Jump to content

Talk:Operation Gideon (2020): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
{{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(3d) | archive = Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | minthreadsleft = 4 }}
Line 9: Line 9:
{{ITN note|Attempted naval attack on Venezuela|date=5 May 2020}}
{{ITN note|Attempted naval attack on Venezuela|date=5 May 2020}}


{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(3d)
| archive = Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}
== Title ==
== Title ==


Revision as of 15:32, 19 May 2020

Title

Isn't an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing a government called a coup? Shouldn't this be the 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaserLegs: None of the sources, not even the Venezuelan government, is using 'coup'. Padrino said it was an assassination attempt related to the Caracas drone attack, but neither he nor Maduro has said coup, yet. Kingsif (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverol has now said coup:

According to Reverol, the group, which departed from neighbouring Colombia, planned to carry out "terrorist attacks", including assassinating officials. He added the plan aimed "to increase the spiral of violence, generate chaos and confusion ... and with that lead to a new attempt at a coup d'etat".[1]

Please discuss. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After last year's attempted uprising, WP:COUP was created. I still believe that there are a number of characteristics that should be met before describing an event as a coup attempt, including a common use of the term by reliable sources. As such, the "2020s coups d'état and coup attempts" category should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, is there a reason why the article was renamed "La Guaira naval attack" instead of the "Macuto naval attack"? Even if they are nearby cities, they are not the same, and I have not seen sources reporting that the invasion landed in La Guaira. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of English sources either always mentioning both La Guaira and Macuto, or saying 'a city in/near La Guaira' - I'm impressed they even got more specific than 'coast north of Caracas', really. It's a more recognizable place name than Macuto. The second boat was heading for Aragua, so it could be broader. Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, thanks for the tip. Is there a support by other editors to change the title? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Start a discussion? Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a list of sources (some from this article) mentioning 'coup'. I support a rename as per WP:COUP.
Acalycine (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick review of those sources: Are military.com and perth now reliable? New York Post is a tabloid per WP:RSP. AL Jazeera is using plot to describe what Maduro said [2]. BBC uses alleged coup. The Australian has a paywall. NY magazine is not directly calling the event coup or at least using it to describe what Maduro is stating. Democracy Now is a partisan source per WP:RSP. Based on these sources, it is not clear that "coup" is a reliable label.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COUP states that the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. From the sources of the article, the use does not appear to be widespread. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be a consensus on whether DemocracyNow is a reliable source, according to the list you have linked. Nor is there a consensus on the list as to whether the New York Post is a reliable source. The NYMAG article's headline is a question using the word coup pretty conclusively: "Why would you tweet about your coup?". Furthermore, I may be mistaken here, but is a paywall really a reason for exclusion as a reliable source, re The Australian? Ultimately I think the question here is the definition of 'widespread'. How many RS (as per the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.) using the term 'coup' would it take for consensus to be reached? Here are some other sources:
Acalycine (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources, including Maduro gov't sources, now referring to it as a "desembarco en Macuto" (Macuto beach landing, compare with Desembarco de Normandía - Landing at Normandy, "landings on the beaches of Normandy.")--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

(edit conflict) @Orgullomoore:, thank you kindly for the help providing sources. However, I have to ask you to be careful with primary sources, such as Twitter, YouTube and interviews. Both Telesur and The Grayzone are deprecated in WP:RS/P. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: You're welcome. I don't disagree with you about the pitfalls of Twitter and YouTube and don't dispute the nonreliability of TeleSur and The Grayzone. However, I took the liberty to add those links here because they contain the narratives of multiple parties directly involved in this incident "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak. They are good starting points for finding supporting RS, but shouldn't be used directly until reported on by a trustworthy outlet. A particular problem we are facing with this article is that pretty much everyone involved suffers from major credibility deficits: Jordon Goudreau, the militiamen involved in the attempted incursion, Maduro, Trump, and Ivan Duque. So the best I think we are going to achieve is a grouping of facts all sides agree on and teasing out the disputed high-level (relevant) allegations.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I have to agree on that. The incident is so bizarre and messy that it's important to gather all the pieces. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maduro exploits the Macutazo - Caracas Chronicles and how nobody's stories match Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connecting Vets - Ex-Green Berets tried to recruit this vet for a failed coup, now he's speaking out, by Jack Murphy (5 May 2020). Based on interview with confidential source reportedly also former Special Forces who was approached by Goudreau as a potential recruit for part of the mercenary mission; Jordan Goudreau and Airan Berry and Luke Denman are all three ex-Green Berets who served together in the 10th Special Forces Group Crisis Response Force (CRF) known as C-1-10; the three were standing by ramp side in Croatia the night that the U.S. temporary mission facility and CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi in 2012; a copy of the services agreement was being shown to people at a camp in Jamaica run by Gourdreau; Silvercorp had acquired several boats (without VHF radios, electronic beacons and other necessities); the camp members openly planned an armed incursion into Venezuela to capture or kill high-value targets (HVTs), which would cause a domino-effect crumbling of the Venezuelan government owing to the fact the population is already so disenfrancised and demoralized.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AP Caracas Venezuela pretende acusar a presidente colombiano ante CPI reporting Venezuela intends to bring Ivan Duque before International Criminal Court.--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • AlJazeera | Inside Story | 8 May 2020 - 25 min. Interviewer: Peter Dobbie; Guests: JJ Rendon, Ramon Muchacho (Former mayor of Chacao District), Isaias Medina (member, Council of Rumbo Libertad), and Pedro Burelli (Latin America political analyst and managing director of B+V Advisors).--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castillo, Julian (2020-05-04). "Las revelaciones de Juvenal Sequea sobre la Operación Gedeón". eldiario. Retrieved 2020-05-10. -- Interview with brother of supposed ringleader. Seems to have been published just before or as the operation was happening, or before eldiario realized it was related. In the interview, Sequea's brother says his brother recently successfully entered Venezuela and has a group of men, including Adolfo Baduel (who was detained), inside Venezuela for the purpose of supporting countries involved in a regional Caribbean anti-narcotics cooperative effort to "speed up the process of Venezuela's freedom," which included capturing Maduro as well as others sought by justice.--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Smith, Scott; Lee, Matthew; Herschaft, Randy (6 May 2020). Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid" Associated Press (Caracas, Washington, New York). Retrieved 11 May 2020.-Orgullomoore (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venezuela raid: How an ex-Green Beret and a defecting general planned to capture Maduro, 2020-05-11, By Anthony Faiola (Miami), Shawn Boburg (Washington) and Ana Vanessa Herrero (Caracas), Washington Post.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • La versión de Guaidó - EVTV Contigo Carla Angola - 05/11/20 S1 - 1 hour interview w/ Miami TV station Guaido says he didn't sign, that the supposed recording of his voice (video of ceiling) is not him, etc.—Orgullomoore (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 May resignations, details (Al Jazeera) Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Maduro regime claiming Guaido met Goudreau at White House (per Goudreau per Saquea under interrogation). Just gets better and better. Sequea refirió que a mediados de marzo, cuando viajó Guaidó a su gira que terminó en Estados Unidos, Jordan Goudreau se comunicó con él y le dijo que se había reunido con Guaidó en la Casa Blanca, y había sido ratificado como jefe de la operación armada contra Venezuela.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Telephonic Press Briefing (5/14/2020) with Ambassador Michael Kozak & U.S. Special Envoy Lea Gabrielle (special envoy and coordinator of the Global Engagement Center, the mission of which is "countering the adverse effects of state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation.").

    I think probably anything that the government or the former Maduro regime puts out has a huge component of disinformation to it. Most recently, we’re seeing their campaign about this alleged invasion of the country, which they seem to have had something to do in creating themselves. But it’s it just– anything that they put out is really, really suspect.

    — Ambassador Michael Kozak.

I think what’s even more harmful is the Maduro regime’s ability to use official accounts coupled with state-owned or controlled media outlets and its allies’ messaging apparatuses that work together to convince audiences that the disinformation touted by Maduro is true. Secretary Pompeo has said on many occasions that our sanctions do not target the innocent people of Venezuela and they will not prohibit humanitarian assistance, but Maduro’s claims to the contrary continue and we’ve observed accounts linked not just to Maduro, but also to Iran, Russia, and Cuba, that have all tried to suggest that these sanctions impair the ability of them to be able to obtain humanitarian assistance. So they take these claims and then they amplify them by accounts that are engaged and coordinated, inorganic, or inauthentic activity, significantly amplifying the presence of the claims in the information space. So that’s one of the trends that we’ve seen from the GEC’s perspective.

— Lea Gabrielle

We’ve been focused on diplomatic and economic efforts and political efforts to try to persuade the regime, and it’s very simple what the objective is: to hand over power to a transitional government that can organize free and fair elections and resolve the political crisis in Venezuela. You can’t do it with Maduro. The reason the crisis exists in the first place was Maduro used his power to completely rig and discredit the elections in 2018.

— Ambassador Michael Kozak

–Orgullomoore (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of RCGS Resolute information

Pinging the IP who added back information on the cruise ship, information that has no RS connecting it to the subject, and LaserLegs, who asked about it at ITNC. I feel it's a simple removal, but feel free to discuss the merits. @83.11.114.66 and LaserLegs: Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how RCGS incident is related with all this.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the RCGS Resolute incident is connected only in the narrative of Maduro's regime, in which it represents alleged earlier successfully thwarted "invasion attempt". Somehow.
It should be also noted that the basically same section had already been removed earlier as unrelated (or, at least, without support for the connection by a reliable source), only to be reinstated by IP:83.11.114.66 without further explanation and/or RS.--Algernon (p.s.) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the attackers or the government draw an actual connection between the two, it shouldn't be included. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LaserLegs: Government media has made statements that the incident was meant to "plant mercenaries" and other sources are now saying that the Venezuelan Navy was cautious for this reason.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the article

Did we discuss the name? I understand why we change from Operation Gideon to La Guaira naval attack, but why La Guaira and why naval attack? In the news I've seen Macuto being used more. Naval attack makes me think that there was a confrontation between naval ships. Did I miss something? --ReyHahn (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naval attack = attack by sea. It's accurate and, importantly, concise. Do you have a better suggestion? Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. Macuto, could @ReyHahn and Jamez42: one of you be able to assess what sources use? Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources that I have consulted use "Macuto", mostly local ones. I can provide some later if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I lack an "international" perspective or point of view from abroad, so I can understand if an alternative title is needed. My two cents would be to use the name of the state instead of the city, "Vargas naval attack". I fear that it might be confued with a pirate attack back in the colony or an independence battle, but I don't know about remarkable similar articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas Chronicles has called it "Macutazo", should we consider that? Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuelan sources are definitely referring to it as the "Macuto" incident/attack..., Reuters is using La Guaira. I do not know the rest. I will check later.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen "raid" instead of attack in AP, Reuters and France24.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be called "La Guaira/Macuto beach raid".--ReyHahn (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raid is more specific and appears to be more accurate. It could also be "Macuto naval raid" or just "Macuto raid". --Jamez42 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compilation of sources

I think it is clear that it is specifically Macuto (Reuters and AP are just being vague), I think we should use either Macuto beach raid or Macuto armed incursion or something similar. Also nobody is using naval.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Maritime' is a version of naval, and I think the title should be specific to the kind of attack. 'Beach' or even using 'Macuto Bay' could work? Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naval makes me think of navy "the branch of the armed services of a state which conducts military operations at sea" which this is not.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move proposal: 'Macuto Bay raid'

Moved. Unanimous consensus from majority of editors to the page. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Based on sources and indicating its "amphibious" nature, I propose we move this to Macuto Bay raid. 'Incursion' could also work. Please discuss below. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per sources presented above.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the sources and arguments. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per sources given. (I'd personally prefer "incursion", but it seems to be more represented in Spanish-language sources (incursión) only.)--Algernon (p.s.) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Location

The raid took place in Macuto, not La Guaira. Could someone please fix this in the infobox? --Jamez42 (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: The attacks and arrests (plural) occurred throughout La Guaira (state). The state's name provides the general area of where this operation occurred.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I commented about this before realizing that its use referred to the state. It's another reason why "Vargas" should be used for the state, the name is prone to be confused with its capital city. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boat Naiguata and Medium

Aside from a Medium (website) blog post from "Mision Verdad" I don't see any article relating the raid with the ship sinking. Why was it reinstated?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SYNTH I support its removal. It's an interesting context, but nonetheless unrelated. It should be stressed that "Misión Verdad" is governemnt related. Also, isn't Medium a blog that should be avoided from being used as a refence? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: Mision Verdad is official state media of the Maduro government. They have faced issues with their servers which resulted in the closure of their website, so they turned to Medium. This is a response from a direct party to the conflict, so it should be seen as significant.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Planning" section

I want to express again my concern for the length of the "Planning" section, which is longer than not only the "Attack" section, but almost the rest as well. I'm not proposing to split the article, and rather I find a merge with the "Background" section or a little of trimming to be more attractive options. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned about its length, and this is before adding the claim that they heavily studied the Bay of Pigs Invasion for some reason. The issue is that the planning is probably a good and detailed length for such an ambitious attack, and that in theory the attack and fallout section would be much longer. But they got nowhere. Until the human rights fallout of the captured Americans really starts up, it's probably going to be uneven. Of course, if we can trim unnecessary detail, we should. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I may, I'll quote from the AP article:

Mattos said he was surprised by the barren conditions. There was no running water and men were sleeping on the floors, skipping meals and training with sawed-off broomsticks in place of assault rifles. Five Belgian shepherds trained to sniff out explosives were as poorly fed as their handlers and had to be given away.

The seized equipment Chuao included airsoft guns, and from what I gather the people arrested were even wearing bathsuits, just to give some more examples of how the attack seems to have been very poorly planned. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We just have a lot of details of the lengthy poor planning. But this isn't to discuss what Goudreau was thinking, do you think it's all DUE? Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. That's the reason why I addded the very long section tag originally. Another option is also to merge with other articles, but I would ask for it to be done carefully and not lose valuable content. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The detail of the planning section is vital and it will not be suitable on any other article. Where would you put information about the planning of the attack? Oh I know, in the article about the attack! Any removal of the details may be seen as whitewashing information of some of the parties invovled.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I sense a little bit of hostility, there's no need for it. There are guidelines that allow the trimming of the content, including WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH. It does not mean that excluding critical content or details crucial to understanding the planning of the attack, even less whitewashing any of the participants. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason there is nothing to put in the "Attack" section is that (a) Maduro has not released many details, and even if he did, they would be difficult to verify, and (b) there really was not much of an attack. I did see a piece by Telesur where they interviewed locals about how the first town (where Pantera was killed) notified the second (where the Americans were captured), so that they were ready to capture them. I'm sure it made it's way to YouTube. Problem is, Telesur has the same verifiability problem. They also went into some detail about how some of the fighters ran into the forest and were caught.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guaidó in the infobox

@ZiaLater: I don't understand why are we keeping Guaidó in the infobox. First even if Guaidó had contacts with Goudreau, Guaidó eventually scrapped the deal. Secondly, this article is about the attack which eventually did not have any backup from Guaidó. What am I missing?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guaidó initially approved of the plans and provided $50,000 and possibly the $1.5 million retainer (which was legally necessary within the five days of the agreement they signed). So Guaidó funded and supported the same plan until they lost confidence in it. So the planning and funding was supported by Guaidó in 2019, there is no doubt of that. As an example, you can see in larger conflicts such as the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), the infobox shows that support changes over time (from 2017, 2015–17, etc). Hope this is an adequate explanation as this is fairly common in armed conflict articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Goudreau has declared that the $1.5 million retainer was not paid, and even the Washington Post article title where this comes from says "From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue". It's original research to affirm that "Guaidó funded and supported the same plan", when months passed after it actually took place and could have gone differently, such as an attack from Colombia.
From other articles, it appears that the convention for the "Belligerents" and support section is for parties during the conflict. In extended conflicts, such as wars, it is easy to see these changes of side, when a party sometimes even supports the opposite one just like it's hown in the main Crisis article, but it is inaccurate to include it in a battle. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Jamez42, a lot of planning that was scrapped, carried out six months later and under different conditions. Also this is not a long conflict.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting recent users to help with consensus: @Kingsif: @Orgullomoore: @LaserLegs: @Acalycine: @Thanoscar21: @Jameslightell: @Cyfraw: @Jim Michael: @NickCT: @Ortizesp: @Goodposts: @Patjorgensen92: @Burrobert:

Should Guaidó's support be in the infobox labeled specifically for 2019 only?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is kind of a clusterfuck and quite honestly, I am shocked that somebody thought the Bay of Pigs 2.0 was a good idea and am trying to drill down to the bottom of this. As far as I understand, Guaido claims to have ceased supporting the plan sometime late last year, and has failed to pay the sum he was supposed to for the job. Now, I'm not exactly sure how contracts for political assassinations and military coups are supposed to be written, but this does show Guaido gave the order for this plan to be created. The editors above are correct that when parties switch sides or otherwise reconsider their involvement, this is usually marked in the infobox. However, why would a group of mercenaries follow trough with an operation, if its initiator and main backer has pulled out? Cui bono? Guaido seems to have approved either this, or a very similar plan. I really don't know here. Do we have RS specifically stating that Guaido's involvement was definitely terminated (rather than him just claiming it was)? If not, then he ought to stay in. Goodposts (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or refused to pay, according to the sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater:, I'll remind that were the editor that placed Guaidó in the infobox from the stable version, meaning that burden lies on you to find a consensus. It's alright that you invite other editors to discuss, but the focus of the discussion would be to change the infobox, not to keep it, and I advise the change to be removed for the time being. In any case, it appears it should take long until new comments arrive.
Due to the current content, I see as a possible solution to focus the article on the plot itself rather than on the attack. That would solve the problem of a infobox merely focused on the conflict, and could be used to include aspects such as diplomatic stances. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment. My opinion is that indicating Guaido's support in the Infobox is appropriate so long as it can be confirmed and we make clear that the support was eventually withdrawn. Particularly if the audio recording Maduro's government put out purporting to show Guaido on a VOIP call indicating he would sign and return the agreement in about 30 minutes (Youtube vid id: SfmnF-g2kzQ). If that's authentic, then of course the article should reflect it. If it's propaganda, then obviously not.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

In a rare moment, all sides in this seem to agree that it was 1. a massive failure 2. briefly supported by Guaidó before he withdrew. Perhaps it's indicative of how completely ridiculous this was that both the attack-er and attack-ee have a similar narrative. Seems to be that Guaidó (2019) should be in the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to include Guaidó in the info box possibly with a qualifier. He certainly provided support at some stage and there is a signed service contract. Whether he withdrew that support seems unclear at the moment but it is still early and more information should come out. Whatever does come out he bears some responsibility for the operation. Burrobert (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support this solution. Would appending "(disputed)" to the end of his mention in the infobox be preferable, for the time being? Acalycine (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. Rendón, Guaidó's official that admitted signing an agreement with Jordan Goudreau, declared that there wasn't a military operation and that the raid was a false flag attack. Iván Simonovis and PanAm Post have argued similar positions.

A retainer agreement means that the work in question will be specified later. Hiring (or planning to hire) Silvercorp USA is not the same as sponsoring a specific plan, including this one, and the signed agreement does not seem to include any of the details of the 3 May operation. Even if this was the case, it is misleading to include that Guaidó supported the plan broadly "until November 2019" because the agreement was signed on 16 October and this support would have been, at best, for a few weeks and not an unspecified amount of time that could be months.

This, on top of the fact that the stable version did not include Guaidó on the infobox and that there wasn't support during the conflict, should be reasons to remove Guaidó from the infobox. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the analysis section

@ZiaLater: I disagree with having an analysis section. We can find analysis from all sort of "experts" saying all sorts of things, these are opinions but when they are not from people already involve in the affair it becomes unclear why should we given them a spotlight.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn: There usually are no issues with the inclusion of professional analyses from reliable sources in Wikipedia articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but it is either information that goes in-line with the rest of the text or a section that is created for more technical issues like economy/science/etc.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ReyHahn here. The "analysis" section currently contains the opinion of a Venezuelan professor that the Venezuelan opposition is criminal and bears "dictatorial tendencies," the opinion of a political commentator that Guaido has abundant funding but lacks military support and is willing to use violence, and the opinion of an American reporter that the operation was poorly planned and analogous to the Trump electoral campaign's amateur engagement with Russian operatives. In what way does this contribute? I think it would be best to lay out the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion about whether this or that faction is criminal or dictatorial or unwise or goofy. Accordingly, I agree with removal of the Analysis section as it stands now.-Orgullomoore (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that professor also supported Guaido against Maduro back in 2019. I don't see any issue with there being an analysis section per se, so long as the analyses given are given by authoritative figures and not used to push a POV. Why not instead discuss on how to improve the section, rather than deleting it? Goodposts (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer improving instead of deleting. But also, we need to improve the section heading and probably incorporate the "analyses" (talking points) in the appropriate place in the article. Or rename it to "reactions of several professors and a columnist."--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If any of the opinions in these analysis are relevant there should be merged with the text. A section like that just calls for a lot of agenda pushing.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this inclusion as well, we have the Reactions section to include notable declarations and Wikipedia is not an essay. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: The discussion continued in another discussion in a different section on this page.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

Hi, I would consider nominating this article for DYK, as it was not good for ITN. The article should be nominated in a few days. --cyrfaw (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't it be re-nominated for ITN, now that it's been greatly expanded & improved? Jim Michael (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the incident now is a week old.--cyrfaw (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until the US tries to get Denman and Berry back. That's not going to be fun to cover, but will probably be international enough for ITN. Nomming at DYK. Kingsif (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent!, thanks for the suggestion. I will try to expand the article further if possible. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that an American sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that an American claimed he sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "Goudreau said he never received a penny from the Guaidó team and instead the Venezuelan soldiers he was advising had to scrounge for donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia." (AP [12])
  • Reviewed: WYCB
  • Comment: Note that there's a potentially controversial move discussion ongoing. Move discussion closed -- reviewer Bri

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment This event is so bizarre that I'm confident that there are plenty of alternative hooks that can be considered, if any user disagrees with the current one. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. We have to find a better one. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember it has to be neutral and indisputable. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. --cyrfaw (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Reviewer's notes – Newness OK, created May 5 and nominated May 8 · Length OK, 51 kB >1,500 · Sourcing: 141 sources nearly one per sentence, no controversial statements or quotes unsourced · Passes Earwig's copyvio detector · QPQ good, WYCB promoted by Yoninah 12 January · Hook cited to Time after discussion 27 May

See comments above. One might note that the claimed seized condoms could be considered military purpose, as are sometimes used to prevent water from entering gun barrels. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the move discussion closed, but there is an open RfC on the talkpage of neutrality in the section Analysis especially about the use of the term "coup attempt", and the section is still marked POV. I don't see an intractable problem here, and consensus appears to have formed around "keep and rework". Not a showsotpper for DYK in my opinion, in fact more readers might help to reformulate it as requested. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed ALT1 to ensure NPOV in the hook. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bri, ALT1 is fine (and such a minor change I don't think we need another reviewer). The sources do get mixed up - did you fix it in the article as well, or should I do that? Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The article is using the AP article, but at the AP rather than TIME. Is the hook good and everything? Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are the same story. I referenced AP May 4 by Goodman and Smith (via Time). Don't see that same AP story in the article. Citation for the sentence Goudreau stated the operation was forced to rely on "donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia" because he was not paid by Guaidó's team is dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Yes - they used the same headline - changed it now. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I marked this as passing the DYK criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: That would be the link the reviewer told me to replace above. I'd have to find the edit to see which ref was removed and check if it was actually correct. The article may have been updated since the start of May, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif, it's been a while. If the footnotes don't support the hook fact, then either this needs a new hook dependent on different facts, or new sourcing that support the hook fact. Thanks for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a change of hook is in order, if there's now only one source (sensitive topic). It's not the simplest article to write an appropriate hook for, I just thought the American angle was interesting. I'll see what I can do, but may withdraw if there's nothing both interesting and water-tight. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Can I phone a friend? @Jamez42 and ReyHahn: do you guys have any hook suggestions? Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42's suggestions from the talk page here: Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 ... that Jordan Goudreau cited Alexander the Great's Battle of Gaugamela as an inspiration to invade Venezuela? Source: "When he was pressed by Poleo to explain why launching an amphibious operation across open waters instead of attempting to infiltrate via the border with Colombia, Goudreau replied: 'Are you familiar with Alexander the Great? The Battle of Gaugamela. Completely outnumbered. He struck to the heart of the enemy, and he won.'" (Source: Bellingcat [13])
@Kingsif: I don't think it has been included in the article, unlike the statement about the condoms, which I'm almost certain that it was removed. I'm not sure if adding it would make the hook eligible, but it's understandable that it also needs more support. Toi other editor, like I said in the talk page, feel free to change the grammar or phrasing if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: Thanks for the clarification - to be eligible, the information needs to be in the article. It seems to be a real interview, so sourcing for this one (unlike the condoms) is no issue. I can see about adding this. Kingsif (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4 ... that after Operation Gideon, a failed invasion in Venezuela, there were condoms among the reported seized equipment? Source:Mientras mira algunas fotos más del equipo capturado por los miembros de Operación Gedeón, ¿hay 7 condones entre las capturas? (Alberto News [14])
Review needed for alt hooks 2-4. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 is probably the most unusual option here and perhaps the most attention grabbing. It's cited inline; assuming good faith on the Alberto News source (although the Google Translate translation seems to check out) since the NY Mag link doesn't mention it. Rest of the review per above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't use ALT4, I'd prefer ALT2. ALT3 is a bit more on the obscure side since while Alexander is well-known, the battle is probably not so much outside of people interested in history. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ALT2 is the best idea. It actually says something about the raid and is well worded. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline.
  • @Kingsif: the article has a "failed verification" tag and the Analysis section has a big template on it. Is this ready yet? Do you want to comment out sentences/sections until after the main page appearance? Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: Yes and I have done so - I'm glad it's also returned to stability, hopefully discussions can be concluded on the analysis. The failed verification sentence has been removed. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 May 2020

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

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

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

I'm not against "coup." Why are we not also considering "Operation Gideon"?--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Orgullomoore: There are multiple Operation Gideon articles on Wikipedia, including Operación Gedeón during the El Junquito raid that killed Óscar Alberto Pérez.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRECISION if we have to call it Operation Gideon (Macuto raid) or whatever to make it precise, it should not be a problem.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an error in this; the events occurred in Macuto, Carayaca, Chuao, El Junquito, Cepe and Puerto Cruz. Some of these are in totally different regions. How would this be precise ?----ZiaLater (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am just saying that if "Operation Gideon" decided to be the right way to name this event, a in between parentheses subtitle, no matter how long can be used to make it precise.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the Spanish the articles were differentiated with years, Operation Gideon (2018) and Operation Gideon (2020). Since El Junquito raid as not changed its title in English, the difference can be easily Distinguish template, like it was done before with the Palestine operation. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why make readers fumble through a cumbersome distinguish page when 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt is precise enough?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Macuto raid is even more precise. We have to make a difference between the plot and what actually happened. 2014 protests in Venezuela were also about overthrowing Maduro, but were are not calling that a coup just because some news mumble about it.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@ZiaLater: Could you please point out which is this article in question and how this pings will improve the discussion? The thread is already way long, which means they can just make it harder to close. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@ZiaLater: can I ask what similar discussion are you referring to? This could be interpreted as WP:CANVASSING, more specifically WP:VOTESTACK.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)--ReyHahn (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concerns, but it still appears that the consensus is divided. I pinged users from the 2019 Bolivian political crisis discussions that were not already involved with this discussion. They were not chosen in any particular way, just that they were included in past move discussions. Any accusations of canvassing or vote stacking are false.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions

  • Support: As nominator.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment: In a below section are more than 40 sources describing the event as an attempted coup. ----ZiaLater (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC) Edit: 50 sources describing the event as an attempted coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment. I'd just like to point out that the phrasing has been evolving in the press and I expect reporters to converge on a label for this event in the weeks to come. It may very well end up being something containing the word "coup," like the infamous Wonga Coup to which it has been analogized. A common phrase doesn't exist yet. It's true that all sides are openly acknowledging that there is a widespread movement within the country and among exiles to remove Maduro by any means necessary, including guerrilla-type military force (all options are on the table, and under the table, they keep repeating, quoting Guaido). This is because they challenge Maduro's legitimacy as head of state and allege he is a "narcodictator" closely associated with a criminal cabal of corrupt politicians, businessmen, and drug cartels who have employed atrocious means to keep Maduro in office and avoid fair presidential elections. The incident that is the subject of this article is a very small part of that larger effort to remove Maduro. You can call that effort a coup, and it is not inaccurate, depending on your angle. You can call it a popular revolution. Honestly it doesn't matter, because the incident that this article addresses is notable because of the fact that (1) there exists a signed contract with an American private military company to capture Maduro and perform military services in the country in the event of successful execution, with the payment acceptable in barrels of oil in the event of national bankruptcy; (2) there are two American former Green Berets now held captive by a regime much of the world considers illegitimate, rogue, and noncompliant with the Geneva Convention; (3) a third American former Green Beret is now under federal investigation for arms trafficking in connection with his venture capitalism mercenary business and big mouth regarding same; and (4) the backlash once the affair came to light caused two close Guaido allies to step down from their posts. Yes, there is an ongoing coup attempt. That's not what this article is about though. This is one of a series of events--more happened previously and more are guaranteed to happen subsequently. For example, the war paraphernalia claimed by Alcala is part of this series. Also part of this series is the subsequent finding of boats that the current pulled in from Colombia to Venezuela recently discovered with lots of weapons which Maduro has said Duque can have back if he will only formally request it. And Maduro will pivot from this event to arrest hundreds of people allegedly involved in the broader coup scheme. We would need 500 pages to describe this "coup attempt." But instead we should here just focus on the salient facts of this incident, this encounter, this attempted incursion into Venezuela with two under-equipped fiberglass boats. That's just my opinion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
        • @Orgullomoore: This is not the case. Yes there has been an ongoing effort to remove Maduro from power, but the event itself is described as the coup attempt. A coup is an event, not a movement. Regarding the coup vs. revolution debate, it does not matter what one party claims, it depends on what reliable sources state (see WP:COUP). Maduro has made countless coup claims, but this is the first event I have seen in years being described by dozens of reliable sources as a coup attempt. I did not personally think "Hey, this is a coup attempt" and try to change the title. I waited for the analysis by reliable sources in accordance with the core content policies of Wikipedia.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose That you have to support this move so much on foreign language sources instead English or Spanish makes this move look forced. None of the standard English agencies with offices in Venezuela are included or are using "coup" as attributed to what Maduro says. Also the use of some tabloids and partisan sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also you focus on CNN and FoxNews which both links you provided are not even proper articles. All this goes against WP:PRECISION and the recent WP:COUP, also it would probably not stand WP:NAMECHANGES.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are about ten different, reputable English-language sources in that list. One of those is Fox News, which I assure you is no friend of Maduro. Goodposts (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about siding with Maduro or not, this is about reliability and popularity of the name. None of those sources is even used in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are CNN, VOA and NPR not reliable or popular? Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN and NPR are generally considered reliable sources, as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Acalycine (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is not a proper article but a video and the title is "Maduro says...".--ReyHahn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree on 'not a proper article' but you are correct in identifying 'Maduro says'. This CNN link should be excluded as evidence for this discussion. Acalycine (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I purposefully used a broad range of reliable sources from a variety of countries to show that the use of "coup" is the widely used term and that this is not WP:OR. And this goes against the WP:COUP that I wrote? WP:COUP states: Use of the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. With over 20 internationally-sourced publications plainly describing this as a coup (not "alleged coup", or "X claimed a coup"), it is verified that this was in fact a coup attempt. Saying otherwise would be WP:OR in contrast to what reliablie sources state.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ZiaLater you are purposely avoiding comparison with the current title. Please expand on how the proposed title is better than the actual one based on international news agencies (with offices in Venezuela) AP, Reuters, AFP and EFE, and Venezuelan sources (see Talk:Macuto Bay raid#Title of the rarticle above).--ReyHahn (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of press is abysmal in Venezuela, so sources from there are rarely of quality over the past few years. One of the only quality sources from there, Efecto Cocuyo, describe the events as "intento de golpe de Estado" or "attempted coup". Then there is Globovisión, which has allegedly been in Maduro's pocket for the past few years, that shows "el contrato que firmó Guaidó para intentona golpista en Venezuela" or "the contract that Guaidó signed for a coup attempt in Venezuela". You can also look at the over 40 sources below as well (I purposefully chose international sources to show the widespread usage of the event's classification as a coup). If you are choosing to ignore the conclusions of reliable sources that use the coup wording deliberately, you are ignoring verifiability and promoting original research. I cannot help much more if you are going to ignore reliable sources that verify this information.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: A couple of days ago I'd probably have held off, but by now the majority of RS are explicitly using the term "coup",

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

  •  Comment. I'm undecided for now. I guess I need to conduct a more thorough survey of what reliable sources are calling it and the precise meaning of 'coup.' I have not read Zia's article on coups. My observation right now is that "coup" has several connotations that are not completely accurate here: (1) it exaggerates the size of this attempted incursion and (2) it takes a side on the legitimacy of the Maduro regime. First, what we are talking about is a rag-tag team of 60-or-so Guaido supporters accompanied by two American "advisors"/mercenaries riding in motorboats. Typically "coup" refers to something like what happened to Allende in Chile in 1973 or to Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 or in Syria in 1966, or in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, i.e., wide participation by the national military. In the case of Macuto Bay, one of the salient facts is that the national military did not join in the attempted revolution, as the invaders had hoped. Second, the governments of something like 60 nations, including the U.S., consider Maduro's hold on power to be illegitimate. Typically "coup" is not used to refer to the removal or attempted removal of such regimes, e.g., Libyan Civil War (2011).-Orgullomoore (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
60 nations do not recognize Maduro? So a minority of nations? 140 nations DO recognize Maduro? Who cares what the delusional international minority who think they get to choose who the president of Venezuala is, think.2601:140:8900:61D0:2197:A0DD:128E:D498 (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if anyone cares. Maybe the people who live in those nations, or some of them? Also, it's not so much the number of countries but which countries is illustrative here. It's a classic Cold War split.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
On your last point about Libya, is that fact owing to reliable sources not describing it as such? On your point about involvement of the military, I don't believe dictionary definitions specify that a coup must be performed by an existing military. Per Google, a coup is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." Per Merriam Webster, a coup is "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Are we disputing how long a piece of string is here? 60 qualifies as small to me. Thirdly, on your point about undue weight towards Maduro, I don't understand how this is relevant. Whether Maduro's power is legitimate/legal or not does not matter here - they hold authority in the country, legally or not. A coup overthrows a government. What other government was there to overthrow? Definitions aside, I think we should lean towards WP:COUP's reliance on reliable sources in order to describe this as a coup or not. Acalycine (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the Maduro stuff. I was deleting/withdrawing that part of my comment when I edit-conflicted with you. As for my view on what a coup is and whether this was a coup, let me get back to you.--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
...Although, the inclusion of "illegal seizure of power from a government" in one of the definitions does seem to bring the legitimacy of the current regime into play as a relevant issue to be discussed, if we are going to call this a coup, no?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I would say that it still lines up with the definition - the Maduro government is the one in power, they preside over the laws, and the laws still don't allow coup attempts no matter who is in charge. If I understand it correctly, Maduro's presidency is the subject of the legitimacy controversy, not the body which enacted the law by which these mercenaries would be charged with. Acalycine (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is littered with secondary sources as source material, needs correction post haste.Jameslightell (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because the proposed title is less accurate than the current one. I've made up my mind. Based on the reliable sources I've reviewed, the event is referred to variously as a "failed invasion," "naval/sea attack/incursion," "failed operation," etc., but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup. Yes, the goal was to topple the government. "Coup" does not describe what happened here. I believe "incursion attempt" is the most precise description. However, between "raid" and "coup," "raid" is better in my opinion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument here. What do you mean by but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup.? There are a substantial amount doing so, I'm assuming unironically... How many would be enough for you to support? Acalycine (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup. Wikipedia's article on Coup d'état actually contains a decent analysis of its usage. If you read it, you'll see that what happened here was more a putsch than a coup ("the politico-military actions of an unsuccessful minority reactionary coup"). But we can avoid all the semantics by simply picking a neutral description that does not imply a value judgment and does not exaggerate the severity of what happened, such as invasion or incursion (or raid, I guess). I'm not exactly sure why there is such a push here to call it a coup. It's not clear to me how that clarifies anything. What does it make better? Saying "this was obviously a coup attempt" and acknowledging that the pie-in-the-sky dream of these guys was to take over the country does not address my point. I'm not disputing their intent. All I'm saying is that when you title the page as a coup you make it sound like something bigger than a band of speedboat Rambo types who thought they could repeat D Day with less than a platoon. We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word "coup", even though the body of the article acknowledges this was the end goal of what became a botched sea incursion very similar (but much larger and better supported) than the one under discussion here. Can anyone tell me the benefit of retitling the page to include the word coup? It's not a number of headlines that would move me; a logical argument might.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
1: "the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup". Intention and execution are two different things. They attempted a coup and it was an amateur attempt. 2: "what happened here was more a putsch" Coup and putsch are synonymous. Go ahead and translate "putsch" from German to English. 3: "We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word 'coup'" This is because reliable sources at the time kept "Bay of Pigs Invasion" in their headlines/articles. Reliable sources today are describing this event as "Venezuela coup", "coup attempt", etc. That is why coup in the title is warranted. There's some logic.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Do you have any support I can review for the assertion that "reliable sources at the time kept 'Bay of Pigs Invasion' in their headlines/articles"? You don't think Castro was calling this a coup attempt? And the USSR? And Academics? Honestly this headline rule is very foreign to me and does not make sense to me.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: Just Google "Bay of Pigs" and you will see an example of the term's widespread usage. The reason I nominated this in the first place was because while reading stories about this event, the term "coup" was widespread in sources (which I thought was rare), warranting a title change. The Bay of Pigs Invasion was actually codenamed "Operation Zapata", but that is not used because of how popular the term "Bay of Pigs" was with reliable sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Seriously? What makes you think that googling a term in May 2020 is indicative of how "reliable sources" described an event that happened in 1961, before there was anything to google or google with? Just think about it. If you wish, I will refute the argument, but I think it refutes itself.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
You can easily find sources that reported it at that time, as many publications have since published digital archives of their previous work and you can also read modern syntheses of old sources that analyze the position that event was reported on with at the time. Goodposts (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @LaserLegs: While I agree (what?) that Guaidó's image as the mature diplomat and the not cool action of hiring some American hitmen don't add up (in that it's a more dubious version of having his own secret agency), there's no need to name call. Also, I don't know if I've asked, but if you're interested in WikiProject Venezuela, having experienced editors with a range of perspectives is really useful there. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please mind WP:FORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will look into this further. It's still dubious on how much US and Guaidó influence was ultimately involved. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kingsif: Whether the US, Colombia or Guaidó were involved or not, Silvercorp (or whoever was involved) attempted to overthrow Maduro by force and reliable sources have been describing the events as a "coup attempt".----ZiaLater (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The current title is descriptive enough. Using the word "coup" makes it seem like an inner-government/military struggle, not a group of sixty contract soldiers arriving via flotilla. Also, isn't there a debate as to what is the current "genuine" Venezuelan government? That may also make the proposed title problematic... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jamez42 and ReyHahn try to argue that other sources avoid the word coup. Many of the sources they provided use words synonymous with coup: "overthrow", "oust", "plot to capture","kidnap", "seize", or "topple" Maduro. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: Regarding your Google results count argument, you do realize that a search for coup+Venezuela+2020 without quotes also includes results for all sorts of pages that have nothing to do with this event, including 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt (last result on page 2 for me), right?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if we remove 1 of 20, or 5%, that leaves 11,000,000 results. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the fact that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google, Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion and all source not have the same weight. I would advise for precision and direction. The article as it currently stands it is about an incursion attempt that happened at the beginning of the month. There is no doubt that the plot objective was to overthrow the president but that is not enough to describe an article. There have been many other events like El Junquito raid, Machurucuto incident, 2018 Caracas drone attack which best described by details of the incident and not by "insert date here coup atttempt", because it would give a different dimension of the scale of the attack and results. In this case it is a botched operation that never had any possibility of succeeding and had no backup. Some have compared to Bay of Pigs Invasion which also it is not called "Cuba coup attempt". Also as I show in my table below, most reliable sources are not even using the term.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: So if we remove 1 of 20, or 5%, that leaves 11,000,000 results. I believe your "calculations" may be correct, give or take a few, or more than a few, million. Probably not the best approach.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Please take a closer look to WP:GOOGLETEST: Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity.
Also, we should just call a spade a spade. If the title "coup" was that common, there wouldn't be a need to look after other words, such as the ones cited as examples. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: You have removed the R pejorative template in the 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirect, despite that this move discussion not being closed yet. Plenty of other reliable sources do not refer to the events as a "coup" and have been provided here. As such, you should restore the template. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in the comment I just added, claims that the term "coup" is pejorative, and should be tagged as such, should be backed up with some sort of argument beyond the user's opinion. See WP:BURDEN. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think arguing about whether it's a coup or not is the wrong argument to be having. Just as a matter of titling policy, "Year Country coup d'etat attempt" is kind of a last resort title when there's no common name. There's plenty of entries in Category:Attempted coups and its subcategories that use other article titles that don't fit that formula. Additionally, sometimes the coup d'etat attempt and the actual operation are both notable enough to be separate (see: Operation Valkyrie and 20 July plot). I don't see a problem with the current name as the most recognizable one. SnowFire (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As per ZiaLater. Burrobert (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - First of all, a coup is a "serious" attempt to remove a government from power. These were only a bunch of deluded guys in a boat. They had no change to remove any government in any country in the world. Also, who's the government in Venezuela? Maduro has the "de facto" power, but he's not internationally recognized. Second, "controversial names" like "coup" must be used only if there is a heavy consensus in using it. I mean, just when all or, at least, the great majority of RS are using the name. Third, "Jamez42 statements" showed that the majority of the RS don't call it a coup.--SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 22:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As per nominator. BobNesh (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The shoe fits. As to those saying this wasn't a serious effort, it was instigated by the guy much of the west/global right-wing recognizes as President. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: per nom. Plus, we have Montenegrin coup plot listed here, which is much, much more dubious case. StjepanHR (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I don't know what more to write, which is not already written. The fact is, a small group of political dissidents tried to infiltrte the country with the help of US private MILITARY company. This kind of attempt to change the government is a textbook coup example. The page states: "The plan involved entering the country by boat in order to take control of Simón Bolívar International Airport, capture Maduro and other high-level figures in his government, and expel them from the country, with the overall aim of removing Maduro from office." I don't think there is anything more to add... StjepanHR (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: We need some more detailed responses from users. Responses such as "per X" are not very helpful and do not hold weight during these discussions and it would be nice to set a precedent for potential coup title discussions. If you already made a comment, just add onto it so we can have a more detailed response. This is why many of you were pinged in the first place.

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

Thank you. ----ZiaLater (talk) 03:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Obvious improvement in this regard over the current title — no one is calling this the "Macuto Bay raid" but Wikipedia (try a quick search, the results are all WP and people talking about WP, e.g. [15]), whereas many are referring to it as a coup attempt. Having participated in several similar discussions (Evo Morales's forced resignation, Guaidó's failed call for the military to oust Maduro, etc.), this is the most clear-cut by far. No one asserting that the word "coup" is not neutral has backed up such claims with anything but their own opinion. The fact that so many reliable sources use the term suggests that the opposite is true. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, that twitter feed from an AP reporter is interesting - he consistently reports on it as a 'raid', unnamed. As for this article, I'm still weighing up the sources and options. (I note that more sources are now using 'Maturazo', which may prevail and seems like something to look at further as an actual COMMONNAME.) Kingsif (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The name is clearly still evolving. More sources call it raid than coup, we added Macuto to reflect a more specific place as used in Venezuelan news. I worry that we will ultimately end with a solemn 2020 Venezuelan raid attempt or something like that.--ReyHahn (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I think this could fulfill the criteria of a coup, the current title probably gives a more accurate picture to the average reader. Describing it as a coup would give the impression that it was something like what happened in 2002. Maybe "invasion" would be better than "raid", because the aim was to topple the government. It wasn't a limited operation to cause havoc and steal goods, as the latter would imply. --Antondimak (talk) 07:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This requested move has more sources backing it up than most others I've seen on wikipedia. Now, I could also argue semantics and say that the act of attempting to violently overthrow a government with the aid of one of its own branches (in this case, the opposition-led national assembly [Guaido was undisputed as leader of the assembly at the time the contract for this was signed, and still claims the role]) constitutes a coup détat, and if you support Guiado's claim to the presidency, maybe even a self-coup. However, far more importantly than this, the laundry list of articles dubbing it a "coup" are what we ought to base our decisions on. Opponents of the idea point to the fact that there are some RS that instead use the word "raid", "attack" or similar. That's true, but Wikipedia policy isn't to only change something once every single possible RS starts using the word - merely when it becomes the commonly accepted name by most of RS covering the topic. If we had to wait until every single possible RS agreed on a given statement, we might as well blank Wikipedia, as nothing could ever pass the RS test by that point. Goodposts (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dear Zia I usually agree with you, however in this case, IMHO there was no coup because it was not materialized not even the first phase, for there to be a coup it is necessary that the power change to other group even for brief moments. We are not here to call things wrong simply because ever media calls it coup. It is distinguished from the concepts of revolt, mutiny, rebellion, putsch, revolution, or civil war. Usually these terms are used with inadequate academic rigor or with propagandistic intentions, and in the course of historical events and processes, they are often combined with each other. For a coup to take place, two basic elements are required: support from some significant sector of the population and armed forces. In this case there was neither --Wilfredor (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZiaLater Sources

  1. The Nation (Pakistan) — "Maduro, however, refused to leave his post, surviving a coup attempt"
  2. Bloomberg News #2 (US) — "Following a failed coup led by an American, some opposition lawmakers in Venezuela"
  3. Foreign Policy #2 (US) — What does a botched coup in Venezuela mean for Trump
  4. France 24 (France) — Silvercorp : des barbouzes derrière le coup d'État avorté au Venezuela (Silvercorp: barbouzes behind the failed coup in Venezuela)
  5. Sean McFate (Atlantic Council senior scholar) — "Coup attempts in Venezuela are not uncommon, but this one was unique"
  6. Diario de Yucatán (Mexico) — Polémico intento de golpe envuelve a líder opositor (Controversial coup attempt engulfs opposition leader)
  7. Navjivan (India) — कोरोना संकट में वेनेजुएला में तख्तापलट की कोशिशें तेज, क्या अमेरिका खेल रहा है कोई खेल (Corona crisis in Venezuela, coup efforts intensified, is America playing a game)
  8. HuffPost (US) — Never Do A Discount Coup
  9. PanAm Post (US) — J.J. Rendón y el diputado Sergio Vergara, firmaron un acuerdo para delegarle la organización de un golpe militar para sacar a Nicolás Maduro del poder ("JJ Rendón and deputy Sergio Vergara, signed an agreement to delegate to him the organization of a military coup to remove Nicolás Maduro from power")
  10. La Razón (Mexico) — Tras fallido golpe a Maduro, dimiten 2 asesores de Guaidó (After a failed coup against Maduro, 2 Guaidó advisers resign)
  11. Rádio e Televisão de Portugal (Portugal) — Golpe falhado na Venezuela. Mercenários norte-americanos não foram enviados por Trump (Coup failed in Venezuela. American mercenaries were not sent by Trump)
  12. The Intercept (US) — Venezuela coup failed, but toppling Maduro is still the US goal
  13. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (US) — "Before the coup attempt, the Associated Press (5/1/20) published a report describing these men as 'aspiring freedom fighters'"
  14. Il manifesto (Italy) — The clearance aisle mercenaries whose Caracas coup failed spectacularly
  15. Military Times (US) — "The botched coup attempt, first reported by the Associated Press"
  16. Columbia Journalism Review (US) — "after the planned coup was revealed, Jordan Goudreau, a former green beret"
  17. Polygraph.info (US) — Venezuelan State TV Implicates Donald Trump in Bizarre Coup Attempt ("Goudreau, who since the failed coup attempt has not commented on his firm’s involvement", "Guaido’s opposition movement has denied both signing an agreement with Silvercorp USA and participating in the failed coup")
  18. Navy Times (US) — "A botched coup attempt", "coup ringleader Jordan Goudreau "
  19. Associated Press #2 (US) — Goudreau has said he was unable to ever persuade the Trump administration to support his bold plan for a private coup
  20. Argus Media #2 (UK) — Guaido ousts advisers after botched coup attempt
  21. Fox News #3 (US) — # Venezuela says three more people have been arrested in failed coup attempt
  22. Al Jazeera (Qatar) — Was the US involved in a coup attempt in Venezuela? ("As an attempted coup, this failed and failed big. So what did it realistically achieve?")
  23. Vox (US) — The “ridiculous” failed coup attempt in Venezuela, explained
  24. Associated Press (US) — Trump denies ties to Venezuela coup attempt that leaves ex-special forces soldiers jailed
  25. Bloomberg News (US) — Two Americans Held in Venezuela Are Part of Failed Ragtag Coup
  26. The Times (UK) — Venezuela coup debacle: US mercenaries held by Maduro
  27. The Times #2 (UK) — The rise and fall of Venezuela’s ‘low-budget action movie’ coup
  28. The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) — Venezuela coup attempt: American 'mercenaries' detained says Maduro
  29. Australian Associated Press (Australia) — US mercenaries claims Trump government is behind failed Venezuela coup
  30. ABC News (US) — "2 Americans accused in failed Venezuela coup attempt"
  31. ABC (Spain) — Maduro acusa a la DEA de contratar a «narcos» en el golpe frustrado (Maduro accuses DEA of hiring "narcos" in thwarted coup)
  32. The Miami Herald (US) — "The failed coup has been a propaganda coup for Maduro"
  33. El Sol de Mexico (Mexico) — Juan José Rendón, de asesor de Peña Nieto a golpista en Venezuela (Juan José Rendón, from Peña Nieto's adviser to coup leader in Venezuela)
  34. Diario Co Latino (El Salvador) — El primer golpe fue organizado por Jordan Goudreau (The first coup was organized by Jordan Goudreau)
  35. Newsweek (US) — U.S. AND VENEZUELA TRADE ACCUSATIONS OVER FAILED COUP ATTEMPT, RAISING TENSIONS IN LATIN AMERICA
  36. The Australian (Australia) — Venezuela holds US mercenaries after botched coup
  37. The Week (UK) — Reaction: Donald Trump denies links to failed military coup in Venezuela
  38. National Review (US) — ""The U.S. government has denied involvement in a failed coup against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro""
  39. The National Interest (US) — Pompeo Denies U.S. Involvement In Botched Venezuela Coup
  40. The Globe and Mail (Canada) — A Canadian-American military man, a failed Venezuela coup and a Twitter video
  41. Sky News (UK) — Venezuela: Two US citizens held after failed coup attempt are named
  42. Argus Media (UK) — Rogue coup attempt thwarts US plan for Venezuela
  43. Gizmodo (US) — Bonehead Mercenaries Behind Failed Coup in Venezuela Plagiarized Website
  44. Voice of America (Government of the United States) — Un ex boina verde lideró un golpe fallido contra Maduro (A former green beret led a failed coup against Maduro)
  45. CNN (US) — "Venezuela's Maduro says two Americans captured in failed coup"
  46. Fox News (US) — "US denies any involvement in failed Venezuela coup attempt"
  47. Fox News #2 (US) — "Guaido has denied any involvement in the bungled coup"
  48. NHK (Japan) — ベネズエラ クーデター未遂事件で米元軍人ら17人拘束 (17 including former U.S. military personnel detained in Venezuela coup attempt)
  49. Dainik Bhaskar (India) — डेनमैन ने सरकारी टीवी चैनल में तख्तापलट की साजिश की बात स्वीकार की है। (The gunman has admitted to the conspiracy for the coup in the state TV channel)
  50. Sinar Harian (Malaysia) — Rampasan kuasa: Venezuela fail aduan ke badan antarabangsa (Coup: Venezuela files complaint to international body)
  51. Kompas (Indonesia) — Gagal Kudeta Venezuela, Tentara Bayaran AS Langsung Akui Perbuatan (Failed Venezuelan Coup, US Mercenaries Acknowledge Acts)
  52. Jawa Pos (Indonesia) — Terlibat Upaya Kudeta, Dua Tentara Bayaran AS Ditahan Venezuela (Involved in Coup attempt, Two US Mercenaries Detained by Venezuela)
  53. Kronen Zeitung (Austria) — Venezuelas Staatschef Nicolas Maduro ist vor wenigen Tagen offenbar knapp einer Entführung und einem gleichzeitigen Putsch (Venezuela's head of state Nicolas Maduro apparently narrowly avoided a kidnapping and a simultaneous coup)
  54. France Inter (France) — Venezuela : le coup raté pour renverser Maduro (Venezuela: the failed coup to overthrow Maduro)
  55. Het Parool (Netherlands) — Venezuela schermt met neerslaan coup (Venezuela fences with a quelled coup)
  56. de Volkskrant (Netherlands) — Verijdelde coup in Venezuela is cadeau voor Maduro (Foiled coup in Venezuela is a gift for Maduro)
  57. Aftonbladet (Sweden) — Trump avfärdar anklagelse om kuppförsök (Trump dismisses indictment on coup attempt)
  58. El Moudjahid (Algeria) — Après le coup d’état déjoué au Venezuela: Caracas procède à huit nouvelles arrestations (Caracas makes eight new arrests after foiled Venezuela coup)
  59. Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (Italy) — Golpe in Venezuela contro Maduro: "Altri quattro terroristi arrestati" (Venezuela coup against Maduro: "Four more terrorists arrested")
  60. Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy) — Un gruppo di militari oppositori del regime ha rivendicato il tentato golpe via Twitter (A group of military opponents of the regime have claimed responsibility for the attempted coup via Twitter)
  61. O Estado de S. Paulo (Brazil) — Americano preso na Venezuela confessa plano de golpe em vídeo (American arrested in Venezuela confesses coup plan in video)
  62. Brasil de Fato (Brazil) — Operação Gedeón, nova tentativa de golpe de Estado na Venezuela (Operation Gedeón, a new attempted coup in Venezuela)
  63. Al-Manar (Lebanon) — (Trump and his war minister deny the US relationship with the coup attempt in Venezuela) ترامب ووزير حربه ينفيان علاقة الولايات المتحدة بمحاولة الانقلاب في فنزويلا
  64. Foreign Policy (US) — "an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro"
  65. Radio Canada International (Canada) — Ex boina verde canadiense implicado en intento de golpe en Venezuela (Former Canadian green beret implicated in attempted coup in Venezuela)
  66. The Telegraph (UK) — Former US soldier involved in attempted Venezuela coup says 'Washington was aware' of plans
  67. NPR (US) — After Failed Coup Plot, Maduro Touts Video Of Detained American Conspirator
  68. The Daily Beast (US) — Trump Just Inspired the Dumbest Damned Coup Plot in LatAm History, Complete with a QAnon Crazy
  69. Vice News (US) — Mercenaries Behind Failed Venezuela Coup Claim to Have Done Trump Security
  70. The New York Post (US) — Brother of ex-Green Beret in failed Venezuela coup pleads for help from US

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

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

@ZiaLater: I added the collapse template in the first list only after the template was used in the second one right above. The reason why I did is becuase they were not in the Extended comments section. Centralizing all editors' sources in this section is a possible alternative. You know well that I'm an editor that has worked for years now and that I'm quite familiar with WP:IDL. There's no need to call my comments as a "rant", I just provided sources in the format that you did. I also see that you have used the term "whitewashing" for a second time now; please refrain from this language, it only makes the discussion harder to continue and creates an unnecessary hostile environment. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But don't we need to dig deeper than the headlines? There are also plenty of headlines that don't call it a coup or golpe. Are we really going to count and tabulate statistics based on headlines of stories covering the event? There has to be a better way. Here are 10 non-coup headlines. I was going to do 20, but got tired. You get the point. You can find whatever you're looking for.
Source Country Headline/link
(1) El Nacional / Rocío San Miguel (Control Ciudadano) VE Rocío San Miguel: No puedo calificar de invasión armada los hechos de Macuto
(2) El Universal VE Luis Parra exige investigación imparcial de los hechos registrados en Macuto y Chuao
(3) El Periodiquito Aragua / VE La DEA negó vínculos con la incursión en Macuto
(4) Europa Press ES Maduro acusa a Trump de un "intento de golpe de Estado" en Venezuela mediante una supuesta incursión naval
(5) Globovisión VE Cabello: Guaidó debe responsabilizarse por los hechos ocurridos en Macuto y Chuao
(6) El País ES Venezuela asegura que ha detenido a dos estadounidenses vinculados a una operación contra Maduro
(7) El Universal (mx) MX ¿Quiénes son los detenidos tras la "invasión" fallida por mar de Venezuela?
(8) AP US Venezuela: 2 US ‘mercenaries’ among those nabbed after raid
(9) AFP FR Trump denies US role in mysterious Venezuela sea invasion
(10) Reuters UK Venezuelan authorities detain U.S. citizens allegedly involved in incursion

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

@Orgullomoore: If a reliable source is going to describe it as a coup in their headline, they think it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Not necessarily. Check out, for example, one of the articles you cited above, from Foreign Policy. The sentence you quoted ("an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro") is part of a paragraph which begins with the bolded section heading: "A botched raid in Venezuela." Headlines have to be catchy. Wikipedia article titles should not be flashy and sensational.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
What Wikipedia policy states that headlines are not indicative of content in a source? A thing can be described in two ways, in that FP article: a coup attempt and a botched raid coup. Acalycine (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. Therefore, we need a better argument than 20 headlines from around the world contain the same word as the title you want to change the page to. The title was already changed once from whatever to raid. Now some people want to change it to "coup." But why? The only argument I've seen is that it comports with some dictionary definitions and that there are lots of headlines that contain the word (and lots that don't).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If a reliable source is going to describe anything as a coup, it is a coup. That is not for us to decide as that would be WP:OR. Yes, headlines need to draw some sort of attention, but they would not include the word "coup" without a considerable amount of consideration. Also, a raid could be part of a coup. An incursion as well. Naval attack? Yeah, that can be part of a coup too. But when something is explicitly described as a coup, it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: So I guess our disagreement comes down to this: Your position is that if some headlines from reliable sources contain the word "coup," the name of the incident locks in on "coup," even if other reliable sources or other headlines by the same reliable sources use another word. I, on the other hand, would support taking into consideration that certain sources are calling it a coup in certain contexts, but I do not think that is determinative. I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. You admit as much yourself in your essay, though you seem to make an exception if enough headlines can be found with the word "coup." Again, I think this is a flawed argument. Even if headlines were determinative, you are giving more weight to sentences that contain the word "coup" because that's what you're pushing for. If truly the amount of headlines that contain this or that word is determinative, we should take a representative sample and do a sound statistical analysis. But I think that's a waste of time, personally. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles rather than brute statistics, though statistics are important and informative.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

@ReyHahn: I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. It is the decision of the reliable source, not our decision. If we were to decide, it would be WP:OR. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles Logic points us towards reliable sources, which describe this event as a coup. Common sense shows that this is a textbook example of a coup attempt. As for consensus, WP:Verify and WP:NOR override consensus per WP:COPO, that states that core policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". These reliable sources have verified that this was a coup attempt by describing it as such, and describing it otherwise would be original research.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Sure ZiaLater, but look on how all this was started on cherrypicked news. All you can say about your sources and the guidelines, I can make a similar or stronger ground for the current title based on important news agencies and Venezuelan news. Even VTV fails to call it a golpe consistently from time to time [16][17]. Why should we call it a coup, what is so wrong about the current title?. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@ZiaLater: you keep throwing sources in [18] just to prove your point, but nobody is doubting that a coup was planned, the problem is about on wether to call this article a coup when the current title is descriptive enough, it was an intercepted incursion in Macuto (this you will find in all your sources too) as you will find that there was no chances of it going through or even attending any credible objective. If in October a Canadian enters the Amazonas and shoots the national guard crying that he is trying to overthrow Maduro will we call that a "October 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt"? Additionally, do you think that if we point out the problems of specific sources (as some have done before) would you at least strike or eliminate them?--ReyHahn (talk) 09:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for whitewashing as you seem to be talented at finding an issue with everything. Stop throwing up hypotheticals to minimize what reliable sources are reporting. If another coup attempt were to happen as described by reliable sources, you can look at the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts where multiple attempts happened.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comments

Supporters

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

Simple. The description of the events as a coup attempt has been supported by dozens of reliable sources. As these sources are reliable and credible, they provide WP:Verifiability because of their quality and are WP:NPOV because of their standards (they are not going to publish libelous material and ruin their credibility). So, the widespread use by such sources shows that the use of "coup" in the title can be verified and is NPOV, essentially meeting what is neccesarry in Wikipedia:Coup#Article_titles.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: the current title also complies with all of those guidelines. So why change?--ReyHahn (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because this wasn't only in Macuto Bay. Have you read anything I have put above? The current title is inaccurate because the group is saying they had groups "throughout Venezuela", that this attempt is still ongoing and because the Maduro government replied as such, deploying troops nationwide. So saying that the coup attempt happened at Macuto Bay is like saying World War II happened at Normandy.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary to ask "Have you read anything I have put above?". I have included more than 40 sources below not calling the events a "coup", around three quarters of which are already cited in the article as references, failing to meet Wikipedia:Coup#Article_titles. A coup is also defined for being sudden; if we are to talk about or include the groups in the rest of the country, other definitions would apply, such as civil war or insurrection (see the Spanish Civil War), which are the natural consequences of the failure of a coup attempt. If we need to talk about the other locations, namely Chuao, a more generic title would be the solution (eg "2020 Venezuelan raids"). This would not be solved by changing the title to "coup". --Jamez42 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have included more than 40 sources below not calling the events a "coup" And I have provided 45 sources describing it as a coup, with many generally reliable sources (per WP:RSP) included. This shows widespread usage by reliable sources. If I have more, do I win? Are we supposed to comb through each individual article from each source to see how the majority describe the event? That seems unrealistic. But when we have dozens of generally reliable sources describing this as a coup, it obviously meets WP:Coup#Article_titles. A coup is also defined for being sudden This is not how a coup is defined. If we need to talk about the other locations, namely Chuao, a more generic title would be the solution (eg "2020 Venezuelan raids") Oh, so the raids in Petare? The raids against Maduro's political opponents? How does this meet WP:PRECISION? A few of you should read WP:PRECISION that states "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that". So let's look at the title that invloves a location and an action. For the location, defining a specific town or bay is too specific as this was a fairly broad event. Venezuela seems like a suitable inclusion since this was an event that happened on a national scale. For the action, "raids" (as seen above), "attack", "assassination/arrest/kidnapping attempt" and similar descriptions are all too broad and inaccurate. However, a "coup attempt" is precisely what happened. So since many, many coups and coup attempts have happened in Venezuela, we have a precedent that requires a title including a time. So the title should be time, location, action, in this case, 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:09, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should you win? That's the question that I ask. Widespread means around between 75% and 80%, more or less, or two thirds if you are conservative; as the creator WP:COUP, you should imagine this. What I'm proving is that the use of coup is not widespread. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZiaLater: You keep mentioning that the Opposition claims there are still men embedded, etc. I believe you are referring to (1) the tweeted video put out by Goudreau with Nieto in which he says they have mobilized in the east, south, and west; or (2) the CNN/Rincon interview with JJ Rendón in which Rendón confirms the general attitude of the Guaidó folks that they are considering any and all options ("over and under the table") to remove Maduro. Either way, that is a subject that is much broader than the incident at issue in this article, which is the incredible fact that a few Army vets joined up with Venezuelan military defectors, mounted ordinary motorboats with handguns and old rifles while wearing their bathing suits, and attempted to "capture" a heavily guarded de facto head of state whose capture has been attempted in many more sophisticated plots by much more sophisticated players. Accordingly, I don't think the geographical breadth your suggesting is on point here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • I explained here. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Detractors

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

Too flashy and sensational and implies a judgment that to attempt to remove Maduro's government is illegal, even though many countries actively advocate for his removal (and the US has put out a bounty for him).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Attempting to forcefully depose the current government (disputed though it may be) by assassinating its leader is illegal everywhere, from Norway to North Korea. Goodposts (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But deposing a dictator through popular revolt is not illegal, if successful. It's been said by many that a thing can be lawful while illegal (e.g., Holocaust, US invasion of Iraq), and likewise a thing can be unlawful while legal. See Right of revolution. That's why we call it the American Revolution and not the American Coup of 1776, among many other examples. The victors write history and their history reflects their value judgments. But we are Wikipedia, supposedly describing things and not advocating them.---Orgullomoore (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Actually it is, the act of violently overthrowing a government is usually the worst crime a person can attempt to do. Go look at some criminal codes from around the world, you'll usually see crimes such a treason carrying the heaviest punishment those nation's penal codes provide for. Now - and here's the important bit, something being illegal merely reffers to its legal standing, not wether or not it is morally justified. There are plenty of legal state-sanctioned killings, that are nevertheless horrific, just as there are crimes that are morally justified - and a revolution against a tyrannical regime would certainly be one of them. The term "coup" is usually used to reffer to an overthrow of the state by a well-organized group acting from within the state apparatus itself - in this case, it would be due to the involvement of Guaido himself. The term "revolution" is usually reserved for popular uprisings that are ultimately successful. Both are almost always illegal, but that doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement as to wether or not they were justified. If you were to go back in time and kill Hitler - you'd still be commiting a crime, and you'd be liable for it under the laws in place in Germany at the time. At the same time, you'd be extremely justified in doing so, as that person was personally responsible for the fully intentional and pointless killing of millions of people. You are also correct that regimes will play with words like "coup" and "revolution", using them to suit their own needs, but what I'd reckon is we ought to stick to well-established political science. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodposts: If you say so, but I did link you to an internal article that directly rebuts your assertion. In fact, the Constitution of Venezuela demands that the populace reject unjust authority. ("Article 350: The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.")--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: Sure, but constitutions aren't up for individual interpreration. They are interpreted by various organs, usually some form of constitutional court. In Venezuela, this would be the TSJ, and I have a very hard time believing the TSJ would rule this to be lawful. Goodposts (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, yes they are. That's the whole point of a Constitution. It's a pact between the People and the State (comprised of representatives of the People who act for the People and whom the People have the absolute right to remove). See the Declaration of Independence. See the Constitution of Venezuela. See the Constitution of Texas. If the Constitution can only be interpreted by state organs, then there could never be a Constitution in the first place. Democracy means power from the People. It is totally up to interpretation by the People. And when the State rises up against the People and acts against their interest, Revolt is no longer criminal. I do not believe we are allowed, here, to have an in-depth debate about whether Maduro is a representative of the People of Venezuela. But as a general principle of accepted political science, which you reckoned we should stick to, power over the State organs comes from the People, not vice versa.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I admire your idealism, but do have to note that this simply isn't and cannot be the case. Popular soverignty, or the concept that power emanates from the people - is purely philosophical in nature. You'll find this written in the constitutions of all manner of authoritarian and even totalitarian states troughout history. It's actually linked more to nationalism than to democracy - it is a reaction to the old theory that soverignty emanated from soverigns - kings, emperors, princes and the like. Back in the day nations were but realms to be ruled in perpituity by monarchs and their vassals. With the introduction of the concept of the nation state - i.e. a union of people with some kind of shared characteristic - popular soverignty denoted more the national character of the state, as opposed to a practical rule of the people. This soverignty is expressed by some kind of representative - in modern times usually elected, though it could also be a hereditary position (see Popular monarchy). There's nothing to guarantee that that representative is legitimately elected, that he or she actually represents the "will of the people" (and how do you even quantify that?), or that the nation is "democratic" in any way, shape or form; it's purely a philosophic idea. In any case, I recommend you read up on "soverign citizens" if you wish to see people attempting to apply this philosophy in action. Lastly, consider this - if each person was allowed, in their own way, to interpret what a "tyrannical regime is" and decide when the time has come to oppose it trough armed rebellion - couldn't a hardline libertarian be excused in plotting the assassination of a leftist leader? Couldn't an anarchist be excused in attempting to kill any leader whatsoever? Couldn't a socialist be excused for plotting to overthrow a conservative, whoose plan to privatize healthcare he views as a direct attack on human rights? In fact - who determines what human rights even are and who they apply to? This is why interpretive organs are absolutely necessary. Goodposts (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodposts: That's why I said "if succesful." Little gang movements don't gain popular support and are crimes; they lack popular legitimacy. People who think they can draw checks on their social security number and are exempt from taxes and traffic tickets (sovereign citizens) are very different than, say, Thomas Paine. You tell me, what is the difference? Or will you contend there is none at all?--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Goodposts:...oh, and to answer your question, how do you quantify the will of the people: fair, transparent, and open elections. You will say, yes, but who decides they are fair or unfair? Well, there are times when everyone agrees they are not, except those who directly benefit from claiming they are. That's how you know. When informed people who disagree on everything else agree on it. This is one of those times.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: So how many people do I need the support of before I stop being a criminal? 10? 100? 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? There are times when most everyone agrees the elections were fair, but oftentimes that simply isn'the case. Again - how many people need to consider the elections fair? Who determines which candidates or parties are allowed to run? Should anti-democratic parties be allowed to run? Should the majority be allowed to violate the rights of the minority? Those are all questions that need interpretation. Those interpretations are done not by you and me, but by courts. In Venezuela's case - the TSJ. So, to bring this around - do you think the TSJ would rule this to be a rightful following of the constitution? Goodposts (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed title makes it look bigger than it seems to be. Sure there was a plot to generate a coup, but it was intercepted and was done in such small level that it barely had any possibility of success. Most sources talk about the coup as the intended plan but for record keeping the only thing that happened was a small raid that made the news. Similar to Machurucuto incident.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: If someone was planning a murder, went to a gun store, bought a Bushmaster XM-15, went up to the potential victim firing while misssing all their shots, then accidentally shot themself in the foot which led to police finding the suspect from their own trail of blood, that plot would be just about as successful as this one. They would still be charged with attempted murder, though.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference being that attempt is a defined crime with specific elements (see Attempt) whereas coup is a word to describe the overthrow of the existing regime by military force. And let us not fall back into the "but this IS an attempted coup" whirlpool. Yes, the rebels were attempting to overthrow the Maduro government. Nobody disagrees. The question is whether the title of the Wikipedia article describing this incident should label the event as a coup, which, as I've observed previously, is inherently an editorial decision, especially given how recent this incident is.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
So, by that logic, no wikipedia article should ever have "coup" in its name. Attempted coups exist and we have plenty of articles on them, if you'd like a read. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is something you want me to read and comment on, give me a link. I'm not going on goose chases. You gave a similar remark to my question about the prevalent contemporary terminology used by news sources to refer to the Bay of Pigs Invasion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Jamez42 statements

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

Jamez42 Sources

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

  1. Washington Post (US) — Trump denies ties to Venezuelan attack with 2 US men jailed
  2. From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue
  3. Venezuelan government says it stopped ‘invasion’ launched from Colombia
  4. Venezuela says it foiled attack by boat on main port city
  5. Venezuela raid: How an ex-Green Beret and a defecting general planned to capture Maduro
  6. Associated Press (US) — Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela’s Maduro
  7. Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid
  8. Venezuela: 2 US ‘mercenaries’ among those nabbed after raid
  9. Ex-Green Beret claims he led foiled raid into Venezuela
  10. The New York Times (US) — Ex-Green Beret Led Failed Attempt to Oust Venezuela's Maduro
  11. An Incursion Into Venezuela, Straight Out of Hollywood
  12. BBC (UK) — Venezuela detains two US citizens over speedboat incursion
  13. Venezuela accuses Colombia of attempting 'terrorist' sea invasion
  14. "Operación Gedeón" en Venezuela: una supuesta confesión televisada y otros detalles de la "fallida incursión armada" por la que se detuvo a dos estadounidenses ("Operation Gideon" in Venezuela: A supposed televised confession and other details regarding the "failed armed incursion" in Venezuela, over which two Americans were detained)
  15. StarTribune — Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid"
  16. Financial Times — Mystery surrounds foiled 'plot' to liberate Venezuela"
  17. Misión Verdad — Macuto: un nuevo capítulo frustrado de la vía armada contra Venezuela" (Macuto: a new frustrated chapter of the armed way against Venezuela)
  18. Bellingcat — The Invasion of Venezuela, Brought To You By Silvercorp USA
  19. The Venezuela/Silvercorp USA Saga Keeps Getting Weirder
  20. Efecto Cocuyo — "Lo sabíamos todo", dice Maduro sobre incursión en Macuto". ("We knew everything", says Maduro about the Macuto incursion).
  21. Padrino López anuncia captura de tres "mercenarios" en la carretera El Junquito-Carayaca (Padrino López announced the capture of three "mercenaries" in the El Junquito-Carayaca road)
  22. El día “D” y la hora “H” no ha llegado, Javier Nieto Quintero sobre “Operación Gedeón” (Day D and Hour H has not come, Javier Nieto Quintero about “Operación Gideon“)
  23. La estrategia insurreccional no funciona hoy en Venezuela, advierte Ricardo Sucre (The insurrection strategy does not work nowadays in Venezuela, Ricardo Sucre warns)
  24. Agentes rusos rastrean a implicados en “Operación Gedeón” en Carayaca (Russian agents track down those implicated in "Operation Gideon" in Carayaca)
  25. Caracas Chronicles — The Macutazo: Timeline of an Absurd Military Adventure
  26. Washington Examiner — Jordan Goudreau must answer for Venezuela debacle
  27. The Guardian — Donald Trump denies link to Venezuela armed raid by US citizens
  28. 'His head wasn't in the world of reality': how the plot to invade Venezuela fell apart
  29. Sky News — Venezuela attack: Former US special forces soldier says he led botched plot to overthrow President Maduro
  30. CNN Venezuela claims to have captured two Americans involved in failed invasion
  31. CNN in Spanish J.J. Rendón habla sobre la Operación Gedeón en Conclusiones de CNN en Español (J.J. Rendón talks about Operation Gideon)
  32. Guaidó rechazó supuesto contrato con mercenarios que el gobierno de Maduro presenta como prueba de la incursión marítima
  33. Gobierno de Maduro sabía de la incursión a Venezuela al menos un mes antes de que ocurriera (Maduro government knew of incursion into Venezuela at least a month before it occurred)
  34. The Canberra Times (Australia) — Ex-US soldier 'behind' Venezuela attack
  35. Reuters Detained American claims he plotted Maduro's capture in Venezuela TV statement
  36. Trump denies U.S. role in what Venezuela says was 'mercenary' incursion
  37. Venezuelan authorities detain U.S. citizens allegedly involved in incursion
  38. U.S. will use 'every tool' to secure release if any Americans held in Venezuela: Pompeo
  39. Russian troops to help Venezuela search for members of failed incursion: report
  40. Venezuelan opposition advisers resign after failed operation to oust Maduro
  41. Los Angeles Times — Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro airs video of American detained in alleged plot
  42. Maduro buoyed, Guaidó reeling after failed amphibious raid in Venezuela
  43. France24 — Venezuela arrests two US ‘mercenaries’ after alleged raid to capture Maduro
  44. Runrunes — Provea exige garantías a la integridad de detenidos en Macuto y Chuao (Provea demands garantees to the Macuto and Chuao wellbeing)
  45. Jordan Goudreau dejó todas las opciones sobre un peñero (Jordan Goudreau left all options on a fishing boat)
  46. Noticiero Digital — Provea responde a Maduro: Nadie nos va a desviar del camino (Provea responds to Maduro: Nobody will divert us from our path)
  47. EFE — Cuba expresa "enérgica condena" a una fallida incursión marítima en Venezuela (Cuba express a "enegetic condemnation" to a failed maritime incursion in Venezuela)
  48. CGTN — US denial over Venezuela alleged plot 'unconvincing': Moscow
  49. SBS News — Russia weighs in on Donald Trump's 'unconvincing' denial of alleged Venezuelan plot
  50. Anadolu Agency (Turkey) — Venezuela asks extradition of US citizen in failed raid
  51. Washington Office on Latin America — Stated U.S. Support for Negotiated Transition Should Guide the Trump Administration’s Venezuela Policy
  52. Council on Hemispheric Affairs — Guaidó and the Failed Military Operation against Venezuela: A Story of Betrayal and Financial Corruption
  53. El Tiempo — Guaidó se desvincula de presunta incursión militar contra Maduro (Guaidó disassociates himself from alleged military incursion against Maduro)
  54. Infobae — El gobierno interino de Venezuela denunció que la dictadura de Nicolás Maduro intenta utilizar la Operación Gedeón para secuestrar a Juan Guaidó (Interim government charged that Nicolas Maduro dictatorship is attempting to use Operation Gideon to abduct Juan Guaidó)
  55. Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela — Gobierno encargado de Venezuela alerta que régimen usa documento falso para intentar secuestrar al Presidente (e) Guaidó y desmiente firma de supuesto documento (Acting government of Venezuela warns that the regime is using a false document to try to abduct President (pro tempore) Guaidó and denies alleged document)
  56. Tal Cual — Esto es lo que dice el contrato firmado por estrategas de Guaidó y Silvercorp (This is what the contract signed by Guaidó strategists and Silvercorp says)
  57. Bloomberg — Guaido Aides Resign Posts After Botched Invasion of Venezuela
  58. Página/12 — La Operación Gedeón dejó en crisis al líder opositor y a quienes lo rodean. Acorralado, renunció J.J. Rendón, asesor de Juan Guaidó (Operation Gideon left in crisis the opposition leader and his aides)
  59. ABC — Guaidó acusa a Diosdado Cabello de financiar la «Operación Gedeón»
  60. Venezuela's Ministry of Communication — Ocho paramilitares fallecidos en incursión frustrada por La Guaira desde Colombia (Eight paramilitaries dead in frustrated incursion by La Guaira from Colombia)
  61. Wall Street Journal — ‘Freedom Fighters’ Led by American Tried Invading Venezuela
  62. Semana — Operación suicida en Venezuela (Suicide operation in Venezuela)
  63. El Nacional — Confirman la muerte del capitán Robert Colina, alias Pantera, durante enfrentamiento en Macuto (Death of Robert Colina, known as Pantera, during clash in Macuto confirmed)
  64. El Pitazo — Hija del general Baduel denuncia que desconocen el paradero de su hermano (Daughter of general Baduel denounces that the whereabouts of her brother are unknown)
  65. Texas Monthly — Two Texans Are Accused of Trying to Invade Venezuela. Their Family Members Want Answers.
  66. El Espectador — El peligro del “todo se vale” en Venezuela (The danger of "everything goes" in Venezuela)
  67. La Jornada — Claro aval de EU en la invasión a Venezuela (Clear support of the US in Venezuela's invasion)
  68. El Universal — Arreaza: Silencio de gobiernos ante agresiones contra Venezuela es complicidad (Arreaza: The silence of governments in the face of attacks against Venezuela is complicity)
  69. Últimas Noticias — AN investigará vínculo de Guaidó en el plan para asesinar a Maduro (NA will investigate Guaidó's link with plan to assassinate Maduro)
  70. Agence France-Presse — Venezuela says it foiled an incursion by 'mercenaries'

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

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

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

  • El Estímulo
  • Agencia Carabobeña de Noticias

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

Conclusions

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

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

Replies to Jamez42

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

References in article

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

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

Definition as coup

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ZiaLater: I fail to understand your point by point response. "Widespread use" of coup is not that obvious per Jamez42 argument. I don't understand how any of the guidelines you cite goes against Jamez sources. Also by saying "Macuto raid" cannot be find under a google search is dumb, if I search "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" I won't get the exact title either. Additionally, not every action to "overthrow a president" is called a coup, if not news would get ambiguous very fast.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Follow ups: I have to thank you too for responding and showing your disagreements, Zia. If I may, I have to respond to several points:
Sources: By my estimates, only 10 sources in the article have "coup" as a headline, a mere 20%:[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] (an additional source was added since my last contribution). Even taking into account the refs provided here, you would still have around 50% of sources, which is not widespread. This number is even lower among Spanish and local sources. Widespread usually means between 75% and 80%, or two thirds being conservative. The problem is precisely that reliable sources do not agree in calling the raid a coup.
Furthermore, several of the sources cited as examples of headlines referring to coup have since corrected their articles, including The Sydney Morning Herald,[29], ABC News,[30] The Miami Herald,[31] Fox News[32] and Brasil de Fato.[33], at least five sources. So, five sources less that use the term and more that use other terms. This is also the case of the BBC, whose news article is cited.[34] Other cited outlets, including Associated Press and CNN, have other articles where they refrain from using the term. Describing several reliable sources as sources from Guaidó-aligned countries suggests that there's editorial dependence or interference, just like state-owned outlets, which is not the case. Additionally, many of the references refer to the events as a "plot", which arguably could be a better title.
Sure, it's worth analyzing the use in the content of the articles per se, it's the reason one I proposed the possibility to use a table for comparions, but we would have to distinguish quotes and I stress that the result would probably be the same: There is not an agreement to call the events a "coup".
Last but not least, I dearly hope that with hardline opposition media you don't mean outlets such as Efecto Cocuyo, El Pitazo, Tal Cual Digital or El Estímulo. These references have been used for years in Venezuela related articles, and this seems to be the first time that their neutrality is put into question; a detailed analysis would need to be done before.
Definition: My example regarding previous uprisings in Venezuela is to provide historic examples of how the term is avoided, not semantic. I'm not proposing the title to be renamed the "Macutazo", and I also provided the Machurucuto incursion as a case study, which is virtually the same plan, arguably better planned, more than fifty years ago. Here are several sources describing the Machurucuto invasion as a foreign-backed attempt violently overthrow the government:[35][36][37][38] The Bay of Pigs Invasion, which has also been used to draw comparisons, is known as an invasion and not as a coup.
The last coups in Venezuela are clearly defined and have historic importance: 1958, the 1992 attempts and the 2002 attempt. This raid is far from receiving that recognition.
Others: The usage of the term is not widespread, so guidelines such as WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVTITLE are not met. Why wait and try to hide this? WP:TOOSOON.
"Coup" should not be used. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

ReyHahn's list of generally reliable sources

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

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

We should also weight in many other things like: the term "coup" favors Maduro WP:POV, the fact that Venezuelan sources are not calling it coup (even VTV does not do that consistently [39]), nations supporting Maduro are not even calling it a coup [40][41][42] as with other events in 2019, and we have other incidents like this (Machurucuto incident, El Junquito raid) that did not get "coup" in title. Thus the proposed title should be avoided.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ReyHahn: Excellent work on the table and rationale! Thank you very much for volunteering to verify and update sources.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: The thing is that several generally reliable sources have described the events as a coup (as seen above, with a total of over 50 international sources in total). Agencia Venezolana de Noticias and other Maduro government sources have consistently described the events as a coup, though I have avoided inclusion since the Maduro government and its allies as they are invovled in the conflict.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being completely unreliable. In my personal opinion, the only time we should cite the regime is to show what the regime did or said. But we should never cite the regime as support for an assertion of fact. Indeed, if the regime asserts a fact it's safer to assume it's false than vice versa.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, those 50 sources do not have all the same weight, some of them are in languages that probably most of us cannot not read and the reliability of many of those sources is unknown (or not generally reliable). Some are even videos and opinion articles. VTV is a partisan source for Maduro. Most reliable sources are not calling it coup.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, we are determining the widespread usage of the term here, so the popularity is somewhat important. Some of them may not have the same weight (many sources do not have the same weight), but I only included sources that have an article on English Wikipedia because they are notable if they are included in the project. The source language does not matter as well, especially since we are explaining the widespread usage of the term "coup" here.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Coup" is the WP:COMMONNAME, as I explained here. The more limited collection of sources listed above by Jamez42 and ReyHahn often use terms synonymous with coup. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Tornheim: you just decided to repeat your argument in every section of the discussion and redirect it to your comment [43][44]? Please do not do that, I would ask you to remove your redirects unless you are actually addressing the comments in the section. With respect to my table, I have written a clear guideline on how the sources in my table are being added, contrary to other lists if you find a problem in mine I would be glad to fix it.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removed section

information Note: The following is a continuation of a prior discussion in a different section on this page. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this section as it violates NPOV and the whole first parapgraph is a ungrammatical run-on sentence I cna't even decipher. Some of the material might find a place in the aftermnath section. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Several changes could be applied before if it wishes to be included again. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Placed back "Analysis" section. Please see Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Later_analysis for precedent. If necessary, let us discuss what should be included in the section and what should be excluded.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with Bay of Pigs is not that obvious, most sources there are written years later after the incident. At least 20 years (and much more), when everything is much clear. Per Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid#On_the_analysis_section you have to admit that there are less users trying to put this section in place, removing your undo. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three compared to two is consensus? I improved the wording and the sources. Give an idea on how to improve the section.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four to two** I proposed to include the text in the article and eliminate the section, would you agree to that? I did not receive a response.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: I saw that they agreed with keeping the section, but wanted improvements, which I have attempted. Including it in the article body would not be a bad idea, but where? The section seems like the suitable location, but I would like to hear your proposal.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Orgullomoore comment makes me think that whatever is there should also be relocated. We can add each comment in relation to whatever the opinion is about. My concern once again is that by creating an "analysis" section we are creating an opinion dump, each opinion article written from now on can be added there pushing whatever political bias one desires. If these opinion pieces are somewhat important, they can be added to the text in a relevant way and if they end not being relevant they would be erased.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn:, @ZiaLater:. Yes, my position is that it's OK to include the analysis of relevant commentators where it fits within the text. I was being sarcastic about retitling the heading to "the opinions of a couple talking heads" (or whatever I said).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

 Comment: @Zellfire999: @Jogarz1921: @Loesorion: @BlindNight: @Prinsgezinde: @SirEdimon: @Iamextremelygayokay: @Davey2116: @Charles Essie: @Cmonghost: @Alcibiades979: @Derim Hunt: @Elelch: @Jip Orlando: @StjepanHR: @Resnjari: @JoshuaChen: @Miserlou: @BobNesh: @Bleff: @Surachit: @Sceptre: @Antondimak: @Fjsalguero: @Bigwigge: @Goodposts: @Ortizesp: @Cyrfaw: @Thanoscar21: @LaserLegs: @Kingsif: Any opinions on this section being included? Really trying to broaden the discussion on this topic since it is so controversial. Sorry if you are bothered by the pings! Also, could you clarify what you prefer @Orgullomoore:? Also also, @ReyHahn: please see WP:NOTAVOTE. An analysis section is included in a multitude of Wikipedia articles and this one utilizes scholars specialized with Latin America or Venezuela. Definite keep.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no unbiased reporting. I believe that instead of pushing some views into a separate section, significant ones should be incorporated into the body of the article with proper citation. If no way is found to do this without messing with the flow of the article, then I think the section should be kept instead of deleting the information entirely. --Antondimak (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Antondimak: It is difficult to place analysis within the body as it can portray certain events within an article differently. Instead, an article surrounding an event like this should present the event as accurately as possible in an organized manner (usually as it happened in a chronlogical order). The analysis properly attributed to reliable sources can come afterwards, which can be interpreted by the reader.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two out of three is not WP:CONSENSUS, as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - articles are to be written primarily on the basis of agreement with all (or at the very minumum - all but the fringe) editors involved and be motivated trough thorough discussion, not via a simple majority vote. I don't see anything wrong with having an "analysis" section, for as long as the views represented in that section are published by RS and don't lend undue weight to specific opinions or wordviews. Goodposts (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, either merge or scrap, @ZiaLater: thanks for the pings I welcome more conversation on this subject. I think that a section like that should either be merged or scrapped. It is a dumpster for all kind of opinions and politically oriented commentary, possibly from different POV, but a section like that can be used to push any political bias if the sources are not counterbalanced correctly. If merged, the text would stand as additional commentary when needed. "Analysis" sections are better for more objective and technical issues like particular economic/health measures or infrastructure issues like the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. For an unprecedented raid, with an investigation on-going, most of these commentaries are just political guesswork.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: You can easily include reliable sources that are relevent to the topic at hand. I understand that the section has the potential to become a dumpster fire, but a whole article can become a dumpster fire without reliable sources. The quality sources that are now included in the "Analysis" section are much better than the initial section.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position is exactly the same as that eloquently stated by Antondimak two messages up: merge with body if possible; deal with it for now if not. Frankly I skip past that section anytime it shows up in a Wikipedia article I'm reading anyway. It's really not relevant whose analysis we like the best, and by picking and choosing whose to include, and in what order, we necessarily express a point of view. On a side note, I don't find it helpful to call in for backup since it brings trolls. Just look at the long and unproductive "discussion" we had about the right of rebellion on this page, myself and others I'll refrain from naming. From my perspective, my debate opponent was in it for the kicks, and made no contribution to the article itself. That being said, it seems like the best way to resolve this dispute is for someone to go in there and try to match up what we have in the body of the article with what's currently present in the"Analysis" section. I personally would not like to sign up for that task. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Goodposts (talk) Thanoscar21 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the analysis has been attributed appropriately. I am not clear on what arguments are being made against the section. Merging the various views with the rest of the article is fine too if it can be done. In the meantime, the section should remain. Burrobert (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed that these opposition representatives signed a contract with one firm, SilverCorp USA, which recently carried out a botched incursion", that "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option, the Trump administration bears partial responsibility for these reckless actions by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition" and that "the U.S. government has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government".[1]

Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results", that the Guaidó's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies and that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis.[2]

An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals.[3] Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó.[3]

  1. ^ "Stated U.S. Support for Negotiated Transition Should Guide the Trump Administration's Venezuela Policy". Washington Office on Latin America. 2020-05-07. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ "La estrategia insurreccional no funciona hoy en Venezuela, advierte Ricardo Sucre". Efecto Cocuyo. 2020-05-07. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ a b Zamorano, Patricio (5 May 2020). "Guaidó and the Failed Military Operation against Venezuela: A Story of Betrayal and Financial Corruption". Council on Hemispheric Affairs. Retrieved 2020-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

The "Result" in the Infobox

I think the result should be "plot foiled," or some other concise description of the fact that both motorboats were stopped before they reached land, i.e., the plan was dead on arrival. Currently it also contains (1) the fact that the Maduro regime launched the Escudo Bolivariano defensive campaign, which consists of nothing more or less than deploying 25k soldiers to look for other people who might be trying to topple his government (not a rare occurrence); and (2) the fact that the Maduro regime issued 20+ arrest warrants for those implicated in the plot. Neither is false, I'm just not convinced they deserve to be in the infobox. The Escudo Bolivariano is the part I find particularly disproportionately emphasized if kept in the infobox because what head of state would not launch a defensive campaign in response to the uncovering of a military attack? I previously removed the Escudo part from the infobox based on my understanding of Maduro claiming in his TeleSur interview that the Escudo already existed. Now it's back; not really sure who put it back or if it was intentional and haven't tried to find out. Whether the campaign preexisted or not, I would suggest it doesn't go in the infobox. Because I don't want an edit war, I'm trying to build consensus among recent concerned editors: grp (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What) --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am usually against this type of labels, mainly when what is written is "Objective succeeded/failed". These are not games or binary situations. That's why I had written before "operation intersected" because it is more clear what happened. About the Escudo Bolivariano, I think it should be there only if we expand on it in the text (if not we should probably remove it too).--ReyHahn (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, the Result could be similar to that in the Attack on Fort Paramacay article: Rebel attack repelled by government forces; some weapons captured by the opposition. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding the casualties, I foresee a difficulty which has already come up several times on this page, namely, what this article is and is not. So, the infobox currently says there were 16 arrests related to the Macuto Bay raid. That is based on a Tweet made by Padrino Lopez as reported by the Efecto Cocuyo. One of the main concerns surrounding this incident is that Maduro is (or will) use it as a pretext to take action against innocent political adversaries. If that is true, we can count on more and more announcements coming out every day for a time to come saying that "so-and-so thug was arrested in the Amazon based on connections with the attempted Macuto coup." We cannot trust the tweets of Padrino any more than we can those of Trump. Where are we going to draw the line? What do you guys understand to be the number of anti-Maduro belligerents arrested, killed, and wanted based on verifiable reliable sources you have read? @ (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What)--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Plot was foiled, no doubt. Let's have the infobox reflect that. I suggest finding three or so reliable sources that state that the plan completely failed or otherwise other editors may see it as a POV issue. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a broader title, such as one that deals only with "plot", could help including events both before and after the raid itself, including the total number of casualties. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jamez42: I think it's WP:TOOSOON at the moment, but eventually this is going to morph into "Macuto Bay incident" or "Silvercorp affair." I'm sure the sources will fall into a pattern in their naming conventions referring to the fiasco. Right now, there's too much of a variety. Some sources put it in scare quotes ("failed coup" or "terrorist incursion operation"), apparently making fun of Maduro's exaggeration, and other are calling it some form of "stupid coup" (or "chapuza") making fun of the amateurishness; more serious reporters attempting to be descriptive are saying things like "Venezuela raid," "failed Venezuela plot" (intentona), "foiled boat attack," etc. So I think we just have to wait. This is still a very recent event.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Orgullomoore: Of course, just a proposal. I personally still think that "Operation Gideon", with the established due differences, could help with the issues of all the multiple definitions. If needed, all other commons uses can be bolded in the lead of the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrests table

As we are listing living persons accused of crime we should be careful with the new table of arrests and casualties, if it is not properly referenced it should go.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also we should seriously consider the will of those that want to update it, as Maduro will continue arresting people an saying it is related to Macuto raid that table could grow fast and be quickly out of date or incomplete (due to lack of transparency).--ReyHahn (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: There is no doubt that Maduro will continue arresting people. Wouldn't want to let a good tragedy go to waste. Off the top of my head I think I heard his propagandists this morning announcing an additional 8 arrests related to the "failed terrorist incursion." My suggestion would be that we keep the list to people who were killed or captured or killed or injured from one of the two invading boats or on the Maduro side (if any - I haven't seen any reliable info on this) by the people in one of those two boats.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: thanks for adding the references, I hope I did not screw too much your edits by changing the order of the list to alphabetical by name.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ReyHahn: Thank you. Last name makes more sense. I think it turned out just fine.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPCRIME, I oppose that the all the names of the suspects should be included. As a chronology, I think it would be better for the article to differentiate arrests and indictments, as it can differentiate events and indictments. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that WP:BLPNAME seems as important. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42 and ReyHahn: I'm honestly not familiar with how important, if at all, the names of the individuals identified by Maduro by such labels as "fisherman" or "civilian." I would be fine with their removal. Likewise with the subsequent captures in the forests and mountains and bush supposedly related to the incident. I believe some of those accused do have relevance outside of this incident, e.g., the son of Raul Baduel, the Sequea guy supposedly leading the incursion force, etc. And of course, the three Americans, Goudreau, Denman, and Berry have already "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies" and are subject to open nondefamatory discussion in the public domain, and you better believe they will be extensively discussed for some time to come.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Jamez42: thanks for bringing up those guidelines. In that case, I would argue too that we should remove the table.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Based on the above discussion I made edits to clarify the list is non-exhaustive and exclusive of nonpublic figures, in accordance with the cited guidelines. There are others in that list (the Venezuelans) who I don't know whether or not they are public figures and will leave it to someone more qualified to find out. But I would firmly assert that the following persons already did, or now they do, qualify as public figures: Baduel, Berry, Colina (deceased anyway), Denman, Goudreau, Rendón, Sequea, and Vergara. The ones that I have not already removed and about whom I know nothing and have seen no public reporting on are: Alvarado Flores, Díaz Vázquez, Manzanilla, Pimenta Salazar, and Rodríguez Orellana. Hopefully that helps.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Narcotics Rewards Program in Background section

The Narcotics Rewards Program info does not fit in with the background section when it is mentioned a second time with Alcalá later in the article. Maybe it can be mentioned in the lede, but the detailed info should be in the Alcalá section.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a critical piece of background information because it explains why Goudreau would move forward with the plan even after Rendón et al. backed out, because there were $40M+ on the table. If it's repeated twice, we can consolidate, but I think we need to mention it early.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: Is there a source directly stating that this is the reason Silvercorp went forward with the operation? If not, it's not suitable in the background section.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: There are multiple sources reporting on the fact that Goudreau was desperate for money and that between the time that Guaido folks backed out and the time of the operation, the Trump administration put out the bounties. It's an obvious connection. Rendón says Goudreau was hounding him for money. An anonymous former Special Ops soldier interviewed by Connecting Vets said Goudreau tried to recruit him as a bounty hunter in Venezuela, there are reports of Goudreau showing around the contract in Jamaica, Denman's family reported that he recently indicated to them that he got a job in Florida he is not allowed to talk about, but that it was the most important mission of his life, and that he was under the impression there was US gov't support for it.... Feel free to help with citations instead of deleting information others work hard to develop.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: Take a look at the recent edit. It should be a good compromise while maintaining chronological order for the reader.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Thanks for showing some flexibility. We can work with it. I'll try to touch it up a bit, in a bit.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I have to add and remind that one of the apparent leaders of the operation, Clíver Alcalá, was indicted and arrested after the program's announcement, and as a response was one of the first ones to allege that an agreement was signed between the opposition and rebels. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamez42: I have to agree that it is interesting that the group would be inspired by the US bounty when that bounty targeted one of the group's leaders.---ZiaLater (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alcalá turned himself shortly after the announcement. I guess one could argue that Maduro's bounty was larger: $10 million versus $15 million. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater and Jamez42: There's really no point in speculating, but if we were to speculate, and Goudreau calculates that he needs one guy who has a bounty on his head in order to get 5 other guys with bigger bounties on their heads, it's an easy transaction.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

International responses POV

All the governments that have 'responded' are either those concerned (Colombia/US) or Maduro's buddies; it is clear there is not going to be an international government response, and to therefore only include the few that automatically give unfaltering support to whatever Maduro says is a form of bias. The section adds nothing, the UN statement is empty, I suggest removing the entire section. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take out all the governments that were not implicated?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree , at least until governments start reacting instead of responding, i.e., when we learn of tangible movements. Those actions can be their own headings as they blossom into elements of the story; for now it's just posturing. I think it's appropriate to include that Russia provided troops to help track down stragglers and I suppose information about Cuban intel support will come out at some point. The fact that Maduro is accusing Trump and Duque directly of prior notice and backing, and their respective denials, are relevant IMO. But I agree with respect to, for example, Iran, who simply announced that they haven't changed their mind about hating USA and loving Maduro, and the UN, who say that guerrilla attacks distract from peaceful transition efforts.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

WikiVoice - PanAm Post

Versions of this sentence keeps showing up:

"According to the PanAm Post, it was postulated that what became the actual invasion was planned and financed by Diosdado Cabello as a false flag operation to victimize the government international community and neutralize their enemies; the article compared the operation with the 1929 plot to overthrow dictator Juan Vicente Gómez planned by Román Delgado Chalbaud (which was financed by Vicente Gómez himself), and alleging that Cabello was aware of the conspiracy beforehand and that Maduro's administration had infiltrated the operation, even scheduling some of their meetings. Rincón also highlighted the fact that the operation continued despite having been infiltrated, that Goudreau released information to media outlets about the number and movements of fighters despite it being a supposedly secret mission, and that the invaders were able to enter Venezuelan waters, cross several checkpoints and landed without being seen or captured."

I previously added the author's name and date of publication, but somebody took it out and put it back in PanAm's voice. This is the article cited to support the sentence: [45]. It is written by Emmanuel Rincón, not on behalf of the journal as a whole. This is the biographical blurb on the writer: "Emmanuel Rincón es abogado y escritor venezolano, autor de cinco novelas, ganador de diversos premios literarios internacionales, con un grado en Modern Masterpieces of World Literature de Harvard University. Su último libro publicado es el ensayo 'La reinvención ideológica de América Latina'." The article was published 2020-05-09. This is the lines purportedly supporting the assertion:

La historia en efecto es cíclica y repetitiva, el que lo niegue, es por falta de conocimiento. Una de las novelas más fascinantes de la literatura venezolana pertenece a uno de los escritores que más respeto en el país, se trata de «Falke» de Federico Vegas. En ella, Federico relata la historia de Rafael Vegas, su pariente, quien participó en una conspiración para derrocar al entonces dictador, Juan Vicente Gómez, en 1929. Comandada por Román Delgado Chalbaud, la operación fue en completo fracaso, esto se debe a que, tal como la historia sugiere, el financista de la operación fue el propio Juan Vicente Gómez, quien lo hizo con el propósito de agrupar a todos sus enemigos en el exterior en una misión infiltrada, conducirlos al país y así capturarlos a todos en un solo esfuerzo. Venezuela vuelve a ser víctima de los caudillos autoritarios maquiavélicos. El 28 de marzo del presente año, 37 días antes de ser capturados los miembros de la Operación Gedeón, Diosdado Cabello, el número 2 del chavismo, anunció una conspiración que estaría siendo orquestada por un norteamericano al cual presentaba en un esquema con el nombre de «Yordan» —y en efecto, había un «Yordan», pero con J, y se apellidaba Goudreau—. Allí menciona que se topó con el exgeneral chavista Cliver Alcalá en el concierto de Cúcuta, y que desde entonces todo empezó a formarse. Pero allí no termina todo, ese mismo día Diosdado también aseveró que «algunas reuniones las hicieron porque nosotros dimos la logística, ven cómo estaban de infiltrados», el chavista asegura que la «oposición» se «robó los reales» de la operación, y por ende la misma se detuvo: la infiltración y financiamiento de ellos es lo que la saca a flote. Esto coincide con la versión emitida por JJ Rendón, el estratega de Juan Guaidó, quién le declaró y compartió evidencias a Orlando Avendaño para el PanAm Post, que indican que la relación con Silvercorp, la empresa de seguridad del norteamericano había sido finiquitada en octubre del 2019, y que la misión exploratoria no siguió adelante. Esto deja en evidencia que la tiranía de Maduro orquestó el movimiento para luego victimizarse ante la comunidad internacional y a su vez dar de baja a sus enemigos. En la operación que ellos mismos orquestaron asesinaron al menos a 8 soldados venezolanos, y otra docena ha sido capturada en supuestos distintos operativos.

If you take a look at the article, you'll see this is a persuasive piece. The author ends with a call to the international community to stop turning a blind eye. You can also see that he is drawing conclusions based on statements of politicians. Accordingly, if we are going to relay these assertions, the correct attribution is "[author], in an analysis of public statements made by [politician name], the operation was...." I'm going to go ahead and put it back in the author's voice like it was, but I would suggest reporting the facts, not exiles' emotions based on their reading of public statements--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I attributed the article to PanAm Post since it wasn't an opinion article. However, many of these conclusions are accurate, and as such the attribution could also go to the author. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: I would not say Rincón is accurate as much as he is speculative. The whole event is strange, but more reliable sources have revealed all of the details surrounding the planning. Rincón, who does not seem very notable, could be placed in the Analysis section, though his opinion does not seem factual without aditional reporting from more reliable sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ZiaLater and Jamez42: While I do not agree with having an Analysis section to begin with (see prior discussion regarding it being a POV cesspool), I do agree with Zia that if Rincon's observations belong anywhere, it is in the Analysis section. This is because he is simply giving his reaction to public statements made by Maduro officials. If Diosdado had foreknowledge of "Yordan," and there is reliable reporting for that, it could be relevant background. But just Mr. Rincon's analysis of the situation, I don't think should be presented as factual reporting.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I used Rincón's article as an example of the reports believing this was a false flag operation, although this is also already expressed by others' reactions. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of reliable sources do not even mention a false flag operation, so this borders WP:FRINGE. Some have said that this theory is a way of the opposition distancing themselves from their original agreement with such plans.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I worry that the Analysis section is still used for opinions and as an essay. If the community decides that PanamPost is not deemed for the article, then it should be removed, but it should not be used as a justification to keep similar content with a similar tone. I don't recall any other article of the Crisis of Venezuela where we have an Analysis section, and all similar content has been included either in the Reactions section or in the events sections of the article itelf. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: I feel like placing PanAm Post next to articles by BIG generally reliable sources (The Times, The Telegraph, Polygraph.info., Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.) gives it undue weight. It is not the most reliable source, so I do not see where you are seeing a good comparison to actual high-quality sources. Also, see other related articles with "Analysis" sections (Reception, media reaction, controversy or similar), such as Chavismo, Bay of Pigs Invasion, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts, Venezuela Aid Live, 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, 2018 Caracas drone attack and others. It is false that other Venezuelan articles do not have such sections.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guaido signature

The most recent controversial change is the assertion that Guaido himself signed the services agreement with Silvercorp. It was added recently on the basis of a Vox report. I'm looking into the report, but I don't think we should state it as a matter of fact given (1) Maduro's history (and the history of dictatorial regimes generally) of falsifying "evidence" to discredit political opponents; and (2) the flat denial by Guaido that he signed. The only "evidence" of a signature by Guaido I've seen is the copy that the Maduro regime is flailing around which, again, I don't trust. On the other hand, the copy Goudreau released to Factores del Poder contains only Rendon and Vergara, and they both admit to signing it; in fact they've stepped down so as not to be a distraction to Guaido's cause. So–@ (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What)–please discuss whether and why we should present the allegation as a fact. Thanks.--Orgullomoore (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

@Orgullomoore: I debated this as well until I read the Vox report (Vox is a WP:RSP - WP:GREL, meaning they are very reliable). From what Vox reported, the document Guaido signed was the overall "General Services Agreement" while the other officials signed the "attachments". Given the polarization and falsehoods pushed out by both parties, I would trust Vox over Guaido or Maduro, especially since Vox writes "Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning". There was a source somewhere that said there was a clause that Guaido had to deny any involvement even if he were involved, but I have not found that again.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@@ZiaLater: Thanks. I agree that Vox is generally reliable. The author is Alex Ward, who describes himself on Twitter (profile linked from Vox article) as a "national security reporter," so this would fall within his area of expertise. I still want to look at the specific grounds, claims, and conclusions and be very careful about tone and accuracy given how sensitive every single aspect of this situation is.--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @@ZiaLater: OK. I looked at the article. If I may quote at length, for context, this is the purported support:

Goudreau made his pitch to Rendón and his group in a Miami condo last September. He dubbed his plan “Operation Resolution,” which was basically a beefed-up version of the Alcalá plan featuring 800 men instead of 300. The real selling point, though, was almost surely the price he was asking. Instead of charging in the billions, Goudreau requested $213 million from Venezuela’s future oil earnings, along with a $1.5 million retainer. After a few more meetings, Silvercorp USA and the committee signed a deal in October. Rendón told the Washington Post that the deal was a trial balloon, basically, to see if Goudreau could deliver on his promises. But the full general services agreement and attachments, which can be found online, explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup.
“An operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro...remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó,” section 4a of the attachment reads.
Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
Maduro’s government on Friday, however, released audio of an alleged phone conversation between Goudreau and Guaidó. The Venezuelan opposition leader notes his unease with the plan, but states its the right move for his cause.
Rendón acknowledged to CNN en Español on Wednesday that his signature is on the contract, though he maintained the deal was preliminary. “It was an exploration to see the possibility of capture and bringing to justice members of the regime,” he said, adding that the committee also looked at other methods to achieve their anti-Maduro goals.

  • You can see the reporter is not indicating where he got the contract containing Guaidó's signature. The reporter appears to be mainly synthesizing from other reports (WSJ, AP, WaPo, Military Times, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, Factores de Poder). It does appear the reporter talked to former US Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos directly, as well as "David Smilde, a Venezuela expert at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). But otherwise, this looks like reporting on reporting to me. For example, you can find this quote in the article: "It’s possible that one source of potential funding was Roen Kraft, a member of the famous cheese-empire family, who reportedly tried to fundraise for the effort partly by promising his contacts inside access when bidding for government contracts in Venezuela once Guaidó was installed. Kraft has denied this, telling the AP, “I never gave [Goudreau] any money.” It's an excellent article, but since this is a word-vs-word dispute, we shouldn't present one side's word as fact and the other's as misrepresentation. Or if we are going to assert Guaido is lying, we should at least back it up with more than one vague sentence in one tertiary source. Do we have any other sources asserting not only that the agreement "features" the signature of Guaido, but explicitly reporting that Juan Guaido in fact signed the agreement on behalf of his administration with the intent to bind the administration to its terms, or at least distinguishing which pages of which copies in whose possession contains what signatures?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: If you look at my recent edits, Guaidó and the opposition have never denied that he signed the documents, they only deny being invovled in the recent plot. And in the Vox piece, I will add emphasis for better understanding: "Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning. As for what was actually said by Guaidó, he said he had "no relationship nor responsibility for any actions" by Silvercorp. No one denied that he signed the papers according to sources. If you can find a source stating otherwise, we can see about changes. Also, the wording in the article currently says "repotedly", so it is still portrayed as an allegation in respect to them.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to say there is an article that contains this sentence. Not fine to assert it as fact.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: No one is saying it is fact. The wording states "reportedly" as it was reported by sources. There is also a mention about Guaidó denying this. Though this is a disputed issue, it is one of the main issues surrouding this event and must be included. This is why I asked you for a source and have been attempting compromises.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ZiaLater: Here is what you are selling: Guaidó and his officials reportedly signed the General Services Agreement in Washington, D.C. with Goudreau on 16 October 2019; Guaidó would later deny signing the agreement. Please wait to see if others are buying that as NPOV, because I'm not. Therefore, please keep it out for now. Accusing a living person of lying without a factual basis is defamatory, and you need only consult the relevant policies to perceive its seriousness and applicability to this situation (i.e., one involving potential criminal activity where the person accused is unequivocally denying the allegation and accusing the profferers of the document upon which the report you cite relies of forging his signature and falsifying his voice, subjecting him to potential torture, violence, and prosecution in a Kangaroo court, on a publication viewed by approx. 900 people per day according to the Special page). Like I said, you need to either seriously hedge and come out boldly with something like: Guaido ardently denies he signed the document. There are articles which contain suggestions that a document exists where.... Or something like that. We are skating on very thin ice and I'm very worried about your willingness to just slap it in there as if it were some well-established fact. So please at least wait for others' comments before you go re-inserting that. Please, seriously; it's not acceptable.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
@Orgullomoore: This is not stated as fact in its current wording and no one is accusing Guaidó of lying. If reliable news organizations are reporting this, it is still "reportedly". No one is directly making accusations without a reliable source. Since Guaidó is a public official, he is subjected to criticism by the media and his opponents. But this report's inclusion is vital for this encyclopedic article due to its notability. And again, no one is in any attempt trying to defame anyone, so calm down.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should write it, but attribute it. Information could rapidly change, and it may take a full future investigation, in a time distant from the current social situation in Venezuela, to get the full truth on the last few years. Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about something like this (below proposed draft) as a proposed sub-sub-section of the Services Agreement section?--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(proposed draft of section by Orgullomoore (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)) Controversy over provisions and execution of services agreement

In the immediate aftermath of the foiled plot, the existence of a formal General Services Agreement between the Strategic Committee was disclosed to the public through several outlets. On the one hand, Jordan Goudreau made an appearance by video call on a political commentary show called Factores de Poder, and during the call Goudreau showed the camera a copy of the General Services Agreement bearing the signatures of Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta, a Cuban-born attorney based in Washington. Soon after, the Maduro government, through State-owned media, published an alleged copy of the agreement purporting to bear the signatures just mentioned, plus the signature of Juan Guaidó himself. Guaidó vigorously denied this, stating he never signed any document. In addition, a recording of a conversation allegedly showing Guaidó discussing the contract with Jordan Goudreau was also aired on state media and commented on by the Maduro government's General Prosecutor. Guaidó vehemently asserted that the supposed recording was falsified and did not depict him.

Despite Guaidó's unequivocal denials, at least one generally reliable source, online news website Vox, published an article by Alex Ward featuring original reporting based on conversations with former Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos, who reportedly witnessed the training camps in Riohacha. In the article published 11 May 2020, the author placed his interviews with Mattos in the context by synthesizing reporting from other sources, including the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Washington Post, Military Times, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, and the previously-mentioned Factores de Poder. The author also republished information originally posted on social media platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. In the piece in Vox, a purported copy of the first 8 pages of the actual General Services Agreement (not the 42 pages of attachments which Rendon admitted to signing) is republished. The republished images bear a watermark reading "Scanned with CamScanner." The Vox piece does not indicate the source of the purported copy. That copy shows what appears to be the signature of Juan Guaidó, and the Vox piece itself contains the following remark: "the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”

It is undisputed that a 41-page document containing various "Attachments" was signed in Washington, D.C., on 16 October 2019, between Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta. According to Goudreau and the Maduro government, Juan Guaidó also signed the agreement or some part of it. For example, a report in the Washington Post described the dispute as follows:

Goudreau counters that the agreement — supplied in part to The Post by Goudreau, with a more complete version provided by Rendón — bound the opposition to his services and initial fee. A seven-page document provided by Goudreau carries Guaido’s signature, along with those of Rendón and fellow opposition official Sergio Vergara.

I think this is generally a fair depiction of both sides, however the statement at least one generally reliable source to describe Vox should be removed - it is effectively OR and is based on Wikipedia's editorial guidelines rather than an independent RS describing it thus. Perhaps the tone could be more formalized, but it seems to fit purpose. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Needed

This article needs better sources such as in this excerpt After it came to light that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, J.J. Rendón–a signatory to the agreement on behalf of Guaido–indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019. Juan Guaidó, his Strategy Committee, and officials of the Colombian and United States governments have all emphatically denied any role whatsoever in the incident, and some opposition officials have described it as a "false flag operation". from the intro in which all these statements are made but no sources are provided.Elishop (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LEAD - it's all cited in the article, and that excerpt is probably one of the most neutral in the whole crisis. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

False flag operation

I anticipate my recent edits asserting unequivocally that the operation is a false flag set-up will be seen as nonneutral. However, if you take a look at the sources I provided, I think you will find that this is an accurate description of what occurred. This was not an attempt to invade Venezuela so much as an intel plot to lure dissidents led by delusional Johnny Bravo types into their arms to kill and arrest them. I'm ready to stand by the facts, so please discuss.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much they're "nonneutral" as entirely lacking in reliable sources. Every bit of information on Wikipedia needs a reliable source, and reliable sources do not describe this as a "false flag" operation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All sides agree the Maduro government knew they were coming and paid for part of it. Instead of being arrested, they were shot and sensationalized. How can this be described as an invasion attempt?--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Where is it stated in the article that Maduro's government "paid for part of it," and based upon what sources? The bottom line is that if we don't have a clear consensus of reliable sources unequivocally stating that this event was a "false flag operation," we cannot factually state in WikiVoice that it was. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is just one of many sources cited in the article: [46]--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
That appears to be an opinion column published in an overtly-libertarian publication. Might be useful for the writer's opinion, but not for claims of fact. This would support, for example, "Venezuelan writer Emmanuel Rincon accused the Maduro government of financing the raid," but not a statement that "Maduro's government financed the raid." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting involved in this, I suggest dropping the idea of having it included until a nice solid western RS picks it up. Panampost is reliable, but doesn't seem to have connected the threads yet. As believable as a false flag would be (the theories of such are given a mention at the Caracas drone attack article, too), I do not want to attract any kind of nonsense until it can be solidly defended. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right. The thing I've liked about this process so far is I put in what I think should go there, you guys change it, then I change what you guys changed...and it ends up working out. So as long as we are making clear that there was never any risk whatsoever of Maduro or Venezuela being invaded because Maduro had men embedded from the get-go, then I'm fine.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is entirely defensible from what the sources say - Maduro's government appears to have known about this tragicomedy from the get-go, well before it was even a blip on the radar in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add anything that doesn't break WP:SYNTH, and it should be fine. I'm still trying to carve out time to give the whole thing a copyedit, and may call on the very active Orgullo to help, if you're willing. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help with what I can. It definitely needs copyediting. And also I assume @ZiaLater: will have serious objections, so we'll have to go back and forth. But like I said, that's actually worked out to be a good thing from my perspective.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions from different sides (etc.) can be a real benefit, especially with polemic topics, as long as it is real discussion. It does seem to be working out here, which is great. We might even attract more people to the Venezuela WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV template

While I agree that there are some problems with "the tone of the article", my experience with POV templates is that they rarely push for a change unless we can pinpoint where the problems are. Sometimes a Template:POV lead or another template in a specific section can help. If you look at the article many templates have been added already. @NickCT: could you describe in more detail why you added the template [47]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyHahn (talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second the request that @NickCT: specify what exactly he contends is POV, so we can fix it. Saying that there are "serious issues with the tone of this article" doesn't tell me anything. Thanks in advance. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the tag for now until we get some tangible complaint.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Orgullomoore and ReyHahn: - Hi guys. I apologize. I actually meant to take that tag off myself and forgot. I think a couple of the things that I thought were serious issues have been removed.
This article still has problems..... but I'm not sure POV is one of them. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: No problem. Please feel free to continue tagging the article in specific spots, or leave a message here, to identify issues and I will try to fix them.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks

@Orgullomoore: In an edit with the reason of making quotation marks consistent, you turned them all into text quotation marks (angled), rather than html ones (straight); and it looks like they were all consistently straight before, so I'm not sure why the change was made at all. Anyway, Wikipedia only uses the straight ones, can you go back and correct this, since conflicting edits won't allow me to undo it? Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Some of the quotations used curly quotes before I got to them, and I was going on Unicode specs for which to prefer. But yes, I can easily change it back and will.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks :) Didn't know if you knew, that explains it Kingsif (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Set up an archive

May somebody set up an archive for this talk, there are a lot of discussions that seem closed. I could eventually look up how to do it, but maybe somebody has more experience on this.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could help us to navigate the talk and get to the hot topics more easily.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&oldid=957585558"