Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Operation Gideon (2020). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 8 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago181 comments33 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I'm getting a sense of déjà vu here. Like in the previous discussion, there isn't a consensus amongst reliable sources on what to call it, but in this case, it's whether the incident warrants the lofty title of "coup attempt". A lot of what I said in the (later re-opened, then re-closed by another with the same result) close of the Bolivian political crisis article sticks here too: "coup" is a very emotive word to use and thus there's a high bar for its use. Maybe when the dust settles in a few months, we can revisit this, but right now, I don't see any consensus here or in reliable sources to use the term "coup" yet. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 07:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto Bay raid → 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – A multitude of reliable sources across multiple languages are now describing the operation as a coup attempt after Silvercorp admitted their objectives. This is the main criteria for including the word "coup" in an article title according to WP:Coup, an essay I created. Surprisingly, CNN, Fox News and Voice of America agreed to describe the event as a coup as well. --ZiaLater (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater sources 1

Here is a list of over 20 international sources describing the event as a coup:

Please maintain a civil discussion while we analyze this! Thank you --ZiaLater (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against "coup." Why are we not also considering "Operation Gideon"?--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: There are multiple Operation Gideon articles on Wikipedia, including Operación Gedeón during the El Junquito raid that killed Óscar Alberto Pérez.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION if we have to call it Operation Gideon (Macuto raid) or whatever to make it precise, it should not be a problem.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an error in this; the events occurred in Macuto, Carayaca, Chuao, El Junquito, Cepe and Puerto Cruz. Some of these are in totally different regions. How would this be precise ?----ZiaLater (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am just saying that if "Operation Gideon" decided to be the right way to name this event, a in between parentheses subtitle, no matter how long can be used to make it precise.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the Spanish the articles were differentiated with years, Operation Gideon (2018) and Operation Gideon (2020). Since El Junquito raid as not changed its title in English, the difference can be easily Distinguish template, like it was done before with the Palestine operation. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why make readers fumble through a cumbersome distinguish page when 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt is precise enough?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Macuto raid is even more precise. We have to make a difference between the plot and what actually happened. 2014 protests in Venezuela were also about overthrowing Maduro, but were are not calling that a coup just because some news mumble about it.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Placed sources from section below. Did not merge sections as there are two separate discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on potential CANVASSING

Pinging users who were involved in a previously discussed article regarding a potential coup title: @Zellfire999: @Jogarz1921: @Loesorion: @BlindNight: @Prinsgezinde: @SirEdimon: @Iamextremelygayokay: @Davey2116: @Charles Essie: @Cmonghost: @Alcibiades979: @Derim Hunt: @Elelch: @Jip Orlando: @StjepanHR: @Resnjari: @JoshuaChen: @Miserlou: @BobNesh: @Bleff: @Surachit: @Sceptre: @Antondimak: @Fjsalguero: @Bigwigge:

I am hoping that we can broaden the discussion from only a few users so we can have an example for any possible future articles facing similar discussions.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Could you please point out which is this article in question and how this pings will improve the discussion? The thread is already way long, which means they can just make it harder to close. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@ZiaLater: can I ask what similar discussion are you referring to? This could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, more specifically WP:VOTESTACK.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)--ReyHahn (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --Orgullomoore (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC).

I see your concerns, but it still appears that the consensus is divided. I pinged users from the 2019 Bolivian political crisis discussions that were not already involved with this discussion. They were not chosen in any particular way, just that they were included in past move discussions. Any accusations of canvassing or vote stacking are false.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Why weren't the participants of the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt move discussion invited instead? A discussion that has been cited in this discussion and is actually related to Venezuela. If I'm not mistaken, out of the 25 pinged users, 19 showed support to move the article to "coup" (a 76%, 13 of which specifically showed "strong support" and one that had made few or no other edits outside this topic), compared to only 5 that opposed and one that commented. This is not balanced. The uprising attempt discussion, on the other hand, appears to be more divided.

This is the reason why there are concerns of canvassing, which I share. Since this compromises the consensus decision making of the discussion, I have left a notification in the WP:AN/I, just to inform administrators. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The ping above clearly falls under WP:APPNOTE: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics). If you think people from the 2019 Venezuelan coup attempt discussion should be pinged too, why don't you ping them? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

We're concerned that the ping constitutes canvassing. It does not "clearly" fall under WP:APPNOTE. I don't want to make a similar ping to the one that I'm denouncing.
The main discussion seems to lie in whetever reliable sources widely refer to these events as a "coup". Inviting more users won't help with this.
I personally believe that the intervention of an uninvolved mediator or administrator is needed at this point. The discussion is already lengthy (and messy) enough. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Decisions (!votes and reasons)

Support: As nominator.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: In a below section are more than ~~40 sources describing the event as an attempted coup.~~ ----ZiaLater (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Edit: 50 sources describing the event as an attempted coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  - Comment. I'd just like to point out that the phrasing has been evolving in the press and I expect reporters to converge on a label for this event in the weeks to come. It may very well end up being something containing the word "coup," like the infamous Wonga Coup to which it has been analogized. A common phrase doesn't exist yet. It's true that all sides are openly acknowledging that there is a widespread movement within the country and among exiles to remove Maduro by any means necessary, including guerrilla-type military force (all options are on the table, and under the table, they keep repeating, quoting Guaido). This is because they challenge Maduro's legitimacy as head of state and allege he is a "narcodictator" closely associated with a criminal cabal of corrupt politicians, businessmen, and drug cartels who have employed atrocious means to keep Maduro in office and avoid fair presidential elections. The incident that is the subject of this article is a very small part of that larger effort to remove Maduro. You can call that effort a coup, and it is not inaccurate, depending on your angle. You can call it a popular revolution. Honestly it doesn't matter, because the incident that this article addresses is notable because of the fact that (1) there exists a signed contract with an American private military company to capture Maduro and perform military services in the country in the event of successful execution, with the payment acceptable in barrels of oil in the event of national bankruptcy; (2) there are two American former Green Berets now held captive by a regime much of the world considers illegitimate, rogue, and noncompliant with the Geneva Convention; (3) a third American former Green Beret is now under federal investigation for arms trafficking in connection with his venture capitalism mercenary business and big mouth regarding same; and (4) the backlash once the affair came to light caused two close Guaido allies to step down from their posts. Yes, there is an ongoing coup attempt. That's not what this article is about though. This is one of a series of events--more happened previously and more are guaranteed to happen subsequently. For example, the war paraphernalia claimed by Alcala is part of this series. Also part of this series is the subsequent finding of boats that the current pulled in from Colombia to Venezuela recently discovered with lots of weapons which Maduro has said Duque can have back if he will only formally request it. And Maduro will pivot from this event to arrest hundreds of people allegedly involved in the broader coup scheme. We would need 500 pages to describe this "coup attempt." But instead we should here just focus on the salient facts of this incident, this encounter, this attempted incursion into Venezuela with two under-equipped fiberglass boats. That's just my opinion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
    - @Orgullomoore: This is not the case. Yes there has been an ongoing effort to remove Maduro from power, but the event itself is described as the coup attempt. A coup is an event, not a movement. Regarding the coup vs. revolution debate, it does not matter what one party claims, it depends on what reliable sources state (see WP:COUP). Maduro has made countless coup claims, but this is the first event I have seen in years being described by dozens of reliable sources as a coup attempt. I did not personally think "Hey, this is a coup attempt" and try to change the title. I waited for the analysis by reliable sources in accordance with the core content policies of Wikipedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
      - The discussion and responses below have shown that the use of "coup attempt" is not widespread. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose That you have to support this move so much on foreign language sources instead English or Spanish makes this move look forced. None of the standard English agencies with offices in Venezuela are included or are using "coup" as attributed to what Maduro says. Also the use of some tabloids and partisan sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also you focus on CNN and FoxNews which both links you provided are not even proper articles. All this goes against WP:PRECISION and the recent WP:COUP, also it would probably not stand WP:NAMECHANGES.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There are about ten different, reputable English-language sources in that list. One of those is Fox News, which I assure you is no friend of Maduro. Goodposts (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not about siding with Maduro or not, this is about reliability and popularity of the name. None of those sources is even used in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Are CNN, VOA and NPR not reliable or popular? Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN and NPR are generally considered reliable sources, as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Acalycine (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN is not a proper article but a video and the title is "Maduro says...".--ReyHahn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree on 'not a proper article' but you are correct in identifying 'Maduro says'. This CNN link should be excluded as evidence for this discussion. Acalycine (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I purposefully used a broad range of reliable sources from a variety of countries to show that the use of "coup" is the widely used term and that this is not WP:OR. And this goes against the WP:COUP that I wrote? WP:COUP states: Use of the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. With over 20 internationally-sourced publications plainly describing this as a coup (not "alleged coup", or "X claimed a coup"), it is verified that this was in fact a coup attempt. Saying otherwise would be WP:OR in contrast to what reliablie sources state.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater you are purposely avoiding comparison with the current title. Please expand on how the proposed title is better than the actual one based on international news agencies (with offices in Venezuela) AP, Reuters, AFP and EFE, and Venezuelan sources (see Talk:Macuto Bay raid#Title of the rarticle above).--ReyHahn (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The quality of press is abysmal in Venezuela, so sources from there are rarely of quality over the past few years. One of the only quality sources from there, Efecto Cocuyo, describe the events as "intento de golpe de Estado" or "attempted coup". Then there is Globovisión, which has allegedly been in Maduro's pocket for the past few years, that shows "el contrato que firmó Guaidó para intentona golpista en Venezuela" or "the contract that Guaidó signed for a coup attempt in Venezuela". You can also look at the over 40 sources below as well (I purposefully chose international sources to show the widespread usage of the event's classification as a coup). If you are choosing to ignore the conclusions of reliable sources that use the coup wording deliberately, you are ignoring verifiability and promoting original research. I cannot help much more if you are going to ignore reliable sources that verify this information.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support: A couple of days ago I'd probably have held off, but by now the majority of RS are explicitly using the term "coup",

so I'd say it fits. Goodposts (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment. I'm undecided for now. I guess I need to conduct a more thorough survey of what reliable sources are calling it and the precise meaning of 'coup.' I have not read Zia's article on coups. My observation right now is that "coup" has several connotations that are not completely accurate here: (1) it exaggerates the size of this attempted incursion and (2) it takes a side on the legitimacy of the Maduro regime. First, what we are talking about is a rag-tag team of 60-or-so Guaido supporters accompanied by two American "advisors"/mercenaries riding in motorboats. Typically "coup" refers to something like what happened to Allende in Chile in 1973 or to Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 or in Syria in 1966, or in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, i.e., wide participation by the national military. In the case of Macuto Bay, one of the salient facts is that the national military did not join in the attempted revolution, as the invaders had hoped. Second, the governments of something like 60 nations, including the U.S., consider Maduro's hold on power to be illegitimate. Typically "coup" is not used to refer to the removal or attempted removal of such regimes, e.g., Libyan Civil War (2011).-Orgullomoore (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

60 nations do not recognize Maduro? So a minority of nations? 140 nations DO recognize Maduro? Who cares what the delusional international minority who think they get to choose who the president of Venezuala is, think.2601:140:8900:61D0:2197:A0DD:128E:D498 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if anyone cares. Maybe the people who live in those nations, or some of them? Also, it's not so much the number of countries but which countries is illustrative here. It's a classic Cold War split.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC).

On your last point about Libya, is that fact owing to reliable sources not describing it as such? On your point about involvement of the military, I don't believe dictionary definitions specify that a coup must be performed by an existing military. Per Google, a coup is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." Per Merriam Webster, a coup is "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Are we disputing how long a piece of string is here? 60 qualifies as small to me. Thirdly, on your point about undue weight towards Maduro, I don't understand how this is relevant. Whether Maduro's power is legitimate/legal or not does not matter here - they hold authority in the country, legally or not. A coup overthrows a government. What other government was there to overthrow? Definitions aside, I think we should lean towards WP:COUP's reliance on reliable sources in order to describe this as a coup or not. Acalycine (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Maduro stuff. I was deleting/withdrawing that part of my comment when I edit-conflicted with you. As for my view on what a coup is and whether this was a coup, let me get back to you.--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

...Although, the inclusion of "illegal seizure of power from a government" in one of the definitions does seem to bring the legitimacy of the current regime into play as a relevant issue to be discussed, if we are going to call this a coup, no?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

I would say that it still lines up with the definition - the Maduro government is the one in power, they preside over the laws, and the laws still don't allow coup attempts no matter who is in charge. If I understand it correctly, Maduro's presidency is the subject of the legitimacy controversy, not the body which enacted the law by which these mercenaries would be charged with. Acalycine (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support: many reliable sources are describing this as a coup, and as per WP:COUP, that is sufficient for this to be called a coup. This discussion has been ongoing at the top of this page for a couple of days, for context - there may be some additional sources there. Acalycine (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Acalycine: I placed 20 additional sources below, so we now have over 40 sources describing the event as a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - The details surrounding this incident are sketchy. Many of the facts presented in this article are attributed to either the Venezuelan government or Jordan Goudreau. In both cases credibility is quite limited. Reliable reporting on this event are so limited, it's not really clear to me that a "raid" even really took place (much less a coup attempt). Frankly, I think we should rename this article "Macuto Bay Incident" until what actually occurred becomes clearer. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- The Associated Press and The Washington Post did excellent investigative journalism that makes up much of this article, not the Maduro government or Goudreau.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  - @ZiaLater: - AP and WaPo are examples of reliable sources. This article uses a whole bunch of less reliable sources. Scanning through it by eye, I'd guess about 50% of the references have problems. NickCT (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom.--cyrfaw (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:COUP and lengthy previous discussions on the matter. I will provide a rationale later either here or in the section below. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: To illustrate this, in a section below there are over 70 sources that do not refer to the events as a "coup attempt", all cited in the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jamez42: How would the title violate NPOV? A coup "is the forcible removal of an existing government from power through violent means". Check. Multiple dozens of reliable sources describe this as a coup. Check. What is missing?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I have given a lengthy response below. Feel free to consult it if you wish. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is littered with secondary sources as source material, needs correction post haste.Jameslightell (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose because the proposed title is less accurate than the current one. I've made up my mind. Based on the reliable sources I've reviewed, the event is referred to variously as a "failed invasion," "naval/sea attack/incursion," "failed operation," etc., but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup. Yes, the goal was to topple the government. "Coup" does not describe what happened here. I believe "incursion attempt" is the most precise description. However, between "raid" and "coup," "raid" is better in my opinion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Orgullomoore: "Yes, the goal was to topple the government". And yes, by force too. This would be the definiton of a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here. What do you mean by but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup.? There are a substantial amount doing so, I'm assuming unironically... How many would be enough for you to support? Acalycine (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup. Wikipedia's article on Coup d'état actually contains a decent analysis of its usage. If you read it, you'll see that what happened here was more a putsch than a coup ("the politico-military actions of an unsuccessful minority reactionary coup"). But we can avoid all the semantics by simply picking a neutral description that does not imply a value judgment and does not exaggerate the severity of what happened, such as invasion or incursion (or raid, I guess). I'm not exactly sure why there is such a push here to call it a coup. It's not clear to me how that clarifies anything. What does it make better? Saying "this was obviously a coup attempt" and acknowledging that the pie-in-the-sky dream of these guys was to take over the country does not address my point. I'm not disputing their intent. All I'm saying is that when you title the page as a coup you make it sound like something bigger than a band of speedboat Rambo types who thought they could repeat D Day with less than a platoon. We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word "coup", even though the body of the article acknowledges this was the end goal of what became a botched sea incursion very similar (but much larger and better supported) than the one under discussion here. Can anyone tell me the benefit of retitling the page to include the word coup? It's not a number of headlines that would move me; a logical argument might.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

1: "the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup". Intention and execution are two different things. They attempted a coup and it was an amateur attempt. 2: "what happened here was more a putsch" Coup and putsch are synonymous. Go ahead and translate "putsch" from German to English. 3: "We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word 'coup'" This is because reliable sources at the time kept "Bay of Pigs Invasion" in their headlines/articles. Reliable sources today are describing this event as "Venezuela coup", "coup attempt", etc. That is why coup in the title is warranted. There's some logic.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Do you have any support I can review for the assertion that "reliable sources at the time kept 'Bay of Pigs Invasion' in their headlines/articles"? You don't think Castro was calling this a coup attempt? And the USSR? And Academics? Honestly this headline rule is very foreign to me and does not make sense to me.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: Just Google "Bay of Pigs" and you will see an example of the term's widespread usage. The reason I nominated this in the first place was because while reading stories about this event, the term "coup" was widespread in sources (which I thought was rare), warranting a title change. The Bay of Pigs Invasion was actually codenamed "Operation Zapata", but that is not used because of how popular the term "Bay of Pigs" was with reliable sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Seriously? What makes you think that googling a term in May 2020 is indicative of how "reliable sources" described an event that happened in 1961, before there was anything to google or google with? Just think about it. If you wish, I will refute the argument, but I think it refutes itself.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

You can easily find sources that reported it at that time, as many publications have since published digital archives of their previous work and you can also read modern syntheses of old sources that analyze the position that event was reported on with at the time. Goodposts (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Support obviously this is a coup attempt, the second by Guaidó who has now exposed himself as a thug who would use hired mercenaries to attack Venezuela. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: While I agree (what?) that Guaidó's image as the mature diplomat and the not cool action of hiring some American hitmen don't add up (in that it's a more dubious version of having his own secret agency), there's no need to name call. Also, I don't know if I've asked, but if you're interested in WikiProject Venezuela, having experienced editors with a range of perspectives is really useful there. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, please mind WP:FORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I will look into this further. It's still dubious on how much US and Guaidó influence was ultimately involved. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Whether the US, Colombia or Guaidó were involved or not, Silvercorp (or whoever was involved) attempted to overthrow Maduro by force and reliable sources have been describing the events as a "coup attempt".----ZiaLater (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: On the topic, I found a letter dated 7 MAY 2020 from U.S. Senators Murphy, Udall, and Kaine to State Sec. Pompeo, AG Bar, and DNI Grenell asking what the U.S. knew, when they knew, to what degree they helped, and why they didn't do anything to stop it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

Oppose – The current title is descriptive enough. Using the word "coup" makes it seem like an inner-government/military struggle, not a group of sixty contract soldiers arriving via flotilla. Also, isn't there a debate as to what is the current "genuine" Venezuelan government? That may also make the proposed title problematic... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: and everyone else, please stop collapsing the content in the original RM notice. It's causing RMCD bot to collapse RM discussions @WP:RM. Jerm (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Jamez42 lays out compelling context. Some sources consider it worth describing as a (poorly) attempted coup, most do not, we should mention the former in the article text but not in the title. – SJ + 14:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Jamez42 shows that the majority of sources are not calling this event a "coup" or "coup attempt". b uidhe 22:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - seems quite obvious it was a coup attempt, which the first couple sentences of the article explain. Plenty of WP:RS describe it as such. BeŻet (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - It's absurd that we need this discussion. As ZiaLater correctly points out, the preponderance of sources call it a coup--not the obscure unfindable name of "Macuto Bay raid". A google search of "Macuto Bay raid" gives on 282,000 hits and few of the sources mentioned here. A google search of "Venezuela coup 2020" gives over 11,600,000 results, and includes the sources here, including sources identified by Jamez42. The common name used is clearly coup. We use the common name (WP:COMMONNAME).

Jamez42 and ReyHahn try to argue that other sources avoid the word coup. Many of the sources they provided use words synonymous with coup: "overthrow", "oust", "plot to capture","kidnap", "seize", or "topple" Maduro. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Regarding your Google results count argument, you do realize that a search for coup+Venezuela+2020 without quotes also includes results for all sorts of pages that have nothing to do with this event, including 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt (last result on page 2 for me), right?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

So if we remove 1 of 20, or 5%, that leaves 11,000,000 results. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and all source not have the same weight. I would advise for precision and direction. The article as it currently stands it is about an incursion attempt that happened at the beginning of the month. There is no doubt that the plot objective was to overthrow the president but that is not enough to describe an article. There have been many other events like El Junquito raid, Machurucuto incident, 2018 Caracas drone attack which best described by details of the incident and not by "insert date here coup atttempt", because it would give a different dimension of the scale of the attack and results. In this case it is a botched operation that never had any possibility of succeeding and had no backup. Some have compared to Bay of Pigs Invasion which also it is not called "Cuba coup attempt". Also as I show in my table below, most reliable sources are not even using the term.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: So if we remove 1 of 20, or 5%, that leaves 11,000,000 results. I believe your "calculations" may be correct, give or take a few, or more than a few, million. Probably not the best approach.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: Please take a closer look to WP:GOOGLETEST: Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity.

Also, we should just call a spade a spade. If the title "coup" was that common, there wouldn't be a need to look after other words, such as the ones cited as examples. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

R pejorative

@David Tornheim: You have removed the R pejorative template in the 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirect, despite that this move discussion not being closed yet. Plenty of other reliable sources do not refer to the events as a "coup" and have been provided here. As such, you should restore the template. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned in the comment I just added, claims that the term "coup" is pejorative, and should be tagged as such, should be backed up with some sort of argument beyond the user's opinion. See WP:BURDEN. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Please read the discussions below. There are plenty of arguments and sources offered. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I read the discussion before commenting. If anyone explained why they believe the term "coup" is pejorative or non-neutral there (rather than simply asserting that the term is non-neutral), I didn't see it. Perhaps you can link it or quote it for me, if it exists. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

^I agree with both of Cmonghost's comments above. The term "attempted coup" is abundant in the WP:RS, which I explained in the edit summary. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have offered in the discussion a list of over 70 sources, all used in the article, that show that the use of the term is not widespread. I have also argued that the word "coup" is not always pejorative (see the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état as an example), but given that it is not widely accepted, it is non-neutral.

The template's documentation specifically states that: Use this rcat to tag any redirect in any namespace from a non-neutral title, which is any word, phrase or name that is pejorative, not neutral, controversial or otherwise offensive and is therefore unsuitable to be used as a page name. These are the reasons of why the category should be removed and the tag should be restored. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: Neutrality on Wikipedia refers to the views of reliable sources, not the views of Wikipedia editors. A disagreement between Wikipedia editors on what an article is called, or even a controversy among Wikipedia editors over the same, does not mean that one or both options are not neutral. If there was a significant debate in reliable sources about whether or not to refer to this as a coup, then that would be potential evidence, but you haven't shown that. You have only shown that while many articles use the term "coup", others do not. If that in and of itself was evidence that "coup" is not neutral, then it would also lead to the absurd conclusion that all redirects should be tagged with R pejorative. For example, currying has the alternative name Schönfinkelization, and some texts use one, while others use the other — but neither is pejorative, they are simply alternative names for the same thing.

I also note that you seem to be objecting to David Tornheim removing the template despite the move discussion not being closed, when you yourself added it before the discussion was closed. This seems hypocritical to me. Should I be able to tag redirects with whatever I want while discussion is ongoing, with no one allowed to remove them? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You continue to refer to these objections as "opinions", when plenty of the sources provided, if not all, are reliable, and several editors have agreed with this.

The convention in similar articles has been to include said tag in the redirects named "coup". The proposal has been for the article to use the same term and to argue that it is a neutral name, and the WP:BURDEN lies on the proponents to show this. All the disagreements that have been shown here demonstrate that the term, at the very least, is "controversial".--Jamez42 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: All the disagreements that have been shown here demonstrate that the term, at the very least, is "controversial". No. They demonstrate that the term is controversial among Wikipedia editors. You have not provided any reliable sources that indicate that the use of the term "coup" is not neutral. You have only provided sources that do not use the term "coup". You are interpreting the fact that those sources do not say "coup" as evidence that they believe the word "coup" is not neutral, but that is not sufficient to demonstrate non-neutrality. This is different from e.g. the Bolivia situation: in that case, there was public debate in reliable sources over whether or not the incident was a coup (e.g. [1][2]), indicating that the term was controversial. In this case, no reliable source provided is disputing the term "coup", just as using the term "Schönfinkelization" is not disputing the term "currying"; they're just using a different word.

As for WP:BURDEN, the burden for justifying the use of a tag lies with the editor placing the tag. Such decisions need to be based on reliable sources, not Wikipedia talk page comments. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. I think arguing about whether it's a coup or not is the wrong argument to be having. Just as a matter of titling policy, "Year Country coup d'etat attempt" is kind of a last resort title when there's no common name. There's plenty of entries in Category:Attempted coups and its subcategories that use other article titles that don't fit that formula. Additionally, sometimes the coup d'etat attempt and the actual operation are both notable enough to be separate (see: Operation Valkyrie and 20 July plot). I don't see a problem with the current name as the most recognizable one. SnowFire (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: As per ZiaLater. Burrobert (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - First of all, a coup is a "serious" attempt to remove a government from power. These were only a bunch of deluded guys in a boat. They had no change to remove any government in any country in the world. Also, who's the government in Venezuela? Maduro has the "de facto" power, but he's not internationally recognized. Second, "controversial names" like "coup" must be used only if there is a heavy consensus in using it. I mean, just when all or, at least, the great majority of RS are using the name. Third, "Jamez42 statements" showed that the majority of the RS don't call it a coup.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 22:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: As per nominator. BobNesh (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: The shoe fits. As to those saying this wasn't a serious effort, it was instigated by the guy much of the west/global right-wing recognizes as President. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Support: per nom. Plus, we have Montenegrin coup plot listed here, which is much, much more dubious case. StjepanHR (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I don't know what more to write, which is not already written. The fact is, a small group of political dissidents tried to infiltrte the country with the help of US private MILITARY company. This kind of attempt to change the government is a textbook coup example. The page states: "The plan involved entering the country by boat in order to take control of Simón Bolívar International Airport, capture Maduro and other high-level figures in his government, and expel them from the country, with the overall aim of removing Maduro from office." I don't think there is anything more to add... StjepanHR (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: We need some more detailed responses from users. Responses such as "per X" are not very helpful and do not hold weight during these discussions and it would be nice to set a precedent for potential coup title discussions. If you already made a comment, just add onto it so we can have a more detailed response. This is why many of you were pinged in the first place.

@Zellfire999: @Jogarz1921: @Loesorion: @BlindNight: @Prinsgezinde: @SirEdimon: @Iamextremelygayokay: @Davey2116: @Charles Essie: @Cmonghost: @Alcibiades979: @Derim Hunt: @Elelch: @Jip Orlando: @StjepanHR: @Resnjari: @JoshuaChen: @Miserlou: @BobNesh: @Bleff: @Surachit: @Sceptre: @Antondimak: @Fjsalguero: @Bigwigge: @Goodposts: @Ortizesp: @Cyrfaw: @Thanoscar21: @LaserLegs: @Kingsif:

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Obvious improvement in this regard over the current title — no one is calling this the "Macuto Bay raid" but Wikipedia (try a quick search, the results are all WP and people talking about WP, e.g. [3]), whereas many are referring to it as a coup attempt. Having participated in several similar discussions (Evo Morales's forced resignation, Guaidó's failed call for the military to oust Maduro, etc.), this is the most clear-cut by far. No one asserting that the word "coup" is not neutral has backed up such claims with anything but their own opinion. The fact that so many reliable sources use the term suggests that the opposite is true. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

As a side note, that twitter feed from an AP reporter is interesting - he consistently reports on it as a 'raid', unnamed. As for this article, I'm still weighing up the sources and options. (I note that more sources are now using 'Maturazo', which may prevail and seems like something to look at further as an actual COMMONNAME.) Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: I am not seeing the term "Maturazo" being used at all. Could you provide an example (or a few) from reliable sources?----ZiaLater (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That should be "Macutazo", blame tiredness or autocorrect. Because, well, Macuto+azo. The only issue is that this is possibly a NPOV issue itself - in Spain, macutazo used to be a colloquial term for 'rumor', 'hoax' or 'false flag', so. Sources include Caracas Chronicles/Cinco8 using it as the name in everything, and use in Runrunes, Crónica Uno, La Razón, an Italian site that I'm unfamiliar with, Noticiero Digital, Aporrea, etc. Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: Ah ok, thank you. It seems to be a term coined by Caracas Chronicles (an opposition-leaning blog) and its sister website Cinco8 in this article and this article. The use of the term does not seem to be widespread or used by reliable sources. I also share your concerns about the NPOV background about the term as well. Unless it becomes very widespread by relaible sources, there does not seem to be a good reason to include macutazo in the article. Thank you for the clarification!----ZiaLater (talk) 06:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Well, I could go to page 2 of the search results, but it does now look to be widespread among Latin American, Spanish, and at least that one Italian source (which explains this is the name used locally). I'd probably propose a move to El Macutazo/Macutazo over anything else. Kingsif (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The name is clearly still evolving. More sources call it raid than coup, we added Macuto to reflect a more specific place as used in Venezuelan news. I worry that we will ultimately end with a solemn 2020 Venezuelan raid attempt or something like that.--ReyHahn (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose While I think this could fulfill the criteria of a coup, the current title probably gives a more accurate picture to the average reader. Describing it as a coup would give the impression that it was something like what happened in 2002. Maybe "invasion" would be better than "raid", because the aim was to topple the government. It wasn't a limited operation to cause havoc and steal goods, as the latter would imply. --Antondimak (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Support - This requested move has more sources backing it up than most others I've seen on wikipedia. Now, I could also argue semantics and say that the act of attempting to violently overthrow a government with the aid of one of its own branches (in this case, the opposition-led national assembly [Guaido was undisputed as leader of the assembly at the time the contract for this was signed, and still claims the role]) constitutes a coup détat, and if you support Guiado's claim to the presidency, maybe even a self-coup. However, far more importantly than this, the laundry list of articles dubbing it a "coup" are what we ought to base our decisions on. Opponents of the idea point to the fact that there are some RS that instead use the word "raid", "attack" or similar. That's true, but Wikipedia policy isn't to only change something once every single possible RS starts using the word - merely when it becomes the commonly accepted name by most of RS covering the topic. If we had to wait until every single possible RS agreed on a given statement, we might as well blank Wikipedia, as nothing could ever pass the RS test by that point. Goodposts (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Dear Zia I usually agree with you, however in this case, IMHO there was no coup because it was not materialized not even the first phase, for there to be a coup it is necessary that the power change to other group even for brief moments. We are not here to call things wrong simply because ever media calls it coup (which is not entirely true due to the arguments presented, the media is not using coup). It is distinguished from the concepts of revolt, mutiny, rebellion, putsch, revolution, or civil war. Usually these terms are used with inadequate academic rigor or with propagandistic intentions, and in the course of historical events and processes, they are often combined with each other. For a coup to take place, two basic elements are required: support from some significant sector of the population and armed forces. In this case there was neither --Wilfredor (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

But the proposed name is "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt", not "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état". Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but this did not even become an attempt, it is a distraction created by the same regime and by calling it a coup we are going to help promote something that never happened. we would have to call this a coup attempt too[4] --Wilfredor (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: Eh, I do not think that a guy yelling "Nicolás ... help me, please!" on Maduro's microphone is the equivalent of an armed operation planned with the initial support of the opposition that gathered dozens of former Venezuelans troops that said themselves they were going to overthrow Maduro.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: this guy was actually a security expert and he didn't really need help but he was demonstrating his ability to take Maduro's security rings apart. In this case, it is not a coup attempt either, but rather a low-budget play created to capture military deserters, distract the population and show an image of an unthinkable leader giving a message of control to the FANB. What you call opposition is the same regime along with a group of filthy corrupt politicians financed by bolichicos in Miami, here there are not two sides, it is the same side giving itself a theatrical self-coup. --Wilfredor (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Support. Honestly, going through this request I see a lot of people bringing personal arguments against why they think it was or wasn't a coup. That's understandable since it's admittedly somewhat subjective, but it's still not how Wikipedia should work. One notable aspect of this discussion is that most of Wikipedia's sources are going to be from the US, and a fact of life is that the US as a nation is and was not on good terms with Maduro. That affected how the White House and extended government reported on the event, which in turn affected at least those initial media reports. I say this because I myself can easily look through Dutch and other European sources, which pretty much without fail mentioned a couppoging ("attempted coup") or staatsgreep ("power grab") from day one. Add to that the fact that media in the US are now also mostly using the term "coup" in retrospect and you have a very solid basis for a move. Especially from the horrible name "Macuto Bay raid" which no one else seems to use. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I agree entirely with what SnowFire said; [Year] [Country] "Coup attempt" is using a descriptive title, which we normally don't use if there is a COMMONNAME or official name. The Bay of Pigs Invasion is not called 1961 Cuban coup attempt, even though that's essentially what it was. A COMMONNAME hasn't quite emerged, but w could use Operation Gideon instead, since that was the official name. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Well, it seems that a common name may be coming forward. Some have described the event as the Bay of Piglets. (The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Economist, NPR, ABC (Australia)) However, more sources describe it as a "coup" than "Bay of Piglets".----ZiaLater (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention "Bay of Piglets" is the common name for Britain's invasion of Anguilla ([5] [6] [7] [8]), and has been used to refer to the 2002 coup. Kingsif (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Well, this just shows that there might not be a common name produced from this event, just like there was not a common name for the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt (which is why it has its strange title). Also, there comes the POV of the "Macutazo" title which was initally promoted by the opposition media, possibly suggesting it was a hoax. Then we have to think about if Maduro gives this a name as well... What is clear is that multiple sources give the event different catchy names (Macutazo, Bay of Piglets, Operation Gideon), while most agree to describe the event as a coup. If there is not a widespread agreement by reliable sources on a common name but a widespread agreement on how to describe the event, then the descriptive title should be included until a common name emerges (which is doubtful).----ZiaLater (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the sources were much clearer with 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt compared to this event, "uprising" was used a lot. I would agree that a descriptive title is better. But we obviously disagree on which is the descriptor. If this move request fails (and I hope is the case by looking at the sources), we should discuss a new name based on the sources we got.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support: I'm not sure where to reply here properly. In the beginning I was not convinced that is what a coup attempt. But I guess the thing is clear now. It was a coup attempt and we should call it like that. --Derim Hunt (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Derim Hunt FYI. I copied your response here from below. You might want to consider formating it like some of the others, but that's up to you. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater Sources

Here are 20 more English and Spanish language sources so this does not look "forced" from "foreign language sources". Will add more and document edits if needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Uncollapsing and numbering. @Jamez42: If you can have a rant with sources below without collapsing, then the wide use of the term "coup" must not be hidden. If you have concerns, please see WP:ITSCRUFT. It seems that you have been notified of these actions above as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I added the collapse template in the first list only after the template was used in the second one right above. The reason why I did is becuase they were not in the Extended comments section. Centralizing all editors' sources in this section is a possible alternative. You know well that I'm an editor that has worked for years now and that I'm quite familiar with WP:IDL. There's no need to call my comments as a "rant", I just provided sources in the format that you did. I also see that you have used the term "whitewashing" for a second time now; please refrain from this language, it only makes the discussion harder to continue and creates an unnecessary hostile environment. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Orgullomoore sources and responses

But don't we need to dig deeper than the headlines? There are also plenty of headlines that don't call it a coup or golpe. Are we really going to count and tabulate statistics based on headlines of stories covering the event? There has to be a better way. Here are 10 non-coup headlines. I was going to do 20, but got tired. You get the point. You can find whatever you're looking for.

Source	Country	Headline/link
(1) El Nacional / Rocío San Miguel (Control Ciudadano)	VE	Rocío San Miguel: No puedo calificar de invasión armada los hechos de Macuto
(2) El Universal	VE	Luis Parra exige investigación imparcial de los hechos registrados en Macuto y Chuao
(3) El Periodiquito	Aragua / VE	La DEA negó vínculos con la incursión en Macuto
(4) Europa Press	ES	Maduro acusa a Trump de un "intento de golpe de Estado" en Venezuela mediante una supuesta incursión naval
(5) Globovisión	VE	Cabello: Guaidó debe responsabilizarse por los hechos ocurridos en Macuto y Chuao
(6) El País	ES	Venezuela asegura que ha detenido a dos estadounidenses vinculados a una operación contra Maduro
(7) El Universal (mx)	MX	¿Quiénes son los detenidos tras la "invasión" fallida por mar de Venezuela?
(8) AP	US	Venezuela: 2 US ‘mercenaries’ among those nabbed after raid
(9) AFP	FR	Trump denies US role in mysterious Venezuela sea invasion
(10) Reuters	UK	Venezuelan authorities detain U.S. citizens allegedly involved in incursion

--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: If a reliable source is going to describe it as a coup in their headline, they think it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Not necessarily. Check out, for example, one of the articles you cited above, from Foreign Policy. The sentence you quoted ("an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro") is part of a paragraph which begins with the bolded section heading: "A botched raid in Venezuela." Headlines have to be catchy. Wikipedia article titles should not be flashy and sensational.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

What Wikipedia policy states that headlines are not indicative of content in a source? A thing can be described in two ways, in that FP article: a coup attempt and a botched raid coup. Acalycine (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. Therefore, we need a better argument than 20 headlines from around the world contain the same word as the title you want to change the page to. The title was already changed once from whatever to raid. Now some people want to change it to "coup." But why? The only argument I've seen is that it comports with some dictionary definitions and that there are lots of headlines that contain the word (and lots that don't).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

If a reliable source is going to describe anything as a coup, it is a coup. That is not for us to decide as that would be WP:OR. Yes, headlines need to draw some sort of attention, but they would not include the word "coup" without a considerable amount of consideration. Also, a raid could be part of a coup. An incursion as well. Naval attack? Yeah, that can be part of a coup too. But when something is explicitly described as a coup, it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: So I guess our disagreement comes down to this: Your position is that if some headlines from reliable sources contain the word "coup," the name of the incident locks in on "coup," even if other reliable sources or other headlines by the same reliable sources use another word. I, on the other hand, would support taking into consideration that certain sources are calling it a coup in certain contexts, but I do not think that is determinative. I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. You admit as much yourself in your essay, though you seem to make an exception if enough headlines can be found with the word "coup." Again, I think this is a flawed argument. Even if headlines were determinative, you are giving more weight to sentences that contain the word "coup" because that's what you're pushing for. If truly the amount of headlines that contain this or that word is determinative, we should take a representative sample and do a sound statistical analysis. But I think that's a waste of time, personally. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles rather than brute statistics, though statistics are important and informative.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Orgullomore makes clear that more than sources statistics are need to understand why somebody want it one way or the other. So please discuss below.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. It is the decision of the reliable source, not our decision. If we were to decide, it would be WP:OR. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles Logic points us towards reliable sources, which describe this event as a coup. Common sense shows that this is a textbook example of a coup attempt. As for consensus, WP:Verify and WP:NOR override consensus per WP:COPO, that states that core policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". These reliable sources have verified that this was a coup attempt by describing it as such, and describing it otherwise would be original research.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure ZiaLater, but look on how all this was started on cherrypicked news. All you can say about your sources and the guidelines, I can make a similar or stronger ground for the current title based on important news agencies and Venezuelan news. Even VTV fails to call it a golpe consistently from time to time [9][10]. Why should we call it a coup, what is so wrong about the current title?. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: More WP:RSP generally reliable sources stating it was a coup attempt.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: you keep throwing sources in [11] just to prove your point, but nobody is doubting that a coup was planned, the problem is about on wether to call this article a coup when the current title is descriptive enough, it was an intercepted incursion in Macuto (this you will find in all your sources too) as you will find that there was no chances of it going through or even attending any credible objective. If in October a Canadian enters the Amazonas and shoots the national guard crying that he is trying to overthrow Maduro will we call that a "October 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt"? Additionally, do you think that if we point out the problems of specific sources (as some have done before) would you at least strike or eliminate them?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no need for whitewashing as you seem to be talented at finding an issue with everything. Stop throwing up hypotheticals to minimize what reliable sources are reporting. If another coup attempt were to happen as described by reliable sources, you can look at the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts where multiple attempts happened.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended comments

Supporters

Could the supporters of this move explain why the proposed title is better than the current title? --ReyHahn (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Simple. The description of the events as a coup attempt has been supported by dozens of reliable sources. As these sources are reliable and credible, they provide WP:Verifiability because of their quality and are WP:NPOV because of their standards (they are not going to publish libelous material and ruin their credibility). So, the widespread use by such sources shows that the use of "coup" in the title can be verified and is NPOV, essentially meeting what is neccesarry in Wikipedia:Coup#Article_titles.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: the current title also complies with all of those guidelines. So why change?--ReyHahn (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Because this wasn't only in Macuto Bay. Have you read anything I have put above? The current title is inaccurate because the group is saying they had groups "throughout Venezuela", that this attempt is still ongoing and because the Maduro government replied as such, deploying troops nationwide. So saying that the coup attempt happened at Macuto Bay is like saying World War II happened at Normandy.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary to ask "Have you read anything I have put above?". I have included more than 40 sources below not calling the events a "coup", around three quarters of which are already cited in the article as references, failing to meet Wikipedia:Coup#Article_titles. A coup is also defined for being sudden; if we are to talk about or include the groups in the rest of the country, other definitions would apply, such as civil war or insurrection (see the Spanish Civil War), which are the natural consequences of the failure of a coup attempt. If we need to talk about the other locations, namely Chuao, a more generic title would be the solution (eg "2020 Venezuelan raids"). This would not be solved by changing the title to "coup". --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I have included more than 40 sources below not calling the events a "coup" And I have provided 45 sources describing it as a coup, with many generally reliable sources (per WP:RSP) included. This shows widespread usage by reliable sources. If I have more, do I win? Are we supposed to comb through each individual article from each source to see how the majority describe the event? That seems unrealistic. But when we have dozens of generally reliable sources describing this as a coup, it obviously meets WP:Coup#Article_titles. A coup is also defined for being sudden This is not how a coup is defined. If we need to talk about the other locations, namely Chuao, a more generic title would be the solution (eg "2020 Venezuelan raids") Oh, so the raids in Petare? The raids against Maduro's political opponents? How does this meet WP:PRECISION? A few of you should read WP:PRECISION that states "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". So let's look at the title that invloves a location and an action. For the location, defining a specific town or bay is too specific as this was a fairly broad event. Venezuela seems like a suitable inclusion since this was an event that happened on a national scale. For the action, "raids" (as seen above), "attack", "assassination/arrest/kidnapping attempt" and similar descriptions are all too broad and inaccurate. However, a "coup attempt" is precisely what happened. So since many, many coups and coup attempts have happened in Venezuela, we have a precedent that requires a title including a time. So the title should be time, location, action, in this case, 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Should you win? That's the question that I ask. Widespread means around between 75% and 80%, more or less, or two thirds if you are conservative; as the creator WP:COUP, you should imagine this. What I'm proving is that the use of coup is not widespread. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: You keep mentioning that the Opposition claims there are still men embedded, etc. I believe you are referring to (1) the tweeted video put out by Goudreau with Nieto in which he says they have mobilized in the east, south, and west; or (2) the CNN/Rincon interview with JJ Rendón in which Rendón confirms the general attitude of the Guaidó folks that they are considering any and all options ("over and under the table") to remove Maduro. Either way, that is a subject that is much broader than the incident at issue in this article, which is the incredible fact that a few Army vets joined up with Venezuelan military defectors, mounted ordinary motorboats with handguns and old rifles while wearing their bathing suits, and attempted to "capture" a heavily guarded de facto head of state whose capture has been attempted in many more sophisticated plots by much more sophisticated players. Accordingly, I don't think the geographical breadth your suggesting is on point here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC).
I explained here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Detractors

Could the detractors of this move explain why the current title is better than the proposed title? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Too flashy and sensational and implies a judgment that to attempt to remove Maduro's government is illegal, even though many countries actively advocate for his removal (and the US has put out a bounty for him).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Attempting to forcefully depose the current government (disputed though it may be) by assassinating its leader is illegal everywhere, from Norway to North Korea. Goodposts (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

But deposing a dictator through popular revolt is not illegal, if successful. It's been said by many that a thing can be lawful while illegal (e.g., Holocaust, US invasion of Iraq), and likewise a thing can be unlawful while legal. See Right of revolution. That's why we call it the American Revolution and not the American Coup of 1776, among many other examples. The victors write history and their history reflects their value judgments. But we are Wikipedia, supposedly describing things and not advocating them.---Orgullomoore (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Actually it is, the act of violently overthrowing a government is usually the worst crime a person can attempt to do. Go look at some criminal codes from around the world, you'll usually see crimes such a treason carrying the heaviest punishment those nation's penal codes provide for. Now - and here's the important bit, something being illegal merely reffers to its legal standing, not wether or not it is morally justified. There are plenty of legal state-sanctioned killings, that are nevertheless horrific, just as there are crimes that are morally justified - and a revolution against a tyrannical regime would certainly be one of them. The term "coup" is usually used to reffer to an overthrow of the state by a well-organized group acting from within the state apparatus itself - in this case, it would be due to the involvement of Guaido himself. The term "revolution" is usually reserved for popular uprisings that are ultimately successful. Both are almost always illegal, but that doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement as to wether or not they were justified. If you were to go back in time and kill Hitler - you'd still be commiting a crime, and you'd be liable for it under the laws in place in Germany at the time. At the same time, you'd be extremely justified in doing so, as that person was personally responsible for the fully intentional and pointless killing of millions of people. You are also correct that regimes will play with words like "coup" and "revolution", using them to suit their own needs, but what I'd reckon is we ought to stick to well-established political science. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts: If you say so, but I did link you to an internal article that directly rebuts your assertion. In fact, the Constitution of Venezuela demands that the populace reject unjust authority. ("Article 350: The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.")--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: Sure, but constitutions aren't up for individual interpreration. They are interpreted by various organs, usually some form of constitutional court. In Venezuela, this would be the TSJ, and I have a very hard time believing the TSJ would rule this to be lawful. Goodposts (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, yes they are. That's the whole point of a Constitution. It's a pact between the People and the State (comprised of representatives of the People who act for the People and whom the People have the absolute right to remove). See the Declaration of Independence. See the Constitution of Venezuela. See the Constitution of Texas. If the Constitution can only be interpreted by state organs, then there could never be a Constitution in the first place. Democracy means power from the People. It is totally up to interpretation by the People. And when the State rises up against the People and acts against their interest, Revolt is no longer criminal. I do not believe we are allowed, here, to have an in-depth debate about whether Maduro is a representative of the People of Venezuela. But as a general principle of accepted political science, which you reckoned we should stick to, power over the State organs comes from the People, not vice versa.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

I admire your idealism, but do have to note that this simply isn't and cannot be the case. Popular soverignty, or the concept that power emanates from the people - is purely philosophical in nature. You'll find this written in the constitutions of all manner of authoritarian and even totalitarian states troughout history. It's actually linked more to nationalism than to democracy - it is a reaction to the old theory that soverignty emanated from soverigns - kings, emperors, princes and the like. Back in the day nations were but realms to be ruled in perpituity by monarchs and their vassals. With the introduction of the concept of the nation state - i.e. a union of people with some kind of shared characteristic - popular soverignty denoted more the national character of the state, as opposed to a practical rule of the people. This soverignty is expressed by some kind of representative - in modern times usually elected, though it could also be a hereditary position (see Popular monarchy). There's nothing to guarantee that that representative is legitimately elected, that he or she actually represents the "will of the people" (and how do you even quantify that?), or that the nation is "democratic" in any way, shape or form; it's purely a philosophic idea. In any case, I recommend you read up on "soverign citizens" if you wish to see people attempting to apply this philosophy in action. Lastly, consider this - if each person was allowed, in their own way, to interpret what a "tyrannical regime is" and decide when the time has come to oppose it trough armed rebellion - couldn't a hardline libertarian be excused in plotting the assassination of a leftist leader? Couldn't an anarchist be excused in attempting to kill any leader whatsoever? Couldn't a socialist be excused for plotting to overthrow a conservative, whoose plan to privatize healthcare he views as a direct attack on human rights? In fact - who determines what human rights even are and who they apply to? This is why interpretive organs are absolutely necessary. Goodposts (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts: That's why I said "if succesful." Little gang movements don't gain popular support and are crimes; they lack popular legitimacy. People who think they can draw checks on their social security number and are exempt from taxes and traffic tickets (sovereign citizens) are very different than, say, Thomas Paine. You tell me, what is the difference? Or will you contend there is none at all?--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts:...oh, and to answer your question, how do you quantify the will of the people: fair, transparent, and open elections. You will say, yes, but who decides they are fair or unfair? Well, there are times when everyone agrees they are not, except those who directly benefit from claiming they are. That's how you know. When informed people who disagree on everything else agree on it. This is one of those times.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: So how many people do I need the support of before I stop being a criminal? 10? 100? 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? There are times when most everyone agrees the elections were fair, but oftentimes that simply isn'the case. Again - how many people need to consider the elections fair? Who determines which candidates or parties are allowed to run? Should anti-democratic parties be allowed to run? Should the majority be allowed to violate the rights of the minority? Those are all questions that need interpretation. Those interpretations are done not by you and me, but by courts. In Venezuela's case - the TSJ. So, to bring this around - do you think the TSJ would rule this to be a rightful following of the constitution? Goodposts (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The proposed title makes it look bigger than it seems to be. Sure there was a plot to generate a coup, but it was intercepted and was done in such small level that it barely had any possibility of success. Most sources talk about the coup as the intended plan but for record keeping the only thing that happened was a small raid that made the news. Similar to Machurucuto incident.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: If someone was planning a murder, went to a gun store, bought a Bushmaster XM-15, went up to the potential victim firing while misssing all their shots, then accidentally shot themself in the foot which led to police finding the suspect from their own trail of blood, that plot would be just about as successful as this one. They would still be charged with attempted murder, though.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The difference being that attempt is a defined crime with specific elements (see Attempt) whereas coup is a word to describe the overthrow of the existing regime by military force. And let us not fall back into the "but this IS an attempted coup" whirlpool. Yes, the rebels were attempting to overthrow the Maduro government. Nobody disagrees. The question is whether the title of the Wikipedia article describing this incident should label the event as a coup, which, as I've observed previously, is inherently an editorial decision, especially given how recent this incident is.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

So, by that logic, no wikipedia article should ever have "coup" in its name. Attempted coups exist and we have plenty of articles on them, if you'd like a read. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is something you want me to read and comment on, give me a link. I'm not going on goose chases. You gave a similar remark to my question about the prevalent contemporary terminology used by news sources to refer to the Bay of Pigs Invasion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Comment. It's also been compared with the "infamous Wonga Coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea in 2004."--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

Jamez42 sources, statements and responses

I will do my best to keep the rationale brief, but at the same time as thorough as possible:

Jamez42 Sources

If I count correctly, of the more than 45 references cited in the article that are about the events themselves (after 3 May), the headlines of 36 do not refer to them as a "coup" or as a "coup attempt", an overwhelming 80%:

Washington Post (US) — Trump denies ties to Venezuelan attack with 2 US men jailed
From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue
Venezuelan government says it stopped ‘invasion’ launched from Colombia
Venezuela says it foiled attack by boat on main port city
Venezuela raid: How an ex-Green Beret and a defecting general planned to capture Maduro
Associated Press (US) — Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela’s Maduro
Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid
Venezuela: 2 US ‘mercenaries’ among those nabbed after raid
Ex-Green Beret claims he led foiled raid into Venezuela
The New York Times (US) — Ex-Green Beret Led Failed Attempt to Oust Venezuela's Maduro
An Incursion Into Venezuela, Straight Out of Hollywood
BBC (UK) — Venezuela detains two US citizens over speedboat incursion
Venezuela accuses Colombia of attempting 'terrorist' sea invasion
"Operación Gedeón" en Venezuela: una supuesta confesión televisada y otros detalles de la "fallida incursión armada" por la que se detuvo a dos estadounidenses ("Operation Gideon" in Venezuela: A supposed televised confession and other details regarding the "failed armed incursion" in Venezuela, over which two Americans were detained)
Operación Gedeón: cómo afecta al liderazgo de Juan Guaidó en la oposición venezolana el fracaso de la misión contra Nicolás Maduro
StarTribune — Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid"
Financial Times — Mystery surrounds foiled 'plot' to liberate Venezuela"
Misión Verdad — Macuto: un nuevo capítulo frustrado de la vía armada contra Venezuela" (Macuto: a new frustrated chapter of the armed way against Venezuela)
Bellingcat — The Invasion of Venezuela, Brought To You By Silvercorp USA
The Venezuela/Silvercorp USA Saga Keeps Getting Weirder
Efecto Cocuyo — "Lo sabíamos todo", dice Maduro sobre incursión en Macuto". ("We knew everything", says Maduro about the Macuto incursion).
Padrino López anuncia captura de tres "mercenarios" en la carretera El Junquito-Carayaca (Padrino López announced the capture of three "mercenaries" in the El Junquito-Carayaca road)
El día “D” y la hora “H” no ha llegado, Javier Nieto Quintero sobre “Operación Gedeón” (Day D and Hour H has not come, Javier Nieto Quintero about “Operación Gideon“)
La estrategia insurreccional no funciona hoy en Venezuela, advierte Ricardo Sucre (The insurrection strategy does not work nowadays in Venezuela, Ricardo Sucre warns)
Agentes rusos rastrean a implicados en “Operación Gedeón” en Carayaca (Russian agents track down those implicated in "Operation Gideon" in Carayaca)
Caracas Chronicles — The Macutazo: Timeline of an Absurd Military Adventure
Washington Examiner — Jordan Goudreau must answer for Venezuela debacle
The Guardian — Donald Trump denies link to Venezuela armed raid by US citizens
'His head wasn't in the world of reality': how the plot to invade Venezuela fell apart
Sky News — Venezuela attack: Former US special forces soldier says he led botched plot to overthrow President Maduro
CNN Venezuela claims to have captured two Americans involved in failed invasion
CNN in Spanish J.J. Rendón habla sobre la Operación Gedeón en Conclusiones de CNN en Español (J.J. Rendón talks about Operation Gideon)
Guaidó rechazó supuesto contrato con mercenarios que el gobierno de Maduro presenta como prueba de la incursión marítima
Gobierno de Maduro sabía de la incursión a Venezuela al menos un mes antes de que ocurriera (Maduro government knew of incursion into Venezuela at least a month before it occurred)
The Canberra Times (Australia) — Ex-US soldier 'behind' Venezuela attack
Reuters Detained American claims he plotted Maduro's capture in Venezuela TV statement
Trump denies U.S. role in what Venezuela says was 'mercenary' incursion
Venezuelan authorities detain U.S. citizens allegedly involved in incursion
U.S. will use 'every tool' to secure release if any Americans held in Venezuela: Pompeo
Russian troops to help Venezuela search for members of failed incursion: report
Venezuelan opposition advisers resign after failed operation to oust Maduro
Los Angeles Times — Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro airs video of American detained in alleged plot
Maduro buoyed, Guaidó reeling after failed amphibious raid in Venezuela
France24 — Venezuela arrests two US ‘mercenaries’ after alleged raid to capture Maduro
Runrunes — Provea exige garantías a la integridad de detenidos en Macuto y Chuao (Provea demands garantees to the Macuto and Chuao wellbeing)
Jordan Goudreau dejó todas las opciones sobre un peñero (Jordan Goudreau left all options on a fishing boat)
Noticiero Digital — Provea responde a Maduro: Nadie nos va a desviar del camino (Provea responds to Maduro: Nobody will divert us from our path)
Dip. Hernán Alemán, a ND: Averiguaré quién sacó a Cliver Alcalá así me cueste la vida (Representative Hernán Alemán to Noticiero Digital: I will find out who took out Cliver Alcalá if it's the last thing I do)
EFE — Cuba expresa "enérgica condena" a una fallida incursión marítima en Venezuela (Cuba express a "enegetic condemnation" to a failed maritime incursion in Venezuela)
CGTN — US denial over Venezuela alleged plot 'unconvincing': Moscow
SBS News — Russia weighs in on Donald Trump's 'unconvincing' denial of alleged Venezuelan plot
Anadolu Agency (Turkey) — Venezuela asks extradition of US citizen in failed raid
Washington Office on Latin America — Stated U.S. Support for Negotiated Transition Should Guide the Trump Administration’s Venezuela Policy
Council on Hemispheric Affairs — Guaidó and the Failed Military Operation against Venezuela: A Story of Betrayal and Financial Corruption
El Tiempo — Guaidó se desvincula de presunta incursión militar contra Maduro (Guaidó disassociates himself from alleged military incursion against Maduro)
Infobae — El gobierno interino de Venezuela denunció que la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro intenta utilizar la Operación Gedeón para secuestrar a Juan Guaidó (Interim government charged that Nicolas Maduro dictatorship is attempting to use Operation Gideon to abduct Juan Guaidó)
Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela — Gobierno encargado de Venezuela alerta que régimen usa documento falso para intentar secuestrar al Presidente (e) Guaidó y desmiente firma de supuesto documento (Acting government of Venezuela warns that the regime is using a false document to try to abduct President (pro tempore) Guaidó and denies alleged document)
Tal Cual — Esto es lo que dice el contrato firmado por estrategas de Guaidó y Silvercorp (This is what the contract signed by Guaidó strategists and Silvercorp says)
Hernán Alemán: Nadie financió la Operación Gedeón (Hernán Alemán: Nobody financed Operation Gideon)
Bloomberg — Guaido Aides Resign Posts After Botched Invasion of Venezuela
Página/12 — La Operación Gedeón dejó en crisis al líder opositor y a quienes lo rodean. Acorralado, renunció J.J. Rendón, asesor de Juan Guaidó (Operation Gideon left in crisis the opposition leader and his aides)
ABC — Guaidó acusa a Diosdado Cabello de financiar la «Operación Gedeón»
Families of Americans detained by Venezuela in failed raid plead for help
Venezuela's Ministry of Communication — Ocho paramilitares fallecidos en incursión frustrada por La Guaira desde Colombia (Eight paramilitaries dead in frustrated incursion by La Guaira from Colombia)
Wall Street Journal — ‘Freedom Fighters’ Led by American Tried Invading Venezuela
Ex-Green Beret Thought U.S. Supported Failed Venezuela Raid, Family Says
Semana — Operación suicida en Venezuela (Suicide operation in Venezuela)
El Nacional — Confirman la muerte del capitán Robert Colina, alias Pantera, durante enfrentamiento en Macuto (Death of Robert Colina, known as Pantera, during clash in Macuto confirmed)
Jorge Rodríguez acusó a Goicoechea de participar en la Operación Gedeón (Jorge Rodríguez accused Goicochea of participating in Operation Gideon)
El Pitazo — Hija del general Baduel denuncia que desconocen el paradero de su hermano (Daughter of general Baduel denounces that the whereabouts of her brother are unknown)
Operación Gedeón: tribunales privan de libertad a Josnar Baduel y a capitán Sequea (Operation Gideonf: courts order confinement of Josnar Baduel and Captain Sequea)
Texas Monthly — Two Texans Are Accused of Trying to Invade Venezuela. Their Family Members Want Answers.
El Espectador — El peligro del “todo se vale” en Venezuela (The danger of "everything goes" in Venezuela)
La Jornada — Claro aval de EU en la invasión a Venezuela (Clear support of the US in Venezuela's invasion)
El Universal — Arreaza: Silencio de gobiernos ante agresiones contra Venezuela es complicidad (Arreaza: The silence of governments in the face of attacks against Venezuela is complicity)
Últimas Noticias — AN investigará vínculo de Guaidó en el plan para asesinar a Maduro (NA will investigate Guaidó's link with plan to assassinate Maduro)
Agence France-Presse — Venezuela says it foiled an incursion by 'mercenaries'
Contrapunto — Diputado Hernán Alemán: Operación Gedeón no era para efectuar un magnicidio sino para que Maduro fuera a la cárcel (Representative Hernán Alemán: Operation Gideon was not to assassinate Maduro, it was so he would go to jail)
NBC — The 'mind-blowing' story of the ex-Green Beret who tried to oust Venezuela's Maduro
Correo del Caroní — El caso de la “Operación Gedeón” estremeció la movediza arena política venezolana (The case of "Operation Gideon" shifted the Venezuelan political quicksand)
La Patilla — Detenidos por “Operación Gedeón” llevaban… ¿preservativos y una pistola de Airsoft? (Fotos)
Military Times — Here’s the career info for the former Green Berets involved in Venezuela raid debacle
Yahoo Finance — La Justicia venezolana dicta prisión preventiva a 40 personas por ataque fallido (Venezuelan court orders preventive detention to 40 individuals for failed attack)
Maduradas — ¡LE CONTAMOS! Divulgan testimonio del estadounidense Luke Denman sobre el objetivo de la “Operación Gedeón”: Entrenar venezolanos, venir acá y poner a Maduro en un avión (+Video)

I have updated the list of sources from the article and that not refer to the events as a "coup". Once again, it's demonstrated how a majority of sources use the term. It should also be noted that all this list consists of references already used and there wasn't a need to cherrypick from other articles or languages, besides Spanish. Furthermore, the last references used to argue for the use of "coup" have been cited from their headlines and not their content. If this is the case, the analysis should be deeper and there should be a clear distinction between editorial voice and declarations quotes. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources cited above as having used "coup" in the article have used other terms when referenced. If the source that are cited in the article do not refer to the events as a "coup", why should the article be renamed as such?

There are plenty of Spanish and local sources that also do not refer to the attack as a coup. Just to put some examples:

El Pitazo

El Estímulo

El Nacional

Agencia Carabobeña de Noticias

For more examples, the sources above and in other sections can be consulted.

The move proposal of the 2019 Venezuela uprising article to "2019 Venezuelan coup attempt" included a table comparing sources. If it comes to that, a similar table can be made here, but the result will probably be similar.

Definition

Right off the bat I want to comment on something, given the divisive nature of the topic: I personally think that a coup does not have an inherent negative connotation, and have argued for or against it based on this. To give an example, the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état deposed a dictatorship that committed torture, assasinations and persecution against its dissidents, established a strong censorship and tried to rig the last election during its period. The 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, despite the controversy regarding if Chávez resigned or not and if there was a vacuum of power, is widely recognized and referred as such.

In the 2019 uprising move discussion previously mentioned, I explained that my concerns were about the events not meeting the characteristics of a coup or Venezuela's historic precedents. In the 60s, the recently established democracy faced violent turmoil and subversion by leftist guerrillas. During Rómulo Betancourt's presidency, there were notable uprisings know as El Carupanazo, El Porteñazo and El Barcelonazo; even though they were armed conflicts against the established authority in Venezuela, they are historically known as rebellions or uprisings.

The most similar event in Venezuelan history to this raid is possible the 1967 Machurucuto incident, when a dozen of Cuban trained guerrillas landed on the Venezuelan coasts hoping to overthrow president Raúl Leoni in the future. The event is referred to as an invasion, an incursion and could be considered as a raid, but not a coup d'état attempt.

Possibly one of the key aspects boils down to how close these events were to threatening the established authorities. We already know how poorly planned and carried out this plan was.

Conclusions

The term "coup" is not widely accepted and as such should not be used as a title. We should also mind Venezuela's current polarized situation and strive for the most neutral title possible. A possible important question to ask oneself is if this be referred as a coup in 20 years. At least academically, chances are that probably not. This is just another of a list of violent (and regrettable) incidents, including the 2018 Attack on Fort Paramacay, the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and minor defections, rebellions and skirmishes (see the long lasting Pemon conflict).

Lastly, if I may, I also want to call upon and remind the closing admin that !votes without rationale or arguments should not be given weight per WP:POLL--Jamez42 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Replies to Jamez42

Here is a reply to the claims that Jamez42 has made above.

References in article

You state that there were a total of 45 references at the time you published comments. If we were to add the 45 sources describing the events as a coup, that would be about 50% of sources in the article describing this as a coup. That is a large number. Add in that much of that is provided from reliable sources and you can see the widespread use of this being described as a coup.

Also, of course, there are going to be partisan sources that do not want to describe this as a coup due to Guaidó's initial involvement with something similar. These sources would be opposition-leaning sources in Venezuela (El Nacional, La Patilla, El Pitazo, etc.) and sources from Guaidó-aligned countries (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Spain, Lima Group countries, etc.) Surprisingly, many very reliable sources in Guaidó-aligned countries have described the events as a coup (Associated Press (WP:GREL), The Times (WP:GREL), Bloomberg (WP:GREL), AAP, ABC Spain, Fox News (WP:GREL), NPR (WP:GREL), The Daily Beast(WP:GREL), The Telegraph (WP:GREL) and others. Unsurprisngly, many of the the hardline opposition media have avoided describing this as a coup and have instead described this as a "distraction" from Venezuela's problems. Yes, Maduro obviously used this to his advantage, but the opposition did not help themselves by shooting their own foot and exploring plans to violently overthrow Maduro.

Definition as coup

I personally think that a coup does not have an inherent negative connotation. And so do reliable sources like The New York Times. Relaible sources are calling this a coup, so it is verified and NPOV because they obviously would not want to describe something in a libelous or inaccurate manner, which would ruin their reputation. Regarding the El Carupanazo and other -azo events, they use the -azo suffix, which is popular and catchy in Spanish, but is not being used in Spanish for this event. No reader on English Wikipedia is going to search "Macutazo", or even know where Macuto Bay is. But the widespread use of "Venezuela coup attempt" and similar descriptions by reliable sources is easier for the reader to search for and understand, because this was a textbook example of a coup attempt (though the execution of this plan would be an embarrasing footnote).

Possibly one of the key aspects boils down to how close these events were to threatening the established authorities In the articles you included, the articles only describe a "rebellion". There was no rebellion or uprising in Venezuela this time, it was a foreign-led effort to overthrow the government of Maduro. Also, the articles you mention do not mention any objectives of overthrowing a national government. Those do seem like they would meet the definition of rebellion ("open resistance against the orders of an established authority") because basically all that happened in those events was a military unit was mad, they took control of a small area or facility, they get crushed. This is completely differnt because the event this article covers was a violent overthrow attempt, commonly known as a coup attempt.

Conclusion reply

The term "coup" is not widely accepted and as such should not be used as a title The widespread use by reliable sources disagree.
We should also mind Venezuela's current polarized situation and strive for the most neutral title possible Reliable sources that have to maintain integrity are describing this as a coup. I think they would provide a neutral term to the events. If you are talking about the polarization between Maduro and the opposition, according to the opposition, only the Maduro party was invovled. So if this were to be described as a coup attempt, the opposition should not mind because they say they were not involved. And Maduro obviously has been calling this a coup. So you can throw the polarization argument out the window.
A possible important question to ask oneself is if this be referred as a coup in 20 years It is being referred to as a coup today. Why wait and try to hide this?
This is just another of a list of violent (and regrettable) incidents, including the 2018 Attack on Fort Paramacay, the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and minor defections, rebellions and skirmishes Um, no. This was a deliberate plan to go in, assassinate or extract Maduro and his officials and to overthrow the government. The closest thing is the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt where Guaidó called on the military to rebel (open resistance against the orders of an established authority) and to recognize him as president. But this, was an overthrow attempt in action.

Conclusion to reply by ZiaLater

Reading through this reply, one can see that Jamez42's argument's can be easily debunked and here is why:

There is a widespread use by reliable sources that this was a coup
In order to be described as a coup in the title, the description as a coup should meet the core content policies of Wikipedia; WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR
This widespread usage by reliable sources shows that it meets WP:VERIFY
The widespread usage by reliable sources also shows that it meets WP:NPOV, while arguments such as the polarization claim do not apply since the Maduro government describes this as a coup attempt and the opposition denies invovlement in the coup attempt. Meanwhile, Silvercorp has tweeted that they were going in to violently overthrow Maduro.
The use of reliable sources and not giving this some made-up title like "Macuto Bay raid" (Google this and see that no one is using this term, but I see a lot of "Bay of Pigs") shows that this meets WP:NOR
The description as a coup meeting the three core policies of Wikipedia, in turn, makes this abide by WP:COUP
Arguments that describe this as just another act of violence are null. This was a direct operation to overthrow Maduro violently and it was admitted by its planners.

I would like to thank Jamez42 for taking the time (and space) to share their opinions. To the user or admin closing this request, thank you for taking the time to go through all of this material.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: I fail to understand your point by point response. "Widespread use" of coup is not that obvious per Jamez42 argument. I don't understand how any of the guidelines you cite goes against Jamez sources. Also by saying "Macuto raid" cannot be find under a google search is dumb, if I search "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" I won't get the exact title either. Additionally, not every action to "overthrow a president" is called a coup, if not news would get ambiguous very fast.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow ups: I have to thank you too for responding and showing your disagreements, Zia. If I may, I have to respond to several points:

Sources: By my estimates, only 10 sources in the article have "coup" as a headline, a mere 20%:[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] (an additional source was added since my last contribution). Even taking into account the refs provided here, you would still have around 50% of sources, which is not widespread. This number is even lower among Spanish and local sources. Widespread usually means between 75% and 80%, or two thirds being conservative. The problem is precisely that reliable sources do not agree in calling the raid a coup.

Furthermore, several of the sources cited as examples of headlines referring to coup have since corrected their articles, including The Sydney Morning Herald,[22], ABC News,[23] The Miami Herald,[24] Fox News[25] and Brasil de Fato.[26], at least five sources. So, five sources less that use the term and more that use other terms. This is also the case of the BBC, whose news article is cited.[27] Other cited outlets, including Associated Press and CNN, have other articles where they refrain from using the term. Describing several reliable sources as sources from Guaidó-aligned countries suggests that there's editorial dependence or interference, just like state-owned outlets, which is not the case. Additionally, many of the references refer to the events as a "plot", which arguably could be a better title.

Sure, it's worth analyzing the use in the content of the articles per se, it's the reason one I proposed the possibility to use a table for comparions, but we would have to distinguish quotes and I stress that the result would probably be the same: There is not an agreement to call the events a "coup".

Last but not least, I dearly hope that with hardline opposition media you don't mean outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual Digital or El Estímulo. These references have been used for years in Venezuela related articles, and this seems to be the first time that their neutrality is put into question; a detailed analysis would need to be done before.

Definition: My example regarding previous uprisings in Venezuela is to provide historic examples of how the term is avoided, not semantic. I'm not proposing the title to be renamed the "Macutazo", and I also provided the Machurucuto incursion as a case study, which is virtually the same plan, arguably better planned, more than fifty years ago. Here are several sources describing the Machurucuto invasion as a foreign-backed attempt violently overthrow the government:[28][29][30][31] The Bay of Pigs Invasion, which has also been used to draw comparisons, is known as an invasion and not as a coup.

The last coups in Venezuela are clearly defined and have historic importance: 1958, the 1992 attempts and the 2002 attempt. This raid is far from receiving that recognition.

Others: The usage of the term is not widespread, so guidelines such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVTITLE are not met. Why wait and try to hide this? WP:TOOSOON.

"Coup" should not be used. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to say that even the representatives of the nations that support Maduro that called the 2019 uprising attempt a coup, do not seem to have used the term coup this time.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: "Coup" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as I explained here. The more limited collection of sources listed above and by ReyHahn below use terms synonymous with coup. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

=== ReyHahn's list of generally reliable sources

(last updated 20 May 2020 ; N means "no" ; request update/modification here)
Type of source	Last source available & link	Date (2020)	Term used in title	Use of coup to refer to the event?	Terms used
Considered generally reliable per WP:RSP	Associated Press	20 May	none	N (publicity coup for Maduro)	maritime incursion, the raid at the coastal town of Macuto
	Bloomberg	15 May	incursion in Venezuela	bollixed coup	ragtag invasion, operation, raid
	Wall Street Journal	15 May	Venezuela Raid	N	operation, incursion, attack
	Economist	14 May	farcical attempt	N	raid, Operation Gideon, incursion
	The Guardian	12 May	'kidnap attempt'	N	raid
	Daily Telegraph	12 May	'kidnap plot'	N	operation, mission, raid
	Financial Times	11 May	plan to topple Maduro	N	incursion
	Reuters	11 May	Operation to oust Maduro	N	Operation Gideon, incursion attempt, invasion
	Washington Post	11 May	Venezuela raid	N	incursion, operation, attack
	Los Angeles Times	10 May	amphibious raid in Venezuela	N	raid, mercenary attack, invasion
	The Times	10 May	Plot to seize Venezuela's president Nicolas Maduro	promised putsch fizzled out	operation
	Al Jazeera	9 May	none	N	operation, raid, incursion
	The New York Times	9 May	incursion into Venezuela	N	incursion, raid, attack, operation
	The Hill	9 May	raid	N	armed incursion, raid
	Intercept	9 May	"Coup" attempt	coup under quotation marks in the title	mission, incursion, attack
	BBC	8 May	Venezuela incursion	N	incursion, operation
	Fox News	8 May	Venezuela raid	N	raid
	Bellingcat	7 May	Venezuela/Silvercorp USA Saga	N	incursion, operation,raid
	NPR	6 May	coup plot	plans to help out carry a coup	raid, attack, operation
	CNN	5 May	invasion	N	invasion, incursion, attack, operation
(Other) journalistic agencies with an office in Venezuela (and reliable)	AFP (English)	11 May	invasion of Venezuela	N	invasion
	EFE (English)	9 May	maritime incursion	N	maritime incursion
	Deutsche Welle (English)	8 May	terrorist invasion	N	invasion, incursion, raid

In Wikipedia we are always striving for notability and verifiability. So I decided to compare only generally reliable sources per WP:RSP and the most recent article of each source. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we favour articles written in a later time and in English. I also added some other important international agencies that have direct coverage of the events in Venezuela. To be fair in contrast with other lists above, I will update the table frequently, you can ask me to verify a source or to update one (see link top left of the table). I hope that by showing you this it is clear that "coup" is not as widely used by the best sources as the move request proposes and that some sources listed as "coup" in other lists are not using it properly as the name of the happening. I think we can seriously sit and analyze the sources to come up with a different name (2020 Venezuelan raid for example) but coup is not supported reliably to bypass WP:COUP.

We should also weight in many other things like: the term "coup" favors Maduro WP:POV, the fact that Venezuelan sources are not calling it coup (even VTV does not do that consistently [32]), nations supporting Maduro are not even calling it a coup [33][34][35] as with other events in 2019, and we have other incidents like this (Machurucuto incident, El Junquito raid) that did not get "coup" in title. Thus the proposed title should be avoided.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Excellent work on the table and rationale! Thank you very much for volunteering to verify and update sources.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: The thing is that several generally reliable sources have described the events as a coup (as seen above, with a total of over 50 international sources in total). Agencia Venezolana de Noticias and other Maduro government sources have consistently described the events as a coup, though I have avoided inclusion since the Maduro government and its allies as they are invovled in the conflict.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

In addition to being completely unreliable. In my personal opinion, the only time we should cite the regime is to show what the regime did or said. But we should never cite the regime as support for an assertion of fact. Indeed, if the regime asserts a fact it's safer to assume it's false than vice versa.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, those 50 sources do not have all the same weight, some of them are in languages that probably most of us cannot not read and the reliability of many of those sources is unknown (or not generally reliable). Some are even videos and opinion articles. VTV is a partisan source for Maduro. Most reliable sources are not calling it coup.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Uh, we are determining the widespread usage of the term here, so the popularity is somewhat important. Some of them may not have the same weight (many sources do not have the same weight), but I only included sources that have an article on English Wikipedia because they are notable if they are included in the project. The source language does not matter as well, especially since we are explaining the widespread usage of the term "coup" here.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Donati, Jessica (2020-05-15). "Ex-Green Beret Thought U.S. Supported Failed Venezuela Raid, Family Says". The Wall Street Journal.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The above list is misleading for reasons given by ZiaLater in this section. It also gives the impression it might be prepared by the group, when it is prepared by an individual editor. If the title is to be retained, I believe all editors should be allowed to edit the table. In the meantime I have changed the title of the section to reflect that ReyHahn prepared the table.

"Coup" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as I explained here. The more limited collection of sources listed above by Jamez42 and ReyHahn often use terms synonymous with coup. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: you just decided to repeat your argument in every section of the discussion and redirect it to your comment [36][37]? Please do not do that, I would ask you to remove your redirects unless you are actually addressing the comments in the section. With respect to my table, I have written a clear guideline on how the sources in my table are being added, contrary to other lists if you find a problem in mine I would be glad to fix it.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to reply here properly. In the beginning I was not convinced that is what a coup attempt. But I guess the thing is clear now. It was a coup attempt and we should call it like that. --Derim Hunt (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC) [copied to correct section by --David Tornheim (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.