Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

See previous move requests at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4

Tags??

A number of tags were recently attached to sentences in the lead and the body but no explanation was provided. Burrobert (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Just saw this as well. These edits without explanation seem to be occurring on other articles as well... WMrapids (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The explanations have been provided in edit summaries, which you are free to consult in the edit history. At any rate, I'm planning to explain the issues further in the near future to reach a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summaries only state the actions you performed, not an explanation for why such tags exist. WMrapids (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this the explanation???: "Inline tagging and section tag". Burrobert (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's almost a month but "I'll come over this later". I'll help by setting up the template:

• Why is it dubious that "Colombia's National Intelligence Directorate and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency had prior knowledge of the plot"?
• What is "lopsided" about the statement "Reports of a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, brother of United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, in support of Guaidó reportedly included 5,000 troops, a cost of $500 million and a fighting force"?
• Why is it dubious that "the Venezuelan government would later publish reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with United States charge d'affairs for Venezuela James B. Story"?

Burrobert (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Friendly ping. I don't want to get too involved, but it would be nice to get rid of the tags. WMrapids (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, many thanks for the ping. As you might have noticed, I have been less active in the last weeks.

Burrobert: I would appreciate it if you would stop placing emojis or emoticons in talk page responses. It's hardly the first time that you do it, and it gives the impression that you're simply not taking the discussions seriously, or in the worst case, that you're mocking other editors.

I'll copy the edit summaries that I referenced a month ago:

• The sources only describe meetings up to years before the raid 1and the agencies have denied knowing about the operation
• WP:COATRACK
• Reviewing sources, including failed verification.

To give more context regarding the last two, there's no need to mention Betsy DeVos in the article, as she has no other relation to the operation whatsoever, and the audio in question reportedly mentions that Alemán met with a CIA officer at a party in the American embassy in Bogotá, not that met with the United States charge d'affairs for Venezuela too, as I corrected in the respective edit. These issues include failed verifiability.

The easiest way to remove the tags would be to restore the stable version of the statements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I will go through the three points:

• Colombia's National Intelligence Directorate and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency had prior knowledge of the plot?. You said The sources only describe meetings up to years before the raid. Our own article says planning for the raid started in April 2019 and the raid was in May 2020. I can't see how this could fit in with meetings occurring "up to years before the raid". Anyway, here are some quotes from the sources:

From AP: Alcalá openly touted his plans for an incursion and appealed for support in a June 2019 meeting with two agents from Colombia’s National Intelligence Directorate, or DNI.

From AP: A retired Venezuelan army general says U.S. officials at the highest levels of the CIA and other federal agencies were aware of his efforts to oust Nicolás Maduro. The stunning accusation came in a court filing late Friday by attorneys for Cliver Alcalá.

From VICE: the CIA ... certainly seems to have known about the doomed invasion

From VICE: Around this same time, in the winter of 2020, according to two sources aware of the background machinations surrounding Operation Gideon, a representative of the CIA approached Goudreau somewhere on an undisclosed Carribean island.

From VICE: Aside from the supposed meeting between a CIA representative and Goudreau that continuously comes up with sources involved in Operation Gideon, it has been previously reported that the agency was monitoring La Guajira.

• You also said the agencies have denied knowing about the operation. That is true and appears in the sources. We should include their denials in the article.
• Reports of a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, brother of United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, in support of Guaidó ... You said there's no need to mention Betsy DeVos in the article, as she has no other relation to the operation whatsoever. Both Reuters and The Miami Herald mention that Prince is Betsy’s brother. The Miami Herald mentions it in the same sentence in which it says Prince purportedly gave “a competing offer of assistance to the Guaidó administration”. The article would be biased if it avoided mentioning the connection between Prince and a representative of the government which was trying to engineer the removal of the Venezuelan government. If Prince was the brother of a Norwegian mass murderer, then there would be an argument for not mentioning the connection. But surely no one thinks that Prince being the brother of the United States Secretary of Education is irrelevant to an article about an attempt to overthrow the Venezuelan government.
• the Venezuelan government would later publish reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with United States charge d'affairs for Venezuela James B. Story. You said the audio in question reportedly mentions that Alemán met with a CIA officer at a party in the American embassy in Bogotá, not that met with the United States charge d'affairs for Venezuela too. The Vice source does not mention Story. The later Infobae source quotes Alemán as saying Story attended the party at which Alemán spoke to someone from the CIA. Anyway, Story’s involvement is not made clear so it would be fine to remove him from that sentence and just say "The Venezuelan government would later publish reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with a CIA officer". Burrobert (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposals

Lately, I have been editing less as well, but I'll take the time to review this to make a proposal:

1. "Intelligence agencies, including Colombia's National Intelligence Directorate, the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and Venezuelan counterparts, as well as the Associated Press, had prior knowledge of the plot, which was intercepted before the first boat reached land." → "It has been reported that intelligence agencies, including individuals belonging to Colombia's National Intelligence Directorate, the United States' Central Intelligence Agency and Venezuelan counterparts, as well as the Associated Press, had prior knowledge of the plot, which was intercepted before the first boat reached land." This gives less wiki-voice to one side or the other due to the conflicting reports (media says that agencies had knowledge, agencies deny).
2. The sources include the DeVos relation to the incident in their reports and it should be maintained.
3. Agreeing with Burrobert's take, we can simply state "The Venezuelan government would later publish reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with a CIA officer".

@Burrobert and NoonIcarus: What do you think?--WMrapids (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input @WMrapids:. Your proposals are fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to be able to respond properly, but for the time being I can comment that I agree too with the third point. Since we all agree on this issue, from what I gather, I've gone ahead, made the change and removed the tag. I'll likewise continue responding to the other points later. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

👍 Burrobert (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

To comment on the first point, the main issue is that the sources talk about only meetings with participants, sometimes up to almost a year before the operation took place, besides the already mentioned fact that it was reported by some participants of the operation and that it is not definitely sure that it happened. Saying that the agencies were aware is original research, since this raid took a whole different stage, including all the planning and the organization in Colombia, from the vague ideas of just using force against Maduro, which is the same issue with including Guaidó and Rendón at the infobox.

My proposal would be to complete this information in the main body, if it hasn't already. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• One AP source mentions a meeting with the DNI in June 2019. The Vice source says the CIA were aware of what was happening "in the winter of 2020". The other sources don't specify a time. There is no original research involved since we are re-stating what reliable sources have said about the CIA's awareness of the plot. WMrapids' suggestion of using the term "reported" would allow us to avoid using Wikivoice for these statements.
• You haven't mentioned Betsy. Burrobert (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

You're not listening. Meetings months or even a year prior to the operation is not the same as the intelligence agencies knowing that Goudreau and peers would disembark on Macuto on 3 May 2020.

As of Betsy, I did not mention her since there weren't changes on my positions and I couldn't think of proposals. The connection would be understandable if she belonged to Trump's family, was Ministry of Defense of had any military position, but mentioning the Secretary of Education, of all positions, is bizarre. I have placed the wording that solved this inline tags. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Well they were aware of the plot nonetheless, so please finish discussing these issues before removal again. I'll place the proposed version for now and keep the disputed tag as a gesture of good faith. We are in no rush. WMrapids (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Recent edits to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

A plot. Not Operation Gideon. Stating otherwise is a personal interpretation. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this; conflating whatever happened between somewhere around the end of 2019 to the beginning of 2020, with whatever "shambolic" thing happened in May 2020, is misleading to the point of creating bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Clarified in this edit. WMrapids (talk) 08:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more clear, concise and relevant to just include the original wording. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See also Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Operation Resolution v Operation_Gideon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, in response that there is "no rush": you have been the editor that has placed these edits, and the onus is on you to back the inclusion of the changes, not the other way around. If tags have been placed it is to demonstrate that the changes have been disputed, but there are many verifiability issues that need to be solved. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So if any user places a dispute tag on any edit, the onus is on the original user to counter the dispute? Is that what you are saying? There are other users who disagree with your dispute as well. As Burrobert said, you didn't reply to our questions about the tags for a month, so you don't seem to be in a hurry. WMrapids (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The ONUS "for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content"; if you want to insert disputed content, and it is disputed, it shouldn't be reinserted without consensus. The ONUS issue came before another editor is forced to place a dispute tag so as to avoid edit warring with the editor who breached ONUS: the ONUS problem pre-dates and trumps the tagging result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox, there has been no adequate discussion regarding removal of information. Guaidó officials provided funding to Silvercorp and signed an agreement, showing support until at least November 2019 according to sources. WMrapids (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes cannot convey nuance, they are disastrous and MILHIST infoboxes are among the worst, and with my long-standing opposition to infoboxes period for any reason, I'm taking no stand on this issue, other than to re-iterate that infoboxes for purposes like this simply should never be used, for these very reasons. I'd say delete all of that combatant, belligerant and other baloney for these long-standing issues they create, and let the reader ... read the article, where nuance can be conveyed. Infoboxes are not worth the bandwidth they consume and the discord they create, to the level of decades-long disagreement even after WP:ARBINFOBOX. It would be nice to stay focused on the many improvements needed to the actual article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The inclusion of Guaidó and Rendón in the infobox is troublesome for the same reasons. They could have support a plot, not Operation Gideon, and they stopped doing so half a year before the operation took place. This is even more important considering that the signing of the agreement is disputed, and the introduction of the article should be reexamined accordingly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Forgot to mention: these issues were already pointed out years ago at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 1#Guaidó in the infobox and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 3#Mention of Guiado's signature in LEDE. Said problems were actually solved before you reinstated said changes again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Timestamp for delaying archival. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Moving forward reasonably

Source lists: user:ReyHahn/macutoraid, User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources, user:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON

See 2023 Move discussions at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4

See discussions to prep for a new Move request at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5

Paine Ellsworth thank you for this sensible move, so that a more focused discussion can (hopefully) proceed before the next RFC.

The better way to conduct an RFC, that won't result in Garbage In–Garbage Out (GIGO) and instead be based on broader consensus, is to a) thoroughly and collaboratively discuss all options first, and then b) formulate together what the next RFC will look like.

Hopefully that discussion can also proceed without repetitious and unnecessary duplications and demonstrably false personalization and misleading statements (diff1,diff2); please focus on content moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, Elelch, ModernDayTrilobite, Adumbrativus, Braganza, The ed17, and Burrobert: Pinging users involved in most recent discussion.--WMrapids (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If you could consider to please stop pinging editors to discussions-- the idea here is to formulate together an RFC that won't be unreadable so that others will easily be able to participate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ideas for discussion

Please put ideas for discussion on the table; perhaps separate sections for discussing each idea will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait six weeks for the next RFC

I propose at minimum a six-week wait before launching the next RFC, to encourage collaborative discussion. See WP:RFCBEFORE (a move request is just a form of RFC, and a formal move request can even be avoided if people come to consensus on talk without it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree that this would help. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Source discussion

Some discussion of how to use sources might be helpful. Do folks want to look at all sources, or put something in place to avoid WP:NOTNEWS (that is, the first sources to come out don't always have the full story)? Do folks want to restrict sources to only the highest quality? What weight to put on scholarly sources? Questions like these-- and more-- could be contemplated before moving in to discussing what the actual RFC will look like; these are sample questions only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

To understand how the title has evolved (outside Wikipedia) since the event. It would be relevant to have good new sources that means:

• At least a couple years apart from the event.
• Be about the subject and not discuss it on the passing.
• Not a news article if possible.
• From a good source that can be trusted, like a reference encyclopedia or good invesgative journalism, or a history textbook.
• That does not come from some unknown journal or editorial.
• Not a political article.

If not, we have to deal with the usual news articles that have been discussed before (which probably has to be done again anyway).--ReyHahn (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Those are a lot of hoops to jump through and seems like an attempt to move the goalposts. Why not just make WP:RS the threshold as it usually is on Wikipedia? WMrapids (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn your list describes what best sources typically look like, but we may not be in a position to expect to have all of those. My suggestion is that you prioritize that list (most important to least important), and that it be used for weight purposes, but not necessarily to exclude sources (except those that are not reliable-- eg The Daily Beast. Then we can look at what best sources have to say at some remove from the actual event, using your list to help define best sources.

Re, too many hoops to jump through, having this kind of source-based discussion is precisely the process that was used when the ultra-contentious J. K. Rowling retained its featured status via featured article review. We forced discussion first to how to use sources, then moved on to content once we had a better understanding of sources. We can't make enduring decisions based on crap sources or those written in a news cycle before all facts were known. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if it was not clear enough. It certainly was not meant to be a criteria to remove sources or kill the conversation on sources. What I tried to say, is that even a single source that meets close or similar criteria THAT IS NOT FROM 2020, would be very valuable. Of course all the previous news articles that we have had in previous discussion are still valid as long as they are reliable.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Novel article title

Article naming possibilities could extend beyond those already discussed, as sources are murky and unclear. Throwing out some possiblities (I am not wedded to any of these-- just ideas for discussion):

• Operation Gideon (2020 Venezuela): avoid the specificity problem by giving date and place
• Silvercorp USA Venezuela incursion
• Silvercorp USA Venezuela raid: both put onus on "Goudreau's folly"-- or something similar

... etcetera ... this section not for voting ... only for throwing out possibilities for discussion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

None of these titles abide by any naming guidelines or even vaguely align with WP:NCE. The very clear, naturally descriptive title for the subject, as raised in the previous RM, is 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, and I am yet to hear any solid, policy-based reason why this should not be the title, so the proposal very much stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, an idea I tried to reinforce above is that it would be helpful to discuss rather than repeat what has already been covered. We know where some editors stand on the coup wording, and consensus has been elusive; this section isn't for !voting, it's for open and collaborative discussion of ideas. If we respect that others believe there is no good title based on the sources, then the idea of something novel becomes a possibility that can at least be discussed. That doesn't imply in any way that the coup title is off the table; just a request to allow discussion of other possibilities. This makes it easier to formulate an RFC with multiple options, more intelligible to other editors for broader consensus, of which the coup title could be one possibility. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I would beg to differ that consensus has been obviously elusive. The last RM was closed procedurally, not due to a lack of consensus. I'm still waiting for a meaningful reason as to why the most straightforward WP:NCE option does not work. I have seen some vague objections to the coup wording, seemingly principally based on the assertion it is somehow pro-government, but that appears to be personal opinion, not an appeal to policy. Yet, to the eye, the language of 'coup' is hugely prevalent in English-language sources, making the assertion that it is somehow Venezuelan government POV rather daft sounding and at odds with the evidence. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It is obvious that this event was a clear propaganda win for the Venezuelan government, but again, this is a group of hundreds of people who dedicated themselves to overthrowing a government through a coup. Whether or not it fits into Maduro's propaganda playbook is not relevant; common sense and a multitude of reliable sources have shown that this was a coup attempt. WMrapids (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not looking to argue one or another at this point: I'm looking to encourage collaborative discussion that will encourage more than local consensus (that is, allow for broader input). I've actually not formulated yet my own preference, and there was negligible non-local input in previous requests because they were so unintelligible. The arguments pro and con that you are putting forward would be consolidated to an easy-for-newcomers-to-digest blurb, added to pro or con. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I am broader input; so are you. As far as I can tell, neither of us was involved on this page until the prior RM, so the discussion already drew broader input: we're it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can still aim for more :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't find any of the three proposals clear or natural, but thank you for trying.

I think the previous discussions have narrowed down that a proposed title would have to meet:

• WP:CODENAME
• WP:NPOV
• WP:NCE
• WP:CONSISTENT

2020 Venezuelan coup attempt meets all of these. If there is another proposal that may meet this, then we can see. WMrapids (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly some of those are exactly the points were some of us do not disagree. The problem is that this event has no unique name. The idea of a more descriptive title could help. What about something like 2020 Silvecorps USA Venezuelan incursion? it would be very descriptive, easy to find (because it includes both 2020 and Venezuela) and would follow all the guidelines.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Or 2020 Venezuela Operation Gideon incursion, 2020 Venezuela Operation Gideon raid, 2020 Venezuela Operation Gideon attack ... I find all three, not sure which word is best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said below, the use of "raid", "incursion" and "invasion" are not accurate descriptions as neither provides the intentions nor actions of the event in the same way "coup attempt" does. Using "raid", "incursion" and "invasion" is unclear and leaves the reader wondering "Why did they attempt a raid/incursion/invasion?" instead of plainly stating what happened. While it may be one of the worst coup attempts ever conceived, it was a coup attempt nonetheless. WMrapids (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So what is essentially a rogue mercenary lying to others so he can collect a bounty and oil revenues is how a "coup", and how not an incursion into sovereign territory for the purpose of kidnapping? Because plenty of high quality sources describe it just like that.

How about putting up the options with an organized and brief structure, not bludgeoned, well discussed pros and cons for each option, and let independent editors process through an organized rational discussion, and let them decide? An enduring result will be much more palatable to all in the long run then what can look like never-ending forum shopping and move requests. Rather than arguing and re-arguing a case that has not gained consensus, why not focus inestead on writing a coherent BRIEF explanation for why you believe coup is best, and let the reader decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Place sources that describe it this way. While it can be implied through WP:OR, either way Silvercorp would be attempting a coup if the goal was for oil revenue or for the bounty. WMrapids (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I just found David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims, notice how many words were put into it to describe the event. A similar event like this that has no WP:COMMON could be described in a similar manner 2020 Jordan Goudreau Macuto military raid or something along those lines.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I think this a good line of thinking, although I'd not likely opt for an option using that exact construction or words (still need to get hold of some sources). I'm still inclined towards using the code name (Gideon) over the company name (SilverCorp) or Goudreau's name, as the all sources use the code name and it's more widely known/cited. And Goudreau, curiously, wasn't even there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

That would put a lot of emphasis on a living person when this was an event where hundreds of people were also involved. Just reading through this, the whole geopolitical situation leading up to this event was bigger than Goudreau.

Looking at WP:CRITERIA, we have to keep the reader in mind:

• Recognizability: Goudreau is not recognizable. Neither is the WP:CODENAME "Operation Gideon".
• Naturalness: We also need naturalness for the reader. Can you see how jumbled "2020 Jordan Goudreau Macuto military raid" is? How are we going to naturally make the where, when and what clear for the reader per WP:NCE?
• Precision: Then there is WP:PRECISION which is where WP:CODENAME comes in to play again. "Operation Gideon" is a terrible title and many users have opposed it due to the WP:DISAMBIG and that it is also not recognizable for the reader. There was also an earlier "Operation Gideon" in Venezuela as well, which make this title even less precise.
• Concision: Now this one is tough, though this is also where WP:NCE comes into play again as it nails the where, when and what since there is not a WP:COMMONNAME.
• Consistency: Finally, this is the divisive one. There are plenty of Venezuela "coup" articles providing precedence that would make the use of "coup" in the title valid, but the wildcard here is the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt, which is almost exactly the same incident but by plane. However, there only appear to be a limited amount of hardly-related titles that are applicable on the other hand. For example, those opposing the "coup" usage provided ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia (a whole damn multi-national effort, not comparable), the Falke Expedition (named by NoonIcarus while the "Falke Filibuster" [1][2] was a possible WP:COMMONNAME or the alternative "Invasion of the Falke"[3][4]), the Machurucuto raid (poor example of an article, they also can't agree on a title in the talk page) and the Bay of Pigs Invasion (a WP:COMMONNAME). These all seem like a reach compared to the "coup" title.

This leaves us with the WP:NPOV issue. This has to be solved. While I'm hoping it can be solved here, I'm realistically waiting on what we should propose for the future WP:NPOVN. WMrapids (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This entire post repeats info already bludgeoned on this page, so the only thing I'll add is that anyone who believes that 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt is similar to this event might want to examine their own bias and read sources more closely. That one is too easy to knock down, and would be on an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt comparison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

My re-prioritization of WMrapid's list above:

• NPOV – Neutral point of view is policy, and a core one; I'm unlikely to support any title which violates neutrality
• CONSISTENT – Consistent titling is also policy, but I argue we don't have a "consistent" event for comparison, so I place less emphasis on this principle.
• NCE – Naming conventions (events) is a guideline (and I haven't yet seen an event like this one -- if we do our best at when, where, what, I'm satisfied, but as that page explains, it's not always possible, and community consensus can overrule this guideline-- as it can all guidelines)
• CODENAME - Operation codenames is a guideline from one WikiProject; if a better name can't be identified that satisfies NPOV, it is OK to breach a guideline -- it's done all the time.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So, uh, does anyone have a "novel article title"?--WMrapids (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Still reading sources; reading all the sources is always a good thing. Narrowing down specific options will take a separate discussion, as there are quite a few possibilities, and I (for one :) don't want to start until I've read everything backwards and forwards. I mentioned below, need a few more days-- it takes a bit of time to read through 657 ProQuest articles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Aim for RFC rather than RM

See Paine Ellsworth's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Because consensus has been elusive, an idea is to view this as an RFC with multiple options, rather than a Requested move, and structure it to allow for input from editors new to the topic, sample:

Should this article be titled

• Option A
• Option B
• Option C
• etc ... hopefully narrowed down via collaborative discussion to four or fewer options.

=== Option A argument in favor ===

=== Option A argument against ===

==== Discussion of Option A ====

Please discuss Option A pros and cons here.

=== Option B argument in favor ===

=== Option B argument against ===

==== Discussion of Option B ====

etcetera ... with each argument in favor/against composed in advance by an advocate for that position and discussed pre-launch. The discussion section is where newcomers others would question, rebut, etc.

=== Survey ===

This is where each editor !votes, and those could be order of priority, eg first choice A, second choice B ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's wait until we actually see some valid novel proposals before we get into this type of detail. Thank you for a possible outline though! WMrapids (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Let's think about where we're headed before we fill the page again to the point that no new editor will want to engage the RM/RFC. I can easily come up with multiple options that can be used without breaching NPOV, but for now, the idea is to focus on developing a process that will yield a readable RFC and encourage a meaningful result. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Archived: Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Preference based voting
• Archived: Talk:Operation_Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Is coup a loaded word?

Brainstorming

Continuing on the points of conflict. I would like to know what other points need to be addressed. Consider the following problems, which one merits a discussion?

• Should we review the sources? Clearly nobody agree what is common in those sources
• Should we discuss the nature of WP:CODENAME?
• Do we need more uninvolved users to feed in? (without contacting any more boards)
• Is this about the title only or is it affecting the article as well?
• Any other ideas?

Please try to suggest a topic for discussion or civil ways to address them, instead of answering to these question directly.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to provide some insight, regarding WP:CODENAME, not long ago I also remembered about es:Operación Canguro (lit. 'Operation Kangaroo'). To anyone unfamiliar,it was the intervention of the Central University of Venezuela by Rafael Caldera's government in 1969. I found this example interesting in this context since it is a codename being the most common name for a historical event, and other terms such as "Intervention of the Central University of Venezuela" can actually cause confusion with other interventions, such of that which happened during Juan Vicente Gómez's dictatorship.

At this point, I think it's also worth putting forward the question if the article should be moved at all or not. In theory, it was the outcome in one of the last discussions, but I think it's at least worth reconsidering as a question seeing the length at which the discussion has extended. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus, I'm working up from the bottom of the page, trying to catch up on queries I haven't answered. In the hypothetical condition that a well-organized Move request results in the article ending up still at some version of "Operation Gideon", the current name still hasn't met when-where-what; that is, even in the hypothetical case that nothing else changes, wouldn't a better and more consistent when-where-what name be 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon? (Not saying that's where we will end up; just saying we need a move even if nothing else changes ... ) But still ... suggest a few more days of sourcing cleanup before we start talking proposals (work would go faster if all sources were available and we didn't have to keep locating archive-urls to fix broken and incomplete citations, sources not apt for BLP were removed, and quotes were provided as soon as requested. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Coming back at this, just to make sure, was there a question? I'm not sure if I understood correctly, sorry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus no- I was just pointing out that one of options might be to stay at this name, but it needs fixing even if that is an outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If there were a move request to 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon, I would vote in favor.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What we need next is for people to take a serious look at the various analyses of sources, and opine whether the "coup attempt" option is still viable for a move request, as well as to suggest any other options that might still be viable. I am busy for most of the rest of today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Source lists: user:ReyHahn/macutoraid, User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources, user:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON

It seems that we need a larger section on sources that provides more subsections, so here is a new one.--WMrapids (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

See User:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON.

See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Use of "coup"_description.

Continued at #Source analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt comparison

@SandyGeorgia: Can you explain your statement that "anyone who believes that 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt is similar to this event might want to examine their own bias and read sources more closely"?--WMrapids (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Will do mañana ... out of time ... if I forget, pls don't hesitate to re-poke me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Back. I'll have to trust the accessible sources at 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt (not having access to the books written after the news cycle), written at some remove from the March 2004 event. Considering, for example, these sources:

• A Boy's Own story gone very wrong, Telegraph, 2004-08-29.
• Scratcher's downfall, The Sunday Times, 2006-06-11
• An African adventure: Inside story of the wonga coup, The Independent, 2008-03-12

There are similarities (oil revenue stream, captured before event transpired, descriptions of Scratcher as being "ego-driven" similar to Goudreau, and so on), but differences of considerable import:

1. Simon Mann was an SAS (Special Air Service) officer; SAS "specialises in a number of roles including counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, direct action and covert reconnaissance".
2. James Kershaw was an insider who went into a witness protection program and provided information.
3. Jack Straw had to backtrack on false info provided.
4. Plausible British financiers were identified; even if Thatcher was "framed" and pled to get released, and even if all the denials are correct, there's still as much fire here as smoke, while Goudreau is pretty much a house of mirrors.

Contrasted to Goudreau:

1. Virtually all accounts describe Goudreau's operation as a "one-man show" run by someone "in over his head" and "not in his right mind" while (honest) sources struggle to explain exactly what the heck Goudreau thought he was doing and what to even call it; Goudreau may have been a triple-bronze-star war hero, but to deal in the world he pretended to be expert in, some time at West Point studying warfare, strategy and intelligence to become an officer qualified to operate in those arenas (rather than being a great shot with a rifle, brave in warfare where he could operate with the backing of a real intelligence agency, and pretending to have CIA and US government connections he never seems to have had and lying to his men about same) might have prepared him for dealing with Cuban Intelligence-- an ability and competence he clearly did not have. He was acting on his own, well in over his head, without clear financing, with hungry men, and without apparently the connections he pretended to have-- all making him an easy tool for anyone with superior intelligence. He may have been a great warrior and even good at providing security, but as everyone describes, he was on a shambolic folly, run by no one but ... him. So unlike the Equatorial Guinea situation, no one by sometime around mid- to late- 2019 had any relationship or intent to deal with Goudreau, everyone (but Cliver maybe) recognized he wasn't competent, didn't trust him, so that by the time he moved forward, he was acting entirely on his own, deceiving his men, and deluding everyone including himself about his abilities, financing, connections, etc. Which source does not paint that picture (pls point me at it if there is one)? As sources all say, it was pretty much a "one-man show", and the only "coup" was the "political coup" by Maduro. This is not at all the picture that emerges of the Equatorial Guinea situation, where people who actually had some training and some connections and some financing were really organizing a real coup.
2. More than three years on, no insiders have come forward with information that differs in any material way from point 1 (but then, conveniently, many of them ended up dead or quickly imprisoned without due process, so we're left with murkiness there ... ). No Jack Straw smoking gun has surfaced; au contraire, what has surfaced as time has evolved is the possibility that the gunfight never even happened.
3. There's no Jack Straw here; what Trump & Co thought of Goudreau and his schemes is well covered by sources and makes sense. Even Goodman-- of the original Associated Press report-- emphasizes that he's seen no evidence of U.S. involvement. As we state in the article, Goudreau was warned by everyone not to move forward.
4. Kraft is fingered as a financier of Goudreau, and he (Goudreau) most likely fooled plenty of individual Venezuelans into believing he actually had US or Guaido backing, and got some money that way-- but there was not a well--funded operation and basically no money-- he had hungry men in the jungle, because he didn't really have backers.

The picture is painted of an sole individual who was nothing more than war-decorated con artist who found himself in over his head in his own ego-driven get-rich-quick scheme. If that's what Wikipedians want to label a "coup", so be it, but my understanding of what actually constitutes a coup is what went on with Equatorial Guinea with qualified military personnel, with real financiers, and acting with apparent demonstrated knowledge of politicians. The reason I suggest reading all sources thoroughly is that this picture is very clearly painted if one reads the preponderance of all sources, and takes care to avoid cherrypicking that which better fits with one's own predisposition. There are tons of good sources out there; focusing on one or a handful of them that are less-than-best quality won't result in a neutral article.

I still want to know why the Green Berets were apprehended wearing beach clothes-- not the way trained professionals embark upon a coup, and for the life of me, I can't figure out how they thought they would launch anything involving Caracas from Macuto. Maybe they were so cash-strapped that they didn't even have a topographical map. Nothing about this story makes sense-- and that's just what all the best sources say. I hope I've answered your question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I like Bellingcat's title best: The Invasion of Venezuela, Brought To You By Silvercorp USA -- Mann was conducting a coup; Goudreau was conducting a con. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Now, almost two weeks later and having read hundreds of sources, striking a lot of what I wrote above and will later re-do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is a table to breakdown the two events:

2004 coup attempt vs 2020 coup attempt

Topic	2004	2020
Background	Oil-reliant country led by a strongman leader	Oil-reliant country led by a strongman leader
Motive	Install an opposition politician with a "government in exile" to remove a strongman	Install an opposition politician with a "government in exile" to remove a strongman
Plot leader	Former special forces soldier	Former special forces soldier
Who	Mercenaries	Mercenaries
Method	Transporting troops from a foreign nation to target nation to capture/kill leader	Transporting troops from a foreign nation to target nation to capture/kill leader
# of troops	60-ish	60-ish
Reward	Oil sale concessions	Oil sale concessions
Result	Coup plot failed and mercenaries captured	Coup plot failed and mercenaries captured/killed

Pretty obvious that the two coup attempts are very similar. None of what Goudreau did has to make sense to you or anyone, it depends on what the sources say (which is that it was a coup attempt). Whether or not Goudreau is a con artist or less-prepared is not relevant. The lesson here, for both cases, is clear; it has been said that Bodhidharma once told a student "The ignorant mind, with its infinite afflictions, passions, and evils, is rooted in the three poisons. Greed, anger, and delusion." Individuals poisoned by greed and delusion is a good way to explain these coup attempts.--WMrapids (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Except for those 60-ish hungry men, cut off from the world and information and hiding out in Colombia, who were being conned by Goudreau and thought they were helping restore their country to democracy -- unlike the unrelated-to-the-country pure merceneries hired by Mann who had every reason to know very well what they were doing in an operation that no one had disclaimed or distanced themselves from, leaving one con man to mislead them and carry out his own greedy exploit, leaving his buddies dead and in prison. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Still not relevant. The Venezuelan mercenaries did what they did and drank the Flavor Aid by attempting a coup. WMrapids (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Here is an alternate view, contemplating points raised in breadth of sources and perhaps explaining why the majority of sources do not label Venezuela a coup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

2004 Equatorial Guinea vs 2020 Venezuela

Topic	2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt	Operation Gideon (2020)
Economy	Oil-reliant country	Once oil-reliant country, but oil industry was decimated by inept chavismo management
Leadership	Autocratic leader installed by coup	Disputed between - autocratic leader installed by elections widely considered to be rigged, and - leader of democratically-elected National Assembly consider by more than 50 countries to be the legitimate President
Motive	Install an opposition politician with a "government in exile" to remove a strongman	Bring an autocrat to justice for narcoterrorism and crimes against humanity, allow the legally-elected National Assembly and the politician considered president by more than 50 countries to govern
Plot leader	Former special forces soldier	Former Venezuelan military officer and US special forces soldier
Who	Almost all mercenaries	Exiled Venezuelan military, three mercenaries
Method	Transporting troops from a foreign nation to target nation to capture/kill leader	Returning exiled troops from a neighboring country to bring autocratic ruler to justice
# of troops	60-ish	60-ish
Reward	Oil sale concessions	Return to their country for Venezuelans; oil sale concessions for one US soldier
Result	Coup plot failed and mercenaries captured	Invasion/incursion/raid was infiltrated by Cuban-led intelligence; Venezuelans were executed or imprisoned; two mercenaries captured

Preference based voting

As I have proposed before, I believe that if there is a new move request/RfC, if each editor ordered proposed titles depending on their preference instead of choosing a single choice, or choosing two or three preferred alternatives, finding an agreement would be a lot easier. You can think about it sort of like a instant-runoff voting. The risk of this, just like with the regular "voting", is naturally WP:POLL, but if there's an organized discussion beforehand and it is better than just voting on a single alternative. We can agree in the least disliked title, we will probably be able to choose a title. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: And if one finds the alternatives completely unacceptable? WMrapids (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In any well-planned RFC, that is not a problem. For example, sample declarations can look like:

• Support Option A, Oppose all others
• First choice Option B, Oppose Option A, would accept Option C as second choice
• First choice Option C, second choice Option A, last choice Option B, but not opposed to any

and so on ... you are not limited or forced to prioritizing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I fully understand the question or if Sandy's response answers it, but I'll give an example to illustrate.

Say we are ordering six Stanley Kubrick films: 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Spartacus and The Shining. With a ranking system, the choices could be the following:

1. Full Metal Jacket
2. Dr. Strangelove
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
4. The Shining
5. A Clockwork Orange

0. Spartacus

This system allows to consider "second" and "third" places too and could help limit options. Optionally, there can also be a "zero" option: if you could only discard a single or a few titles, which ones would they be? Under the multiple-choice alternative, said choices could be the following (no particular order example):

• 2001: A Space Odyssey
• A Clockwork Orange
• The Shining

This option can be particularly useful if we have a lot of proposals, let's say over five, and a ranking system can be particularly clunky. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if my typo was confusing, but I don’t agree with this system for a few reasons. One reason is the limited inclusion of users. We would need dozens of users and options for this to be natural and viable. And my second concern is that the decision making process can be manipulated. Let’s say we have options A,B,C,D and E. If some users have a strong opinion on not supporting option B, they can simply vote C,A,D,E,B and create a false consensus that option B is not a valid option. This actually occurred in the Jim Crow era, with Louisiana allowing multiple options for voters in order to prevent black politicians from entering office. Remember, this manipulation can work both ways and it can make an unpopular option appear popular.

The ranked concept would be nice if we had a lot more inclusion (dozens to hundreds of users with clear options), but I think it can be abused on a smaller scale and we definitely do not have clear options. WMrapids (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The tricky thing is, we can't really "(dis)agree with this system" because it's exactly what happens, naturally, in every broad community discussion. Editors often identify their first choice, but say they would accept a second choice if consensus is not reached for the first. No one is forced to vote that way, and anyone is free to Support one, Oppose all the rest, but editors will do what they will do, and indicating second choices towards compromise is what usually happens. (I would oppose a structure where we state in advance that rank polling must be used.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The multiple choice system can be used in that case too, in that case. Of course, to follow up on what Sandy said and give assurance, it obviously isn't mandatory. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We should let users do what they want to do. No need to complicate an existing process with ranked voting. Things are complicated enough with this discussion. If users rank it themselves, so be it, but I am very opposed to recommending ranked voting in the opening of a new move proposal. Move options should simply be neutrally proposed as usual. WMrapids (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither am I a fan of ranked voting, although it tends to happen anyway, but I would not support that we require it. We will have time to work out the details assuming no one gets impatient and jumps the gun; working up the RFC-style Requested move in sandbox first should work if everyone collaborates, and then we can have Paine/Amakuru double check the technical/formatting issues (the methodology for something like this is now explained better at User talk:Paine Ellsworth#RM v RFC).

I need at least a few more days of source work before being ready to open a discussion about possible alternate names, which we would hopefully winnow down to no more than three-- and that will probably take at least a week for consensus to develop ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone care if I archive this portion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Is coup a loaded word?

Maybe this question has to be discussed.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of high quality sources (like The Washington Post) have opted not to use it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

And some repeat it over and over again. Why the WP thought 'invasion', which sounds rather more grandiose than the operation in question, was better terminology I don't know. The broader point here is that "coup d'état" is not a specialist phrase; it's routine descriptive English for an illegal and overt attempt by the military or other government elites to unseat the incumbent leader by force. And here it's just calling a duck a duck: if it looks like a coup, and quacks like a coup ... Iskandar323 (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• There are several problems with the word "coup". Here is a good essay WP:COUP. Three things to consider:

1. As said before it is used politically in Venezuela. It is undeniable that every event that ends in some group going against the authorities is called a coup by Maduro's government. If it were for Maduro even the 2017 Venezuelan protests would be called 2017 Venezuelan coup d'etat attempt orchestrated by the USA empire. The word coup loses completely its descriptive power in these contexts. It is used to victizime the government.
2. 'Coup' is already avoided by many sources for the same reason outside Venezuela. Why? Because it is a charged word. It is the reason why many reliable sources do not use terms like "terrorism", "coup" or "dictator", without attribution, because these are terms that can be charged and can be used by political groups to taint another group negatively. The best practice seems to describe what is meant with neutral words. We do not start Kim Jong Un lead saying that he is a dictator (even if some sources may say indicate it very clearly) because it is a charged word. It is better to describe any authoritarian or anti-democratic actions that he has made and use attributions later.
3. It can give the impression of something larger happening. The intentions matter nothing if the event does not represent it. The article has to be about the event in place and not about what was attempted. Tomorrow a delusional Wikipedian can throw mangoes to the king of UK, in order to kill him. But if the user does not get to even throw a mango and is arrested by local police before even arriving to Great Britain, we can barely call that a coup. The intention is clearly a coup but the result can be completely different. It can give the sense of something major happening. This word should be reserved for events that pose a real treat to the status quo. If there is something that sources agree (independent of the quality and political bias) is that this operation was completely farcical.

.-ReyHahn (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

How do you think the way in which this operation is defined differs from the definition of a coup? Iskandar323 (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Greatly on point 3 above.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: As you recommended below, taking this to WP:NPOVN may not be a bad idea since we are not going to find a consensus with the stale arguments made by the same users. We need an answer on this before moving forward with any suggestion of 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt being used. WMrapids (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

While the essay seems good-natured, it's a reminder that WP:LAWYERING shouldn't be the way to go when a common sense case exists. WP:NOTBURO says "While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without considering their principles. We have plenty of reliable sources describing this as a "coup attempt" and there is the common sense principle of Wikipedia. Especially in this instance, the use of the word "coup" is not loaded and completely applicable with a mercenary force attempting to overthrow the Maduro government. WMrapids (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Remeber that WP:COUP is an WP:ESSAY not a guideline, it is an argument not a strict rule. You brought this WP:NOTBURO here in the last RM but I am not sure what you mean by it. We are all here trying to support this in what we think is common sense and guidelines. Note that this is not a RM, I am trying to address a point here and see if we can convince each other. As for the plenty of sources that is debatable for another section. How is the word coup not loaded according to you? Using your terms why not try something like 2020 Venezuelan mercenary incursion would be more descriptive and avoids all of the points above, however I would have to think about it, mercenary is also a complicated word.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I can tell you. It's not precise, concise or adequately descriptive, since it misses the key point (not missed by coup) that the purpose of the operation was to remove the head of state. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, if their goal was something different, like stealing a Bolivar painting it would be delusional to call this "2020 Venezuelan art heist" when they did not even got close to the city were the museum is. That's why I favored the original title "Macuto bay raid" because it is about the actual event, it tells you where it is and that it was a surprise attack (whatever their goal was, it was not achievable that way).--ReyHahn (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Iskandar323. The term "incursion", "raid" or "invasion" is inaccurate as it does not describe the motives of the mercenaries. WMrapids (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So we are to ignore that most sources use these terms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

They may use the terms to describe the action that occurred during the event, but it doesn’t encapsulate the full scale of the event like “coup” does. I see know issue with using those terms within the article to describe the specific attack, but not to describe the overall event. WMrapids (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, coup events are typically quite military in nature, so will naturally involve other descriptive military words related to aspects of the coup. Vox calls it a failed coup while also using the words invasion and raid to describe the proceedings as it narrates the story. As noted above, coup is the nature of the event; invasion, incursion or raid are just the means. The Killing of Osama bin Laden involved an invasion or incursion into Pakistan and a raid on Abbottabad, but it's not called the Pakistan invasion or Abbottabad raid for obvious reasons related to the actual key aspects of the story. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

This example of Osama does not work because the objective was clearly reachable and reached. Here is another example. Imagine making a Wikipedia article about the afronauts (Zambian 1960 ill-advised space program) and calling the article 1964 Zambian Mars landing attempt, it will make it look as if they actually flew into space, when they were not even able to launch a rocket.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, are you considering Vox a high-quality reliable source (that is, of the type you would include in a hopefully much briefer and more readable writeup of the argument in favor of using coup as one of the RFC options in the article title)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 where this logic falls down is that, according to the sources I've processed so far (admittedly still a work in progress), even Maduro described the event as many things other than a coup -- we've even got him calling it, for example, an assassination attempt, among many other descriptions-- but I'm still building the list. WMrapids, perhaps you missed my query above about the Vox source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what Maduro called it, since he is, objectively, one of the least independent sources imaginable on the matter. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Valid observation-- except that, even The Washington Post, a high-quality source, classifies all their coverage under "Assassinations and assassination attempts", rather than "Coup". This is not as straightforward as presented in previous discussions, and there's nuance to be worked through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, an essay is just user-generated opinion that is another step below even a guideline, let alone a policy – an essay is never an actual basis for a policy-based discussion and should not be treated as such: they are merely the musings of some enthusiastic editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOVN opened

NPOVN opened (now closed)

Comment: There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard now. Thank you.--WMrapids (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC) This is seriously frustrating. Couldn't this wait a bit? Why do we need to keep mutiplying the discussions. How is this not disrupting?--ReyHahn (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC) @ReyHahn: The same disputes have been happening for months and it is more disruptive to prolong them on this godforsaken talk page. WMrapids (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Can you please assume WP:GOODFAITH? Why not wait for other users to come in? Why not open a discussion on another question that you think is more relevant? We just had a disastrouss RM. We were trying to build the grounds for an argument before we make another RfC or RM, but you seem to have again bypassed it and send it to another board. Please understand that WP:Wikipedia can wait and that there is no higher authority, sometimes conversation are intrinsically hard.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC) I don't think this is a WP:GOODFAITH concern on my part. I know you may be frustrated with the process, but have good faith in my actions as well. Users spending over three years attempting to conclude a NPOV argument about the use of "coup attempt" is a sufficient wait period. After seeing Iskandar323's recommendation for the NPOVN, it only seemed appropriate. WMrapids (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Yes, this sort of thing is exactly what the NPOV noticeboard is for. However, I had planned to go the noticeboard with a broader question on the use of (attempted) coup to describe the event more generally, not specifically in relation to the title, since it's the underlying eschewing of this language throughout the body and ignoring of all the sources that use this language that is most egregious from an NPOV perspective.Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC) I tried to leave it open with that with the "title/description" wording. Again, apologies if you think I'm jumping the gun, but a lot of these arguments continue to be circular and it has been my goal from the beginning to include as many other users as possible. WMrapids (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Pretty much short-circuiting the intent of holding an RFC on the title, where if independent editors weigh in in support of coup in the title, that would have solved that. Instead, another forum; no wonder people weary of these discussions. Is a week or two of discussion to get meaningful enduring results too much to ask ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC) I'm confused. It was you who said the page needed broader input. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC) And a structured, planned RFC was being designed to that aim; we don't get useful broader input by putting up meaningless source-counting lists of sources that don't say what people think they say, and don't encourage editors to understand each other's points of view, don't encourage best use of sources, talk past each other, and bludgeon so that independent editors are discouraged from weighing in at all. Enduring consensus comes from collaboration and discussion; it also avoids wasting the time of other editors, forcing them to read through reams of unhelpful posts. Focus on putting forward your best argument for an article name you support, using the best possible sources for that option-- others are more likely then to read and participate, and an enduring consensus is more likely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC) NPOVN question was withdrawn. Let's draft a good RfC for the NPOVN though since this is a question that needs to be solved.--WMrapids (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOVN RfC draft

@SandyGeorgia, Iskandar323, NoonIcarus, and ReyHahn: Since we are caught in a circle here, it's pretty vital that we open a proper NPOVN RfC on the "coup attempt" discussion. I say we find an agreement on a neutral way to present this. We mostly have our arguments for and against already. Any other suggestions?--WMrapids (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It is still early, maybe we start by deciding if we want to make an RfC question that is short and precise (but open and multivalued) or a big RfC lead that summarizes the arguments of each of us in a way we can all agree.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If I may, I suggest a "short and precise" (and neutral) opening statement. Then argument summaries can be added below the statement, subject to editorial agreement. This might not be suitable for WP:RFC, though, because it involves a title change, which is governed by WP:RM. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth thanks for the helpful offers. I suspect we are still quite a ways away from thinking about final structure, though, as we don't even yet have valid source lists or consensus about possible names. That said, I thought exactly what you suggest is what I had proposed at #Aim for RFC rather than RM. We can later figure out whether the RFC goes at WP:RFC or WP:RM. My thought was it would get more attention via RFC, and I'm not aware of any reason we must be/are forced to use RM ??? I could be wrong ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that final structure is still a ways away. As for using a request for comment (RfC) to effect a page move, I can only tell you what I've seen in the past. Whenever I've seen an editor open an RfC to select a page title, an admin has closed it citing WP:RM as the correct way to facilitate a page rename. A requested move (RM) is sort of a special case RfC, with both similarities and differences. I think they like us to follow correct procedure to be consistent and to make it easier for future editors to find past RMs when they need to. Because both RfCs and RMs are listed each on a special page, [here] and [here], and because both RMs and RfCs are also auto-listed as "article alerts" on WikiProject pages, both get a fair share of attention. Rather than thinking about it as being forced, think about it as keeping with the long-term consensus of the community that has shown a marked preference to use formal RMs for controversial page-move discussions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth thanks for that-- makes great sense. So if we end up going to WP:RM, can it still be formatted (more or less) as I've laid out (provisionally) at #Aim for RFC rather than RM? That is, we would still want to present several options, rather than one, and still want to compose the pro and con arguments in advance-- will that work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If several options need to be presented, then it is better to stage an informal discussion to garner consensus for one particular title. The RMCD bot is designed to place a banner on the current page that is to be renamed, and on the proposed title's page if it also must be renamed. However, the bot will not do this for other optional page titles that are presented along with the main proposal. If any of those options are also pages that will need to be moved, then editors who watch those pages should receive ample notice of the proposal. That is why closers must be very careful with other proposals within page moves, such as "Oppose and move to My suggested page name." If that suggestion will require a separate page move, then the closer must consider carefully whether or not such a move should be made, even if there is consensus for it. In any case, we are limited to proposing a page move from "Page A" to "Page B" (Page A → Page B). This seems to work best for RM surveys and discussions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth; thanks again for that, most helpful (but not, as it limits our flexibility to hold a broad community discussion :). So I will continue looking at sources, and if we are forced to one suggested page, we may need to separately discuss what that page would be, as my systematic examination of sources so far is revealing that the idea that most sources support the "coup" title is just blatant misrepresentation of sources, with a good dose of cherry-picking, so we may need to revisit what to do next after thinking on this. Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, editor SandyGeorgia, glad to help! Thoughtful visits and revisits will only help the situation as editors work to build consensus. If it were an easy job, they wouldn't pay us so much. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and staying with this difficult discussion. Clearing the NPOV question on “coup attempt” is a priority. We could probably do something that presents the question neutrally and then just place the source list, saying (neutrally) “Here is a list of sources using the word ‘coup’”. Anything other discussions at this point are putting the wagon in front of the horse. WMrapids (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help. Difficult discussions, when editors remain open to discourse, will lead to improvement of WP. That's really "it" for me. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I want to clarify something. Would a RfC regarding the description of an article's main event still be discarded? This is not necessarily a page move, so I'm not sure if this would be covered by WP:RM in the same way. There was already an edit using the "coup attempt" description and this problem will probably arise in the future (especially since there is an article about forcibly removing a leader from office that can be linked), so a RfC at NPOVN may still be necessary. WMrapids (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it depends on what is trying to be accomplished. If a description of a main event in the content of an article needs to be discussed, then an RfC can be opened. If, rather than a content change, an article's title needs to be discussed, then an RM can be opened. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something here, why is this section called NPOV Rfc draft? Is it about the this whole talk section and decision for the title of the page or about the issue in the recently closed issue at WP:NPOVN? --ReyHahn (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, also confusing. What we have underway already is a planned RFC to decide on article naming, one option of which is relative to the word coup; if the coup formulation is endorsed via RFC, obviously, it will then also be worked in to the article and its lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I appreciate your desire to collaborate now and move forward, but I'm not sure you yet understand how to forumulate and build a proper, non-GIGO RFC; by no means do "we mostly have our arguments for and against already". You don't even have a valid source list supporting "coup", and other participants haven't yet come to final consensus on what other options to put forward. When attempting to do that at #Novel article title, we got a section filled (again) with your own views, rather than discussion of how to move the process foward; we are now working on process, we already know your views, and filling the page with such slows down the collaborative process. You might better focus your efforts on cleaning up your own proposal to a list of sources that won't waste other editors' time when they visit the RFC.

And you've stated over at the NPOV noticeboard that the page has doubled in three days; to properly discuss and build an RFC, the page will grow, and it should be with constructive input rather than lists half a page long of sources that don't represent what you say they do. Here's an example of how many talk page discussion it takes to deal with a *truly* contentious topic (which this article is not). Every time we sidetrack to discussing how to make the process work, we lose time that can be better spent working on valid source lists and finetuning proposals. We do not want to end up with another bludgeoned discussion that independent editors won't even read.

Yes, I do have a lot of suggestions for how to proceed better. This is a marathon, not a sprint; slow and steady wins the race, and the less the talk page is sidetracked with personal opinions (that you can put forward when the RFC occurs), the sooner we will get the RFC formulated.

1. Please be more aware of other editors' time, so that we can proceed with a better structure. That means two things:
   1. Please read Wikipedia:ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI and Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Your posts are unbearably unreadable alphabet soup, fill up the page unnecessarily with policy and guideline lectures that most are already well familiar with (but may disagree with your view), and as we launch a real RFC, you'll find most editors well experienced in interpreting policy. They won't need to have endless reams of P&G cited at them, much less with alphabet soup.
   2. Please focus on how to better use a talk page relative to sandbox pages. We still have #Use of "coup" description clogging the page and you haven't addressed it through several requests from other editors. It is not a valid list, checking only the first two show they don't show what you say they do, and it's not helping move the discussion forward. You could better spend your time building a readable, valid list somewhere in sandbox, as I've started doing at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources. Doing this correctly, so as not to waste community time when they visit the RFC, takes time. It's also a helpful process as you can come to understand other points of view when you actually spend time engaging them. (PS, where did that list come from? I did not see an Copying within edit summary.)
2. Please stop opening and collapsing threads; how often you have had to do this could be an indication that maybe you aren't thinking things through carefully before launch. The collaborative approach would have been to ask in advance: "What would the rest of you think about taking this to the NPOV noticeboard?", as an example of how to better work together.

At the end of a well-planned RFC, we will have a conclusion that half of the editors might not be pleased with, but the process that gets us there should be one that will result in buy-in from everyone, as they realize it was a fairly and collaboratively planned process (that is, several of us are telling you that your source list is an invitation to torpedo your "coup" proposal, as it is so demonstrably wrong, so you might want to clean it up). And maybe, in the process, we'll even get lucky and come up with a solution we can all agree with! For me, I'm still building sources; please go back and remove the gobble-dee-gook source list and start rebulding something with dates and actual titles and sort out when the word coup is only attributed to Maduro; you can then link to a sandbox here, and we can then discuss whether that full list can be moved in to the eventual RFC, how and where. Thanks for understanding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New information at Paine Ellsworth's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to archiving this section? (I will add back a link to the explanation at Paine Ellsworth's talk in the main thread.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of "coup" description

Below is a list of sources which use "coup" while describing the event:

Now, we are not here for WP:SOURCECOUNTING (even though this is just a user essay), but it shows that reliable sources, generally reliable sources and many international sources support the usage of the "coup" description. This is not necessarily a common name (as some have demanded) as it is a common description. Seeing this, one can see that if this description were to be used, it would not be a violation of WP:NPOV or WP:OR due to its common use, with WP:NDESC stating "In some cases a descriptive phrase ... is best as the title.".--WMrapids (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly enough sources that the relegation of these terms to the "analysis" section under "description of events" is pretty ridiculous. It's not just numerous in sources, it's usage is widespread and global in a manner sufficiently ubiquitous that it is clearly a neutral, natural term for the event, regardless of whether Maduro also likes the framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the community will easily ratify it in an RFC; so far, I'm not seeing it, as the list above misrepresents what sources say, and I'm still reviewing what other sources the list leaves out. My opinion is still forming, but it's not going to be formed towards use of the word coup if the basis for that is a faulty source list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

New OPGIDEON source "coup attempt" list just dropped!--WMrapids (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: thanks for the new list! You can display your new list here by calling the article adress as if it were a template: "{{User:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON}}". Just be careful with the sections (it will add sections to this conversation). You can either use "noinclude" or not use sections and divide the different parts using bold titles. Also remember to dump all the content back here when the conversation is ready to be archived.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree, thanks! But ... Ack :) :) Not everyone has a fast internet connection, and this page is large and will grow; transcluding it here as you suggest, ReyHahn, effectively adds to the page size. If instead, it is just added to this page as a wikilink as I did for my sandbox, that is, User:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON, it doesn't affect the page size and load time here. Doing it that way also minimizes the traffic on this page as we sort out multiple items to prepare for RM launch, as we can all go to User talk:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON to make inquiries, and then once WM has the page nailed down, it will be ready to link in to our eventual Requested moves discussion. Just an idea to keep this page more manageable as we work towards the pieces needed for the RM discussion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of "Use of coup" sources

Thank you for numbering the sources; that will facilitate discussion of them. Eventually we'll also have other similar lists, but for now, organized, slow and steady wins the race.

Please have a look at WP:RSP in relation to several of the sources listed: Article titles states that, Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. And yet this list includes things like The Daily Beast, etc. Is that the yardstick we intend to use, or do higher quality sources, written well after the news rush, merit more weight and attention ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I promise you, I'm trying. WMrapids (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops, edit conflicted when I was adding second para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids -- Just a suggestion; if you were to put your list in a sandbox in your userspace, then just link to that sandbox here, you could more easily fine tune the list (as other point out problems) without derailing this discussion. As just a starter, your first two on the current list don't say what you seem to think they say (in fact, they argue against the word coup), so organizing your sources in a sandbox would be a way to avoid having individual opinions take over process planning. If you want to convince others that coup is it, putting your best foot forward-- showing the highest quality sources that describe it as a coup, not just quote Maduro claiming it is one, is the way to go. If you were to put up this list in an RFC, anyone would be likely to check the first two, and stop there after realizing they don't make the point for calling it a coup at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing about the “news rush” is that if there really was an issue with a “rush”, we wouldn’t have so many sources using the same description, especially WP:GREL sources. We shouldn’t throw more loops in front of ourselves when we already have WP:RS as a policy. WMrapids (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I also thank you for the sources. How do you prefer to proceed? Would you prefer that we suggest modifications as the conversation goes on? Do you want to demonstrate coup over something else?--ReyHahn (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Could we keep the big picture in mind (we are heading towards an eventual RFC), and avoid going point-by-point at this juncture? I suggest that if we start taking apart this list, we'll be derailed from the big picture. Can we focus on how we want to weight sources before looking at them individually ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion, for starters, is to remove non-English and no consensus on reliability sources from the list per article title criteria. Noting that when/if I put up a list, it will likely only contain high quality sources or scholarly sources, as there's no point in doing otherwise if we pretend to be writing a neutral encyclopedia. Listing every tom dick and harry that used a word is just counting sources, with no regard to quality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if we provide a list of "tags" for each column we can make a table where everybody can chip in from scratch (if we agree on what are the best quality sources). For example, I would say something like a table with the following entries: news website, date, title, how it referes to the event, use of coup without attribution (y/n)? and "Operation Gideon" (y/n)?. I suggest also sorted by date.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

From the previous discussion, it looks like they were trying to show that the use of “coup” was widely used and that is why the international sources were included. As for combing through the sources and performing WP:OR to interpret them, that’s not advised. If the source uses “coup”, they intend to use it, and many sources internationally have the same intentions. WMrapids (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Before any interpretation or WP:OR accusations. Maybe you could consider editing to verify that the articles say what they say and reduce the number of sources to those of higher quality.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Possibly reducing the lower quality sources, though the inclusion of international sources is relevant to show widespread usage of the term. Reducing the timeframe of publication is also mot advised as I said above, the sources said what they said. WMrapids (talk) 04:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No timeframe reduction suggested, quite the opposite. The use of coup is clearly a language issue too, its "loadness" is different in different languages. Also still some sources are not saying what you claim they say. Source counting is the dubious practice of listing or simply enumerating sources that contain a certain term or phrase to bolster one's argument. WP:SOURCECOUNTING. And we cannot go one by one without deciding what we want to aim for, just looking for validation of a single term.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, please have a look at age matters-- a subsection of the reliable sources guideline; you are underinformed about the proper use of sources relative to the news cycle, and when we launch an RFC, we will get editors who are well informed on Wikipedia policy and guideline, so it would behoove you to revisit your sources now rather than be surprised later. If 100 sources called something X the day it happened, but five years later, better info emerged revealing that the issue was actually Y, article names are changed to reflect better and more current sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Should we also ignore this because it’s a guideline? It’s like a guideline matters in one instance, or it doesn’t in another. I’m really getting tired of the bludgeoning and Wikilawyering on this topic. We really need to narrow down what questions that need to be raised in a RfC and I believe it begins with the use of “coup attempt”. It’s clear that we are going nowhere without some external users. WMrapids (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Quite different from occasional exceptions of the MilHist Code Name guideline, the reliable sources guideline is a page that enjoys broad community support, and not a guideline that most knowledgeable editors would advocate for ignoring. If you insist on moving forward without ample discussion of your "coup" proposal, once again, I remind you/ask you to clean up the faulty source list you've posted. Of the first four on your list, one I haven't yet found, and the other three don't support the word "coup" at all. Perhaps rather than labeling my attempt to help you strengthen your case for "coup" as "wikilawyering", you will instead contemplate not looking a gift horse in the mouth. If you have a strong case for the "coup" title, I've not yet encountered it-- still have lots of sources to get through, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Responding to this now since there are plenty of WP:GREL sources describing this as a "coup attempt". Will try to update this as much as I can, though will have some limited time.--WMrapids (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is intending to deny that there are plenty of sources describing it as a coup attempt; there are more sources describing it other ways as well-- which may or may not matter when independent editors weigh in. What matters for the purposes of seeking broader participation from independent editors is that we're not misrepresenting what the sources say so that those independent editors don't have to wade through gobbledee-gook to make their decision. If we've presented a fair case, briefly summarized to avoid scaring off independent feedback, we should all be satisfied with the outcome, whatever it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Source analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Odd lead insertion

This is an odd insertion of "coup" wording into the lead considering this very issue has been debated for years; inserting the assertion of a coup during a good-faith attempt to resolve the article naming impasse seems to be a step backwards. If sources clearly supported the wording "coup d'etat", there would not have been multiple no consensus move attempts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There are loads of sources. I assume the word is not already in the lead or much of the page due to tendentious editing, in gross violation of NPOV given its obvious presence in the sources. I can't think of another reason for this, since the first sentence clearly describes a coup, which is the removal of the head of state, which again, is a literal description of a coup, i.e. a "removal of a head". This seems like absolute WP:COMMONSENSE, but I'm beginning to wonder if I turned a wrong corner and wandered on en.altfacts instead of en.wiki. I don't know how the previous discussions on this page went down, but if they involved no WP:COMMONSENSE and ignoring reliable sourcing, they were pretty worthless. I count 25 uses of "coup" in the sources spread between titles and embedded quotes - what does everyone else get? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the insertion. Please be patient and avoid WP:BLUDGEON. The phrase as inserted is repetitive and charged politically. Let us discuss the subject above before this becomes another failed discussion. --ReyHahn (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What am I meant to be being patient for? For editors to actually read the sources? I think not. I think we'll take this to the WP:NPOV noticeboard, since core policy with respect to sourcing, in addition to common sense, has clearly been departed from on this page. Charged politically how? You quoted WP:COUP further up. I wonder if it was properly absorbed. It notes that "coup" is sometimes used to delegitimize an event that others might call a "glorious revolution". This is not so much the case for failed coup attempts, which everyone tries to distance themselves from, and where there's not much to delegitimize - "failed revolution" isn't such a common term; it doesn't have quite the same ring to it, and very few laud a failed plotter. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I would be glad to respond to this question, I will take this opportunity to discuss it in the discussion above.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Undid archiving bot, intending to return to this topic, but prefer to leave the lead 'til last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Continued discussion at #Source analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lead

• "It has been reported" is begging for attribution and clarification; the way the text is written is also leaving the impression they were on board, when there is no evidence they/anyone else were/was. The text is weasly and unbalanced.
• "Goudreau said that he went through with the plot since American and Venezuelan opposition officials never told him to cease his operations"; WMrapids upon which source are you basing this content? What "American officials" were expected to tell "him to cease his operations", since no American officials were part of the operation, and plenty of sources indicate quite clearly that Guaido's representatives had clearly broken off with Goudreau.

Please explain these edits, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, please avoid adding content to the lead if it has not been fully developed first in the body of the article, as leads summarize content in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

And in this edit there is a contradiction with the lead text; the content in this para of the body says "the CIA learned about the plan and warned Silvercorp not to go through with it on numerous occasions", so what "American officials" were to tell "him to cease his operations"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is according to various sources. Vice News quotes a former US Ranger while Goudreau made his own statement on the matter. It's pretty clearly attributed. WMrapids (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see the VICE entry at Reliable sources/perennial sources; almost everything in this article relates to living persons, and BLP policy applies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is unusual to list various, specific attributions in the intro as it is unnatural for the reader.

Regarding American officials, this is what Goudreau is stating just as the opposition is making their own statement. The source is Neuman's book, which covers much of the presidential crisis. No need for conjecture about Goudreau's reasoning in the intro. WMrapids (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not asking you to add citations to the lead; I am asking you to provide here on talk a precise indication of what source/citation backs the content you added. You haven't answered the question, or explained the contradiction. A "former US ranger" is what you are considering an "American official" who should "tell him to cease operations"? Please clarify and provide a specific citation for your additions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Respectively, please stop with your possible badgering and sealioning behavior. I gave you answers; Vice News made a statement and Goudreau made a statement (per Neuman book, though I've seen it in multiple sources in passing). If there is a contradiction, it involves the varying statements (which will happen in a messy situation like this), not my editing. Let's revisit this later at this section. NoonIcarus, Burrobert and I have already been discussing this. WMrapids (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

As for the lack of an order to cease operations, Neuman 2022, pp. 273–279 is the source. WMrapids (talk) 07:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, now please provide the quote that backs the addition; WHICH American officials were expected to tell him to cease operations?

You haven't answered either of my questions, so a) I've added a {{request quote}} to the article, and b) perhaps one of the editors here will answer both of the questions above; standard collegial practice, that, to a good faith attempt to understand from whence comes text that is contradictory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No quote yet ? Does anyone have access to Neuman, to provide the quote for whomever added the source, or must I slow down working and order a book ? I also note a disconnect between the page ranges on the source as cited and the shortnotes to it. If anyone has those pages, can they scan and email them to me? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, quote now supplied ... [5] (we have Goudreau's claim about an "obscure Trump administration official"). This is insufficient to warrant inclusion in the lead, and doesn't resolve the contradiction that is presented later, with the "CIA warned him not to go through with it". This contradiction and self-claim can be explored in the body of the article, but is not lead worthy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but the current phrasing also gives the impression that it is disputed that Venezuelan state agencies and the Associated Press were aware of the plot, which it isn't. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

The first sentence of the lead says:

• Operation Gideon (Spanish: Operación Gedeón) was an unsuccessful attempt by Venezuelan dissidents and an American private military company, Silvercorp USA, to infiltrate Venezuela by sea and remove Nicolás Maduro from office.

I am still working my way through sources, but the appearance so far is that the from office might be debateable. Maduro claims over and over (as do his reps) that the intent was to assassinate him, other sources say the intent was to foment unrest that would otherwise lead to Maduro leaving office, while many other sources say they intended to take Maduro to the US for whatever the US would then do in terms of the reward and international justice. One can be on trial in the US and still be recognized as "in office" in Venezuela. And the second sentence says "expel them from the country"; is that the same as "remove from office"? Would it be more correct to simply stop at "remove Maduro", and leave the rest to be worked out in the body of the article? Remove covers all three possibilities (remove by assassination, remove from office, or remove to the US for some variant of international justice for crimes against humanity et al ... ) For those in the peanut gallery, yes, this is splitting hairs, but it's the first line of the article and I'm unconvinced from the sources I've read so far that we are accurately representing sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Guiadó and Silvercorp signed a document to remove Maduro from office and sources say it was a coup attempt. WMrapids (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolution?

Is anyone still unhappy with the lead? Can the rewrite tag be removed? Can this section be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Never mind; POV has been re-inserted into the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Noinclude

Does anyone know why there are noinclude tags around the template hatnotes at the top of the article? If not, we can inquire at WP:VPT-- I've never seen that before. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Inquired at WP:VPT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

From the VPT response, it looks like the noinclude was simply an editing error; does anyone object to removing that mess and simply using the conventional single hatnote to point at Operation Gideon (disambiguation) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolved, [6] would like to archive this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

HarvRef and other citation errors

Please install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to correct citation errors as they are introduced, so I don't have to do all the cleanup :) (There's a list of helpful scripts at User:SandyGeorgia/Useful#Scripts.)

Also, it is courteous to add archive-url versions on paywalled sources when these are available, so that more readers/editors can access paywalled sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Goudreau's absence

Does anyone know why the explanation for Goudreau's absence – that was present in earlier versions – was removed ? Possibly because it's practically plagiarized, but is there any reason not to rewrite it without plagiarism and add it back in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Add it back. WMrapids (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Will do in a few days unless anyone disagrees, but need to find time to re-write as it was plagiarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done [7] does anyone object to archiving this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

You can archive this one and "Odd lead insertion"--ReyHahn (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Will look later; I can't decipher why my usual one-click archiver isn't working, and don't want to bug you all too much right now trying to test it ... will do it when things are quieter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Would anyone object if I move

• #Requested move 19 July 2023_2
• #Better title?

... to Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4, so we can better focus on moving forward? If I do that, all of the previous move discussions would still be linked via the Old moves template at the top of the page, and can easily be found, and that would free space here for the considerable work still ahead of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think it would be beneficial considering the length of the present discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for a couple days or a week or so. For uninvolved users it could be good to understand why we are at where we are now.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We're at 169KB on talk page now; perhaps if WMrapids could be convinced to re-work their source list in sandbox space (ala User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources), removing the list from here while providing a link back to this page, the page length here would be more manageable.

By the way, I am only beginning my sandbox work, but having now worked everything in ProQuest from 2023 back to beginning of 2021, I have not encountered a single occurrence of the word coup, while I'm finding repeated instances of "assassination attempt", and Operation Gideon everywhere; still working, lots more to do, just sayin'. Please enter suggestions or comments at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources (but give me a few more days first to get further along). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(I also have a list but I was waiting for a resolve on what should we account for in these lists).--ReyHahn (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! As a sidenote, WMrapids could also collapse their list, just like ReyHahn did. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Collapsing a list won't reduce the page size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware, I only hope it can help readability if the sections aren't archived. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn could you point me to where I can find your list? My work in sandbox so far has been illuminating-- acknowledging that I have a few more days of work to go, what is emerging so far is that the claim that coup is used broadly is just not based in fact, at all. Maybe that will change as I continue working. What my list is attempting to do so far is search for any uses of the word coup, while also pulling all other terms and descriptions used for alternative framing. (Undeniably, Operation Gideon is the most universal-- which doesn't mean that has to be where we land.) When I'm done, we should be able to peruse and come up with alternate titles to propose. Is your list something I can consolidate in to my list ? To hold down the volume of this page, you can respond at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources if you prefer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You can find it at User:ReyHahn/macutoraid, please do not edit it or suggest to edit something yet, I might create a duplicate for this particular discussion. I want to keep that version (that comes from the first RM).--ReyHahn (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Not to worry; I've still got plenty of work to do myself, but will eventually look at how the lists can be consolidated. So far, I am only finding that #Use of "coup" description is simple misrepresentation of sources, which almost never use the word coup, so I may next take a dinner break and re-think the next steps, considering Paine Ellsworth's feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to archiving this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Background section: SYNTH and UNDUE

This source:

• Faiola, Anthony; Boburg, Shawn; Herrero, Ana Vanessa (11 May 2020). "Inside an ex-Green Beret's failed Venezuelan incursion". The Washington Post. p. A1. ProQuest 2400242453.

can be used to cite the synth-y Background section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What happened with the background section?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn It was all synthesis (probably because copied from elsewhere, before this event)-- that is, none of the sources used there mention this matter at all. But there are sources that do cover that territory; it just needs to be re-edited to use them. The Washington Post article I cited above covers all that territory, so if someone has time, they could rewrite the Background to avoid SYNTH by using that source. (WAPO makes work a bit difficult in that their online version titles are often different from their print titles; I use ProQuest to access WAPO, but someone else may be able to locate that article online.) I've not had time for the rewrite there as I've been still reading and building source lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

PS, I think this is the source (already cited in the article), but WAPO is paywalled for me so I can't see the online version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

The same synthesis is in the lead; the background info on the Presidential crisis should be sorted to the non-synthy sources like The Washington Post, which make the connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Back to this: this section has not yet been addressed. We have many (only one identified above) neutral secondary sources covering this aspect, yet the current version uses sources that pre-date the event (SYNTH), and has an entire paragraph based on Neuman, who has a clear anti-Guaido bias, so why are we using him exclusively for this content when we have more neutral sources ? Neuman is a good and high-quality source for many other areas, but we have completely neutral sources for this content, yet he gets full weight with characteristic-for-this-article overquoting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Rewritten to sources about Operation Gideon (removing older and SYNTH-y sources), and balanced Neuman content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone object to archiving this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

DeVos

I belatedly saw the #Tags?? section (this page is seriously bloated by old move requests which should be archived, along with any other resolved issues), so there are two discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Since it is a recent edit and a continuation of the last section, but not in the lead, what do you think of the mention that Erik Prince is the brother of United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos? Do you think it should remain or that it should be removed? --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Several things about that section:

• Proposals of an armed operation to support Guaidó began to be discussed around the time of the failed uprising is citing a 2019 Reuters article, which pre-dates this event (original research/synthesis as formulated and cited).
• ... a proposal by Blackwater founder Erik Prince, brother of United States Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is cited to VICE, a source that shouldn't be used for BLP info, and then the Reuters2019 report, which pre-dates this event, and then The Miami Herald, which includes all the information that is not undue. It provides everything needed, so why bring in lower quality or synth-y sources at all?
• The Miami Herald mentions that he is her sister. But The Miami Herald, unlike Wikipedia, doesn't have the ease of internal wikilinks; Erik Prince has his own article, and the lead indicates his relationship to Betsy DeVos. The Miami Herald makes no insinuation that DeVos had anything to do with ... anything ... so the mention of her here is gratuitous and its inclusion looks to be intended to convey a certain impression or bias to the reader; the mention of DeVos should be removed, along with the two unnecessary sources. (I don't know why we are using a marginal source in content relating to living persons anywhere in this article, and suggest VICE should be removed unless it's supporting uncontroversial info, in which case, such info would likely be found in one of the many other quality sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

If I (and WikiBlame) have the chronology correct:

• 14 June 2023, WMrapids first added the DeVos clause (that same edit introduced a good dose of original research still in the article that needs sorting)
• 15 July 2023, NoonIcarus removes as COATRACK
• 19 July 2023, WMrapids reinstates
• 21 July 2023, NoonIcarus removes COATRACK
• 24 July 2023, WMrapids reinstates
• 5 August 2023, Discussion begins
• 28 August, Burrobert removes tags (presumably placed in an edit I missed around 5 August, maybe by NoonIcarus)
• 28 August, NoonIcarus reinstates tags (at this point, WMrapids and Burrobert appear to support the DeVos addition, while NoonIcarus opposes it)
• 10 September, 2023 New discussion (with SG, there are now two editors in support of this content, two against)
• 11 September, 2023 NoonIcarus removes the content which since it's first introduction two months ago, never had consensus
• 11 September, 2023 WMrapids reinstates with edit summary For a third time, information that was removed without discussion with now two active discussions on talk showing on consensus for the addition.

WMrapids, if I have the chronology correct, you never had consensus to add the content to begin with, you did not initiate a discussion rather edit-warred when you breached ONUS policy and the bold, revert, discuss essay advice (which may be only an essay, but is good practice). You also have misrepresented in edit summary the state of discussion and consensus that never existed to include the content. This is not collaborative editing, and similar across multiple areas of this article is impeding our progress towards resolving the article title.

I am requesting and recommending that you self-revert this policy breach, and that going forward, you engage talk page discussions rather than edit-warring. It would be optimal for all of us to come this page and be able to work on moving things towards launch of a Requested move, without the interference and delays that result from this kind of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

For reference, the edit where I place the tags is the following: [8] (4 August 2023).

Besides the DeVos addition, other affected changes include the additions to the infobox and the mention that US and Colombian intelligence agencies "were aware" of the plot, among others: [9] (14 June 2023 too). I fear that this results in the imposition of disputed changes, particularly since this has also happened in other articles and since WMrapids is well aware of WP:BRD, themselves quoting it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"Macuto massacre"

Not appropriate for the intro as it is undue. If there is an update on this information, please provide. Otherwise, it seems like these edits are to support the conspiracy theory that this was a false flag operation (Bloomberg’s words, not mine). WMrapids (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids would you mind supplying diffs for your posts? I can't comment on this as I don't see "Macuto massacre" or even "massacre" anywhere in the lead or the article (but I've certainly seen sources supporting it). Please keep in mind that when other editors read the talk page, they need to be able to figure out what is being referenced; you reference "these edits", which assumes other editors will track back through the history to try to determine what you mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought I had already answered this, but the reply wasn't posted for some reason. Anyways: you seem to be mixing up two theories: one that states that participants could have been subject to extrajudicial killings, which is properly attributed and has significant coverage (as demonstrated in a past move discussion) and another that says that the plot was infiltrated by Maduro and that he influenced the operation to be carried out despite its impracticality, which we agree that does not have enough weight for the lead and is what Bloomberg is referring to (not the extrajudicial killings claim). --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The edit in question is this: [10]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, NoonIcarus; without more than three sources, and knowing that the ICC may take the rest of my lifetime to issue any opinion, I'm having a hard time making decisions on this one-- are there more sources I haven't been able to find? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Catching up on this now:

1. NoonIcarus, see my question above as to whether there are more than three sources.
2. I've tried to improve the lead for flow; besides the Macuto massacre issue, do you have other issues with the lead now?
3. WMrapids, re this edit summary and the three-year delay, see my post above (par for the course). If someone can produce more than three sources, we should discuss whether a much-pared down version of this content should be added; I agree as written it is too much, but want to reserve final opinion until/if more sources are revealed. Something more like: A 2020 report pending before the International Criminal Court alleges that the armed confrontation did not occur as claimed and the "victims were tortured and extrajudicially executed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The sources NoonIcarus uses describe the event in this article as the "Macuto massacre", so it shows a pretty heavy bias on their part. While the submission of reports about the alleged executions should be placed in the article, it should not be prominently displayed in the introduction as that would be undue. WMrapids (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Sure thing, gladly. I provided them at one of the last move discussions (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 4#Requested move 24 May 2023), and they include some already included in the article (and others provided by you, as I can see): La Razón (Spain), NTN24 (Colombia), Infobae (Argentina), Runrunes, El Pitazo, El Nacional, Cambio16, Tal Cual, La Prensa de Lara, La Patilla (Venezuela). I also recall Vox covering the topic in an article, but I can't find it now.

I want to warn about a possible strawman and point out that my main position is to include the extrajudicial killings reports in the lead, rather than outright characterizing the events as a "massacre". My point is that there is enough coverage for its inclusion in the introduction. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources, plus the Miami Herald and ABC Spain, make this an issue that hasn't been given its weight in the article; now someone just has to find the time to use these better sources to write this content. (I understand that focusing on whether it's labeled a "massacre" or not is going the wrong direction, but that is no longer a concern, as there is a preponderance of sources that discuss extrajudicial killings.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Extrajudicial executions appears to be a less sensational description than "Macuto massacre":

1. https://www.abc.es/internacional/abci-presentan-pruebas-torturas-y-asesinatos-operacion-gedeon-venezuela-202009211757_noticia.html
2. https://www.ntn24.com/noticias-judicial/presentaran-ante-la-cpi-pruebas-de-masacre-que-maduro-vinculo-a-la-operacion-gedeon-126059
3. https://talcualdigital.com/wilmer-azuaje-cpi-notifico-rapidamente-haber-recibido-informe-de-operacion-gedeon/
4. https://provea.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Sospechosos-Habituales.pdf
5. https://www.vanguardia.com/mundo/denunciaron-presuntas-ejecuciones-extrajudiciales-en-venezuela-ante-la-cpi-BY2991399
6. https://www.yucatan.com.mx/internacional/2020/10/13/mundo-al-dia-215011.html
7. https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2020/10/14/operacion-gedeon-las-fotos-presentadas-en-la-haya-que-prueban-las-ejecuciones-extrajudiciales-de-la-dictadura-de-maduro/
   1. https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2020/10/14/wilmer-azuaje-dio-detalles-del-informe-que-presento-en-la-haya-sobre-las-ejecuciones-extrajudiciales-en-venezuela/
   2. https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2020/10/14/denunciaron-en-la-haya-las-ejecuciones-extrajudiciales-de-seis-personas-en-el-marco-de-la-operacion-gedeon-en-venezuela/

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be the most indepth on the "staged firefight" and the alleged why behind it ... which gives some idea of why the folly ... finding the original Miami Herald article might be better (anyone have a Miami Herald subscription-- it might have a different article name there):

• Delgado, Antonio Maria; Hall, Kevin G.; Dasgupta, Shirsho (22 November 2020). "Venezuela insurgent speaks out on failed coup". Longview Daily News. Miami Herald. p. B8 – via Newspapers.com.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Found the original here: "Venezuelan insurgent describes how betrayal in ranks produced failure, summary executions" (Longview Daily News inserted the "coup" heading). So, with better sources, I'm agreeing that this section should be rewritten, expanded, and "massacre" sources replaced with any one of these several others, which avoid the sensationalized headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of the headlines actually just use quotes, so I don't think the headlines should be much of an issue as long as the content is neutral and reliable. Of course, there should be plemmty of sources regardless. I agree this and other sections would benefit from rewritting, as I recall ZiaLater, one of the first main contributors, being more invested in writing about the preparations and the accusations of opposition involvement rather than the aftermath per se. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, all of this information is provided by an opposition lawmaker who was imprisoned by the Venezuelan government who is attempting to label the event as the "Macuto massacre" and false flag. If a third party like the ICC makes a conclusion, then its inclusion in the introduction is valid and I would definitely support it. Until then, these are allegations that would be undue in the intro. WMrapids (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Please take a closer look; the English sources I posted are not all "information provided by an opposition lawmaker"-- au contraire. People within the operation are telling the same story as Wilmer Azuaje, from a completely different perspective, while at the same time, providing the reasoning for parts of the event that previously simply made no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand the insistence on saying that is a false flag claim, either. An operation that resulted in extrajudicial killings could still have happened. That's actually exactly one of the claims with El Junquito raid. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've upgraded the sources, but pending still to expand to add the content from The Miami Herald. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Noting belatedly that even VICE had it: VICE "News obtained a forensic report from the incident produced by the Venezuelan opposition, which suggests at least two of the men were killed execution-style from gunshots at close range." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Expanded, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Finished with this section and will archive unless anyone objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

BLP issues

Almost everyone talked about in this article is a living person, and the biography of living persons requirement applies; Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and marginal sources should never be used for material about living persons. There are scores of good sources available for this article (for example, The Washington Post, Associated Press, and quite a few others have good coverage), and yet the sources are replete with problematic sources identified at perennial sources of reliable sources. Often, if material is only covered in a marginal source, it's WP:UNDUE in addition to being of dubious reliability.

• See Vice at RSP; this article is heavily cited-- why is it used at all ?
• See RSP on Anadolu Agency, why ?
• See Daily Beast at RSP, ditto.
• Caracas Chronicles is a blog.

To minimize the chances of a GI-GO move discussion, it would be helpful if the sourcing were cleaned up here before we ask others to opine on the content.

WMrapids I have asked you twice above about the use here of the Vox source. You have advocated vociferously elsewhere that we should never consider a source reliable if it reposts, aggregates or links to non-reliable sources, and the Vox article relies on NYPost, a tabloid - see RSP. How is it OK to use content sourced to the New York Post to cite BLP content?

Called away again-- back shortly to continue catching up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Figured you would know that context matters and the WP:GREL status of Vox. Please stop with making an apparent false equivalence of Vox with La Patilla (the latter reposts multiple deprecated sources in a partisan manner). Again, your behavior is seemingly badgering at this point and becoming disruptive. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia in an attempt to illustrate a point. WMrapids (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ignoring the personalization, shall I take it that your answer is "yes" and you do consider Vox a source worthy for a BLP even as it cites the New York Post? And you're content with the New York Post content for BLPs? If you could provide straightforward answers to good faith questions, we could make faster progress here, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To do: I removed The Daily Beast; reduced Caracas Chronicles to uncontroversial re BLP; reduced Anadolu to likely verifiable but those should be replaced with a better source; but there are two items (at least) that still need review in this area:

1. WP:VICE needs to be replaced with higher quality sources where possible (and it is likely possible in most cases, since AP, Washington Post, Miami Herald have covered most of what VICE covers, but without the sensationalized headline and POV)
2. The instances where Vox is cited need to be reviewed in terms of them relying on WP:NYPOST to make sure we are attributing and avoiding BLP issues-- I haven't had time to look yet at that.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Satisfied now with BLP issues (the bigger problems now are in the "Attack" section). Will archive unless anyone objects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Maiquetia or La Carlota ?

The article states in the lead that the plan involved taking Maiquetia, but I saw a source (that I failed to save) that indicated that Denman was confused between Maiquetia and La Carlota. The original citation was dead,[11] so I fixed it;[12] do we have a source besides a gringo-under-likely-torture video to back up whether the target was actually "Simon Bolivar International airport" or La Carlota? Secondarily, if we don't have a better source, it might be better to omit that detail from the lead and gloss over which was the actual airport. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe just include "airfield" since I have seen other sources use such wording. It could have been both (Option A and Option B per typical military contingency planning). WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So the proposal would be to change:

• The plan involved entering the country by boat into Macuto port from 3 to 4 May 2020, taking control of Simón Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetia, capturing Maduro and other high-level figures in his government, and expelling them from the country.

to

• The plan involved entering the country by boat into Macuto port from 3 to 4 May 2020, taking control of an airfield, capturing Maduro and other high-level figures in his government, and expelling them from the country.

(Because Maiquetia is a long ways from La Carlota-- two different things, and even more so with respect to size of aircraft, etc.) I would get behind that, but then suggest we need to better explain in the body, which means relocating the source I failed to save which saysthat Denman may have conflated the two ... we need to see if we have a source that explicitly sources Maiquetia independently from the under-duress video.

Should we make this lead change provisionally as we work this out? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The provisional change should work. Just want to state as a reminder; there are multiple claims and arguments by Silvercorp, the opposition and sources. We are bound to see contradictions, so it is important to have intext attribution for each claim and then to have the reader decide. WMrapids (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Would like to wait a few days to see if anyone can provide clarifying or better sources before implementing this ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Since this was apparently during a confession, maybe we can look up the original source? Just for starters, I could look for other sources in Spanish later. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

NoonIcarus ... An independent (that is, not from an individual under duress, and a gringo who might not know the difference between Maiquetia and La Carlota) would be even better. If we can't find one, would you support the idea of glossing the lead to "an airfield" ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Another option is to ignore me, since I've been unable to relocate the source that stated that Denman had it wrong; this might not be a rabbit hole worth spending any more time on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I understand the issue better. I will try looking into it better later. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

From Neuman (who lived in Caracas, so hopefully knew the difference geographically and strategically between La Carlota and Maiquetia): "“At a news conference in Caracas, Maduro showed a video of a propaganda-style interrogation of Luke Denman, one of the captured Americans. Denman said that his objective on arriving in Venezuela was to take control of an airport so that Maduro, once captured, could be flown to the United States. ” That is, if Denman misspoke or was misinformed of the difference, Neuman did not name the airport as Simon Bolivar International, so I am going to remove that from the lead at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Done; [13] does anyone object to archiving this section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Found; it was Bellingcat that mentioned the Maiquetia/La Carlota confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon

Would we be better able to resolve more of the article issues if we attempted an article reorganization to reflect a more clear delineation in the article chronology and Table of Contents between "Operation Resolution" and "Operation Gideon"? I ask because several of the recent discussion sections here on talk, where there is disagreement, seem to come down to conflating the two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What is your proposal? WMrapids (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Outdenting for ease of TOC:

Our current Table of Contents (TOC) doesn't clearly delineate the (historical) "Operation Resolution" from the later "Operation Gideon"; they're two different things, but since sources treat them together, so should we, but a) those less familiar with the topic don't immediately see and may not understand the difference, and b) better organization of the TOC might help us resolve some of the ongoing matters.

Looking at:

• 1 Background
• 2 Planning
  • 2.1 Initial promotion
  • 2.2 Colombia
  • 2.3 General Services Agreement
  • 2.4 Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations
  • 2.5 Extradition of Alcalá to the United States
  • 2.6 Prior knowledge of Maduro government
  • 2.7 Final preparations, Associated Press article
• 3 Attack

1. I've already discussed at #Background section that we need to clean up the SYNTH there, and I don't see that as being difficult-- just that someone needs to find the time to get to it, and then merge that where it's not sticking out like a sore thumb copied in from another article.
2. We then drive straight in to the Planning section, which really begins with a partial description of "Individuals involved" or some such and then encompasses most of the article as a hodge-podge.
3. Operation Resolution isn't introduced until the "General Services Agreement" section, which could possibly be re-located for better flow to a re-named section, making it more clear that the General Services Agreement was, for Goudreau, his "Operation Resolution". Operation Resolution has a major part in the story, but has no clear section heading.
4. If all (or most) of "personnel" descriptions (now scattered about) had their own section, combined with what is now in Background, we could then reorganize the rest to a more chronological relating of actual events; it might also help new readers be more familiar with the cast of characters. To improve this, I can see room for a separate section where we lay out background and who the players are; that is, rather than diving straight in to "Planning", we combine Background with the cast of characters; that would allow us to include things like how Goudreau came to be involved in Venezuela matters via Venezuela Aid Live with background info so that it wouldn't interfere with the chronology of the actual Resolution v Gideon events. So it would become "Background" with a "Persons involved" sub-head, although I'm unsure how to best name this personnel section. "Individuals"? Dunno yet.
5. "Initial promotion" would then become a renamed combo of what is now in "Initial promotion" (moving the personnel stuff up to that section) and "Colombia", which is basically historical background that pre-dates the GSA/Operation Resolution. I think this could all become something like "Initial planning", which would also be part of our new "Background".
6. Then to General Services Agreement, adding Operation Resolution to the sub-head as level 2
7. The "Resume preparations" section is wonky, as it starts out saying Goudreau & Co distanced themselves from the opposition (contradicting what we say later that he wasn't told to cease), and needs better balance to say that relationship went sour on both ends, added on the end of the GSA section, before we dive in to the later (mostly 2020 events) that begin to encompass what became the actual attack, eg, Operation Gideon. Some of what is now at "Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations" may need to be split from Resolution to Gideon.

So, with all that, I think we'd up with something like this organization, with mostly only moving content around, but fixing the issue I mention at point 7 (that is, other than point 7, and possibly reworking for point 1 synth issues, I haven't looked at actually changing any content)

• 1 Background
  • 1.1 Political context
  • 1.2 Other involved individuals (better name-- but Political context would have already mentioned Guiado and Maduro, hence other)?
  • 1.3 Initial planning
• 2 Operation Resolution and General Services Agreement
  • 2.1 Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations (think about renaming this to some version of "they all had a falling out"?)
  • 2.2 Extradition of Alcalá to the United States (some of this is split to section 3)
• 3 Operation Gideon and Macuto bay raid
  • 3.1 Prior knowledge of Maduro government
  • 3.2 Final preparations, Associated Press article
  • 3.3 May 3–4 attack (not endorsing necessarily the attack word, since it never materialized, but that can be resolved separately)

That's only a rough; not wedded to it, but the idea is a clearer delineation between pre-falling out and post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

If one of the main objections to the language on this page is the overemphasis on operational codenames in the tile, I'm not sure why we would want to double down on the use of operational codenames in the body; on the contrary, this is just a recipe for making the page even more confused. Frankly, what a bunch of mercenaries call their botched plans is irrelevant. One "Operation" was just the initial plan, and the other was just the rush-job that went ahead when it became clear that Associated Press had got wind of the plan and was about to break the news (and thus ruin the element of surprise).[14] These subheads should just be something normal like "Original operational plan" and "Macuto Bay raid", not long-winded or containing with technical jargon such as "General Services Agreement". Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In this interest of compromise towards getting the article better organized, I would not be opposed to those alternates: the objective of this re-organization is to get a clearer demarkation in the phases/chronology to avoid confusion over pre-Rendon/post-Rendon, and to get the personnel moved out of the chronology and the background better merged. So, if I am understanding correctly, your proposal would be to switch the list above to:

• 2 Original operational planning
• 3 Macuto Bay raid

My preference would still be:

• 2 Operation Resolution
• 3 Operation Gideon

... as I think it cleaner, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. A problem I see with your scheme is that a new sub-head may be needed for 1.3, though, to better delineate 1.3 from 2.

Aside: I disagree that the operational codenames are an irrelevant "what a bunch of mercenaries called their botched plan"-- Gideon/Gedeon is the single most common name used in sources-- but our difference of opinion on that aspect shouldn't affect this proposed layout IMO. If an eventual move request changes the name away from Gideon, it can be worked back in to the lead to provide context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't really consider planning as background, so I think that should be moved out of there anyway. Background should be preceding, scene-setting events, whereas planning is central and pivotal. Perhaps this section could stay as "initial promotion", as the material is largely about support building. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, if I'm understanding you, what I have listed as a level 3 heading, 1.3 Initial planning, would go to a level 2 heading of Initial promotion (no longer a sub-head of Background)? If that's what you're suggesting, we end up with the three distinct phases I feel are confusing matters:

• 1 Background
• 2 Initial promotion (this is stuff that was in place before Goudreau met Rendon)
• 3 Original operational planning (this is Rendon phase)
• 4 Macuto Bay raid (this is all post-falling out)

So if we do that, what happens with the Colombia section? It is pre-Rendon, but some of that section is planning and some is promotion, and in my initial scheme, I was trying to delineate those three phases. Not there yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323, I've now done enough re-organizing of content that I'm satisfied (at least for now) if we leave the Table of Contents alone; checking back with you for your opinion, and would like to archive this lengthy section unless you disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've frankly given up on this page. I'm not sufficiently vested in what is a clearly POV, absent WP:COMMONSENSE battleground related to Venezuelan politics to waste time better spent elsewhere on it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Iskandar323 I do agree with you it is still clearly POV, and hope you realize I am holding off on addressing #Odd lead insertion only because a) I want to get through all the sources, and b) I have a general policy of trying to leave important lead work until that which can be is first ironed out in the body, so we don't spin our wheels working on leads when the body is still in flux. I have some ideas (still building in the back of my mind, and coup must be worked in to the lead in a balanced way); shall I ping you when I get to that point, or have you really completely given up? That is, I'm not ignoring your POV concerns; just haven't yet gotten to the point of examining the lead. I'll archive this section then, unless you think it of value. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, you can ping me later if you find need for some frank input; I simply don't have the bandwidth for getting bogged down in the detail here - South America just ain't my wheelhouse. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Mercenary, insurgent, dissident

There are places in the article where the entire group is described as mercenaries (sample). I don't have a problem with most instances where Goudreau, Denman and Berry are described as such, but aren't most of the disaffected Venezuela military and police in exile better described as insurgents or dissidents ? Many of the sources use insurgents; could we get a clearer delineation of our terminology when describing the entire group, which includes the Venezuelans? Dictionary definitions have, for example:

• Mercenary: a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
• Insurgent: a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, especially a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel.
• Dissident: a person who opposes official policy, especially that of an authoritarian state.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Any sources using "dissidents"? if not I will support changing all mentions to 'insurgents' for clarity.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I found some instances where dissidents was better than insurgents; the real POV issue was describing dissident or insurgent Venezuelans as "mercenaries". I have now cleaned out all but one instance of this POV, where I have requested a quote. I found no instance of anyone other than chavismo referring to Venezuelan dissidents as "mercenaries", so this was naked POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Archive ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Silent Professionals UNDUE

I've looked everywhere I can, and find no other mention anywhere of Silent Professionals, and WP:VICE is not an adequate sole source for this content; unless someone can come up with better sourcing, I suggest removal. Silent Professionals does business worldwide and in Venezuela, and getting a plug in an article is good advertising for them; Wikipedia doesn't need to be part of that when it comes from a very biased source, with a sensationalized headline and obvious POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because there is no consensus, it doesn’t mean that the Vice article is not reliable. Again, context matters. If you have a concern about this particular article (which has been cited by other generally reliable sources like Bellingcat), then maybe you should start a discussion at WP:RSN. Until then, it looks like a decent article. WMrapids (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing to talk as still not a single other source discussing them has surfaced: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

According to Vice magazine, Silent Professionals, a private military job website, said that they received a large offer from Guaidó representatives to overthrow Maduro, though they flatly declined the offer.

Sources
References

Replaced with a much better source, which covers the same (intended) territory, without putting Wikipedia in the position of plugging one company, considering Vice plugs to seek salacious info within their articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

External videos

Where do we have evidence or a source that these videos are what they say the are? I see the MotherBoard is Vice's tech desk, but I am not seeing anything in the actual Youtube or link indicating the videos represent what we say they represent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Found and cited; people, please cite your additions. Unless anyone objects, I will archive this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Archive ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

More VICE problems: Aleman UNDUE

At this section, there is another complete paragraph about Aleman, originating with WP:VICE, which is not an adequate source for statements with BLP implications. The content

The Venezuelan government later published reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with a CIA officer

is sourced to VICE, and anyone who knows the territory knows what a chavismo "reportedly interecepted audio" entails. Yet we have an entire para of dubious origin, necessitating the denial from Aleman (which is also not fully represented).

Yo fui como diputado porque era un agasajo al que se nos invitó y ahí estaba James Story. Hasta ahí es verdad, pero no lo es que la embajada y el embajador norteamericano estuvieran en los planes nuestros para sacar a Nicolás Maduro del poder. Si de algo estuvimos siempre muy claros es que no iban a ser los Estados Unidos quienes se involucraran en una acción como la planificada. Este es un movimiento de venezolanos que queremos el rescate de nuestra patria. Esa distorsión de hacer ver que nos reunimos con los EEUU para conspirar ahí es falso, no pasó de ser un acto social, donde conversé con el encargado de negocios (embajador) en un agasajo para diputados. Siempre me he identificado con el pueblo libertario de los EEUU, y es encantador ver el espíritu de los estadounidenses el día de su independencia, el 4 de Julio y cómo celebran su libertad. Pero en Venezuela los que usurpan el poder se han encargado de que los venezolanos no sientan orgullo del 5 de Julio.

Why is this content included at all? We can't use marginal sources to incriminate living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Aleman died ... I missed that in the four years I wasn't editing Venezuelan topics. But since he died shortly after the event, neither can he clarify further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The paragraph before this one is also of dubious DUE weight, since not reflected in better sources, but at least it's him speaking for/about himself. That content might also be cited to higher quality sources, if available, to indicate due weight. There are BLP issues all over this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I raised a query on WP:RSN that will hopefully provide some answers. WMrapids (talk) 07:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that the extended quote is undue, but fist half of the sentence you quoted appears due in light of the subject's confirmation that it was accurate. If it was just Vice we couldn't use it, but Vice plus Infobae is entirely usable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, thanks for helping out.

I wasn't suggesting adding the extended quote: it was only excerpted here to show Aleman's full response has been misrepresented in the article. In fact, our content now misrepresents both sources (VICE and Infobae). Wikipedia says:

The Venezuelan government later published reportedly intercepted audio of Alemán telling a listener that he had met with a CIA officer, with a Vice transcript of Alemán's alleged statements saying "Here in a meeting with all the bigwigs in the house of the [U.S. ambassador], they did a toast there, I was there ... I was even speaking with the guy from the CIA. They put me there so that the CIA guy would talk to me". Alemán later acknowledged in an interview with Infobae that the conversation did take place, though he denied the involvement of the United States.

leaving out the VICE source notes about the dubious nature of the source ("According to intercepted communications with an informant to the Venezuelan intelligence (which could very well have been tampered with by a security service loyal to Maduro), and then the Aleman bit now in our article is also misrepresented, in fact, false-- Aleman acknowledged being at the event and talking with the ambassador -- he did not acknowledge conversing with a CIA agent. What he said is very far from what our article imples (that a conversation with a CIA agent took place). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I just went over to clean up Hernan Aleman; I had not realized he died, so my concerns about marginal sourcing and BLP for this case are moot. We should still correct the double errors/omissions in our content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Edited now for balance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Detaining civilians

The article says " The contract permitted Silvercorp to detain civilians on reasonable suspicion.[42][44]". See Article 14 from the Bellingcat source (the bit starting with "It is not permitted for [Silvercorp] to detain or arrest any person ... "). I'm unable to verify the content based on the sources listed, and what is shown at Bellingcat seems to contradict this line in our article; what am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Addressed (I think). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Six or eight killed

Chavismo consistently said eight were killed; the forensic report details six and names them. Do we have any sources covering the discrepancy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Here it is;[15] it looks like they missed two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Analysis

See also Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 1#On the analysis section, Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 3#removed section and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 3#RfC: Analysis section

@ReyHahn: Since it's been so long since it was last discussed, I think it would be good to come back and ask if you still disagree with placing the "Analysis" section in the article, per previous discussions. Pinging @Rmhermen: too, as they removed it long ago. NoonIcarus (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Analysis sections are always a source of WP:NPOV. So who restablished it? --ReyHahn (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: It was re-added by WMRapids on 15 June. Before that, the section was hidden. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What is the issue?--WMrapids (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In general, we do not have analys sections in history articles. These kinds of sections are full speculation and should be reserved for movies or something that needs a review. As said in the past, the analysis section here seems like an enumeration of opinions around US and Venezuelan opposition, while they were barely involved.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

While US involvement seems limited, some responses regarding the Venezuelan opposition are suitable for inclusion. I agree that some opinions should be limited, though should this apply to subject matter experts? WMrapids (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've now added a hatnote which should answer what is the issue, and removed duplicate content that was then in two places (confusingly, causing me to earlier delete content because I saw it twice in the article in edit mode). It helps avoid edit warring to inquire in advance or read the talk page archives before re-instating content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Removed UNDUE and primary-sourced content which came from the disputed "Analysis" section (which I only discovered belatedly, as it was hidden). The WOLA content is not only unbalanced; it subtly misrepresents what WAPO said, and is repetitive (we already have this info). The Meganalysis stuff is plain vanilla original research, not mentioned or reviewed by any secondary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed" that the Guaidó government signed documents with Silvercorp. The polling group Meganálisis conducted interviews of a random sampling of 957 Venezuelans in the days after the operation between 5 and 9 May 2020; 85% of respondents replied that they did not believe Guaidó's denial that he signed the documents.

References

To Do

See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5

@NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, and WMrapids: I propose to archive the following completed sections; if you disagree, please indicate so in that section:

• #Background section: SYNTH and UNDUE
• #DeVos
• #"Macuto massacre"
• #BLP issues
• #Maiquetia or La Carlota ?
• #Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon
• #Mercenary, insurgent, dissident
• #Silent Professionals UNDUE
• #External videos
• #More VICE problems: Aleman UNDUE
• #Detaining civilians

Similarly, additional feedback is needed or work is still in progress on the unfinished sections:

• #Tags??
• #Odd lead insertion
• #Analysis
• #Recent edits to the lead
• #"Attack"
• #First sentence of lead
• #General Services Agreement
• #Bloomberg and conspiracy
• #Size issues; suggest split

I also suggest combining the four different lead sections to one section, to keep it all in one place, with the idea of working on the lead once more progress is made on other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think there shouldn't be a problem with archiving the former group of sections. Likewise, the issues at #Tags?? are also discussed in other sections afterwards, so I believe it would be archived too. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Villa 2022 Defence Studies article

• Villa, Rafael Duarte (2022). "Venezuelan military: a political and ideological model in Chavista governments". Defence Studies. 22 (1): 79–98. doi:10.1080/14702436.2021.1976061.

Does anybody have access to it? I didn't find it in the usual places, so it has not been possible for me to verify the quotes/citations. It's probably not reasonable to expect each reader to pay $50 to read 19 pages.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Using WikiBlame I determined that it was added by User:SandyGeorgia on 9/20/2023.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Re, other readers, Wikipedia doesn't require that sources be free; unless there is a free article all other things being equal, we should prefer recent scholarly articles to old news reports. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore I do, but I am flying home tomorrow; not sure how quickly I can get it to you. See also User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources where I summarized some of it. Else, please email me and I will forward as soon as I am on real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore, wait, it is linked in the sources, here. Just log in to WP:TWL with your Wikipedia account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore if you've got this, can we archive this query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia Sure.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:CITATIONOVERKILL

I'm unclear why this statement requires five sources?

• According to the Maduro regime, a firefight ensued in the before-dawn hours of Sunday, when the occupants of the first boat, led by former Venezuelan army captain Robert "Pantera" Colina Ybarra, shot at the Venezuelan authorities who were waiting for them to reach the shore at Macuto, La Guaira, resulting in the death of 6–8 rebels.[14][86][84][85][87]

None of that is controversial; we know that was their claim. By adding five sources, it looks like the content is somehow disputed. If different sources support different parts of the sentence, can we spread them out to exactly which part they source, and remove any that aren't necessary? It's always good to use the highest quality source available, and we have plenty of those now. At least three of those sources are high quality; what is Sky News, adding, for example? I see this problem frequently in the article; that is, rather than using one high-quality source for undisputed facts, there are often strings of three or more ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it is because some users pick apart singular source articles and additional articles are presented to support the placement of information? WMrapids (talk) 04:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Bloomberg and conspiracy

Re this edit:

Here is what the article states now:

• Guaidó also labeled it a 'false flag' "infiltrated and financed by the dictatorship".[40] Responding to the claims of a false flag attack, Bloomberg News wrote that "Absent clear answers for central questions surrounding the coup, conspiracy theories have flourished."[40]

Here is what the Bloomberg (EBSCOhost 144342321) source says:

• Absent clear answers for central questions surrounding the coup, conspiracy theories have flourished. Guaidó said in a statement that the Americans were merely pawns and that the operation was a false flag "infiltrated and financed by the dictatorship." Fallout from the raid has further hobbled Maduro's opposition. López remains cornered in the Spanish ambassador's residence in Caracas where he took refuge last year under threat of arrest. Lester Toledo, Guaidó's former humanitarian aid coordinator, says Goudreau was just a fool and Maduro took advantage of the public spectacle his coup attempt generated. "I think he is a guy who has no idea what he is doing," Toledo says.

I can see why you read this para the way you do, WMrapids, but I suggest that's a misreading. The first sentence of the source paragraph is not a topic sentence, as essentially none of the rest of that paragraph is about "conspiracy theories": the fallout sentence is a plain fact (not conspiracy), the Lopez sentence is a plain fact (not conspiracy), the Toledo sentence has no relationship to "conspiracy", and it just a general statement. Yet you seem to read it as if the Guiado sentence is conspiracy-- that would be the only sentence in the entire paragraph that differed, which doesn't seem to reflect how a good journalist would write. It seems that you are reading the first sentence of the paragraph as if it implies that everything that follows the sentence is part of these "conspiracy theories". A valid alternate reading is that the source is instead endorsing what Gauido says. Everything in the rest of that paragraph is factual, and the source seems to be giving an example of the "absence of clear answers for central questions", as in, endorsing that something is really off in this story, and here's Guaido's explanation about why it's off (which is what other newer sources are also saying-- the story never made sense because the operation was sold).

The safest way to handle this text is to not juxtapose the two statements in the article; include the Bloomberg statement elsewhere, let the reader decide, but I can't read that para the way you seem to be reading it; the paragraph is not "responding to false flag claims"; it's a general paragraph about stuff not adding up and that not adding up, according to other sources, headed for just what Maduro intended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It actually seems like Bloomberg is writing that Guaidó is using the conspiracy theory after losing support (which is why they included the quote). WMrapids (talk) 23:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Allright, we read a source differently; a compromise would be to leave the text positioned as you have it (placed adjacent to material with new theories about the ambush), but remove the OR first clause. That is:

• Responding to the claims of a false flag attack,[disputed – discuss] Bloomberg News wrote that "Absent clear answers for central questions surrounding the coup, conspiracy theories have flourished."

becomes:

• Bloomberg News wrote that "Absent clear answers for central questions surrounding the coup, conspiracy theories have flourished."

Just say what the source says, and let the reader decide (as apparently Bloomberg is, as we read it differently). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and implemented the change. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I reworded to avoid plagiarism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)