Talk:Venezuela

Given the country's heavy dependence on oil exports for state revenue, and resulting economic and political turmoil due to fluctuating oil prices, does it count as a Banana republic? AlastairIrvine (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The term “banana republic” is historically associated with economies dependent on a single agricultural export and controlled by foreign interests. Venezuela’s economy is heavily dependent on oil exports and has experienced significant political and economic instability, so some writers use the term informally. However, scholars usually describe Venezuela as a “petrostate” rather than a classic banana republic.VBrave23C (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Article currently reads "The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections."

Suggest it should read "The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws the president finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections."

As written, it assumes the president can only be a male.~2025-31128-01 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose adding "American occupation" to the infobox. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no widely recognised period of American occupation of Venezuela in historical or legal terms. While the United States has exerted political influence and carried out interventions related to Venezuela at various times, these do not amount to a sustained military occupation controlling Venezuelan territory or government. Therefore, adding “American occupation” to the infobox would not be supported by reliable historical sources.VBrave23C (talk) 04:20, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

During his press conference today President Trump denounced Venezuela’s VP, and said that America would be leading Venezuela. How should we proceed in that direction? Lightnightx3x (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia will have to just wait and see. Obviously, as information is just coming out and there is a lot of chaos regarding the state of things, people are going to jump to claiming "The VP is now acting President" or "Venezuela is under US occupation," the situation is that we just don' know right now. It very well could be that Maduro and Rodriguez abdicate and the US takes total control of the government, or Rodriguez could return to Venezuela and order the removal of US troops from the territory, which would be a war over the governing of the state. The third option is that the Venezuelan military comes in and tries to organize a coup against both the current government and the supposedly incoming US leadership.

Trump and his allies can claim whatever they want, it doesn't make it legal or true. Likewise, Rodriguez can claim leadership in Venezuela, but if she's in Russia and unable to serve, it doesn't really mean anything. What matters is how the government actually functions and who is in charge as opposed to what people say or put down on paper as "official" claims.

To answer your question, in short, nobody knows, and we'll just have to see where things go in the coming days or weeks. ~2026-54331 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I propose that until the situation around who is president of Venezuela is resolved, we list president in the infobox as "Disputed" with a link to the article about the US air strikes and leave Rodrigues as vice-president in the infobox. Some people are adding her as president without any reliable sources quoted. Dn9ahx (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. Trump has only mentioned controlling Venezuela, but has not taken any action yet. Rodriguez’ situation is still unclear, but legally she is still VP. Lightnightx3x (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Maduro is no longer in power. Wikipedia should change the info box, removing Maduro.

The box where Maduro's name is now should show:

1. (blank)

2. unknown

3. in flux

There should be a Wikipedia discussion and vote. I have no opinion except I know it's not Maduro. Vanguardnew (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The vice president, who de facto acts on behalf of the president, according to the latest reports does not have control of the country.The country is under US military control, the vice-president could soon be removed from office because she is an accomplice of the Venezuelan dictatorship. Dorian88A (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Delcy Rodríguez has no support among the Venezuelan civilian population and cannot be called president of Venezuela. Dorian88A (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Trump says it clearly!!

https://edition.cnn.com/world/video/trump-says-were-going-to-run-venezuela-digvid Dorian88A (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Does she act de facto or de jure? If, by the letter of the law, she is acting as president, even if she has no real authority, she is the de jure acting president. If she is not legally acting as president but she has the effect and recognition as acting president, she's the de facto acting president. Any edits using those legal terms should be applied according to their definitions. Dcs002 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a vote and a general discussion. Lightnightx3x (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Most likely situation is that- yes. A handover to proper government that is legitimate will occur under US oversight and temporary governmental occupation. ~2026-14800 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

"Most likely" - we're not a crystal ball, and the US has not occupied Venezuela. Dcs002 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It will also be important to note in the leadership section- it should state (Deposed) (US Detention) ~2026-14800 (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I think there should be a footnote on the part of the infobox where the names of Maduro and Rodriguez are. I think for Maduro it should be “Maduro holds no power over Venezuela ever since his capture by US forces” or something similar, and for Rodriguez, something like “Although Acting President according to the Venezuelan Constitution, she holds no real power”. These footnotes must reflect the current political and military landscape of Venezuela. Lightnightx3x (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

the Supreme Tribunal of Justice declares Delcy Rodriguez president https://x.com/telesurtv/status/2007641741495808068?s=46&t=sNE_k5ejd3DxJS95xdcNjQ ~2026-66319 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Maduro and Delcy Rodriguez massacred political opponents, killing and disappearing them. An estimated 17,000 people were killed. Not to mention the close ties to drug trafficking and countless other criminal activities. Dorian88A (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The communists Chávez and Maduro have plundered and destroyed an extremely rich country, reducing it to starvation, which is only afloat thanks to its undersized oil exports and various strategic alliances with totalitarian countries, such as the main one with China. Delcy Rodriguez is an accomplice and a great supporter of this political and criminal plan, of a ferocious and bloody dictatorship. Wikipedia is not a forum or a newspaper, but these things should be written in the article and related articles. The massacres of regime opponents and the summary imprisonments without any evidence. The disappearances of these opponents, who were likely assassinated. The regime has also bribed and financed far-left European political parties with oil revenues, to secure international support. Dorian88A (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

These are opinions and conclusions, not neutral statements of known facts from reliable sources. What you say might be true, and believe me, I think they are, he's a horrible guy who has done unspeakable things, but again, it's a a matter of opinion and synthesis of available facts - drawing conclusions of our own. Encyclopedias cannot say or imply that what someone did was wrong, even if it was by our own standards. See WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR, particularly WP:synth. Dcs002 (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Saying he was deposed connotes an overthrow. He was not overthrown. He was captured and flown to the US. By US standards he was arrested and removed. By Venezuelan standards, maybe they were liberated? I dunno. The connotations of these words are important. Dcs002 (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What happened is the definition of 'deposed', regardless of the legal basis his captors claim.

It is also a fact that Maduro did all kinds of things that are objectively described by reliable secondary sources as harmful—not that that is relevant to characterizing how a foreign military captured him. NPOV is not a requirement to falsely imagine a both-sides framing; it just requires that facts are substantiated and given appropriate weight. There's no need to decide for a group of people whether they feel 'liberated'. In cases where key elements are genuinely disputed or controversial, covering that fact is usually the way to go if reliable sources support incompatible assertions. ~2025-40189-69 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Venezuela is currently under U.S. Occupation, following the United States utilizing military force under Operation Midnight Hammer. Venezuela will temporarily held by the United States for the time being.

^[1] Fox News

Editor: GodlyOutput(Username) ~2026-55768 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This is already mentioned in the "American administration of Venezuela" subsection. Day Creature (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Aren't we jumping the gun a bit by replacing dictatorship with provisional government within a day of Maduro being booted? ~2025-33494-05 (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes. We need to wait until sources confirm. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This source says that Delcy Rodríguez has been sworn in as interim president accoridng to two people close to the government speaking under anonymity, but I would say to wait for further confirmation and sources. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the History section under Bolivarian government under Maduro: 2013–2026 there is a paragraph that begins with "In June 2020, a report documented enforced disappearances that occurred in 2018–19. Some 724 enforced disappearances of political detainees were reported."

Can the following sentence be added to the end of this paragraph: "According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), between 2016 and 2019, Venezuela's security forces killed over 19,000 people for alleged "resistance to authority". HRW stated that evidence showed that many of the killings were extrajudicial executions."

The following source should be added: https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/venezuela ~2026-58313 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 21:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Current version: Post-Maduro (2026–present) In January 2026, following increasing tensions between the United States and the Venezuelan government, the United States launched airstrikes across the coastline of Venezuela as part of Operation Southern Spear. President Donald Trump announced in a post on social media that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country.[165] In a later post, Trump said that the US will "run" Venezuela until a safe transition of the country's leadership can take place.[166]

Requested version (change in the last sentence): Post-Maduro (2026–present) In January 2026, following increasing tensions between the United States and the Venezuelan government, the United States launched airstrikes across the coastline of Venezuela as part of Operation Southern Spear. President Donald Trump announced in a post on social media that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country.[165] In a later post, Trump said that the United States will "run" Venezuela until a safe transition of the country's leadership can take place.[166]

Alternative acceptable version (change in the last sentence): Post-Maduro (2026–present) In January 2026, following increasing tensions between the United States and the Venezuelan government, the United States launched airstrikes across the coastline of Venezuela as part of Operation Southern Spear. President Donald Trump announced in a post on social media that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro had been captured and flown out of the country.[165] In a later post, Trump said that the U.S. will "run" Venezuela until a safe transition of the country's leadership can take place.[166]

The change might seem small but we should strive for the best Wikipedia possible, not just a sloppy, almost version. Vanguardnew (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

 Done, the source says "the US" so "the United States" can work just fine. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 22:11, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

It is suspected that the US may occupy ("run") Venezuela, of which the possibility has been confirmed by the UN. Can someone keep an eye on this country's status in case the US goes forward with "running" Venezuela?

Maybe the government can be changed from "authoritarian dictatorship" to a form of occupation or simply a lack of actual leadership, but I personally think more information should come out, but you may think otherwise, which I'd like to hear your thoughts. Videominer (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Article currently reads "The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws he finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections."

Suggest it should read "The president can ask the legislature to reconsider portions of laws the president finds objectionable, but a simple parliamentary majority can override these objections."

As written, it assumes the president can only be a male.~2025-31128-01 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Partly done but instead of saying "the president" again I changed it to the gender-neutral they. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 21:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Grammatical error. It is a common error. "They" is plural. The choices are "he", "she", or "it". Plural is "they". The reason "they" has become more popular is because of the LGBTQIA2+ movement and not wanting to be called an "it", which is very understandable. However, "they" remains grammatically incorrect.

The grammatically correct word would be "he or she" or "the President". Please make the change. My opinion is the later is better because the former is misunderstood by the general public.

https://www.scribbr.com/nouns-and-pronouns/third-person-pronouns/

Subject Object Possessive Reflexive

Masculine singular he him his himself

Feminine singular she her hers herself

Neuter / inanimate singular it its itself

Plural they them theirs themselves

Vanguardnew (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You are mistaken, "they" has been used in the singular since the 14th century. DiodotusNicator (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Please review our article on Singular they as a starting point before spouting off about nonexistent grammatical errors. Day Creature (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Please be more civil. "Spouting off" is not very civil. I provided a link to show that neuter singular is "it", not "they". Therefore, I have provided a reference. If you disagree with the reference, that is between you and the publisher, not me. Vanguardnew (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also review the link you provided more closely, since it also endorses the use of the singular they. Please don’t waste any more of our time. Day Creature (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm in disbelief at the Scribbr source you cited (setting aside the question of its status as a reliable source) to support your view. It's as though you'd been selectively blind to any part of it that disagreed with you, to the extent that you thought it supported you. It was as though you couldn't see either the "The singular “they”" section or the fourth row ("Gender-neutral singular (epicene)") of the table that you reproduced here but with that row omitted. The source emphatically supports the stance that you're disagreeing with. Largoplazo (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Admittedly, using the singular they in a formal context may still cause some raised eyebrows, so be careful if you’re submitting a paper to a particularly traditional teacher or professor. See https://www.grammarly.com/blog/parts-of-speech/use-the-singular-they/

So this article from Grammerly does raise questions about use of "they" for singular. However, they come up with a different explanation. Grammerly writes that major style manuals changed in 2019 in response to LGBT concerns. Therefore, my original stance is correct but you are correct in that scribbr does make a mention of "they".

Lastly, Day Creature is quite uncivil and un-wikipedian by accusing me of "wasting time" and "dropping it". That is not very nice. However, I am not the type of person that attacks back in retaliation. Sometimes, discussion is prolonged but discussion is what makes Wikipedia great. Trying to stop discussion means a final solution quicker but a final solution is not always the best result as history showed. Vanguardnew (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

They don't just "mention" it. It takes a position diametically opposite to yours that you positioned it as supporting yours (It is a common error, However, "they" remains grammatically incorrect) by blatantly misrepresenting what it said. Really, no comment on that? I don't mean there's any need for you to comment now, I'm just pointing out that your lack of comment on your misrepresentation is worthy of note. While you speak about what does or doesn't lead to "the best result" from a discussion, supplying deceptive information is one thing that doesn't. Largoplazo (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Whatever the case, our manual of style is fine with singular they: MOS:PRONOUN. And WP:IGNORE withstanding, I would still keep the singular they as much less clunky. Additionally, to @Vanguardnew: I think the reason for the somewhat harsh reception that other editors have responded to you with is that you have cherrypicked your (comparatively weak, being blog posts and not manuals of style) sources: your Scribd source says singular they is endorsed by most style guides, and even explicitly says "to refer to someone without specifying gender, use the singular “they” instead" -- and your Grammarly source (which you pivoted to without addressing how your Scribd source contradicts your statement) says "As of 2019, most big style guides—including the Associated Press, the Chicago Manual of Style, the MLA style manual, and the APA style manual—accept the usage of the singular they". It is hard to assume good faith when you are not reading the major points of your sources. Whatever the case, we are not prescriptivist, and I would much rather refer to the specific sounding of the passage we want to change than appeal to dusty style guides -- or worse, puffed up AI-powered grammar weblogs. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨❦blather | ☞spy on me 02:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster added singular "they" as Word of the Year in 2019 and notes it's been in English since the 14th century. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/word-of-the-year-2019-they Cutelyaware (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

With Maduro having been toppled from power after being captured by US Forces, perhaps we can change "authoritarian dictatorship" to "provisional military occupation" considering that the Trump administration plans to occupy the country for some time, probably to ensure a transition to a full democracy if possible. ~2025-31856-65 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Support this, I had also stated in a previous section but none responded Ahammed Saad (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose The sources say the government is still in place. GN22 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose While Trump says he'll "run" Venezuela, there is no concrete proof that Venezuela is completely under American military occupation, especially since the Vice President is now acting as President of Venezuela. Onlineuser14 (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose There is not a single US soldier there now FCBWanderer (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Does bro really think Trump would make a democracy Coughers (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

If that becomes the actual situation, then yes. At the moment it is 95% talk. ~2026-81608 (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per FCBWanderer's comment. To occupy is to be inside something. It has connotations that US forces are there by force, now governing the country, having replaced the previous government, which is still standing. No US forces are present, and recent actions internal to the US suggest that's unlikely to happen. (At the very least, that question has not been answered affirmatively.) No one has occupied Venezuela. The US has only captured and removed its leader. This could change, but as of now, this is not an appropriate change to make. Dcs002 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

maduro was not hiding, fleeing, evading or resisting. He was kidnapped; in effect a bloodless (maybe not) coup.

"Captured" needs to be changed to "kidnapped". Lindsay Cargill (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

You'd presumably have to find a better source than Reuters that uses the term kidnapped.FourLights (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We should probably find more than one, but a reliable source is a reliable source. Or are you using "better" to mean "doesn't say things I disagree with"? Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 10:15, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Capture = seize by force or planning. It applies. ~2025-31640-38 (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the most encyclopedic course would be to describe it as something like "captured in what (insert person here) has described as a kidnapping/abduction." Optionally add something like "and what the Trump administration has called a domestic law enforcement operation."

Rodriguez has called it a kidnapping, and Trump has said "kidnapping" is not a bad word to describe what happened.

Maduro has called it an abduction.

I'm sure there are plenty of other reliable or uninvolved sources that have called it such.

Gotrees4 (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

The choice of word here is very nuanced and important in this case because it's so politically charged. Our language absolutely has to be neutral. I agree that "kidnapping" is not appropriate because it's a loaded word with legal implications that have not been adjudicated. It's a WP:NPOV issue. "Captured" is not only WP:RS, but it's the most factual and neutral term I can think of. Arrested, abducted, taken into custody, kidnapped, seized, absconded with, brought to justice - anything else has too many NPOV connotations. I don't like the "in what (insert person here) has described as a kidnapping/abduction" wording you offered either because it gives weight to the "kidnapping" opinion in the basic, factual description of what happened. What Trump calls it is also not IMO relevant to a factual description. Not partisan, just neutral and factual. "Captured" is best IMO. Dcs002 (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it's time to add Extended Confirmed Protection to this article. Venezuela was and has been for years a touchy subject in United States politics. Thus, this falls under the "post-1992 politics" topic, a contentious topic. Haskeymorrison (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

That would be a horrible overreach of arbitration enforcement. Venezuela is a country in its own right, not a mere figment of US political discourse. ~2025-31640-38 (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Delcy Rodriguez is not interim president Michicoguapo (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

The constitutional court of Venezuela and other sources say that she is. ~2025-31640-38 (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

for 2025 the estimate is 28 million and for 2024 it was 31 million. i feel these should be aligned more... ~2026-14694-8 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion: Noticed this while translating the page in another wiki, the estimates vary dramatically depending on the source you consult. CIA puts it at around 32m, World Bank sets it at about 28, UN's only slightly more. Figure it derives from confusion over how to count refugees given the relatively flux nature of the state over the past decade or so. I'd imagine they probably haven't been overwhelmingly concerned with getting a proper headcount in that time either. Think it would be of better use to simply acknowledge that exact figures are difficult to pin down, or estimates vary considerably in methodology. That's what's I've done on the Swahili page. I find it unlikely that we'd be able to identify a penultimate source that could give a precise value; at least one that wouldn't be challenged down the line with an equally reliable reference.

All the best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Note that the same is true with the total area as listed in the infographic and the body of the introduction. Not sure how that managed to happen. Figure a difference of 4,000 square kilometers isn't worth freaking out over in the immediate term (given that it isn't nearly enough to be referencing Maduro's claim in recent times to Guyanese territory), but precision to that end is probably a bit more necessary; land doesn't just get up and walk away (and from what I can tell estimates of total shorefront reduction due to land loss and sea level rise aren't nearly that high). If anybody wants to do a deep dive to find out which one's arguably correct (or, alternatively, if neither of them are!), it'd be greatly appreciated.

Best,

CSGinger14 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change president to Donald trump ~2026-24597-8 (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. SimmeD (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Acting President: Donald Trump (claimed) ~2026-26954-2 (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Largoplazo (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

its very confusing bcoz her page says she was the vp up until january 5 so shes no longer the vp but the vp of venezeula says she is still incumbent so does she or does she not hold both the office the president and vp Seanbluekiller (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The vice presidency is an appointed position with no fixed term. She remains vice president and is concurrently acting president for the time being, in accordance with the Venezuelan constitution. She would either accede to the presidency in the case of Maduro's resignation or de jure removal, or go back to being the vice president upon his return. Aresef (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Government", this page reads: "Federal presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship". "Under an authoritarian dictatorship" is not factually correct. That's merely an opinion, and it is not backed by Venezuelan Constitution. Please change to "Federal multiparty republic with a unicameral legislature (National Assembly)" as indicated in Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela

Also, replace all usages of "regime" by "government". Czax (talk) 20:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before creating an edit request. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 20:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean? Czax (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It means you have to get a majority of editors to agree with you through a formal process (likely a request for comment) because you are not the only person making such a request, and others who have made similar requests have asked for it to be changed the other way (i.e. as a "totalitarian dictatorship", etc.). Wikipedia functions differently from Encyclopædia Britannica, which only allows editors trusted by the publishing company, i.e. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Yue🌙 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Venezuela stopped being an "Authoritarian Dictatorship" ever since 1999, when Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998. ~2026-30525-0 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The basics.....Chaplin, Ari. Chávez's Legacy: The Transformation from Democracy to a Mafia State . Bloomsbury Publishing USA. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-7618-8636-5. Moxy🍁 19:00, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Occupation of Venezuela has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 15 § Occupation of Venezuela until a consensus is reached. ~ A412 ^talk! 20:08, 15 March 2026 (UTC)