This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Venezuela 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.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism 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.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This 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.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Latin 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.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles
users like agre22 are the same type of editors that edited this page to make the Chavez supporters seem "evil". That was why it was marked as non neutral. I like wikipedia, but this site MUST improve on their neutrality standards if they are to stay successful.
What agenda are users like Agree22 and Zialater are trying to promote!?
File:Caravana chavista 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
it comes across as too critical to me, tbh. the last quote is very obviously a neoliberal opinion piece rather than an actual material analysis of the situation.
109.154.216.60 (
talk)
22:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)reply
agreed, it needs more about the criticism in the opening. Obviously criticism is coming from more on the political spectrum than just "neoliberals."
Klayman55 (
talk)
10:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Klayman55reply
This was too critical, not talking about the positive but focusing on the negative is one of the pet peeves of this article, it has literally turned into a circle-jerk rant about Chavismo. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
205.155.141.7 (
talk)
18:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Exactly, a good article needs information on both positive and negative assessments on its subject in order to be unbiased. On that note, a section about "Critical Chavismo" (i.e. dissident Chavistas) would be a good start.
Charles Essie (
talk)
19:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)reply
Paraphrasing vs Block Quotes
Relative to the total content, much of the information is block quotes. Wiki prefers paraphrasing. Something to consider for future edits. --
Lucas559 (
talk)
16:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Dating commentary (and 'placing' past optimism)
The section Commentary has various quotes, some of which have dates of the commentaries noted. The comment with introduction "The Nation noted on its editorial pages that:" has no date, and is jarring (now) in its positivism. If the date were noted, Dec 2007, the reader would be more likely to place the circumstances for the positive evaluation. Much has happened in the ensuing 10 years...
Shenme (
talk)
17:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Requested move 17 March 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
opposeWP:USEENGLISH on English Wikipedia, not Spanish. The English name is "Chavism" while the Spanish name is "Chavismo". Looking at Spanish language for the Common Name is not the correct way to name topics. Otherwise, why not use Cyrillic for Russian topics? --
70.51.46.39 (
talk)
04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
@
Charles Essie: Significantly, the page was originally at Chavismo and then moved to Chavism without discussion. I was able to undo this move. The argument that high-quality English-language sources use Chavismo I find compelling. Also, Chavism looks strange, as it could easily be taken to refer to the
chav phenomenon instead. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
22:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
I've moved it back, again.
Berty688 had missed or ignored my argument that the original move – from Chavismo to Chavism – had already been invalid because it had happened without discussion; therefore the status quo is Chavismo. This was also not recognised in the discussion above. --
Florian Blaschke (
talk)
22:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Chavism. 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).
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.
I have just modified one external link on
Chavism. 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).
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.
I have just modified one external link on
Chavism. 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 {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 3 external links on
Chavism. 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 {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
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.
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support "Chavismo" is the word most commonly used in English-language reliable sources from
editorials in The Guardian to
The Atlantic to
Foreign Policy magazine. "Chavism" is virtually an invention of Wikipedians.
Ngram up to 2008 records no results for "Chavism". "Chavism" produces
109,000 results on Google; chavismo
produces 4,690,000. Chavismo is far and away the
WP:COMMONNAME. The usual dishonest
WP:UE battleground nonsense needs to stop. Again,
WP:UEdoes not prohibit the use of non-English words on Wikipedia, it simply recommends using the most common name in English-language sources. The very first sentence of UE makes this clear: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language" - which, in this case, is Chavismo.
AusLondonder (
talk)
01:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Second half of that at least isn't a valid rationale; machismo isn't a neologism, it's a standard Spanish word (-ismo = English -sm); English borrowed the word from Spanish, didn't make it up. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per
WP:COMMONNAME. Was intuitively inclined to oppose per
MOS:NEO ("chavismo" is a recently coined joke name; "chavism" is standard English word formation: noun + -ism); and citing a Guardian and Atlantic article doesn't prove anything about commonness. However, chavismo occurs in Google N-grams while chavism does not, and usage of chavismo in news sources
[7] utterly dwarfs that of chavism[8]. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 16:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Support. Just because "chavism" is technically a more standard formation doesn't have any bearing on what form English language sources actually use — in fact, it's very normal these days for English language sources to simply use the existing foreign-language form for a concept like this (see also
caudillo) rather than trying to force-create a variant "English" term. And
WP:UE doesn't require us to force an English title formation, either — it requires us to use the name that's actually seen in actual usage, which is chavismo.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose plenty of news uses "chavism" as much as "chavismo", as the latter is added with Spanish ones and made it impossible to know exactly how much it's used, I stay with the perfectly fine English spelling.
Swynyard (
talk)
12:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.