![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
Shouldn't the text go on wikisource instead of here? 69.241.224.148 18:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)