Talk:History of Venezuela

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject South America / Venezuela (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject History (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Top[edit]

See Talk:Venezuela for discussion on rolling back the bits about foreign governments and the Carter Center certification. DanKeshet 07:37, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Bad link[edit]

The external link is bad. Can anyone fix it?

First and Second Republic?[edit]

There is no information about the First or Second Venezuela Republics. I know they each lasted only around a year each, but i think it is worth mentioning, since after all the First Venezuelan Republic was the First Spanish American colony to declare it's independance.--ThrashedParanoid 16:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


A gap[edit]

This article goes straight from Gomez's death to the junta, saying that these two events were continuous but in fact this ommit Eleazar López Contreras and Isaías Medina Angarita

Maxmordon 16:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Complete the section on 20th century[edit]

The 20th Century Section needs lots of detail added. It currently skips many years.

Brianguy15 June, 11 2007

20th century section[edit]

65.7.251.29 // 11/21/2007 I would like to point out a few things:

1.- The section on Marcos Perez has a lot of erroneous interpretations, is very biased and lacks objectivity. For isntance, with the issue referring to his migratory policy. It was indeed very, very succesful, half the infrastructure standing today, and I mean today Nov 07, in Venezuela was built by Perez Jimenez, or conceived during his ruling, best example is the Bridge over Maracaibo Lake, on Zulia state, by far the most productive state in the entire nation. Largely, Italians and spaniards were the main involved in these projects, whether first or second generation. Such an example is the VinCler company, which laid half the roads that communicate our country. I am apolled to see that this article is so heavily biased and not written limiting to factual information, leaving aside personal believes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.251.29 (talk) 06:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 65.7.251.29 (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

2.- The issue of using pardo. This adjective has for decades not been utilized, is effectively obsolete. and has no meaning as far any current reader of these pages. I would suggest that as far as english is concerned, use the term mestizo, although inexact, is as close as you could phrase it in contemporaneous terms. Mestizo is NOT a derrogatory term, neither in spanish language nor in Venezuela (One of the countries in the world with the least racism or class distinctions). It might appear like that to english readers, but is not derrogatory.

3.- Any who reads this section comes under the impression that Perez Jimenez was a self-serving magalomaniac, who just so happened to want to imprint his name in history erecting buildings for Venezuela, and as a necessary consecuence we benefited from it. That is not true. this article is profoundly biased. I am a lover of democracy, but a fact remains, that no ruler or president, if you would, has done so much in so little time for Venezuela, none. Declarations during his exile in Madrid, from Marcos Perez himself are not quoted here. He clearly stated what his wishes were. It also understimates the role of foreigners as having little or no impact on Venezuela's economy, NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. At least 1 of every four contractors for oil companies in the Oriental coast of Maracaibo lake are italian or spanish in descent. Infrastructure, italian and spaniard, again. Biggest markets in Zulia, portuguese and italian. Banks, spanish and italins (to lesser degree). So there you have it.

4.- As per Pedro Estrada, not metioned here, he was in fact the one directing the seguridad nacional, and took care of keeping political dissidents under control. Still, Perez Jimenez did not occupy very much time or effort to suppress, since the dissidence was from AD, which was not really organized, nor his ruling was in any way characterized by any significant atrocities (Not even in the same ballpark with other latin-american rulers). Perez Jimenez is compared with Juan Vicente Gomez many times: What??? Those two are as similar as an apple and a bannana. Those comparisons are unfortunate.

the changes made on august 2007 specially those under 20th century are not verifiable, heavily bias, and definitely noe encyclopaedical. The content was written in first person, includes long passages of very non relevant stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.72.32.200 (talk) 16:13, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

They are all verifiable. The footnotes have been placed where they are available. It is impossible to review the entire collection of all Venezuelan dailies. I cannot do it from where I am any way. But I would like to see some concrete challenges. The criticism is not biased. I am what is called an "equal-opportunity" critic. I happen to be the author of two encyclopedic works: "The Historical Dictionary of World Political Geography" and the "Concise Encyclopedia of World History". What is not relevant? The Milk Plan maybe? I have given an accurate portrayal of why Venezuelan democracy led to the rise of Hugo Chavez. The use "I" has been eliminated

122.163.190.193 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Dr. Carlos Ramirez-Faria122.163.190.193

I disagree with 190.72.32.200 on the "heavily biased" remark, the article looks balanced to me. Although I was initially concerned with the lack of references, I see a lot of work is being done to fix that. Perhaps 190.72.32.200 should be more specific about what passages he/she considers non relevant. Also there are some minors stylistic issues but calling the additions "non encyclopedical" is too extreme, in my opinion. JRSP 11:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that maybe some things like the milk plan should go. I know first hand that this milk scheme was true and it was used as an insurance scam also, but I don't think it is really so relevant as to devote three long paragraph to describe it. Also I don't think is relevant what family gets the fancier plane. Maybe it should be changed by an import substition plan paragraph explaining that not only milk but also boats, planes, etc and how the state gave patronage to almost every activity in the country (and still does). I think this essay helps to understand the situation.
I also think that the use of the term "pardos" is a little bit racist. Even though most low income class is pardo is not a term commonly used and I sense it a little derogatory. (It is used only in elementary to describe social classes in the colonial period).

Carnetremula 17:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardo would be OK when speaking about colonial times but not for contemporary Venezuela. What do you suggest? Is "mixed-race" neutral enough? The usual term in Venezuela is criollo but that would be confusing as it was used during the Spanish colony to refer to Venezuelan born whites. JRSP 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I also agree the "milk plan" subsection is too long, perhaps this material should be moved to the Romulo Betancourt article and leave here only a brief summary in the "Betancourt administration" subsection. JRSP 18:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing with the term "pardo" is that is not of common use. I live in Venezuela and I cannot recall any occassion where a newspaper, editorial, magazine, newscast or public figure use it. I think that in the 20th century (or at least in the second half of it) is more about income than about race. Low income class is composed by a variety of races not only pardos, the same applies for the other social classes.

Carnetremula 19:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before I think, the word pardo shouldn't be used to refer to contemporary Venezuelans; however, I must disagree with your assertion that Low income class is composed by a variety of races not only pardos, the same applies for the other social classes. Just watch the difference in skin tone between the crowd in an affluent East Caracas district and a lower income barrio. It is not the same than in colonial times but the presence of racism in contemporary Venezuelan society must not be downplayed. JRSP 20:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardos is the same as mestizos and mestizos is really derogatory. The controversy in Venezuelan history about a "pardocracia" usually involves Bolivar, who had two pardo leaders--Piar and Padilla--executed. I have added a footnote on a contemporary, and very relevant to this article, use of the word "pardocracia".

Concerning the Milk Plan, the long presentation is due to that it is a compendium of the incompetence, corruption, wastefulness, and all the vices of Venezuelana democracy. The reference to the airplanes can be re-worded. I only meant it to explain that some, like Alberto Finol, benefitted more than others from the Milk Plan. The internet reference on the Milk Plan leads to a recent report on the Milk Plan, which means it is still alive and well. In this report you will see graphs that show that over the years since it began the Milk Plan has never met Venezuelan demand.

The best comparison I can find for the Milk Plan in another country is/are the nationalized coal mines in Britain, which were costing the government a treasury and were defended unsuccessfully by the unions against PM Thatcher, who got her way. Normally, I do not defend Mrs Thatcher but in this case she was right. I was on the miners side. The coal strike of 1984-85, and all the background to it, would certainly merit a long exposition in any history of contemporary Britain.

122.163.189.166 13:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Carlos Ramirez-Faria

Footnotes and bibliography[edit]

I would appreciate it if you removed the "lack of footnoting" warning at the start of the article on the history of Venezuela after independence to the end of the 20th century. I have put in a bibliography of 34 titles and have made 32 footnotes. I will in addition be adding more of both. I notice that the history of Argentina does not have this warning. It mentions exactly 5 books and has 3 footnotes!

122.163.190.193 10:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Dr. Carlos Ramirez-Faria

I removed the nofootnotes tag as I see a lot of work has been done on references. Just some concerns: (1) Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself (2) www.aporrea.org is not neutral enough, let me see if I can find something else. JRSP 11:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you user JRSP. I might find an issue to raise on the quotation of wikipedia within itself. There are some flip remarks in my text that you can remove, like "cows mooing for Denmark or Switzerland". By the way, and I am not being facetious, today is my birthday. I don't celebrate, but seeing as we are on cyperspace there's little chance of a big party. Could you have my name corrected over the entry "History of Venezuela": it's Carlos Ramirez-Faria, not Carlos ramirez-faria. The lower-casing is the problem.

122.163.190.193 15:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Carlos Ramirez-Faria

Your username was fixed you have to login with the new one, with uppercase R and F. Happy birthday, as a gift I won't bother you today but see you tomorrow :-) JRSP 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, JRSP, give me a day and I will try to amend problems (1) and (2) above. I can expand Venezuelan colonial history and its independence movement. Should I do so now? Or wait for further observations on the material I have uploaded to now.

Carlos Ramirez-Faria 10:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Carlos Ramirez-Faria

As you prefer, it's a dynamic process; it is not like writing on paper. Remember rule #1 is be bold: If you see something in WP that can be improved, do not hesitate to do so yourself. JRSP 13:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
i used a couple of templates for the ref to your book, to show you the way. But, i couldn't find its ISBN. how come? --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous edits[edit]

Can anyone look-through anonymous edits from September 14. to 24? Roarjo 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone of Article[edit]

Needs fixing, see milk plan. What is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.245.123 (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the Milk Plan, the long presentation is due to that it is a compendium of the incompetence, corruption, wastefulness, and all the vices of Venezuelana democracy. The reference to the airplanes can be re-worded. I only meant it to explain that some, like Alberto Finol, benefitted more than others from the Milk Plan. The internet reference on the Milk Plan leads to a recent report on the Milk Plan, which means it is still alive and well. In this report you will see graphs that show that over the years since it began the Milk Plan has never met Venezuelan demand.

The best comparison I can find for the Milk Plan in another country is/are the nationalized coal mines in Britain, which were costing the government a treasury and were defended unsuccessfully by the unions against PM Thatcher, who got her way. Normally, I do not defend Mrs Thatcher but in this case she was right. I was on the miners side. The coal strike of 1984-85, and all the background to it, would certainly merit a long exposition in any history of contemporary Britain.

Carlos Ramirez-Faria 04:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Carlos Ramirez-Faria


I agree; while mildly humorous, this isn't suitable for wikipedia:

"The cows themselves, which cost a mint, were not slackers. In other latitudes they yielded milk for pasteurization, pulverization, and cheese-making for domestic markets with as much or more left over for exports. But when transplanted to sweltering lowlands denuded of jungle, though not of insects and parasites, they became sickly and sad and, mooing for Denmark or Switzerland, their udders dried up. As to make them truly contented would have required unimaginable investments in air-conditioning, it was thought that what they needed were the genetic strains of hardy tropical bulls among which the most renowned were the Brahma bulls of Asia, which meant spending another mint in another cattle-import program." 86.0.247.94 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The section concerning the second Perez and second Caldera administrations, along with the section concerning the Chavez period had heavy right-wing bias. I've made a few changes, but not enough. The Perez/Caldera section should probably be deleted altogether.Tomblikebomb (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Student Riots[edit]

The article makes no mention of the Venezuelan student riots, [1] The BBC and other media are reporting on it. Should this be in the History of Venezuela article or elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N2e (talkcontribs) 14:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Current events belong in wikinews. JRSP 21:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the current situation on Venezuela is so related to the university students manifestations I tried to explain the best I can – and the more objectively I could- the regrettable situation. It’s important to do it at least this way since the media are so limited, I know it because I’m leaving it, I’m a university student, yet I had to do it anonymously, security issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.35.74.59 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this article is the appropriate place for reporting current events, maybe wikinews would be a better place. Also remember that according to wikipedia policies all information must be verifiable and editors must not include their personal analysis. Also, if you have "security issues" I would suggest you to open an account, it's free and it hides your IP address. JRSP 13:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What's missing in the article? The very recent political/governmental history of Venezuela![edit]

JRSP, Regarding your edits in the article and your comment in the Sutdent Riots section above, you are correct that Wikipedia is not a news wire, and that all encyclopedic entries must be verifiable. Having said that, the poorly sourced material from 200.35.74.59, which you were correct to remove until it can be better sourced, points up a gaping hole in the History of Venezuela article. Where is the well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic summary of the rather substantial changes in Venezuela's political character during the changes of 2006-2007? When I look at the TOC for the HOV article, it is as if nothing significant has happened. This is clearly a large lacunae. Is this being covered in another WP article on Venezuela? And whether it is or not, does it not merit some encyclopedic summary in the History of Venezula article? So I don't know the answers, but it is remarkable how the article could have so little on this critically important subject for the nation of Venezuela. N2e 15:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should avoid recentism, specially in an article about history. Looking at the article as a whole, there are more important things missing like pre-Hispanic period and the Spanish period. In my opinion there is too much weight on 19th & 20th century, not to mention including a current event whose historical significance is uncertain. Perhaps the Venezuelan constitutional referendum, 2007 would be a better place for these events. JRSP 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why no section devoted to slaver?

This was a big part of the construction of the entire country! I don't understand why there is only two mentions of the people. Why not mention where the people came from i.e. what parts of West Africa. Discuss what they were made to do and the laws that were created for them and against them. Who are the key African figures of the freeing of Africans. And what about the mulatto population?

== Why no section devoted to slavery? ==[edit]

This was a big part of the construction of the entire country! I don't understand why there is only two mentions of the people. Why not mention where the people came from i.e. what parts of West Africa. Discuss what they were made to do and the laws that were created for them and against them. Who are the key African figures of the freeing of Africans. And what about the mulatto population?

Why no section devoted to slavery?[edit]

This was a big part of the construction of the entire country! I don't understand why there is only two mentions of slaves. Why not mention where the people came from i.e. what parts of Africa. Discuss what they were made to do and the laws that were created for and against them. Who are the key African figures of the freeing of Africans. And what about the mulatto population?

bug report[edit]

Uh, 'was just trying to find out from when to when Caldera was president; 'read some stuff but didn't figure out the answers, it's kind of confusing (please don't answer that the topic itself is confusing). So perhaps the layout/progression of the article needs enhancing?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 06:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK i found Presidents of Venezuela in the "See also" section, where i got my answer, but still? --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Caldera as the article says won in 1968 and his party lost in 1973.

122.162.92.30 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Carlos Ramirez-Faria122.162.92.30 (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


Creole Oligarchy[edit]

So through out the 19th centery venezuela was a creole ruled oligarchy--J intela (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Election turnout[edit]

Eduardo Galiano in www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2524 reports that in the 2004 Presidential election (referendum), "turnout was 70 per cent, up from an average of 55 per cent in previous elections." --Ong saluri (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the vote was 5,800,629 for Chavez to stay, 3,989,008 for him to go. It was the eighth election won by Chavez in five years. -- Ong saluri

Tags[edit]

The tags on this article are too extreme. It's not that bad. Sure, it could use some work, but the solution to that is to work on it. The tags serve no purpose. People don't need to be alerted to anything here. The tags were put on without discussion and I'm removing them. Ong saluri (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it was written by a partisan blogger.[edit]

Unemployment benefits are called " hand-outs to those who could claim they were unemployed."

Referring to Nixon "It says well of him that when he reported on his trip, ... , he stressed that his country was partly to blame for the unfriendly reception in Caracas."

This next paragraph is a whopper! It has run on sentences, bad grammar, and more!

"AD knew that it remained the most popular party all over Venezuela: it chose Betancourt as its candidate. Caldera had no rivals in COPEI, the party he founded, and he entered the political fray counting on the conservative middle class. Villalba and his URD party adopted an opportunistic strategy, which was practically an admission that they could not compete with the AD national pardo popular base. It was the pardo masses in Caracas that Villalba was targeting when, instead of postulating himself, he chose Larrazábal, who also had the communists with him, to be the URD candidate. Larrazábal turned over the provisional presidency to a civilian and he went on campaign. When the results were in, Betancourt was elected for the term that ended in 1964, but this time by a plurality and not the absolute majorities that AD had gotten in 1946 and 1947. Caracas was no longer an AD redoubt. The city from then on became a marginal that could swing in any unforeseen direction and this time it went all out for Larrazábal, who came in second. Caldera did not do badly in third place and received proportionally more votes than he had in 1947. But the Venezuelan panorama was cloudy at best. Part of the 1958 demagoguery was that the UCV (Central University of Venezuela), which likes to style itself “casa primada” (first house of Venezuelan learning), was granted “autonomy”, which meant that the police were barred from the University City; and starting in 1960 it became a bastion of an insurrection that leftists started to recoup the chance they thought they had missed when Caracas was so politicized that they could get crowds in the streets by snapping their fingers, although Larrazábal’s showing with mainly URD votes should have taught them that they weren’t as popular as they thought, that they were not popular at all, to put it bluntly. Under its autonomy status, the UCV gave sanctuary to every leftist movement and its rectors were complicit with the communists or themselves Marxists[citation needed]. It got so bad that Caldera, when he finally got his shot at being president, was forced to close it for a year. But, as things in Venezuela have a way of taking surprising turns, when Chávez began to “revolutionize” Venezuela, the UCV was collectively, though mildly, opposing his regime[citation needed]."

Hmm. Things have a way of taking surprising turns in Venezuela, but "the Venezuelan panorama was cloudy at best"!!

"the politics of repudiation had to have its pound of flesh"

" the Betancourt government made a fetish of import substitution" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.179.190.92 (talk) 02:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Note also all the denigrative references to "Marxists" and "Communists". This is like the Fox News version of Venezuelan history. Somebody needs to go through this article line by line and extract all this garbage. 118.209.165.31 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rooke[edit]

According to other articles on Wikipedia, Rooke was not killed in action as this article claims. He was shot in the arm, which was amputated. He died some days after that. He did not die in the battle.189.216.204.129 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreigners[edit]

Declarations during his exile in Madrid, from Marcos Perez himself are not quoted here. He clearly stated what his wishes were. It also understimates the role of foreigners as having little or no impact on Venezuela's economy, NOTHING FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. At least 1 of every four contractors for oil companies in the Oriental coast of Maracaibo lake are italian or spanish in descent. Infrastructure, italian and spaniard, again. Biggest markets in Zulia, portuguese and italian. Banks, spanish and italins (to lesser degree). So there you have it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.195.96 (talkcontribs) 22 April 2013

Updated info[edit]

Since Chavez's death more than a year ago, some details in this article have changed. These need to be updated such as the new presidency of President Maduro.--Zfigueroa (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

United States of Venezuela[edit]

The term "United States of Venezuela" was used for the First Republic of Venezuela and the Second Republic of Venezuela, but it is not mentioned at History of Venezuela. So where (if anywhere) should the redirect United States of Venezuela be targeted? Please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 26#United States of Venezuela. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Article full of content copied by incompetent IP editor from other Wikipedia articles[edit]

This article, like many others concerning Venezuela directly or peripherally, has been victimized by an incompetent editor. His editing appears to consist almost entirely of adding content copied from other Wikipedia articles, often large amounts of text intact or with only slight changes, and without the required attribution. Don't be fooled by the fact that he includes sources; he merely copies these as well from the editing page of the articles he lifts from. I advise other editors to keep an eye out for content added by IP 2600:1001:b113:6ef0:c0b:304c:ad8e:d2d3, or from a similar range. Carlstak (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Meso- and Neo-Indian Periods[edit]

The section on the Pre-Columbian period in Venezuela makes mention of the "Meso-Indian period" and "Neo-Indian period," but lacks citations or helpful links to describe in more detail what characterized those periods or separated them from earlier and later eras (minus a statement that the latter ended when Spanish colonization began). Including links to more information could help contextualize the surrounding information within the broader scope of pre-Columbian history in the rest of Latin America and the Americas as a whole.

Worse, looking up the Meso-Indian period on WP redirects to the Archaic period of North America, and there doesn't seem to be an article on such a specific time period in relation to Latin America. Since there are multiple ways in which archaeologists and historiographers divide up pre-Hispanic history, it would be helpful to see the work behind some authors who might use the two terms. Etymographer (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)