Talk:National Center for Foreign Commerce

Venezuela Mid‑importance

	Venezuela portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

note[edit]

PLANILLA "SOLICITUD DE AUTORIZACIÓN DE ADQUISICIÓN DE DIVISAS DESTINADAS AL PAGO DE ACTIVIDADES ACADÉMICAS EN EL EXTERIOR" (FORMACADIVI-001) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.242.76.148 (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CADIVI[edit]

I think you are POV when only show old information, like the reason about what CADIVI exists back in 2003, and with the only source of the government, why you keep editing reliable source updated information, people has the right to know more about specific details about this regulation, is like trying to explain the Britain Elections with only one paragraph give me a break, if we are neutral we have to show both sides, not only the official story, remember Wikipedia does not have strict rules. BCLH (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've said why I removed those details - Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. CADIVI says why it was created. If you have some proper sources about the economic impact of exchange controls, that might be relevant. Opinion (sourced or otherwise) plus details of how to exchange currency are not encyclopedic. Believe it or not, I've been a Wikipedia editor a long time, and I know what I'm doing, which is writing an encyclopedia. Rd232 ^talk 15:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the CADIVI article needs to be about CADIVI - and not about Venezuelan exchange controls. Decisions made about those controls, and their effects, may well belong elsewhere. CADIVI is just an agency, and discussion should take into account the extent to which it makes the relevant decisions, or just does admin. (This is one area to clarify: to what extent does CADIVI have decision power in allocating foreign exchange? How much freedom does it have as an agency? etc.) Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS this sort of discussion should really be at Talk:CADIVI to make it more likely others can get involved. Rd232 ^talk 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so we can create an article about efects of the currency control in Venezuela?. Does that fits in Wikipedia? BCLH (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, I guess (depends on the exact title). I can't find any comparable articles on that kind of topic for other countries though, and Foreign exchange controls itself has hardly any content. It would probably be better to start off with a section in Economy of Venezuela (although that article needs lots of work generally, adding a section won't hurt, it's a mess anyway). It can then spin off into its own article if the content justifies it. Which is the key point: it needs to have good sources providing economic analysis, not anecdotes or mere listing of the details of the controls. Rd232 ^talk 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To date my contribution is minor (clarifying the "legal" status of the exchange mechanism etc. Before making either of two pending changes I wanted to highlight them here: A) The link to CADAVI ("CADIVI, una medidia necesaria") appears to be a broken link. Furthermore, by its very title one can see its lack of neutral POV, requiring that it be cited as an "official explanation." B) The structure and placement of the reference to the 2003 strike appears to me to be adding an opinion, again non-neutral POV. I suggest that if it is desired to retain that reference in the article. that it at least be made independent from the simple sentence which has the dates and fully objective information. Opinions? GrinchPeru (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Center for Foreign Commerce. 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/20081205143924/http://www.cadivi.gov.ve/cadivi/cadivi.html to http://www.cadivi.gov.ve/cadivi/cadivi.html

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: 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) 12:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]