Talk:Bolivarianism

Untitled

According to the article Simón Bolívar, Bolívar was " a classical 'liberal' and defender of the free market economic system" and "an adherent of limited government, the separation of powers, freedom of religion, property rights, and the rule of law." How much of this Liberalism is included in "Bolivarianism"? —Ashley Y 04:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I added some citation requests on parts of the page because some of the things it says seem a little POV to me.

--Ernalve 04:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Simon Bolivar did promot the unification of South America, he also opposed foreign rule such as the Spanish Crown.He was part of a whole generation of leaders at a time when freedom and self determination was desperately needed. Today, these needs still exist in several Latin countries.Self determination is crucial for any nation on earth. In the case of Venezuela, is the method (political tendency) that is questined by the USA. I ask myself why?, for those well read, the USA had control of the Venezuelan oil for long time, did the administration reacted badly during that period? -no. Their reaction has been concistently negative since the foreing ownership of the oil fields was terminated.

Merge proposal

The article Chavismo says "Chavismo or Chavezism is the name given to the left-wing political ideology based on the ideas, programs and government style associated with the present president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, also referred to as Bolivarianism". No need of to articles about the same thing JRSP 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will proceed to merge in a few days if nobody complains JRSP 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't agree - two articles needed, as the terms are used differently. SandyG 23:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain "Chavismo or Chavezism [...] also referred to as Bolivarianism". What is the difference between the terms? JRSP 02:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with merger either. Anagnorisis 14:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain why two different articles are needed? JRSP 20:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider both articles deal about just the same thing, in the worst of cases they are very close related concepts, both articles combined are below 32K of prose. Why do you consider there should be two articles? JRSP 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are inthe minority considering that. I consider that it is not the case. Please do not enforce your minority view. Anagnorisis 12:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please check WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, we are not just voting but discussing about the merger. Could you explain your reasons for opposing the merger? JRSP 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Isnt Bolivarianism an ideology born from the thoughts of Simon Bolivar and Chavismo from Hugo Chavez? Although Chavez claims to follow Bolivarianism, it is at least discreet to say that Chavismo is a sort of Neo-Bolivarianism that holds many of the principles of the orginal ideology but due to the changes of circumstances of present day, it cannot be exactly the same. The articles should remain separate. Thats what i think. (72.181.194.88 21:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Third opinion

Given that no reason was provided with the original assertion, the person who objected has had plenty of time to respond to the request and has failed to do so, and that no one else has objected, I'd say it's perfectly alright to go ahead with the merge. Seraphimblade 12:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say I have to give a reason? I give my opinion and my vote. Enough. I do not have to justify why I think they should not be merged. I have an opinion and that is it. It is not for somebody else (you?) to then validate my opinion. Oh, yes, it may be nice and considerate to give reasons so that others can then think some more. But simply saying that I do not agree with has been said means I do not think the same. You think someone is nice and I say I disagree, that means I think he is not nice. Or do I have to state the obvious!? Anagnorisis 13:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do we have a rule carved in stone about what is "plenty of time"? Or is that another subjective POV? What may be plenty of time for you may not be for somebody else. Please show me the rule that deals with plenty of time and that states that after such "plenty of time" has passed then it becomes too late and things must remain static. Thanks in advance for replying to my request within my consideration of "plenty of time" (I am not telling how long that is). Anagnorisis 13:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:3O is designed to deal with subjective cases-that's why it's called a third opinion. As to where it is encouraged to provide one's rationale, and not to view discussions as a "vote", you may wish to review this rationale. Providing a rationale helps all editors involved understand your position, and may bring to light a new thought or way of looking at the situation that had not been previously considered. As to a significant period of time, I believe that a week would generally be seen as quite sufficient, especially given a notification on the party's talk page as well as the discussion page of the article that a rationale had been requested. Seraphimblade 12:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read a reasonable case put forward for why the pages should be merged. But I haven't read a reason why the two pages shouldn't be merged. Could Sandy and Anagnorisis elaborate? --Zleitzen 23:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

They are two different things. Following bolivarianism does not mean being a chavista and viceversa, though there maybe a high correlation about what people would answer if asked. Many chavistas would simply repeat what they think they should say. They are simply about saying yes to Chavez (which obviouslyis not the same as being bolivarian, because the latter is not about Chavez). Now if you ask Chavez he will say yes, they are the same. But what he says is another topic. So, who is the judge here that needs convincin gand needs to hear reasons? Why can I simply say that I do not agree? The ones proposing the merger are the ones that need to convince the rest on why a change is warranted. Or can I go ahead and ask to merge Leninism with communism because I just say they are the same thing, and then put the burden on those who oppose the merger of them having to explain themselves why not merge?. I see it the other way around. Anagnorisis 07:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• This explanation is a lot more convincing. It doesn't sound like Chavismo and Bolivarianism are the same thing. Have people considered merging Chavismo with Chavez? That seems a lot more logical to me. Zarbat 08:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a question of definition IMO. If Chavismo were defined as "simply repeating what Chavez says", I could agree with Anagnorisis but in its article, Chavismo is defined as "the left-wing political ideology based on the ideas, programs and government style associated with the present president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez" while Bolivarianism says in its lead "The most prominent exponent and architect of modern Bolivarianism is currently Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez". . Different interpretations of the meaning of "Bolivarianism" are already considered in Bolivarianism#Other definitions and dispute so I still think both articles should be merged, specially considering they are very small sized articles, not the same case of comunism and Leninism. As it stands now, Chavismo looks like a POV fork JRSP 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Zarbat's suggestion of merging Chavismo into Hugo Chávez, this last article is becoming too long so I do not think a merger there would be a better idea. There is however a Bolivarianism and Chavismo section it that article. JRSP 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow these articles closely anymore, as there doesn't seem to be a legitimate intent towards consensual NPOV editing on all parts, but I'm checking in today as a result of seeing issues raised elsewhere. Although I agree with Anagnorisis, I have other practical reasons for opposing the merge: many areas of the news media refer to Chavezism, so it's a separate and valid search term, and they don't always use it interchangeably with Bolivarianism, which is really the term that is the misnomer, since it has little to do with Bolivar, and a separate article on Bolivarianism is needed to explain that problem. Two separate phenomena going on here. Sandy (Talk) 18:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree we can find "chavismo", "Chavezism" and "Bolivarianism" as different terms but I still think these concepts are strongly related: If we google "Bolivarianism" we mostly get hits about Chávez thus, although Bolivarianism has a broader sense, it definitively includes chavismo/Chavezism; therefore, I think the latter should better be worked as a section in the Bolivarianism article and not as a stubby separate article. Could you elaborate Sandy on your opinion that the term that is the misnomer, since it has little to do with Bolivar, as I told before, if we google "Bolivarianism" we get lots of references to Chávez JRSP 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chavez is not Bolivar, so it doesn't really matters if he tries to convince that Bolivarinism is the same as Chavezism, there's over 150 hundred years of ideologies between them and a democratic vocation to difference both.

The point is not if Chávez is Bolívar, he is not. The point we are discussing is if Chávismo should be merged into Bolivarianism or kept as a separate article JRSP 21:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If you google Bolivarianism, you get hits about chavez because he is the most popular icon to name Bolivarianism these days. I dont think that makes enough of an argument to claim that Chavezism or Chavismo is the same as Bolivarianism. (72.181.194.88 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

Yeah, I think these should be treated separately. Chavez claims that his ideology is Bolivarian; others claim that it is not. This could be discussed at Chavismo, with a brief mention at Bolivarianism, which should take a wider view and not be specifically about politics of the past 10 years. --Delirium 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been going on for over a year, they should not be on the same page, but referenced from each other on two separate articles. If they were the same, there wouldn't be chavismo and Chavez' movement would be called Bolivarianism, but it's not, he references it, but that's about it. Either a good explanation is stated of why they should stay together or the article would be separated into two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.177.244.116 (talk) 17:48, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Constitution

Shouldn't the text go on wikisource instead of here? 69.241.224.148 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fifth Republic Movement

In the section "Chavismo", the author defines Chavez' political party as the "Fifth Republic Movement", and gives the Spanish (correctly) as Movimiento Quinta Republica ... but then goes on to abbreviate it "MVR" instead of what I percieve would correctly be "MQR." Having not read any other resources on this subject, is there a reason why "MVR" is correct, or have I found a typo? Simply curious ... F117-A 11:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The "V" stands for the roman numeral "5". It is a pun on MBR-Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario, in Spanish "B" and "V" sound just the same and Venezuelan laws forbid using the name of Bolívar as part of the name of a political party. JRSP 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I had thought about that, but was unsure ... and therefore I asked. I was unaware of the prohibition on using Bolivar's name, but it is consistent with the basic philosophy I have encountered in Latin American politics. Thank you for the clarification. F117-A 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing really new, in bolivarianism

In fact, this uselless fraud(or ideology) has nothing to show.In fact, bolivarianism is just populism, only the same old things, under new names.More than eighty years ago, Benito Mussolini claimed that he was rebuilting the Julius Caesar's work, in Roman Empire.Today, Hugo Chávez claims that he is rebuilting the work of Simon Bolivar.Nothing really new, except the names.Benito Mussolini wasn't a new Julius Caesar and Hugo Chavez isn't a new Simon Bolivar.Such as Benito Mussolini, Hugo Chávez is a tirant, a fascist and a buffoon.Among economy, all things that Hugo Chávez did and wants to do, were made decades before, by other demagogues, in Latin America.All had terrible results.Boliviarism is populism, with some drops of fascism.Only bad things will be did by Hugo Chavez.Such as Mussolini, Hugo Chavez will legate misery, shame, failures, corruption to Venezuela.Agre22 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)agre22

Chaves is a bugar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.94.57 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

it should be noted that brazil not being considered as part of the pan american ideal, is probably due mostly not to the language, but to history, being that it remained a monarchy [empire/kingdom], for most of the time while the other peoples of south america fought an independence war [with a different empire than it's metropolis], and struggled to create republics, and it instead fought against them, trying to conquer their land. the fact of two different realities must be acknowledged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.155.62 (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bolivarianism. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070216115202/http://news.pacificnews.org:80/news/view_article.html?article_id=347658bbc7bdecb9b0b75e34e188850d to http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=347658bbc7bdecb9b0b75e34e188850d
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905100249/http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/29-1pdfs/vivas_lupi.pdf to http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/29-1pdfs/vivas_lupi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Merge Bolivarian propaganda

The articles Bolivarianism, Bolivarian propaganda, Bolivarian Revolution strongly overlap. Though one can argue there is a distinction in what these expressions technically mean, I do not think there is enough to those distinctions to warrant separate articles. Similarly, I would tend to argue that Chavism can be considered a topic within Bolivarianism that does not merit its own article. Certainly at least having 4 broadly similar articles on this interwoven thread does not make sense (though having articles on more specific sub-topics does, e.g. Bolivarian missions, Bolivarian diaspora, etc.).

- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree - Bolivarianism is not specific to Venezuela while Bolivarian propaganda, Bolivarian diaspora, Bolivarian revolution, etc. is.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ??? I could agree that one can draw a distinction between the Bolivarian Revolution as a Venezuelan historic event and Bolivarianism/Bolivarian propaganda was a wider topic. But I do not see how it is useful to distinguish Bolivarianism and Bolivarian propaganda. Both can be used either in the specific context of Venezuela or in the wider context of South America. Either way, though, the articles as they stand are very Venezuela-centric. It may be reasonable to expand Bolivarianism/Bolivarian propaganda to cover more of the broader concept but, either way, I do not see a justification for two separate articles. And if they are not going to be expanded, I don't see a good reason to have them separate from Bolivarian Revolution. -- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

See Nazism and Nazi propaganda, two separate articles. Even if the Bolivarian/Bolivarianism articles were related in a way, they would still be separate articles. The details and content on propaganda alone is notable enough for its own article. As for the Bolivarian diaspora, that is what the trend is termed as.--ZiaLater (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand. My point is that, at this time, there is not enough distinct content for the separate Bolivarian articles and, frankly, it is unclear that it is warranted to ever create so much content. The Nazi articles can be considered somewhat different simply because the overall impact of Nazism in the world has been much broader than Bolivarianism (though perhaps that could change in the future). But others are welcome to disagree. --MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Hugo Chavez.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)