Talk:Bolivarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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))