Talk:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt

1431:—one of these cited articles—perhaps clears that up later in the article: "The rumors of a coup to oust Chávez", noted The Miami Herald, "were being whispered, if not shouted, for months before the revolt." The coup wasn't a secret. As for the Al Jazeera video, I would call it a secondary source. The issue with a straight-up interview being used on Knowledge (XXG) is that there's no editorial oversight. People can just blurt whatever they want! In a documentary/report/whatever, the filmmakers have discretion to pick and choose what clips of an interview they conducted to then include in the film, which seems like the equivalent of editorial oversight to me. 590: 574: 305: 284: 251: 1042:

funny to see everyone who is not the most grovelling american ally or compradore state leaders in latam being pointedly referred to as 'dictator', and backing every regime change government, (ex: laughably even supporting the Áñez coup in Bolivia) and so on. I personally do not think this is a good newspaper to be used at all, but i realize it may be controversial to delete everything that is 'miami herald' in the article, do you have any suggestions as to how i should approach this.

2006:, I also didn't want to get involved in such topics either since I was immediately barraged with reverts and threats of blocks, but I saw a need and had to fill it. Overall, we need more participation on Venezuelan articles because they are very controversial and have some fairly blatant POV issues. If we have a larger amount of viewpoints present, the trajectory of varying views will point articles in a more NPOV direction instead of a few bold editors hammering away with arguments. 1351:

exactly what went on to happen. So it's not really just an instance of rising tension, and then a coup just kind of happened. I already think the article pushes this narrative too much via undue weight. I returned the info on who the plotters were and that they were openly plotting to the lead. They're critical points for NPOV balance and I don't think it was correct to remove it based on the source being a primary source (which I don't think documentaries are).

1316:

2. I pulled some info from the "US alleged role" section to place it earlier in the article, so I'll get to that to avoid redundancy. That whole section should just really be limited to things that after the coup, since it is the "Aftermath" section, after all. For ex., I'm under the impression Chavez sort of tried to weaponize the idea that the U.S. was behind the coup later on for political purposes, so that's the kind of thing that could go there.

622: 721: 315: 459: 211: 1511:) that is apparently the conclusions of the National Assembly fact finding comission, that specifically mention Articles 68 and 332 of the constitution has reportedly being violated, although these are more related to the right of assembly and demonstration. I can also see Article 328 quoted, which states that the Armed Forces must be impartial and without a political affiliation. 242: 531: 520: 509: 498: 487: 417: 389: 1107:', both are by I believe internationally critically accepted journalists. I am still very suspicious of The Miami Herald having more of a look on how it reports against latam but also i have to admit my own strong general bias against american media here (although, both i linked are amerian, both worked extensively in Venezuela with 968:, it is clear that sources from the U.S. Department of State have limitations and issues of provenance.American media and individual American experts can differ, of course, from the U.S. government's conflicts of interests, but it seems to me that the article represents a limited range of views. I've added a 2070:

A large part of me thinks it is imply easier to not engage than have to do the self-defeating routine of engaging sincerely with someone you are certain is not in good faith and the inevitable repercussions of that (,and I think it's very clear who administrators preference on this website..). Having

1157:

I want to point out that Golinger and Wilper are known supporters of Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution, which affects not only the neutrality of the sources but its reliability as well. Golinger being American and Wilper German, it won't help with the current issue of overrepresatation of English

996:

I will try to spend some time working on this article, i will go through the citations also to see what is being used and where claims are being sourced from. My worry is that if i put the time in to doing so that they will just get reverted, as these kinds of biases are seemingly systemic within the

2042:

I have listed my concerns but you are not listening. The majority of this article was written by Nelson, a fiction writer who had little professional background on the subject. In addition, you have consistently removed information provided by other topic experts without explanation, creating issues

1556:

Note: In a recent edit, I tried to clarify—while removing some redundancy—in what sense Plan Avila was unconstitutional and all I could find was Nelson's own website explaining it's an issue of a National Guard vs Army kind of thing. I accidentally lost the link but included the content anyway with

1448:

That all said, this is probably irrelevant anyway. I wanted to make a good faith effort to address your concerns, so I reworded the content to omit the "openly plotted" language and swapped the three refs for a very-much verifiable book already being used as a citation. I also added some more info

1315:

As stated in my edit summaries, I've made some structural changes to make things clearer and added some content from existing sources. There's probably more to go, both because, 1. the article's content seems lacking on the subject of advanced planning of the coup given that topic's importance, and

2094:

It's true the article heavily uses Brian A Nelson, but in this congested talk page I can't really see any issues raised with him apart from that he was a Fulbright Scholar (not normally used as evidence of being a poor source) and that he used to be a stockbroker. He wrote the Britannica article on

1717:

The difference with the edits you're referring to is that Nelson has been cited in this article for over eight years now, I have not been the editor to include him. The content that you have added, on the other hand, have been cherrypicked references mostly to support opinions or analyses, contrary

1376:

that dissolved much of the Chávez era institutions was drafted the day after Chávez was removed. While documentaries may not be described as primary sources, but interviews definitely are, so I would like to ask which part is quoted that supports the added statements, specially given that the other

1094:

What various Venezuelan critical journalists have written is something I am yet to look in to. I am trying to immerse myself in the material a little in english, it is a long time since all this happened it feels like a lifetime ago! Currently I am trying to rely on investigative reporters instead

1041:

is used in this article a lot. And whilst often what it is saying is in quotes and so on, the paper seems to be a news service that essentially (on the quick research i just did) just an outlet for the most hawkish of american policy in south/central america. Even just to skim their headlines it is

2071:

stated my extreme pessimism and or dejection I very much would still like to make an attempt, although I think a rule for myself I have made is that I would rather accept be reverted than having to have conversations with editors I have no faith in and as per my lack of at all lengthily knowledge.

2066:

I have followed closely enough to be confident to make edits about even things I think I know and do not have the time to do the reading in a larger sense. I find it very hard to see a lot of stuff in good faith... Maybe i am more 'tinfoil hat' than you guys but I tend to think that organizations

1365:

It really depends on which events you are focusing on. While there was a willingness to remove Chávez from power (including by peaceful means, as the whole purpose of the 11 April march was to ask for Chávez resignation), many others happened over the course in those days. Chavismo usually argues

1295:

On April 11th, 2002, there was NOT an attempt to do a coup d'état in Venezuela. What transpired was a peaceful march to the presidential palace, which was met with gunfire and as a result, president Chávez resigned. That is NOT a coup d'état. However, when Chávez was reinstated on April 13th by a

1258:

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. If you're aware that there's a side that has a significant bias, which is common with controversial topics, this should allow you to recognize authors that discuss the issues independently, taking the arguments from both sides. I heartily hope that you enjoy

1991:

Now regarding improvements, the main improvements we can make is having additional sources and a variety of viewpoints present with proper weight provided. This is an issue with Nelson in this current article; we have a fictional creative writer who was provided a grant from the United States to

1954:

I feel some guilt at doing nothing i said i would for this article but as well as a lot of things happening in my personal life as well as the usual thoughts and feelings around such articles that any changes towards neutrality will be an uphill battle with the so called people who inhabit this

1633:

in international relations, but that wasn't his main "focus" (he admits that he could not focus on what he wanted to do with his life at the time). So we have a creative writer of fiction with no former professional history related to the topic funded by the US being sent to Venezuela in 2002 to

928:

Chávez used a strategy of polarization in Venezuela, a them against us situation, in order to single out those who stood in the way of his progress. He would insult and use name calling against original supporters that would question him; the media, business leaders, the Catholic Church and the

1350:

I disagree a bit. The opposition narrative has always been that the coup was a spontaneous event after the overpass violence, but sources make it pretty clear the coup was being planned in advance—participants openly admit this and the CIA report really hammers it in by calling out in advance

1987:

Your reply is greatly appreciated. Achieving neutrality, especially in controversial articles like this one, is vital for Knowledge (XXG) and it requires the participation of every user involved. While the edits, reversions and discussions can be tiresome, it is important because through this

1711:

if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution (which at any rate you apparently have done already). If there is any reason why the stated facts should be questioned, say why. Don't say vaguely that we should doubt all of said sourced statements just because it is a specific

1486:

Thank you kindly for your last changes, I think there are definitely an improvement in reflecting the overall situation, particularly with the mention of the frequent demonstrations that took place before the coup. Please let me know if likewise any of my edits are objectionable. Regarding my

1198:

Sorry for the delayal, I've been meaning to respond. To put as an example, there are many issues with Wilper's work, but focusing on the main topic here, the most important one is that Wilper states as a fact that the coup was planned beforehand, which is something that has been debunked by

1335:

Your gut feeling is right. Chávez and his early communication system pushed forward as much as possible of the involvement of the media, the United States and opponents in the coup to act against them. Care should be taken to distinguish preexisting tension with the coup itself, which was

955:

A quick improvement would be to attribute all claims in prose: "According to Carroll Rory, Chávez used a strategy ..."However, I agree that fundamentally more non-American sources need to be used. Whether true or not (I don't know), it is concerning that we are referencing claims like

1199:

journalists that covered the events and as been repeated several times by the Chávez government. The latter point brings up also another important issue, which is that Wilper uses government sources several times, and which in turn also brings up the question of independence.

1817:

On 13 November 2001, Chávez passed a package of 49 laws, using the enabling act which was set to expire the following day such as rearranging public ministries while also changing major laws in the government, oil businesses and land usage without approval of the National

1223:

Yes. I am aware of the positions of the authors. This choice in reading was intentional on my part, as i already have a pretty good idea of what the narrative from the 'other side of the isle' is (as it is over-represented in the sources of this article), and

1319:

I also think the sections on the 11 April march should be moved into the overall "Coup" section given that's when it all got rolling. There's also some redundancy in content regarding the bridge shootings that would be more easily dealt with. Thoughts?

893:

This article is very bad. It reads like it is from the lips of the american 'state department' than a website that aims towards a neutral point of view. It really seems deep within this article. I would like advice to how to go about fixing this article.

1111:

being Venezuelan-American), i agree to make their takes less dominant in the article and contextualize them with what other journalists are saying. It would be great if could get some input by others for fresh (to the article) sources, too. Cheers. :)

1995:

In addition, the lack of source variety plagues multiple Venezuelan articles where the views of the government are completely wiped from existence. I get it, government propaganda exists, but this makes Venezuelan articles written from the POV of the

1202:

At the same time, omission also affects reliability. Explaining the coup, Wilper ignores many important factors that led up to it, such as the dismissal of the PDVSA board of directors with a referee whistle, on national television, the activation of

581: 399: 2067:

rather than actual people direct the tenor of these kind of articles.. I have never once ever in my life met anyone who with a straight face cite US State Department sources on any such event as Article, that whole concept does not seem believable..

1992:

write about the 2002 coup events. Again, not promoting some crackpot conspiracy about Nelson being a CIA operative or the like, but that if we can have a larger variety of sources, then more details and less doubts of reliability come into play.

1641:. While I'm not going to put on tinfoil hat here, it is obvious why they should not be cited for any controversial information. As for anything non-controversial, that information should be provided by a more reliable third party source. 1487:

question of "openly plotting", I did not mean to ask specifically for its meaning, but rather for more details, and how it was taken place in theory. By saying that these leaders declared that the reportedly had support, it is specific.

1988:

struggle, agreements can be made. The important thing with such editing is not to take anything personal; this includes the edits/reverts of other users and also your own interpretation on being responsible for Knowledge (XXG) content.

1705:

All of this is a huge ad-hominem argument, failing to address the substance of the problems with the sentences and arguing points as far-fetched that Nelson was funded by the United States government because he received a public

1138:

have investigative reporters in Venezuela?", not "are there investigative reporters in Venezuela?", but you've answered that question.Claims from these books will need attribution in prose but are, I think, generally usable. —

153: 1391:

I also forgot to mention the participants: the fact that the military was divided and a part of it planned Chávez removal does not mean that businesses, unions, church leaders or other social actors were part of these plans.

1834:

Pro-opposition police and chavistas entered a gun battle and few demonstrators began to follow behind them with pings of gunfire heard on the police armored vehicles, though the marchers fled shortly after as the violence

1955:

space like it is every time NPOV clashes with american foreign policy interests and worldviews, all stresses that make it more often than not simply - to me at least, i am sure to others too though - not worth attempting.

1828:

By 12:30 pm, thousands of government supporters were gathered around the palace blocking all routes to Miraflores except for the Llaguno Overpass, which was where the Bolivarian Circles had gathered to overlook the

597: 403: 1296:

military action led by general Baduel, THAT is something that can rightly be called a coup d'état. In summary, the article's name should be changed, e.g. to "The events of April 11, 2002, in Venezuela"

2028:

SP00KY listed their specific concerns with the article (some of which I believe were addressed) but you haven't. Unless there's a discussion about substance, there probably will be little progress. --

1823:

National Assembly Deputy Juan Barreto told loyalists through the media covering the situation, "The call is to Miraflores! Everyone to Miraflores to defend your revolution! Don't let them through!"

2186: 1808:

You're not analyzing the source, you're describing and criticizing the author. You remain to explain why statements should be questioned, including those that seem pretty much matter-of-factly:

965: 1557:

a "citation needed" since it seems important. I'd search my history for the link again but it's a self-published source anyway and we should try for something secondary. Anyone got one?

2181: 1913:, and that Manuel Rosendo opposed this. I have already replaced one of the State Department's sources, but most of the statements are uncontroversial. This is just but one example of why 1648:, your edits are confusing since you defend your removal of material in some articles, yet you oppose similar edits that involve the deletion of material by other users. For example at 1812:

In 2000, the pro-Chávez National Assembly granted President Chávez emergency powers and the ability to rule by decree through an enabling act to tend to the poor state of the economy.

934:

Chávez fired ... members of the PDVSA board of directors on his Aló Presidente program, mocking each worker by name and used a referee whistle, as if to expel them from a soccer match

147: 2151: 1232:

sources are used. which i think we all here are mature enough to understand and use responsibly. I will put the other books on my list and I appreciate the recs a lot, Thank You @

1336:

precipitated with the deaths in the Llaguno Overpass. I have made some initial changes to reflect this. I also support an expansion in the Aftermath section for these reasons. --

44: 472: 429: 1958:

So yes, HOW do we improve this article? How do we account for and work around the kind of disingenuous editing and reverts and arguments that will come along with it? ~~~

1427:

states that verifiability does not require cited sources to be available online. You also question what "openly plotting" even means, which kind of surprises me, but the

202: 1377:

two sources cannot be accessed. At any rate, at just a 9 minutes length, I don't think the Aljazeera video can be considered a documentary as much as a video report. --

835: 831: 817: 1095:

of the kind of news reports this article replies heavily on, which is often not to be rude to them but lazy and/or reciprocatively-journalism. I am currently reading '

704: 458: 1931:

Can you provide a better source? The link you shared appears to be from an opposition activist website. Also, we would need a secondary source for such information.

2141: 1423:

In your recent edits, you removed info again, claiming failed verification because you couldn't access the two cited articles. I think this was inappropriate, as

371: 79: 1207:, and that Chávez would later admit that he deliberately provoked a crisis. Most of the issues that I have mentioned here also happen with Golinger's work. -- 2136: 2166: 1180:

Can you expand a bit on how it affects reliability? Neutrality, yes, which is why I recommended attribution in prose. But every source has a provenance. —

361: 198: 194: 190: 255: 2196: 2176: 2156: 1019:

Yes, I know the feeling. You can never be guaranteed that your edits won't be reverted, but I agree that you've identified a problem with the article. —

1690:

Overall, much of this article is POV and heavily sourced from Nelson. We need some more sources and verification to support many of the bold claims.

424: 394: 1614: 1228:

Biorv has already made clear as to how anything from said authors should be added. I do not think it is a good reason to not use them, the issue is

1076:

for a regional paper, not even the largest in Florida, to be a dominant source in the article. Do they have investigative reporters in Venezuela? —

85: 2191: 2146: 787: 1660:, you defended the removal of information that was provided by a single source, justifying the removal as "undue" or something similar. You also 337: 1884:

Again, please focus on the question at hand: Why are you questioning the statements veracity? Why do you believe additional sources are needed?

648: 2201: 803: 433: 643: 168: 30: 2106: 135: 2161: 1634:

write about the coup attempt... Nelson is not someone who should be contributing nearly as much information to the article as they are.

733: 1664:, saying that it was "opinion." So, why should we be accepting the "opinion" of former engineer and stockbroker Nelson (who is not a 639: 633: 328: 289: 99: 1638: 1297: 961: 813:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

1887:

Is there a reason to believe that this information is wrong? Or are you only concerned on reliance on a single sources? Regards, --

104: 20: 759: 642:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

589: 74: 2131: 1532:

Would you like me to help with any other aspect? I would love to continue giving a hand in any other way I can. Best regards --

755: 751: 747: 743: 264: 129: 1653: 949:... media owners down to reporters feeling threatened with Chávez even calling out individual journalists by name in speeches 739: 65: 1372:

by the military high command was planned or recorded beforehand, but the journalists present dismiss this version, and the

1072:. I think it is fine to use here and there—it's important to cover the views of American policy—but it doesn't seem like 125: 1104: 878: 24: 939:

There is no consensus as to who was responsible for the deaths on that day, and this remains a very controversial issue

2171: 621: 1597:

biased and heavily based on one source; Nelson. Nelson is the only source listed in the bibliography and is used in

175: 1744:. Nelson studied fictional writing and we are supposed to take his word for the majority of this article? You say, 210: 185: 109: 2113: 1863:), but readers and the project overall need to have additional sources provided for accuracy and verifiability. 1424: 834:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

221: 1860: 997:

wikipedia project, so i appreciate another user adding the bias tag and so on and being in support. Cheers. :)

1760:

made by Nelson that were presented in Wikivoice. We could use more sources to support what Nelson is claiming.

1305: 270: 2079: 2000:, especially when there are users editing articles that were apparently involved in the protests themselves. 1966: 1657: 1244: 1120: 1096: 1050: 1005: 972: 905: 869: 795: 428:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a 804:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090117061420/http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

791: 573: 141: 1598: 55: 2103: 1997: 1665: 1649: 1301: 853:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

841: 336:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1166:

by Francisco Olivares as books to start with, and Margarita López Maya or Inés Quintero as scholars. --

794:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 70: 1685:"responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" 720: 2109: 2033: 1922: 1892: 1846: 1723: 1537: 1397: 1382: 1341: 1264: 1212: 1171: 1914: 1776: 1677: 1669: 241: 807: 161: 1764: 2072: 2048: 2011: 2003: 1982: 1959: 1936: 1909:(that I provided above), literally the first section states clearly that Chávez did activate the 1868: 1799: 1695: 1674:"work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" 1630: 1580: 1562: 1454: 1356: 1325: 1237: 1113: 1043: 998: 898: 226: 2096: 1791: 1772: 1753: 838:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

854: 1610: 942: 51: 2108:

Are there scholarly or journalistic critiques of his take that you can point us to WMrapids?

1749: 1681: 1186: 1145: 1082: 1025: 984: 320: 223: 1073: 861: 304: 283: 2117: 2088: 2052: 2037: 2029: 2015: 1975: 1940: 1926: 1918: 1896: 1888: 1872: 1850: 1842: 1803: 1727: 1719: 1699: 1645: 1618: 1566: 1541: 1533: 1458: 1401: 1393: 1386: 1378: 1368: 1360: 1345: 1337: 1329: 1268: 1260: 1253: 1233: 1216: 1208: 1193: 1175: 1167: 1152: 1129: 1100: 1089: 1069: 1059: 1032: 1014: 991: 914: 883: 225: 1373: 820:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 1105:'Changing Venezuela by Taking Power: The History and Policies of the Chavez Government 860:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

827: 2125: 2044: 2007: 1932: 1910: 1879: 1864: 1795: 1718:

to facts. Don't repeat these cleanups just blindly to "justify that you're right". --

1691: 1588: 1558: 1481: 1450: 1352: 1321: 1204: 1626: 1108: 1917:

applies here and this tagging, without any substance analysis, is disruptive. . --

1602: 1584: 1225: 1181: 1140: 1077: 1020: 979: 1906: 1771:. Just because the information was present for so long does not mean it is not 1509: 826:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 310: 2101: 2099: 727: 333: 1097:

The Chávez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela - by Golinger, Eva

958:

Cabello the media would be "responsible for the blood that will be shed"

966:

invasions, coups and economic and military intervention in Latin America

1622: 1907:

the conclusions of the National Assembly's fact finding commission

1905:

And while simply skimming through the talk page so far and opening

1786:

with the inappropriate "stable version" argument too. In addition,

416: 388: 1746:"if the problem is using an editorial voice, then use attribution" 1782:

that there were too many citations from the US State Department.

1617:. He is also not a political or historical professional, he is a 1068:

a reliable source and is particularly esteemed in its number of

808:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020412-1.html

1449:

from the book to note the country's increasing polarization.

235: 227: 15: 1951:

You're right, the question is though. What do we do about it?

1676:) while you attempt to erase information from scholars? Your 588: 572: 457: 726:

Facts from this article were featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s

1593:

have pointed out in previous discussions, this article is

798:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1406:

Let's see how brief I can keep this... probably not very!

978:

tag with the aim of drawing more edits to the article. —

1788:

you inappropriately removed Bart Jones and other sources

1856: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1768: 1661: 697: 678: 2098:

and seems to have some relevant academic publications.

1627:

formerly a stockbroker and automotive systems engineer

160: 652:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

470:

This article has been checked against the following

332:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2187:

South American military history task force articles

1763:You seem to be justifying the inappropriate use of 1742:

who has contributed to the majority of this article

830:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 555: 469: 174: 2152:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles in History 2182:B-Class South American military history articles 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1855:Things that may seem "matter of fact" to you ( 816:This message was posted before February 2018. 1857:you've been active on English Knowledge (XXG) 8: 1784:You seem to have countered Burrobert's edits 964:. Given the U.S. state's lengthy history of 442:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Military history 1769:I have already told you can lead to a block 2105:His book has a decent number of citations. 1750:verifiability does not guarantee inclusion 1637:We also have dozens of citations from the 786:I have just modified one external link on 657: 616: 582:South American military history task force 552: 466: 383: 278: 2142:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in History 1680:claims are not valid since according to 1615:United States Cultural Exchange Programs 422:This article is within the scope of the 1790:, citing the essay you mainly crafted, 1662:removed information from three scholars 385: 280: 239: 2137:Knowledge (XXG) level-5 vital articles 1833: 1827: 1822: 1816: 1811: 1745: 1684: 1673: 957: 948: 938: 933: 927: 432:. To use this banner, please see the 445:Template:WikiProject Military history 346:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Venezuela 7: 326:This article is within the scope of 2063:You are far more optimistic than I. 788:2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt 269:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2167:High-importance Venezuela articles 1311:Recent edits... with more to go(?) 14: 2197:Post-Cold War task force articles 2177:B-Class military history articles 2157:B-Class vital articles in History 1639:United States Department of State 1290: 962:United States Department of State 790:. Please take a moment to review 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 1259:these readings. Kind regards, -- 719: 620: 529: 518: 507: 496: 485: 415: 387: 313: 303: 282: 249: 240: 209: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 1603:actually received US government 1291:The article's title is not NPOV 366:This article has been rated as 2192:B-Class Post-Cold War articles 2147:B-Class level-5 vital articles 1654:Venezuelan presidential crisis 638:nominee, but did not meet the 349:Template:WikiProject Venezuela 1: 2118:19:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2089:23:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2053:17:12, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2038:15:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 2016:15:00, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 1976:17:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC) 1941:23:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1927:21:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1897:15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 1873:23:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1851:21:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1804:20:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1728:19:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1700:16:29, 26 November 2023 (UTC) 1134:Just to clarify: I meant "do 884:07:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC) 340:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 2202:Former good article nominees 628:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 425:Military history WikiProject 25:2002 Venezuelan coup attempt 1752:, especially when it is as 769:Former good article nominee 2218: 2162:B-Class Venezuela articles 1254:22:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 1194:19:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 1176:18:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC) 1153:18:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC) 1130:16:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 1090:06:25, 16 April 2023 (UTC) 1060:22:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 1033:18:09, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 1015:15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC) 992:12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC) 922:in Knowledge (XXG)'s voice 915:15:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC) 847:(last update: 5 June 2024) 783:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 646:. Editors may also seek a 490:Referencing and citation: 372:project's importance scale 766: 660: 656: 596: 580: 551: 448:military history articles 410: 365: 298: 277: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1861:2014 Venezuelan protests 1775:or possibly inaccurate. 1607:Silence and the Scorpion 1567:23:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1542:18:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1459:14:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1402:07:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1387:07:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC) 1361:21:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1346:19:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC) 1330:16:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) 1306:19:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC) 1269:21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) 1217:21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC) 598:Post-Cold War task force 1780:already raised concerns 1658:Operation Gideon (2020) 1601:about 60 times. Nelson 1508:I found this document ( 1158:sources. I'd recommend 779:External links modified 556:Associated task forces: 501:Coverage and accuracy: 2132:B-Class vital articles 593: 577: 534:Supporting materials: 462: 75:avoid personal attacks 1998:Venezuelan opposition 1666:subject-matter expert 1650:Venezuelan opposition 1037:Hey. I noticed that ' 640:good article criteria 634:History good articles 592: 576: 461: 329:WikiProject Venezuela 263:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 256:level-5 vital article 203:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 1162:by Alfredo Meza and 1160:El Acertijo de Abril 828:regular verification 705:Good article nominee 686:Good article nominee 105:No original research 1672:as he did not have 920:Some examples, all 818:After February 2018 523:Grammar and style: 476:for B-class status: 2172:Venezuela articles 1740:analyzing a source 1164:Las balas de abril 872:InternetArchiveBot 823:InternetArchiveBot 661:Article milestones 594: 578: 463: 430:list of open tasks 352:Venezuela articles 265:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 1631:bachelor's degree 1629:. He does have a 1611:Fulbright Program 1605:funding to write 1039:The Miami Herald' 943:MOS:CONTROVERSIAL 889:Non-NPOV article. 848: 774: 773: 714: 713: 615: 614: 611: 610: 607: 606: 603: 602: 547: 546: 434:full instructions 382: 381: 378: 377: 234: 233: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2209: 2086: 2077: 1986: 1973: 1964: 1883: 1748:, ignoring that 1592: 1573:Terrible article 1485: 1251: 1242: 1189: 1148: 1136:The Miami Herald 1127: 1118: 1085: 1057: 1048: 1028: 1012: 1003: 987: 977: 971: 912: 903: 882: 873: 846: 845: 824: 767:Current status: 723: 700: 698:January 21, 2011 681: 658: 624: 617: 563: 553: 537: 533: 532: 526: 522: 521: 515: 511: 510: 504: 500: 499: 493: 489: 488: 467: 450: 449: 446: 443: 440: 439:Military history 419: 412: 411: 406: 395:Military history 391: 384: 354: 353: 350: 347: 344: 323: 321:Venezuela portal 318: 317: 316: 307: 300: 299: 294: 286: 279: 262: 253: 252: 245: 244: 236: 228: 214: 213: 204: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2217: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2122: 2121: 2110:BobFromBrockley 2080: 2073: 1980: 1967: 1960: 1877: 1736:an ad hominem, 1621:specialized in 1619:creative writer 1578: 1575: 1479: 1425:WP:SOURCEACCESS 1369:pronunciamiento 1313: 1293: 1245: 1238: 1187: 1146: 1121: 1114: 1083: 1070:Pulitzer Prizes 1051: 1044: 1026: 1006: 999: 985: 975: 969: 906: 899: 891: 876: 871: 839: 832:have permission 822: 796:this simple FaQ 781: 696: 679:August 10, 2006 677: 561: 535: 530: 524: 519: 513: 508: 502: 497: 491: 486: 447: 444: 441: 438: 437: 397: 368:High-importance 351: 348: 345: 342: 341: 319: 314: 312: 293:High‑importance 292: 260: 250: 230: 229: 224: 201: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2215: 2213: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2194: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2174: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2154: 2149: 2144: 2139: 2134: 2124: 2123: 2092: 2091: 2068: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2043:with balance. 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2001: 1993: 1989: 1956: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1885: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1831: 1825: 1820: 1814: 1761: 1714: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1574: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1389: 1374:Carmona Decree 1312: 1309: 1292: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1200: 1155: 1101:Gregory Wilper 953: 952: 951: 946: 936: 931: 890: 887: 866: 865: 858: 811: 810: 802:Added archive 780: 777: 772: 771: 764: 763: 760:April 11, 2022 756:April 11, 2017 752:April 11, 2009 748:April 11, 2008 744:April 11, 2007 740:April 11, 2006 734:On this day... 724: 716: 715: 712: 711: 708: 701: 693: 692: 689: 682: 674: 673: 670: 667: 663: 662: 654: 653: 625: 613: 612: 609: 608: 605: 604: 601: 600: 595: 585: 584: 579: 569: 568: 566: 564: 558: 557: 549: 548: 545: 544: 542: 540: 539: 538: 527: 516: 505: 494: 480: 479: 477: 464: 454: 453: 451: 420: 408: 407: 392: 380: 379: 376: 375: 364: 358: 357: 355: 338:the discussion 325: 324: 308: 296: 295: 287: 275: 274: 268: 246: 232: 231: 222: 220: 219: 216: 215: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2214: 2203: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2193: 2190: 2188: 2185: 2183: 2180: 2178: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2163: 2160: 2158: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2140: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2127: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2084: 2078: 2076: 2069: 2065: 2062: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004:W1tchkr4ft 00 2002: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1984: 1983:W1tchkr4ft 00 1979: 1978: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1971: 1965: 1963: 1957: 1953: 1950: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1830: 1826: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1767:again, which 1766: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1741: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1716: 1715: 1710: 1709: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1688: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1642: 1640: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1581:W1tchkr4ft 00 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1555: 1554: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1510: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1483: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1317: 1310: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1249: 1243: 1241: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1154: 1150: 1149: 1142: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1125: 1119: 1117: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1056: 1055: 1049: 1047: 1040: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1011: 1010: 1004: 1002: 995: 994: 993: 989: 988: 981: 974: 973:Systemic bias 967: 963: 959: 954: 950: 947: 944: 940: 937: 935: 932: 930: 929:middle class. 926: 925: 923: 919: 918: 917: 916: 913: 911: 910: 904: 902: 895: 888: 886: 885: 880: 875: 874: 863: 859: 856: 852: 851: 850: 843: 837: 833: 829: 825: 819: 814: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 797: 793: 789: 784: 778: 776: 770: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 735: 729: 725: 722: 718: 717: 709: 707: 706: 702: 699: 695: 694: 690: 688: 687: 683: 680: 676: 675: 671: 668: 665: 664: 659: 655: 651: 650: 645: 641: 637: 636: 635: 629: 626: 623: 619: 618: 599: 591: 587: 586: 583: 575: 571: 570: 567: 565: 560: 559: 554: 550: 543: 541: 536:criterion met 528: 525:criterion met 517: 514:criterion met 506: 503:criterion met 495: 492:criterion met 484: 483: 482: 481: 478: 475: 474: 468: 465: 460: 456: 455: 452: 435: 431: 427: 426: 421: 418: 414: 413: 409: 405: 404:Post-Cold War 401: 400:South America 396: 393: 390: 386: 373: 369: 363: 360: 359: 356: 339: 335: 331: 330: 322: 311: 309: 306: 302: 301: 297: 291: 288: 285: 281: 276: 272: 266: 258: 257: 247: 243: 238: 237: 218: 217: 212: 208: 200: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2093: 2082: 2081: 2074: 1969: 1968: 1961: 1758:sixty claims 1757: 1739: 1737: 1733: 1706:scholarship. 1689: 1643: 1636: 1609:through the 1606: 1594: 1576: 1429:Miami Herald 1428: 1367: 1318: 1314: 1294: 1247: 1246: 1239: 1229: 1185: 1163: 1159: 1144: 1135: 1123: 1122: 1115: 1109:Eva Golinger 1081: 1065: 1053: 1052: 1045: 1038: 1024: 1008: 1007: 1000: 983: 921: 908: 907: 900: 896: 892: 870: 867: 842:source check 821: 815: 812: 785: 782: 775: 768: 731: 703: 685: 684: 649:reassessment 647: 632: 631: 627: 471: 423: 367: 327: 271:WikiProjects 254: 206: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 1298:104.61.71.9 897:Thanks. x. 644:renominated 512:Structure: 148:free images 31:not a forum 2126:Categories 2030:NoonIcarus 1919:NoonIcarus 1915:WP:SOFIXIT 1911:Plan Ávila 1889:NoonIcarus 1859:since the 1843:NoonIcarus 1756:as having 1720:NoonIcarus 1678:WP:SOFIXIT 1670:WP:SELFPUB 1646:NoonIcarus 1644:Regarding 1534:NoonIcarus 1394:NoonIcarus 1379:NoonIcarus 1338:NoonIcarus 1261:NoonIcarus 1234:NoonIcarus 1209:NoonIcarus 1205:Plan Ávila 1168:NoonIcarus 1074:due weight 879:Report bug 738:column on 710:Not listed 691:Not listed 1818:Assembly. 1777:Burrobert 1765:WP:STABLE 1625:that was 1599:Wikivoice 1366:that the 1066:generally 862:this tool 855:this tool 728:Main Page 343:Venezuela 334:Venezuela 290:Venezuela 259:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2045:WMrapids 2008:WMrapids 1933:WMrapids 1880:WMrapids 1865:WMrapids 1796:WMrapids 1792:WP:VENRS 1738:this is 1732:This is 1692:WMrapids 1589:Mbinebri 1559:Mbinebri 1482:Mbinebri 1451:Mbinebri 1353:Mbinebri 1322:Mbinebri 868:Cheers.— 473:criteria 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2095:Chavez, 1712:author. 1682:WP:ONUS 1623:fiction 1613:of the 1587:, and 960:to the 792:my edit 730:in the 669:Process 370:on the 261:B-class 207:90 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2075:SP00KY 1962:SP00KY 1829:route. 1585:Bilorv 1240:SP00KY 1226:Bilorv 1182:Bilorv 1141:Bilorv 1116:SP00KY 1099:' and 1078:Bilorv 1064:It is 1046:SP00KY 1021:Bilorv 1001:SP00KY 980:Bilorv 901:SP00KY 758:, and 672:Result 630:was a 267:scale. 126:Google 1835:grew. 1773:undue 1754:undue 1236:. :) 941:(see 248:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2114:talk 2083:talk 2049:talk 2034:talk 2012:talk 1970:talk 1937:talk 1923:talk 1893:talk 1869:talk 1847:talk 1800:talk 1724:talk 1696:talk 1668:per 1656:and 1595:very 1563:talk 1538:talk 1455:talk 1398:talk 1383:talk 1357:talk 1342:talk 1326:talk 1302:talk 1265:talk 1248:talk 1213:talk 1188:talk 1172:talk 1147:talk 1124:talk 1103:t's 1084:talk 1054:talk 1027:talk 1009:talk 986:talk 909:talk 666:Date 362:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 1734:not 1577:As 1230:how 836:RfC 806:to 176:TWL 2128:: 2116:) 2051:) 2036:) 2014:) 1939:) 1925:) 1895:) 1871:) 1849:) 1841:-- 1802:) 1794:. 1726:) 1698:) 1687:. 1652:, 1583:, 1565:) 1540:) 1457:) 1400:) 1392:-- 1385:) 1359:) 1344:) 1328:) 1304:) 1267:) 1215:) 1192:) 1174:) 1151:) 1088:) 1031:) 990:) 976:}} 970:{{ 924:: 849:. 844:}} 840:{{ 754:, 750:, 746:, 742:, 562:/ 402:/ 398:: 205:: 197:, 193:, 156:) 54:; 2112:( 2047:( 2032:( 2010:( 1985:: 1981:@ 1935:( 1921:( 1891:( 1882:: 1878:@ 1867:( 1845:( 1798:( 1722:( 1694:( 1591:: 1579:@ 1561:( 1536:( 1484:: 1480:@ 1453:( 1396:( 1381:( 1355:( 1340:( 1324:( 1300:( 1263:( 1224:@ 1211:( 1184:( 1170:( 1143:( 1080:( 1023:( 982:( 945:) 881:) 877:( 864:. 857:. 762:. 736:" 732:" 436:. 374:. 273:: 199:3 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index