Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)

Requested move 19 July 2023_2

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

---

Operation Gideon (2020) → 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt – [Note: This discussion started as Operation Gideon (2020) to Bay of Piglets Invasion on 19 July, but that has been mostly abandoned since it was reopened on 21 August. -- S.L. 💬.] WMrapids (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisting note: I have separated the discussion from 19 July to make this easier to read, and replaced the original nomination with the above note. (This RM was put on hold by Paine Ellsworth because it had been opened during an existing RM. After the existing RM had concluded, Paine reopened this one on 21 August.) SilverLocust 💬 15:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from 19 July (collapsible for easier reading)

Operation Gideon (2020) → Bay of Piglets Invasion – Recognizing that the current title is not suitable per WP:CODENAME along with other concerns, a WP:COMMONNAME has been found after reviewing the the sources; "Bay of Piglets" invasion. The use of this common name is used by numerous WP:GREL sources including the Associated Press, BBC News, Al Jazeera, The New Yorker, The Economist and Voice of America. In addition to these sources, the use of this common name has been used by the Business Insider[1], German news channel RTL[2], Chinese media company Sohu[3], the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [4], Argentine newspaper Clarin[5], infobae[6], Uruguayan newspaper El País[7], Venezuelan news site Aporrea[8] and Venezuelan news site El Diario[9], showing the international usage of this common name across different languages. Finally, the term has been used in academic publications studying the topic as well, including U.S. and Latin American Relations (page 5) by Gregory B. Weeks and Michael E. Allison. Overall, the proposed title is a WP:COMMONNAME used by multiple reliable sources, it is WP:NPOV as it moves away from the existing WP:CODENAME title and it is more WP:PRECISE as it is not like the 3 other "Operation Gideon" articles WMrapids (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC) @Paine Ellsworth: Just wanted to check that this was relisted intentionally. Just noticed that the tag was removed by the bot, so I'm wondering if the discussion is currently not actually listed at RM. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC) Glitches and gremlins apparently, sometimes the RMCD bot does perplexing things. It's an enigma! This discussion is still currently listed at WP:RM#Elapsed listings, so I've restored the banner. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 07:53, 29 August 2023 (UTC)  Comment: Pinging users involved in the previous discussion. @NoonIcarus, Braganza, Blindlynx, Aréat, Carlp941, Roman Spinner, ReyHahn, Elelch, Snarcky1996, Icarusatthesun, SilverStar54, and Burrobert:--WMrapids (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE. Besides, if we could not agree that previous proposals were the most WP:COMMONNAME, this title seems even less common and it was barely mentioned in previous discussions, if at all. Last but not least, it really seems counter-productive having two open move requests. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC) How is the proposed title not WP:NPOV? I told you that I would make a suggestion in order to move us away from previous editing conflicts and you quickly forced in an unpopular title that has been shot down multiple times while I was drafting the suggestion. And the suggestion was also made by Carlp941, though we were deciding between two proposed titles at that point. Stop pushing. WMrapids (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Also, see WP:NPOVNAME; "the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue".--WMrapids (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Can we stop with the bad faith accusations? I'm citing a policy as an argument to oppose. Enough aspersions were casted in the last months, and this really feels like beating a dead horse until pulp. I'm exhausted, and I think that I speak for other participants as well. If this is to continue, let's keep this as amicable as possible, shall we? --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) Of the references you provided, I only read the ABC article which states "the Bay of Piglets, as the bloody fiasco came to be known". Assuming the other references are similar, this seems like a good name for the fiasco. The name does have the advantage of recalling another failed coup attempt by reactionaries backed by the US government. Burrobert (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments since 22 August

2020 Venezuelan coup attempt round III

• Move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt per the discussion below. The page just needs a neutral WP:NCE title. The current title is a twin no no, both being a (para-)military codename, so is already a poor choice per WP:CODENAME, and also an ambiguous codename that requires parenthetical disambiguation. So two strikes. And "Bay of Piglets ..." is not a whole lot better, being a widely used term of media scorn (see the "Better title?" discussion below) that has been used for a few different invasion fiascos since the eponynmous Bay of Pigs, not least Operation Sheepskin (where "Bay of Piglets" currently directs) – so that would just be another non-descriptive title in need of parenthetical disambiguation. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  This would also be consistent with February 1992 Venezuelan coup attempt, November 1992 Venezuelan coup attempt, 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt. It's a pretty well-worn, mundane pattern. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: Though I agree, this has already been discussed recently and there was no consensus. WMrapids (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Striking. 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt is a very similar event that has the same WP:NCE conventions.--WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @WMrapids: Yes, but it was a different move that was discussed, and there was no appeal to WP:NCE. It was also quite a truncated discussion, and Sorry, got a little confused here - was thinking of the immediately prior discussion, not the earlier RMs. Nevertheless: I don't really think all the options here have been properly hashed out. This RM was relisted on the 21 August, otherwise I might have opened another. As it is, further discussion may as well happen here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The current title was chosen not for being the most liked, but the least disliked. If this consensus was shifted per WP:CODENAME, to agree on a move we will probably have to agree in the least disliked or least controversial option. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not really sure why past discussions have neglected WP:CODENAME and the strong discouragement over the use of operational codenames. Moreover, this wasn't even an operation by an established military whose operational names carry at least a degree of officialdom and weight, but by a previously almost unheard of private security contractor. It is also not unique and thus requires additional disambiguation. Right off the bat, it is not a great option even within the scope of operational codenames, which are themselves discouraged. The reason why WP:NCE is meanwhile encouraged is that is provides an actual description that any reader can understand and will be able to understand looking forward indefinitely into the future. "Operation Gideon" might have bounced around the media for a bit, but three years on, has this gone down in history as that, like Operation Barbarossa. And 10 years down the line, will it be understood intuitively? WP:NCE titles, by contrast, are NPOV, precise, consistent, natural and recognizable and don't age poorly. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  Some points were put forward in past discussions about it. One of them (actually argued by one of the supporters for a "coup" move) provided several examples of codenames as common names. Regardless, my point stands: if it has been determined that the current codename is inadequate or the most common term, the easiest way to choose an alternative title probably won't be by choosing a name one prefers, but rather tolerates. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: how was the MR above closed and this did not. I just want to understand why are we still discussing this here and not in the section below on the title? It is clear that both MR were requested in sort of a rush and specifically this one seems to have been started as a competing counterproposal. Can we close this and discuss everything below? Or open a large one with at least both proposal? --ReyHahn (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @ReyHahn: Paine Ellsworth relisted this. After seeing Iskandar323's explanation and the previous use of "Bay of Piglets", it probably is not the best choice either. WMrapids (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: As I have said below, the objection against the use of codenomes is that "it gives no indication of when or where the action took place". But the same objection would also apply to "Bay of piglets", so it is better to keep the current title, not because it is the codenome of the operation, but because that is how it is named in many sources. Even in many of the sources used to support the change to "Bay of piglets", the raid continues to be named as "Operation Gideon". The other is just a burlesque name to compare it in a pejorative way with "Bay of pigs". Therefore, if there is no better proposal, there is no point in further arguing.--Elelch (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Elelch: Please read the whole discussion, which has moved away from the original proposal since it's relisting (21 August onwards). No one is really still arguing in favour of "Bay of piglets", not even the OP - a return to an WP:NCE page title has instead been re-suggested, and I think merits renewed discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Iskandar323: The other proposition has already been widely discussed and there was no consensus to accept it. I think that nothing new has happened that deserves to propose the same thing again.--Elelch (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Elelch: I presume you are talking about this move request. No consensus should stimulate discussion, not quell it; it was hardly a ringing endorsement of the existing title. It was a long and muddled discussion with various accusations of canvassing and general mud-slinging. Hardly our process at its best. The nomination also failed to adequately assert that, per WP:CODENAME, operational names are strongly discouraged, and that the title here is doubly bad for being ambiguous, in addition to being a far cry from descriptive. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt. Reviewing this discussion (and the "Better title?" section below), I think that both the current title and the originally proposed title are unsuitable. Operation Gideon (2020) runs afoul of WP:CODENAME and WP:NATURAL concerns; meanwhile, Bay of Piglets invasion fails WP:PRECISE as the phrase has been used to describe a variety of incidents. Thus, I think "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" is the proposal that best avoids any of the identified pitfalls. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  This discussion has been raised looking both for an alternative to that term as well as the current one. If you have any new proposals please discuss them below.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, or keep as Operation Gideon (second choice). My impression is that "Bay of Piglets" is not widely used enough to be easily recognizable, and less common than Operation Gideon. Also, many of the times when "Bay of Piglets" has appeared, it's in quotes, which is not as good as it would be if the source said it in its own voice. I acknowledge past concerns about using the word "coup" (as in the May 2023 RM) especially because of sources that call it a "raid" or "incursion" but not "coup" (attempt), but I think I see "coup" in sources often enough for "coup attempt" to be justifiable. Adumbrativus (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment Just to be clear, I strongly oppose the "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" move proposal, and it seems to be Elelch's and ReyHahn's same position. It definitely should not be proposed here. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• While I still slightly approve a move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, I don't want to make it my final choice until users review previous discussion about the past proposal. @ModernDayTrilobite, Iskandar323, and Adumbrativus: would you still agree with the move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt after reviewing the past discussion? If so, please reply with your decision while keeping in mind that a clear consensus would have to be made and more inclusion would be recommended. @NoonIcarus, Braganza, Blindlynx, Aréat, Carlp941, Roman Spinner, ReyHahn, Elelch, Snarcky1996, Icarusatthesun, SilverStar54, and Burrobert: pinging you all for the last time in an effort to have more inclusion as these moves have been highly controversial.--WMrapids (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: Strike. It seems that there are plenty of people who support the move to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", so I made my final decision below.--WMrapids (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  soft support Braganza (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Braganza: Of which proposal? WMrapids (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  2020 Venezuelan coup attempt Braganza (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  That past discussion is very confusing, both to follow and in its conclusion, yet it seems to show majoritarian support for a similar move. That RM was for a less concise version of the current proposition and partly based on different reasons, but it was broadly convergent with this one. There is clearly ample dissatisfaction with the ambiguous codename that is the current title. The main objections in the previous discussion appear to have been based on procedural complaints or dissatisfaction with the analogy made to another RM. Neither issues apply here. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute about process being redirected into a different title

This discussion might be as or even more confusing than the second to last one (2020 Venezuelan coup, second attempt). A short live RM was created before this to start solving the naming problem (Macuto raid) and the current RM (Bay of piglest) was created as counter proposal making two RMs at the same time. Both had very few comments. The first RM was closed but this one survived for reasons that are still not very clear to me. Now the conversation has diverged and stalled because some users seem to be trying to make this an RM for 2020 Venezuelan coup for the third time without understanding what this RM and previous RMs were all about. Note that the current title was chosen in even another RM to find a solution after a non-consensual RM. The title discussion above is going nowhere because of this RM issues. As said in previous discussions, it would be more helpful for reaching consensus if we first discuss the title before starting another RM that may be closed as nonconsensus again.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC) The process is what it is: people are free to elect whatever title they like in whichever RM - these discussions are not locked to the original choices. There is clear support for a move. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC) The issue at hand is to which name, and "coup" clearly does not have a consensus for it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) What are the problems with coup? It is the most commonly used word to describe the event in the titles of the actual sources used to reference this page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC) The statement that "'coup' clearly does not have a consensus for it" is clearly false, so please see "Don't pretend a consensus you disagree with doesn't exist!" in WP:CONDD. The current proposal has a clear consensus supporting the inclusion of the "coup attempt" title just as the former discussion did (9 supported "coup attempt", 3 opposed). While recognizing that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is apparent that the majority of users have been supporting this move in discussion after discussion. If users believe that supporting the "coup attempt" title is still best after reviewing past discussions, it shows a strong consensus. Moving forward, the main issue with previous move discussions were that they were bludgeoned and wikilawyered to death, so that's why I am suggesting that everyone make your decision and move on. If your choice seems reasonable, it will support its own weight when being reviewed by the closer. WMrapids (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC) That is misleading. By just looking into the bold votes, one might think there is some consensus forming in the direction of that alternative proposal for the Venezuelan coup title, but it is because users are not raising their votes against that alternative as it is not the topic at hand. By its own nature this RM cannot be isolated from previous ones.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2023 (UTC) If you are saying you object to it, what is the objection? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC) I would prefer to discuss that in the sections below. Would you agree that the topic of this discussion is not the 2020 Venezuelan coup title and thus it should be closed for non-consensus? We sincerely need a more well-bred discussion about the title.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC) No, per the principle of WP:NOTBURO I don't agree with closing this discussion just to re-open a new one; that would just waste community time. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC) NOTBURO isn't the right policy. This discussion wastes people's time because it's confusing and difficult to parse, and as a result most people are going to decline to contribute. This should be procedurely closed and reopened, carrying over the current !votes, to make it easier for uninvolved editors to weigh in. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC) I disagree with closing this. Users were asked to review previous discussions and they still support their decisions, so we shouldn't ignore their effort. Now if there is some sort of procedural technicality that requires closing, so be it, but I agree with The ed17 that the !vote and decision comment be moved to the new discussion. WMrapids (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I read the previous RM before casting my initial !vote, but on rereading it now, I remain convinced that "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" is the best title for the page. My read of that discussion is that there's a very strong case that WP:COMMONNAME supports describing the incident as an attempted coup; conversely, much of the argumentation against that title was based on skepticism that the incident met the threshold for being described in that language. However, I don't see much reason to go against the wide body of sources using the "coup" language, so "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" still seems to me like the best title for the article. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Move to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt: The discussion about moving this article title has been previously bludgeoned to death so I have to make a strong suggestion:
  

Make a decision and move on so we don't bludgeon. The rationale and consensus will be much more clear to the closer. If you agree, disagree or counter, make the case in your decision.

With this discussion, the arguments always go from a common sense standpoint (this was clearly an attempted coup), to WP:NPOV concerns (its not neutral to describe this as a "coup"), to policy discussions (according to WP:XYZ), to WP:FRINGE (it was actually orchestrated by Maduro) to finally the WP:LAWYERING of hamstering around, picking source descriptions (well, X number of sources described it as a "coup attempt" while x number said it was a "raid").

Overall, I'll lay out my final decision:

• WP:COMMON: In 2023, we know that Maduro was nowhere near losing his power and that this group had the goal of overthrowing his government. This was an attempted coup.
• WP:NPOV: Ok, any user can say this was a coup attempt, but how did we arrive at this destination? There are a bounty of international sources describing this as a coup attempt, so this meets WP:RS, WP:VERIFY and is WP:NPOV due to its prominent use by reliable sources. It also avoids supporting the POV of the attackers due to WP:CODENAME, which states "Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view). It is better to use an appropriate geographical name for the article, creating a redirect from the operational name, for all but the most well-known operations". So users have plenty of evidence to support the inclusion of "coup attempt" in the title.
• Policy: First, you can look at WP:COMMON above and see that a multitude of users continue to think that "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" is a common sense title in move after move while other users opposing participate in WP:LAWYERING, not recognizing that Wikipedia has no firm rules ("The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording"). With specific title and naming concerns, we can use WP:CODENAME to show that the current title is unacceptable. For the title "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", WP:NPOVTITLE shows that it is a "name derived from reliable sources" (plenty of sources call it a "coup attempt"). As per naming criteria in WP:CRITERIA, "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" meets this WP:CODENAME already shows that the current title is unacceptable. We will unfortunately never get a WP:COMMONNAME like the "Bay of Pigs Invasion" for this event (especially years later now), so any future recommendation of "Bay of Piglets", "Silvercorp Surf Party" or anything else is moot. Because of this, we see that "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" meets the naming criteria in WP:CRITERIA; it is recognizable and natural (WP:COMMON), it is precise (avoids the disambiguation and WP:CODENAME), it is as concise as possible (per WP:NCE) and is consistent (see 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état, February 1992 Venezuelan coup attempt, 2002 Venezuelan coup attempt and most fittingly the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt). Add in WP:NPOVTITLE which shows that a "name derived from reliable sources" is needed (plenty of sources call it a "coup attempt") and we can see that "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" is a winner.
• WP:FRINGE: Some may argue that Maduro set this up (without evidence or with WP:SYNTH of linking businessmen and generals) and the opposition says that the fighters were executed. Even if such human rights violations unfortunately occurred, the group still attempted to overthrow Maduro and it would have never happened if the group never made their failed endeavor. The only people to blame for the word "coup" being used internationally by the media are the people who tried to commit a coup, not Maduro or some activists. There are no sources or proof showing that this group was anything else but mercenaries attempting to overthrow Maduro.
• WP:5P5/WP:LAWYERING: We can dig through sources for the next few decades as more articles and descriptions come out, but it doesn't take away from the common sense name since this was an attempted coup. There are ample sources to support the inclusion of the word "coup" in the title. But user input usually devolves into WP:SOURCECOUNTING on both sides of the argument instead of recognizing what had plainly occurred according to sources. No amount of WP:LAWYERING and combing through sources will override the common sense name that exists; WP:LAWYERING clearly states "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy." This isn't a high school debate class, so there is no need to discuss a common sense decision that has a consistent precedent.

All of this may seem like a lot, but my explanation is clear. In summary, many users continue to support the title "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" since it is a common sense title that follows the spirit of Wikipedia naming conventions, there are plenty of sources that support this title, Wikipedia has no firm rules so no WP:LAWYERING can't override the spirit of the project and moving to this title would meet naming criteria/WP:NCE. As I emphasized above, please dissuade yourself from replying directly and instead make your argument in your own decision in order to avoid WP:BLUDGEON.--WMrapids (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC) {{{1}}} {{{1}}}

• I've now read all the sources listed here, in reputable news outlets and that I can find in scholarly sources, and the whole incident might be better described as "Goudreau's folly"-- the murky, ill-defined, ego-driven, attempted incursion into another country; maybe for bounty, maybe for delusion, maybe because of being used by Maduro to attempt to frame either the US or Guaido, certainly after being dismissed by Guaido representatives; and run by someone who had had many concussions and who wasn't in touch with reality, as The Washington Post quotes someone as saying. But since no sources have had the good sense to call it "Goudreau's folly", we can't either :) Which leaves us to find the least bad description.
  Chavismo would like it to be called a "coup", and with advance knowledge of the plan, they used Goudreau's lack of contact with reality to their advantage to present it as either a Guaido-backed or a US-backed coup attempt, and the Chavismo-friendly sources pushing that angle shows in search results, even though sources say those knowledgeable both from the US and from Guaido's camp were ultimately disconnected from Goudreau and encouraged him not to go forward.
  Retain current name for now, as it is the least inaccurate and most used among sources. WP:CODENAME restrictions can't apply when there's nothing else to precisely describe "Goudreau's folly", and Operation Gideon is how Goudreau and all sources describe it as they struggle to put words around the bizarre folly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt: (previously deleted by another user in the relist frenzy) as said many times in previous discussions. This still does not address WP:COMMONNAME so the WP:NPOV stands. I would like to remind that this is not a WP:POLL. This is truly a trainwreck of a longer discussion (most users have been there in previous RM) and due to usual time limitations this seems just like an RM to push for a limited time discussion instead of the longer well bred discussion that we should have instead. Also Wikipedia is based on sources, but in most list used before to support this title (as I do not see any new users leaving any sources for this discussion), the word 'coup' is used unfrequently and are usually supporting the argument based on WP:SOURCECOUNTING. Clearly, this argument based in WP:COMMON does not hold as users barely take their to consider other terms used in the articles invoked (again is hard to be specific when this RM has not even a "reason" field but it just diverged from a different discussion). Operation Gideon remains a much neutral and exact description of this event. [Before anybody respond to this please wait, I will expand on my position as soon as I am sure that the RM is working again, and I hope that the any user understands that this conversation restarted on 4 September so I hope we get enough time to cast our considerations and address this calmly(?) one can only hope.]--ReyHahn (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

With all that said let me address my decision with more precision:

• 1)Let me start on why I think this RM should have non-consensus closure. As you all may have read already, this conversation has been very chaotic and it is not self-consistent. It is based on a lot of moves and requests that happened in parallel. Concerns have been raised in every RM of this article, requesting to start first a clean discussion on the topic of this article before making another conflicting RM. I will leave here collapsed a history of the RMs for those that might miss it:

ReyHahn on the history of this article RMs

The title of the article is unclear, it is being written while it happens. Few users decide under a first small RM to move it into "Macuto bay raid". Macuto raid was chosen for this event, it appears in the sources and was clearly supported with other raid events. Users would appear later that did not agree on the title. A second RM was created to move this into a "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt" while many arguments were raised for and against it (which included proper review of the sources by different users), it was closed as "non consensus". After a short conversation based on titles that were proposed. A third RM was created to reconcile the involved users under another name, the title Operation Gideon was accepted for being well documented too. I was against the title Operation Gideon (2020), but the RM is a good example of how to deal with conflicting views, find a middle ground after a long discussion. Years later (in May), a third RM opens up on requesting 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt again all my concerns of how that discussion was handled can be read there. It ended in no-consensus. A request to review the close decision of the fourth RM, is raised, the result is endorsed to be non consensus. At the bottom of the closed fourth RM a request for new title is requested but it was put on pause. Before the discussion resumes a fifth RM (suggesting going back to Macuto raid) is opened on July 19. On the same day, another competing 6th RM is opened. The one that were are in! Clearly both RM were taken as conflict between both users and received very few activity. The fifth RM gets closed. A proper conversation starts the next day (discussion at the bottom of the talk page), but for some reason the 6th RM is not closed? Both had the same time waiting for a decision! More people start diverging back to the coup title in the discussion and the 6th RM gets more activity on what was addressed to be "not the topic" by the proposer and the other users involved in the conversation. The 6th RM gets relisted as under a new title. And in three days gets different shapes and forms with constant modifications that have made it look to what it looks now. The title discussion at the bottom of the page gets closed.

Most users are still basing this arguments on responses to other RMs comments that people may have missed. Closing this conversation would allow to rediscuss the title with more time and with less time constraint (what is even the time constraint for this RM that started in July?!). If needed, after a proper discussion we can make request an RM with a proper "reason" field that we can mostly agree on.

• 2) Oppose as there is clearly no unique support in sources for the proposed title, no change of status quo since the third RM: No new arguments have been brought out to the table. I know that each RM should be treated in its own right. But given what I said in point 1, this is not a self-consistent conversation and most users here are not taking it as such. Not even an old links to a news article have been provided to support this move. Here is a quick survey on reliable sources that I made to try to avoid the WP:SOURCECOUNTING problem:

ReyHahn sources

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

Sourcecounting is the most common argument in these conversation where every now and then somebody drops a new link to say "see this says 'coup'", but obviously when it is used in articles is not the only name. This list is mostly all reliable sources on the matter and it clearly does not show WP:COMMON for the proposed title.

• 3) Oppose as: The WP:COUP is an excellent WP:ESSAY on why we should avoid coup in the titles of articles like this one. It is charged politically and carries certain value, that is undeniable. Here we have a clearly failed plot, but that is totally farcical in achieving nothing. Just because somebody makes a noisy attempt to go against the authorities is not a reason to call it a coup (there is a list of raid articles like this in Venezuela), the only reason why this affair has gained some popularity (enough to have an article) is because there is a foreign citizen involved.
• 4) Keep the current title as it is neutral and good enough to uniquely point to this article. Most votes I have seen so far are based on WP:CODENAME. There is a reason why there are still some 'codename' articles in Wikipedia. It is because there are exceptions and this clearly merits the rule because COUP is just not WP:COMMON or WP:NEUTRAL. Some have addressed that "Macuto bay raid" was not clear on when it happened, but Operation Gideon (2020)' clearly keeps the date in the title. Just because the date is between parenthesis does not make it less clear.
• 5)Oppose as I have tried to review newer more digested sources (not news article) and have not found anything directly on the topic that addresses a different name. It is simply too soon to tell how is this event going to be called in history books. As I have suggested, aside from self-published sources or journals with unknown reputation. History books are the best way to find how this term has been used. Sadly I have only seen a few mentions in books about different topics that are NOT specific to the history of Venezuela and mention this event in short sections (like some kind of fun fact). All of them about politics which might mean that this sources could be politically charged. Here is are some of the ones I got from the top list in Google Books, this sources clearly refer to the event as Operation Gideon 2020 and not as 'coup': [10][11][12]. Again the proposed title is not WP:COMMON.

I am open for a reevaluation (if we can find an organized way to do so) of all the arguments and evidence but I hope to have shown enough already to support why this is not a clear-cut RM as some want to picture it.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose to 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt: I really wanted to avoid dropping in to avoid this turning into a ballot box, but alas, it seems that it is already too late for that after the discussion was relisted under the coup option. It won't be long for it to be nearly four months now since editors have discussed the term ad nauseam for this article. The limited participation (at least compared to previous months) seems to prove that the community is simply exausted, but most importantly, nearly nothing has changed during that time, and very few new arguments have been presented to support a move, if any, as other have pointed out.

Arguably the only exception is the recent comparison with the 2004 Equatorial Guinea coup attempt per WP:NCE, which can be easily rebutted with a even more recent example in Africa: the 2017 ECOWAS military intervention in the Gambia. For the consistency argument, there are many other examples of events that are not called coups and a lot more similar to Operation Gideon (the Falke Expedition, the Machurucuto raid and even the Bay of Pigs Invasion itself), and the lack of involvement of the Armed Forces of Venezuela must also be stressed to point out how the operation is even farther to meet the definition of a coup.

If I can offer a proposal, I think that if editors listed their titles in order of preference, it could be way easier agreeing on the title, finding the least disliked instead of the most liked, as I have mentioned several times. However, the dust needs to settle for that, and this move first needs to be closed to allow it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: Though I know that I recommended not making replies, it is very important to note that NoonIcarus created the "Falke Expedition" article and its title on their own shortly after the first move discussions ended for this article in 2020. Take this as you will. WMrapids (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The article was a result of the split of the ship's main article, whose subsection already had that name. It is undoubtedly the event's most common name, used from history books to documentaries. You're free to start a move discussion there if you disagree, though. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This is en.wiki; Spanish sources are irrelevant to our titles. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about the relist and reformatting

Discussion about the relist and reformatting

Iskandar323 you reverted my collapse, please let us collapse the previous discussion, it makes barely any sense the responses and arguments of the previous discussion under the new relist. Any previous users should be notified anyway.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC) It's better just to think of it like a fresh discussion since 21 August. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC) That's why I am asking for a collapse. Vote and positions should be discussed anew if this RM is going to even be discussed. It will be clearer for everyone. --ReyHahn (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Comment: Dear SilverLocust this discussion has been relisted to the same RM proposal that has been proposed twice before with no consensus. Note that the current title came after a reconciliation RM and the second time that 2020 Venezuelan coup title was proposed it was closed as non-consensus and renforced when contested. The current RM was originally assigned to other name under very disruptive circumstances. A short live RM was created before this to start solving the naming problem (Macuto raid) and the original name of this RM (Bay of piglest) was created as counter proposal making two RMs at the same time. Both had very few comments. The first RM was closed but this one survived for reasons that are still not very clear to me. Now the conversation has diverged and relisted. It seems unfair to undermine all previous RM to find a consensus by just relisting to the same conflicting proposal without a particular reasons or new piece of data. A section to reconcile all parties was created below but has suffered enormously to even start due to this RM.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC) @ReyHahn: Part of the reason for the relist (and the way I relisted it) was that you objected to this being discussed under the heading of "Operation Gideon (2020) → Bay of Piglets Invasion". I reviewed all of the past requested moves and the discussion here before relisting this one. I do not believe there is any unfairness in allowing this discussion to continue in this section. SilverLocust 💬 16:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Sure but the arguments that pushed this new (old?) title were brought without even leaving a consideration to the concerns of the user that proposed the previous title of this RM or the concerns of the users involved in previous RMs. There was barely any comment on the Bay of piglets title. The title 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt is the same non-consensus title that has had problems before and it is NOT based in any new arguments or pieces of information. What is even the "reason" field of this RM?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC) "Bay of Piglets" was discussed further in the Better title? discussion below, which I essentially paraphrased in my alt proposal above. There are good reasons not to use that. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC) I would also like to point out that this calls for the notification of all the people involved in the current and previous two RMs.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC) I reconfigured this only to give more notice about what has been under discussion for the past 12 days. The comments from 19 July are still there; if anyone wants to keep discussing the title Bay of Piglets Invasion, they can. A requested move discussion is not limited to the original title proposed; they sometimes decide to move to a different title than the one originally proposed (as noted at WP:THREEOUTCOMES). Yesterday there was a notification about the title 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt being under discussion sent by WMrapids to ModernDayTrilobite, Iskandar323, Adumbrativus, NoonIcarus, Braganza, Blindlynx, Aréat, Carlp941, Roman Spinner, ReyHahn, Elelch, Snarcky1996, Icarusatthesun, SilverStar54 and Burrobert (no ping). I do not see a need to ping them again. Is there anyone who has not had notice that this title has been suggested? SilverLocust 💬 18:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Note: WikiProject Venezuela has been notified of this discussion.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC) SilverLocust please consider collapsing or templating the whole votes above too. There is still clearly some content it those conversation about the Macuto raid and of how confusing this whole RM has been.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC) For the moment, I will wait to see if more people find this format more confusing than how it was before. If so, I will just remove each of the collapse boxes. (I do wish this had been opened as a new request rather than reopened from July.) SilverLocust 💬 20:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Help?: seriously what is happening? in 24 hours we got like 5 versions on how to carry this RM (different RM titles, collapsed sections, and sections to comment). Can you settle in a format for this discussion please? Did we reset it due to a relist issue? Also why was my vote was removed? WMrapids decision when back into the collapse bubble? It is getting incredible confusing to join this conversation.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It looks like Goudreau is running this RFC. For a real sources-based discussion, this particular Wikipedia version of Goudreau's folly should be put out of its misery, closed as yet another ill-formed proposed RFC on this page (it's actually now at number seven) so a real RFC can be started. To avoid garbage-in garbage-out RFC outcomes, the formatting of the RFC should be discussed well in advance-- not launched as a Goudreau-style surprise doomed-to-fail incursion wasting people's time on a talk page with excessive bandwidth saying the same things repetitively. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Why not participate in a source-based discussion instead of what you've written in the survey, which is an explanation of how the best name is one not actually used in the sources at all? Iskandar323 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a discussion that died down due to inactivity and Iskandar323's suggestion of WP:NCE was presented in the current move discussion, which is totally valid. Unfortunately, normal sections asking to propose a new title are not interacted with as they are not centralized or disseminated like move proposals are. Two popular proposals ("Macuto Bay" raid and "Bay of Piglets") have already been ignored and, once again, many users are supporting "coup attempt" in the title. You begging the question and dismissing the current move proposal as "garbage" or "doomed-to-fail" is not helpful. WMrapids (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been such a difficult discussion, so correct me if I am wrong, certainly something that did not help was the double RM (this one and the previous one were created right after to the other) while the title discussion was been carried out.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: It seems that some users who have been opposed to this move here and in previous discussions have attacked this current move discussion as "confusing", "garbage" and "doomed-to-fail" instead of proposing a different suggestion. They have had months to propose a new title, though none make the effort to make any suggestions and instead fall back on the usual argument to "preserve the stable version" while the consensus in this discussion and the previous is that WP:CODENAME makes the current title unsupportable. To the reviewer, please ignore the behavior of these users attacking the process instead of making any useful proposals. Though it may be a little messy, this discussion has both new and old concerns that remain valid.--WMrapids (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear WMrapids: I have tried to start this conversation anew as clean as possible and everytime I have seen my concerns be diverted into a new dissussion/RM, ignored, have the opposite effect, be collapsed and even have votes removed without explanation. It is normal that I have had to request several times to clarify or to buckle this up. We both know the context of when and how these conversations have started (always in parallel with other conflicting requests) and we both seem to despair from how all this is being diverged into another conversation than the one intended. I really believe a reviewer should take some consideration of this mess regarding to the time for the discussion and lack of self-consistent argument. Both your vote decision and mine have to address a whole number of concerns that have even made yet during this particular RM because this RM is intrinsically grounded on previous disputes. Please let us all follow your advice and avoid any more WP:BLUDGEON.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If anyone is bludgeoning this page at this point, it is not WMrapids. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

Better title?

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

---

@NoonIcarus, Braganza, Blindlynx, Aréat, Carlp941, Roman Spinner, ReyHahn, Elelch, Snarcky1996, Icarusatthesun, SilverStar54, and Burrobert: Hey everyone! If you don't want to get involved in this discussion again, please ignore this, but this article needs a better title. My suggestion of "Bay of Piglets Invasion" was hidden above in a proposal edit conflict, but I'd still propose that title. Any other suggestions? Thanks! WMrapids (talk) 05:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Wasn't the "Bay of Piglets" just a short-lived media nickname for it? Also, I would noted that "Bay of Piglets" has also been used as well to refer to the original "Bay of Pigs" invasion, see Ngrams, so not so great either in terms of disambiguation. But, yes, more generally, that the page title is both an operational name, which is discouraged per WP:CODENAME, AND requires addition parenthetical disambiguation, is doubly bad. Better to defer to WP:NCE. An obvious option is something along the lines of 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, per reports such as: [13][14][15][16] Iskandar323 (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll stick with my original comment which is copied here: Of the references you provided, I only read the ABC article which states "the Bay of Piglets, as the bloody fiasco came to be known". Assuming the other references are similar, this seems like a good name for the fiasco. The name does have the advantage of recalling another failed coup attempt by reactionaries backed by the US government. Burrobert (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not the first such media homage to a subsequent farce. Bay of Piglets currently redirects to Operation Sheepskin, which was also dubbed the same. See The National (Scottish) Iskandar323 (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Etc. etc. The analogy is, if anything, quite overused. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Keep the current title: The objection against the use of codenomes is that "it gives no indication of when or where the action took place". But the same objection would also apply to "Bay of piglets", so it is better to keep the current title, not because it is the codenome of the operation, but because that is how it is named in many sources such as The Guardian, The Washington Post, AP News. Even in many of the sources used to support the change to "Bay of piglets", it continues to be named as "Operation Gideon". The other is just a burlesque name to compare it in a pejorative way with "Bay of pigs".--Elelch (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that makes sense. Thanks for pointing that out! WMrapids (talk) 04:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Moving forward reasonably

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" [17][18] was a possible WP:COMMONNAME or the alternative "Invasion of the Falke"[19][20]), 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)

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)

Aim for RFC rather than RM

See Paine Ellsworth's talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 10 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)

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)

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)

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/sandbox11. 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)

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)

Sources

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)

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)

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)

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)

Background section

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)

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/sandbox11), 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 talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 (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)

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 talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 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)

Analysis

@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)

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)