should be added because Venezuela has produced many Telenovelas in the Spanish speaking world it can't be ignored Nlivataye (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should the infobox contain:

• Not disputed: President: Nicolás Maduro, or
• Disputed: President: Nicolás Maduro (disputed)

Huldra (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please vote:

• Not disputed; AFAIK, nobody seriously dispute this any more, Huldra (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Not disputed, that time seems to have passed.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Disputed, the results of the 2018 presidential elections are still disputed, both domestically and internationally. The fact that the presidential crisis ended does not mean that it did not happen. There are presidential elections again in 2024, so this can be revisited later regardless. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment December 31, 2022: Venezuelan opposition strips Juan Guaidó of ‘presidential’ role: "In a poll taken by Venezuela’s Andres Bello University in November, only 6% of Venezuelans said they would vote for Guaidó if he participated in presidential primaries next year".

Jan 5, 2023: U.S. no longer recognizes Guaidó as Venezuela's president, Biden official confirms. Hasn't this farce gone on long enough? Huldra (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That is completely unrelated to Maduro's recognition, which is another matter entirely, and does not answer the points that I raised. The United States, Canada and the United Kingdom, which so far have acknowledged Guaidó's removal, have reaffirmed that they only recognize the opposition Assembly as the only legitimate body in the country. Internationally, nations have not changed their stance towards Maduro because of this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see: it is disputed, there is just no person it is disputed with; LOL. And not recognising is != to that he isn't; ie lots of countries doesn't recognise North Korea, but it is still not disputed who is the leader there. Huldra (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

No need for the sardonic tone. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Reporting on this said: If approved next week, opposition lawmakers will then choose five representatives for the board of directors that will head assets held abroad, and Guaido's interim presidency, along with his government, will be removed.[2] In other words, not returning legitimacy to Maduro or dropping contestation of his election, just removing Guaido. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not disputed Who is the other party in this supposed dispute? Burrobert (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment It's not a matter of if there's another party in the dispute, but that Maduro's legitimacy to the position is disputed and remains internationally sanctioned as such, which is a fact that hasn't changed. The tag has been added as early as 12 January, weeks before Guaidó declared himself president. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Our Belarus article (see 25stargeneral below) says "disputed" next to the president's name despite absence of a single rival. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not disputed, it's been years since there was any kind of serious dispute over this. Loki (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• Not disputed. While there remains an opposition National Assembly, there is no remaining claimant to the role of President. The appropriate way to address arguments about the propriety of the 2018 election is in the body of the article (and it is already in the body of the article). JArthur1984 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
• Disputed More countries consider Maduro's presidency illegitimate than not, which warrants some mention. Where is this idea coming from that there has to be another claimant to the presidency for it to be considered disputed? That sounds like an arbitrary rule rather than any serious examination of reliable sources. That's not what happened at Belarus when Lukashenko's re-election was widely rejected by the international community, even though they didn't recognize Tsikhanouskaya. Whether it's in dispute is a matter of how reliable sources talk about legitimacy. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Not disputed. There is no serious dispute within the framework of the Venezuelan legal system. If we labeled someone as disputed simply because anyone, anywhere disputes their rule, we would end up with nonsense like Joe Biden being labeled as disputed as well. International sanctions are a bad metric to go by because it would mean we would label any leader as disputed the moment foreign governments start to push for regime change - the government of eg. the United States does not have any say whatsoever in whether the leader of Venezuela is legitimate or not. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• Not disputed. Disputed is different from illegitimate. Regardless of whether he was elected democratically or not, there is no longer any credible disputant. Questions about the legitimacy of Venezuelan elections should be covered in more detail in the body. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Afaict, we all agree that no one else claims to be president of Venezuela. So what is this so-called dispute about? It has been suggested, without evidence, that some foreign countries only recognise the opposition Assembly as the only legitimate body in Venezuela. Nevertheless, assuming this is accurate, why is the view of foreign countries relevant to the position of president of Venezuela? The people of Venezuela choose their president. We can include the views of these foreigners in the body of the article if we consider them sufficiently important. Burrobert (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Here are the sources for the United States (), Canada () and the United Kingdom for the comments that I did above ():

• Instead, they said the U.S. recognized the National Assembly elected in 2015, which Guaidó had led, as Venezuela's "only remaining democratically elected institution." (US)
• Canada respects and recognizes the decision of the National Assembly to extend its authority as it is the last democratically elected institution in Venezuela, elected by the Venezuelan people in 2015.
• We continue to consider the National Assembly elected in 2015 as the last democratically elected National Assembly in Venezuela, and we take note of the vote extending its mandate for another year. (UK)

At any rate, Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis#Recognition of opposition National Assembly can be consulted for support stances; not only for Guaidó at its moment, but also the opposition National Assembly. Even the Organization of American States has disavowed Maduro.

Likewise, it is misleading to characterize this rejection as only foreign. If you wish to know what does the Venezuelan people think, Movimiento Estudiantil, the Episcopal Conference of Venezuela() and the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce() have all disputed the last presidential elections (as well as NGOs such as Foro Penal, Súmate, Voto Joven, the Venezuelan Electoral Observatory and the Citizen Electoral Network), and polls that year showed that Maduro would lose by a wide margin. Parties were disqualified, opposition candidates were barred from running, and there were widespread irregularities. All of these reasons are why Maduro's position has been disputed in the first place. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The opinions of three Venezuelan groups from 2018 are not relevant to the current situation. Policy tells us that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and the article about Responses to the Venezuelan presidential crisis is a good example. According to that article, 48 countries still recognise Guaidó as president.Burrobert (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I referred to the Wikipedia article just as a reference for other users and not as a source to back up my claims, just as you can see 2018 Venezuelan presidential election#Opinion polls and see that I'm not merely talking about "three Venezuelan groups". The references in the section that you are looking for are the following:

Why are the opinions of foreign bodies from 2019 relevant to the discussion? Burrobert (talk) 14:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is very poor form to change or add to your comment after another editor has replied to it. You’re living in the past, man. You’re hung up on some clown from the 60’s, man! Burrobert (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the disrespect, it is not the first time that you mock replies. WP:TALK#REVISE establishes that an editor can edit own comments freely if these are done with a different style, just as I did. I underlined the text, as I first thought the convention was with italics, but other readers should already known the comment was added after the original comment. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the policy that you linked to? It says:

So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. ... But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided.

It then suggests ways you can add or change to your comments, one of which is underlining, which you only added text after I had pointed out your indiscretion. The policy then says

Best practice is to add a new timestamp ... after the original timestamp at the end of your post

which you have not done.

Anyway, all of this would have been unnecessary if you had just made a new comment.

By the way, it's a meme. Burrobert (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The people of Venezuela choose their president — this is false and I find it in poor taste. Maudro is a dictator who rigged the 2018 election in his favor. There was no legitimate choice. Hence why these "foreigners" you speak of have inconvenient "views". 25stargeneral (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Your outrage would be better directed at forces closer to your home, but that's an argument for the pub, not for a Wikipedia talk page. The idea that any country's citizen's should choose their own elected officials and that foreign countries should not interfere in that process is not controversial. There may even be some international laws which mention it. Burrobert (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

They should be able to choose, that's my point. Do you actually not understand that Venezuela is a dictatorship or are you trolling? 25stargeneral (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I literally just added above some few examples, of the many, of why the elections were not considered legitimate. Literally the article's introduction says outright that it is considered by some as a "sham election". If there were better conditions, that would have been another story. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually not understand that Venezuela is a dictatorship or are you trolling? My views on Venezuela are completely irrelevant as are yours. Burrobert (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I literally just added above some few examples ... Why are opinions from 2018 and 2019 relevant here? Burrobert (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

1) They're facts, not opinions. 2) The most recent presidential election was 2018. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "nobody knows the truth so it's all opinion and we might as well give a WP:FALSEBALANCE." There is such a thing as objective fact here, supported by overwhelming evidence. There is no uncertainty on this among scholars studying Venezuelan politics. 25stargeneral (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I haven't done one of these before, but will someone with access rights correct a grammar issue?

"It has a territorial extension of 916,445 km2" should be "Venezuela comprises an area of 916,445 km2" - could also be 'occupies', 'covers', etc. Spikespeigel42 (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

 Donedone bro Gwlaadhwylhwyl (talk) 09:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2023

Valleys (current text)

The Andean valleys are undoubtedly the most impressive of the Venezuelan territory because of the energy of the encasing reliefs, whose summits often dominate the valley bottoms by 3,000 to 3,500 meters of relative altitude. They are also the most picturesque in terms of their style of habitat, forms of land use, handicraft production and all the traditions linked to these activities. these activities[187]

Before reference 187, the clause "these activities" is incorrectly repeated before and after the period. Please correct this error. Niigata Paul (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, please change from

The Andean valleys are undoubtedly the most impressive of the Venezuelan territory because of the energy of the encasing reliefs, whose summits often dominate the valley bottoms by 3,000 to 3,500 meters of relative altitude. They are also the most picturesque in terms of their style of habitat, forms of land use, handicraft production and all the traditions linked to these activities. these activities[187]

to

The Andean valleys are undoubtedly the most impressive of the Venezuelan territory because of the energy of the encasing reliefs, whose summits often dominate the valley bottoms by 3,000 to 3,500 meters of relative altitude. They are also the most picturesque in terms of their style of habitat, forms of land use, handicraft production and all the traditions linked to these activities.[187]

Thank you Niigata Paul (talk) 12:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 13:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect to show "Guayana Esequibo" as part of Venezuela

As it is part of Guyana it should be unequivocally shown as such unless by wikipedia:consensus or whatever it is decided to have clearly changed hands. It hasn't. It shouldn't be shown as Venezuelan because by (lack of) international recognition, it currently isn't. Senjoro Nie (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Esequibo area should not be displayed as part of Venezuela!

Esequibo area still belongs to Guyana, displaying as part of Venezuela territory, even as "proclaimed" only helps sharing desinformation a Maduro's propaganda. The topic should be discussed, yes, but at a separated place, as a topoc itself, not at the Venezuelan main land map. 2A01:73C0:501:DF5A:9057:A56C:BB34:2DFC (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately a lot of Wikipedia's editors are far-left tankies though, so this is unlikely to change anytime soon. Not logged in 2 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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#Government. --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- 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's de jure 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- 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- 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:

• Is the presidency of Maduro currently disputed?

--David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Please, need your advice at Template talk:Country data Venezuela#V. Thank you in advance! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)