Talk:Plan Ávila

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

Military history: South America Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	South American military history task force

top

User:00666, please explain why you are deleting references. Thanks, Sandy 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

These references were in Spanish, and the Wikipedia rules state that in the English encyclopedia, all references must be in English.

Thank you for responding on talk. That's not actually what Wiki guidelines state. Per WP:RS:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be provided whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources (assuming equal quality and reliability). For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper. However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources.

You have also deleted an English-language reference. Please do not delete any more references. Thanks, Sandy 22:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection between Chavez, Plan Avila and coup attempt

As requested, sources indicating 1) Chavez's issuance of the order to put Plan Avila into action and 2) the opposition from high ranking officers who expected a repeat of the 1989 bloodbath.

From Richard Gott (at 225):

Already aware at midday of the dangers inherent in the situation, Chavez - in Miraflores - decided to unroll the so-called Plan Avila, an existing military plan designed to mobilise an emergency force to protect the palace and to resist an impending coup.

From the New York Times:

Feeling vulnerable, Mr. Chávez ordered tanks and troops to move to the palace from army headquarters at Fort Tiuna, in Caracas. But military commanders, fearing a repetition of the 1989 bloodshed, told the president that they would not obey him. The result would have been a massacre, General González said. Military dissidents who had plotted against Mr. Chávez had sought out business leaders thought to be sympathetic. They included Pedro Carmona Estanga, the president of Fedecámaras, the main national business confederation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.192.88 (talk) 23:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conecting two or more sources to advance a position is original research. See WP:SYN. JRSP (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One source mentions the plan by name, to indicate that it was in fact ordered. The second is clearly referring to the same thing but has left out the name of the plan, likely because the detail would be meaningless to the paper's American audience. I really wouldn't see that as a synthesis to reach a novel conclusion not contemplated by either source. But thank you for leaving the edits as they are, rather than reverting. Hopefully someone else can weigh in on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Jay (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gott book is openly pro-Chavez

Today I removed a contentious statement that is only attributed to the Gott book, which is openly partisan pro-Chavez. I left the reference since it is also used for a non-contentious statement, although ideally another reference should be provided and this partisan book be removed altogether from the reference list, alternatively clearly indicated as being a partisan source. 98.254.64.229 (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published by Verso Books which is a recognized publishing house, so the book meets the conditions of WP:RS guideline. According to this, I'll restore the statement you deleted. JRSP (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better source needed

Following up in the above section of over ten years ago, today I reviewed the referenced page in Gott's book, and it states that "the majority of those killed" during the Llaguno Overpass events "were Chávez supporters". However, other works such as Las Balas de Abril (Olivares, 2006), show actually the opposite, just like a simple review of that day's killed. Likewise, the compilation of El Acertijo de Abril (Meza, 2012) reports that the journalists present when the military officers asked for Chávez's resignation were informed of the deaths in Caracas as they were recording their declarations, not that the shooting was "orchestrated" as Gott's book claims. I have tagged the reference accordingly. NoonIcarus (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]