Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:2019 Venezuela uprising)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

POV title[edit]

The title of the article (2019 Venezuela coup attempt) is POV and fails to account for the Constitution of Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am not sure if it is a rebellion, revolt or coup d'état. Would really benefit us if we had some other eyes looking at this. The correct terminology, especially in regards to NPOV, is difficult to find.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Uprising would have been a starting place, but yes, it is hard to find the right term. But Coup isn't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: It fits the textbook definition of a coup attempt (a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group)[1]. Almost every coup has some democratic pretense, they should still be called what they are.Zellfire999 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


The problems are in the definition of "existing government", half of the world says that is Maduro's, half says Guiado's. Neither is this "sudden"; it is part of a process that has been called for according to the Constitution of Venezuela for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
For example: Look at the sources in the article now: while a few predictable English-language sources call it a "coup", many do not (calling it instead an "uprising"). A google search reveals that, predictably, Cuban, Russian and Venezuelan-state owned media (like Telesur) and chavistas like Eva Golinger are calling it a coup. But, looking at Spanish-language sources (where there is perhaps a better understanding of the political dynamic), El Pais (Spain), Tiempo (Colombia), and La Nacion (Argentina), along with many English-language sources, refer to it as an "uprising". This may be a WP:GLOBAL issue, where Wikipedia might want to respect some local sources and avoid gringification. Arab Spring is referred to as an uprising, not a coup; there is kind of a predisposition that exists about Latin American politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"Coup"? When Guairó is recognized by most nations and international organizations as the legitimate president of Venezuela.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Recognition of a coup leader by some external powers (US government and its allies (i.e. "most nations and international organizations" from US-centric/West-centric POV) in this case) has no relevance in determining whether the event is a coup. It only matters whether there is an active ongoing attempt to overthrow a government, regardless of the perceived legitimacy of that government and this is clearly the case here. Therefore, not calling it a coup would be extremely POV (although it would be a mainstream and a popular POV in The West, but still a POV). (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
First, Guaidó is recognized by almost all the important and democratic countries in the world and for important international organizations like the European Parliament and the Organization of American States. The only two important countries that recognize Maduro are Russia and China (non-democratic countries known for support dictators around the world). Second, there is not "ongoing attempt to overthrow a government" because the Venezuelan internationality recognized government is formed by Guaidó and the National Assembly.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
A government is a government if it governs the country, regardless of its international recognition. An attempt to overthrow it, even if supported by the entire rest of the world, is still a coup attempt. (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Arab Spring uses the word coup only twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources like Bloomberg are avoiding calling this a coup: [1][2]. --MaoGo (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • CNN backtracked using "coup" in their coverage as well. Title was changed in the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that Guaido’s recognized as Acting President by 50+ countries, something like “(April) 2019 Venezuelan clashes” seems to be the most neutral title to me. However, the title should depend on what reliable sources are calling it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Most Spanish sources (and many English sources) are calling it an uprising. April 2019 Venezuela uprising works for me, as there may be others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BobNesh, that was a very disruptive thing to do, particularly when you did not engage the discussion, and did not apparently even read it. Moving a move over a redirect leaves a mess, and there was consensus. I hope you don't always edit that way; discussion on talk is always nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BobNesh: There were nationwide protests, in every state. The defector soldiers didn't attempt to take over any government or power institutions, unlike previous coup attempts in Venezuela, were the presidential palace, the National Assembly or the state television channel. During the first classes the soldiers stayed in Altamira, and Guaidó made an enphasis to summon protests and to engage in non violent means. In Portuguese Wikipedia has called this an uprising, and the Spanish Wikipedia calls the article Operación Libertad. Calling the events a coup is for political means. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I support reverting BobNesh move. They cannot move article as they want. This is disruptive and pure vandalism. BobNesh is pushing their POV.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
We can't just revert it; we need an admin. That's why it is a very disruptive thing to do. Now we have to round up someone who will correct the move, and probably request semi-protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I have read the discussion. Consensus on moving the page hasn't been reached. Sorry. BobNesh (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
So you just moved it again, without discussing on talk. How collegial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
How was a move revert by BobNesh disruptive, while initial move, which was (also) without consensus, wasn't disruptive? Double standards much? (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
(edit conflict) I cannot for the life of me understand how this is not a coup. A military plot took place and elements of the army rose up rationally in order to overthrow the established government, it's a classic coup d'etat. Even if you accept the illogical position that Guaido is the president(he is clearly not in power) then at least he is conducting an auto-coup. That news agencies stopped calling this coup a coup was clearly because of political pressure. As it stands now the title and the article in general are extremely biased. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Most sources aren't calling it a coup, whether US or international (Maduro allies like Russia and Cuba do call it a coup). And saying that there was "an overthrow of an established government" implies that Maduro's is the legitimate established government; the alternate and widely held view is that he has illegitimately usurped power, and Guaido is restoring constitutional order. Most sources seem to be going with that. Do you really think Trump can exert political pressure on the US media <smile>? They don't much care for him you know :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether Maduro is the "legitimate" president bears no weight in whether this is a coup. He is the president for all practical purposes as far as the Venezuelan state machinery goes the attempt of military cliques to overthrow him is a coup. And yes the USA definitely cares about Venezuela otherwise they wouldn't try to form a coalition to invade it. News media did initially call it a coup but after political pressure they changed it to "uprising" so pretty much the same as it happened on here. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the operation is called "Operation Liberty". We may use that as an article name. Cambalachero (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw the name mentioned in a few sources. However, it seems to be Guaido's name for the event, and I am in favor of the current article title. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a military operation whose name is the name given by those who carried it out. Isn't that a standard? Operation Overlord was named so by the Allies, and nobody has a problem with that. Cambalachero (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I would contend that it’s best to hold off on assigning a particular name to this event. It will likely become clearer as events proceed; I seem to recall 2018 Armenian revolution going through different names before a final one was decided upon. For now, let’s stick to the most neutral and frankly nondescript wording, because it is eminently unclear what is actually going on. Cwilson97 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Any title is POV. "Coup" favours Madura; "uprising" (implying a popular movement) favours Guaido. "Operation Liberty" is even more pro-Guaido.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
There were nationwide protests, and I would dare to say that most of the clashes happened during protests. I would agree that Operation Liberty could be problematic, although it could be a redirect. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem with Operation Liberty is that it reaches back in time to the blackouts like here Operation Freedom, but that can be added. By the way, how did we decide between "Freedom" and "Liberty"? --MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a coup[edit]

The arguments utilized to say it's not a coup is very weak, coup is not defined properly by your legitimacy, but for the circumstances that it's happen. For example, in Brazil November 11 1955, the congress don't want pass the power to the elected president Juscelino Kubitschek with the excuses they are fulfilling a constitutional right, to ensure that elections should be accomplished, Henrique Teixeira Lott make a preventive coup to assures the democracy. The meaning of coup is the overthrow of an existing government by a group of bureaucrats, military or others political groups of a external faction without or little participation of a population. This uprising of part of military has these characteristics, they started with a Guaidó and Leopoldo López making a periscope video in carlota air base, starting from military and a politician and not from the people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Our own article says the term "typically...refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power." Words are meant to communicate ideas. A reasonable reader could interpret this as the uprising being illegal and unconstitutional, when a strong case could be made this is a response to Maduro's "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power." We should not use WP's voice to take sides. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Calling this an "uprising" is taking sides. Maduro won that sham election, the POV warriors are out in force. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As I have stated before, I think the main issue with naming the event as a coup is the nature of the events. While legitimacy of the movement has been argued, it has also been explained on how no attempt of a violent and sudden seizure of power was attempted. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, also known as a coup. Who renamed this article? How did it not go through a vote? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
As explained by IP and this is a coup. Maduro has so far remained in control of most of all key areas of the state aparatus, so he still have control of the largest share of the state and has thus a government. Guaidó tried to oust Maduro from his position of power, so its a coup. Appartently somebody changed the name of the page to "uprising" wihtout any consensus. Dentren | Talk 16:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's unquestionably a coup. Maduro de facto controls the country, who the US and its allies recognize is not relevant (if Mao had been deposed in a coup in the 50s would it have not been a coup just because the West recognized the ROC?) It's a call by an authority figure with foreign backing for an armed rebellion against a sitting head of state. That's a coup, period. The title needs to be changed back. Zellfire999 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I would agree that it seems like a coup attempt.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

- Well, I think the presidential crisis could much better be describe as an uprising, because if you check out the Wikipedia description, "In political terms, rebellion and revolt are often distinguished by their different aims. If rebellion generally seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws. The goal of rebellion is resistance while a revolt seeks a revolution.". While the event contained in this article reflects a coup d'état, meaning "the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction", meaning the political faction, namely Juan Guaido, tried to oust the the government of Nicholas Maduro. While I would argue this Coup is part of a bigger 'uprising' provoked by the presidential crisis, which itself is part of a longer period of polarisation. Mattfolk (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a coup, call it clashes[edit]

@Blaylockjam10: This suggestion is the best, calling it clashes is the most NPOV solution to this. All the arguments for calling it a coup (or uprising for that matter) don't even work for the so-called, academic-wannabe definitions of "coup" given and at any rate is just shitty, mediocre dog whistling. Syopsis (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

POV title duplicates[edit]

Uprising vs Coup[edit]

Calling it an Uprising is POV, we must go by dictionary definition and not by legitimacy claims or mainstream media.

Calling it a Coup isn't POV, it is only used by Maduro as that's what the 2019 Venezuelan coup is.

If people cannot accept this, this isn't an issue that requires a name change. I'm sorry. (talk)

Duplicate section: This discussion is up there. (IP 2.28, it is good to read the talk page before you WP:EDITWAR-- also, please review WP:BRD, as you have reinstated your edit against consensus.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining how you've determined consensus in this case? From looking at the discussion you linked, it doesn't seem clear that any was reached. Cmonghost (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind summarizing in the relevant section why you believe there is not consensus, including a look at actual reliable sources? Please don't split an ongoing conversation: that will only confuse future readers. If you disagree, please provide a discussion of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Every reporter has biases and just because some reporters call this an uprising does not make it an uprising.[edit]

Just because some reporters call this an uprising does not make it an uprising. Those who insist on calling this an uprising are acting as if robots report the news and therefore they do not have any biases. Every reporter has biases and their biases are manifested in their wordings and their analysis of events. (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion up there. --MaoGo (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we add injured to infobox?[edit]

And if so, the BBC currently lists it as 69 Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we delete the infobox entirely, so we don't have to have this conversation about infobox bloat :) :) The BBC 69 is in the article already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Dumbass ridiculous stupid infoboxes just make work. Especially when people drive by and stick stuff in there that needs to be fixed, and don't update the article. Why exactly do we need to create double work with infobox bloat? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox. Again.[edit]

@José A. VEN:, regarding this edit, first, we do not name something by its Spanish name on English Wikipedia. Second, there is consensus on this article to call it "uprising" not Operation Liberty. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

POV reordering of sections[edit]

This revision by Jamez42 reorders a couple sections for no apparent reason other than to put pro-Guaido voices ahead of pro-Maduro voices. The change to the first sentence under "Response" in particular makes the paragraph harder to understand (it begins simply with "Nations" with no other descriptors; previously it was "other nations", i.e., contrasting with Maduro allies). Is there any non-POV motivation for this change? If not, I think it should be reverted. Cmonghost (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see two justifications (although I might not have gone to the trouble). One, alphabetical. Two, who has most support. Is there a case to be made for why they should switch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
If it's common practice for these things to be listed alphabetically, or by who has most support, then I think the list change is fine, though unnecessary (and I'm sceptical it's not motivated by POV given the other change). However I do think the initial paragraph reads badly now (as I mentioned) and should be reverted. Initially it drew a contrast between Maduro allies and "other nations", now it just says "Nations" with no context as to who those nations are. (eta I don't have semi-protected edit access so I can't reword it myself [n.b. apparently I actually do have edit access but I'll wait for further discussion]) Cmonghost (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I saw the addition of "some"---it still reads a little strangely though. The "not a coup" is strange because it comes before describing the allegations that it's a coup. Maybe that could be removed or rephrased as well (or again just reverted to how it was before, which was fine)? Cmonghost (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you are correct; the sentences as now constructed are awkward, and that seems to be a result of the reversal. @Jamez42: ?? How about putting that sentence back to what it was, even if the section order is different ? (That is, the two sentences at the beginning of the response section-- reverse back to what they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I am going to go ahead and make the change given that there's been no response. Happy to discuss further if my revisions are objectionable for whatever reason. Cmonghost (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm so sorry! I was meaning to answer this, but I feel asleep yesterday. I was meaning to say that it should be alright. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost:, the talk page had reached 300KB; is it OK with you if this section is archived now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 1 May 2019[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) cygnis insignis 13:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuela uprising2019 Venezuelan coup attempt – Reliable sources are calling it a coup. LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC) One reliable source would be more correctly described in the singular, not plural. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a few different discussions on this, the article was moved without formal discussion, so it's time to have one. Reliable sources are calling this a coup attempt, and our own article on Coup d'état makes clear "means the overthrow of an existing government". Whatever your feelings about Maduro, he controls the government, and an attempt to overthrow him by military force is a Coup d'état. I'm certainly open to better titles so long as they make clear this is an attempted coup. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Move obviously, as nominator. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Some WP:RS calling it a coup:
--LaserLegs (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Telegraph quotes one "Latin American expert" who used the word coup (“At first glance the coup was a failure,” says Watson, ...), but their own writing uses uprising (However, the support of some elements of the Venezuelan intelligence agency (SEBIN) for the uprising ...)
  • The Telegraph did use the word "coup" once on May 1, but changed their mind by May 2, calling it an uprising, using the word "coup" only in quotes to describe what Maduro called it.[3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Mirror The Daily Mirror is a tabloid; who cares what they call it? Nonetheless. They also call it both.
  • New Republic, never heard of it, but they also call it both.
(NB: And it's an opinion piece) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
So all three sources you provide use the word "coup" maybe in a headline, maybe to sell a product, but in their reporting they use the word "uprising". Please find some high quality sources that actually discuss this as a "coup" rather than quoting people who call it a coup, or using a headline for clickbait, but then actually call it an "uprising". These aren't even top notch sources. Could we please focus on real sources? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, articles from RS have been written into why this shouldn't be called a coup already[5][6][7]. The coup terminology is politically charged. "Whatever your feelings about Maduro, he controls the government" he clearly does not control all the government, specially the legislative body, does he control the government legally? that is the question of the whole presidential crisis. Also why is uprising wrong? --MaoGo (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not up to us to decide if Maduro controls the government legally or not. WP:RS is calling it a coup attempt, that's all there is to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
      • There are also RS calling it an uprising (cf. refs MaoGo mentioned). David O. Johnson (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Could you all please start producing these sources? Because as soon as I catch up, you'll have a long list of the highest quality sources NOT calling it a coup to review. So far, no one claiming its use has produced a high quality source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
From MaoGo, opinion pieces, working too fast, strike my commentary on these, see list below from 84percent SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So MaoGo gives us good sources, in contrast to the tabloid stuff above, where we find:
  • Bloomberg, a high quality source laying out the case for taking care with the word "coup" here.

    But it’s a tricky one to use in a case like this. Look it up online and the most prominent definition that pops up is this, courtesy of Oxford Dictionaries: “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government.” It’s the “illegal” part of the definition that’s problematic. More than 50 countries recognize Guaido, and not the autocrat Nicolas Maduro, as the legitimate leader of Venezuela. As a result, today’s actions can be viewed simply as an attempt to hand the reins of the country to that leader and, in the process, restore democracy. Maduro and his allies, of course, disagree with this characterization.

  • Bloomberg, again, saying "There Is No Coup in Venezuela: The uprising in Caracas is an attempt to restore the government’s legitimacy, not overthrow it."
  • The Washington Post, stating in their own voice,

    Don’t call it a coup. Venezuelans have a right to replace an oppressive, toxic regime.: Trump should work with Latin American countries to support Juan Guaidó. Therefore, whatever its ultimate outcome or, indeed, its strategic wisdom, Tuesday's uprising is not a "coup attempt," as the Maduro regime, echoed by too many people abroad, calls it. Rather, it is the latest in a series of legitimate and, for the most part, nonviolent efforts by Venezuelans, both civilian and military, to throw off an oppressive, toxic regime so that they can freely elect a legitimate government. Supporters of freedom and democracy should stand in solidarity with Mr. Guaidó and the many thousands of Venezuelans now bravely asserting their rights.

So, really, Wikipedia is going to disregard a source like The Washington Post, Bloomberg and others and favor tabloids? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
The Bloomberg article by Eli Lake is also an opinion piece. The other is a statement from the editorial board, rather than a news story. Cmonghost (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have indicated that some were opinion pieces. My point is that the name of this "rebellion" is more complicated than a "coup", to the point that even articles about how to call it are being written about it. Anyway, Sandy, AbDaryaee, and 84percent provided long lists down below of RS using uprising. --MaoGo (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Cmonghost; working too fast (and would rather be writing the article). I have hatted this portion. Better list below from 84 percent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Both WaPo and Bloomberg base their decision on the assertion that the Maduro government is illegitimate -- and that would be taking sides. Maduro controls the government, Guaidó is recognized by barely 50 countries. It's a coup. Deal with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
It looks like the person taking sides is you :) Write an article sometime; it will improve your knowledge of how to use sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You have no business commenting on me what-so-ever. Strike your hateful personal attack immediately. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:NEWSORG, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact" (emphasis added). Cmonghost (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose "Coup", Support "Uprising", most reliable sources are not calling this a coup.

Wikipedia policy at WP:TITLE is : Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.

Naming the event an "uprising" respects the Constitution of Venezuela, the right of the Venezuelan people to determine their government, and the majority of the Western hemisphere who agrees with the interpretation of the Constitution and the illegitimacy of Maduro's presidency during the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Article 333 calls for citizens to restore and enforce the Constitution if it is not followed. Article 350 calls for citizens to "disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values". (Univ of Minn translation) The "coup" label, in its usual sense, does not fit the circumstances where polls show at least 85% of Venezuelans believe Maduro's presidency is illegitimate,[8] and they are following their Constitution to rise up against him.[9]

This reasoning probably explains why most reliable sources are not calling it a "coup". In this discussion, two sources have been presented that do call it exclusively a coup; the vast majority do not. What is noticeable is how many of them did call the 2002 event a coup (even though Chavez resigned). In year-old sources (before the presidential crisis), mentions of the word "coup" do occur; that seems to have changed since the presidential crisis.

I have removed my long list of reliable sources from here and summarized instead at the bottom of this page every source presented in this discussion as of 00:50 May 7.

Some sources raised in this discussion referred to it as a "coup" on the first day of the event, but switched to calling it an "uprising" after the first day (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Daily Telegraph, Haaretz). Two sources referred to the event as a coup in brief coverage (The Daily Beast and The Independent), and four sources used both terms (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Global News, National Post, The New Republic). The vast majority of sources presented referred to it as an "uprising".

Almost a week of editors here turning over every rock to find even brief mentions in obscure articles of the word "coup" in reliable sources did not produce but sporadic examples.

The majority of those supporting "Uprising" did so on policy-based reasons. The majority of editors supporting "coup" did not provide a policy-based reason. Four editors supporting "coup" aimed to base their reasoning on policy, but some of those sources switched from calling it a "coup" to calling it an "uprising" as the event unfolded, and some of the sources given were not reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Policy: WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. After days of editors combing through sources, no significant reliably sourced usage of the term "coup" has been produced, as can be seen in the summary at the bottom of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support OP is absolutely right. This is/was a coup. I say was, because military defectors sought asylum in foreign embassies. They clearly gave up. BobNesh (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    What military defections have to do with the definition of uprising/coup? --MaoGo (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    Could you please provide a source of something to back up your reasoning? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Uprising usually refers to armed resistance against the orders of an established authority. If this was uprising, then it already ended. If it was coup, then it failed miserably. BobNesh (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, the role of the military (and attempted use of military force) in this process makes the term "uprising" too general. This is an attempt to use military force to overthrow an existing government (note I'm not making a claim about Maduro's legitimacy here, just that it's a fact that he remains in control of the country, see [10]). Maduro's legitimacy has nothing to do with whether or not this is a coup. For example, during the 2014 coup in Thailand (2014 Thai coup d'etat), as I understand it the election result was nullified and the PM was ordered by the constitutional court to resign before she was ousted by military force, but the overthrow is still referred to as a coup. Should that page be changed to say "uprising" as well? Also, reliable sources are divided in terms of wording, some (e.g. CBC [11]) do use the term coup. Cmonghost (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Late to the party, but CBC today has dropped coup in favor of uprising.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You're correct that this article does not use the word "coup", but in all cases where "uprising" is used (except for a suggested link to another page, which actually uses "push for regime change" when you click through), it's in the context of the phrase "call for uprising". It's debatable whether that means that it's in Guaidó's or the opposition's voice, but at any rate, this constitutes further support for my suggestion way down below in the new section that we need to further qualify the title, especially if "uprising" is staying. Cmonghost (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Check out the reactions section. Why is there NOT ONE supporter of this “coup?” Why are they choosing instead to support a “speedy transition to democracy” against the “usurpation of Maduro?” Funny thing, there are a lot of groups opposed the coup, though. Wonder why that would be? Why would the opponents use one word for a thing, and its supporters completely avoid using that word? Maybe it’s because that word, to quote the Wikipedia article on the subject, typically involves an “illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power.” It's true that some small fraction of reasonable readers finding an article titled to your wishes would agree with you, but we'd have to hope they don't click through to find out what WP means when we say "coup." GreatCaesarsGhost 22:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Why are the supporters of an unlawful act not calling it an unlawful act? Is that your question? Our article on coup call it a "means the overthrow of an existing government". Pretty easy and straightforward actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
      • So you would concede that the supporters are avoiding the word coup because the word implies unlawful. We too should avoid the word lest we suggest it unlawful. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most reliable sources do not use the term "coup", because it is misleading and/or incorrect. Your justification, in which you cite Wikipedia as your sole source, is original research. 84percent (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Well I provided reliable sources, so did Cmonghost. Where are yours? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Here's a few: The Guardian,[1] CNN,[2] The Washington Post,[3] The New York Times[4] and Reuters.[5] 84percent (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
        • The Guardian calls it a coup. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
          • They clearly refer to Maduro and say "what he called a military coup attempt by Juan Guaidó". Please find sources using the word "coup" in their own voice, not echoing what the subject of the report said. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
So, again, compared to the tabloid sources above, 84 gives us good sources:
  • The Guardian, high quality source, no coup, only uprising.
  • CNN, clearly uprising (repeatedly), although they quote someone once using the word "coup"
  • The Washington Post, we already know they do not consider it a coup (see above)
84percent, your WAPO article is paywalled, and ProQuest doesn't have it yet; could you provide detail? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, in the article, they use the word "uprising" in their own voice twice. There is a section which uses the word "coup", but only in the context of Maduro claiming it is a coup. The word "coup" is contained within a quote once, and later outside of a quote, however the latter is a paraphrasing: "Maduro denied this in an appearance on State TV late Tuesday, calling the day’s events a “failed” coup instigated by the United States." 84percent (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
So, why would Wikipedia disregard The Washington Post, The New York Times, Bloomberg, Reuters and The Guardian in favor of tabloid clickbait stuff?

Next, shall we look at who does call it a coup? That's in the article; Maduro and his allies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I add to that that [13] The Economist does not use coup but uprising throughout the article. --MaoGo (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Well it's being called a coup by the CBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph. Who is calling it an uprising? Guaidó and his allies. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
We do not have an indication of The Guardian calling it a coup; and we do have a long list of high quality sources who do not call it a coup, compared to CBC and The Telegraph, who use both terms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: I may have missed your explanation between all the different discussions, but would you care to explain why you disapprove "uprising"?--MaoGo (talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Just that it's imprecise. This was a deliberate attempt to overthrow Maduro, with Guaido calling it a final push. That fits more with an organized coup, compared to a decentralized general uprising (like the Arab spring). There may be an uprising in progress now (it's hard to tell if this is somehow distinct from street protests a week ago), but there was certainly a coup attempt, and it failed miserably when the military failed to back Guaido. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"it's hard to tell if this is somehow distinct from street protests a week ago" that is the point, under this consideration we should call the whole presidential crisis a coup. Uprising seems more fitting for this particular event in the large picture. --MaoGo (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine renaming the entire 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article to "failed coup" following Guaidos election loss. I'm also ok deleting this, merging the 4/30 violence into the crisis article, and the protests into the 2019 protests article. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The event seems notable enough (it appeared in every newssource), we can discuss the merge when this renaming is done. « I'm fine renaming the entire 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis article to "failed coup" following Guaidos election loss » You want to call everything a (failed) coup, that is bias to Maduro. What should we call this particular event then (as section or article)? mini-coup? Please avoid disregarding the whole political situation just because Guaido is not reaching his main goal. Also which election? --MaoGo (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support Absolutely textbook example of a coup. Maduro is the de facto leader of Venezuela, and a public figure attempted an armed rebellion with foreign support. The media outlets and countries that support it want to avoid the word for obvious reasons (although even many vehemently anti-Maduro outlets such as the Guardian have called it a coup), but it is the only appropriate term here. Zellfire999 (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, it is a coup by definition as the OP pointed out. Politically-charged opinions claiming otherwise have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Temeku (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would propose "Operation freedom" instead. I has the advantage that it isn't a descriptive name made up by us, but an actual name used by those who carried out this operation. Cambalachero (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
My preference is the move suggested originally, but I would find this an acceptable compromise (though I would actually prefer "Operación Libertad" with a translation given in the lede). The lede (or some other section) could then indicate that reliable sources disagree on whether or not this coup is in fact a coup or rather a "military revolt", "uprising", or whatever, allowing Wikipedia to remain neutral. Cmonghost (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
There is some debate about whether it's "Operation freedom" or "Operation liberty" but both of those are highly POV. We might end up with something ridiculous like Civil unrest in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis or just merge this article into Venezuelan protests (2014–present) and delete it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. While I agree with the above opinions that this event meets the definition of a coup, it doesn't matter, because that's irrelevant. Per WP:TITLE, our article titles should match what reliable sources use, and that has been shown to overwhelmingly be "uprising", with "coup" generally only used in quotes or when mentioning the Maduro government's response. ansh666 03:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most reliable sources aren’t calling it a coup. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support This meets the definition of coup, and many RS are calling it a coup. This shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Davey2116 (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Davey2116:, could you please provide some of the many RS? We only have so far a record of one. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • First, I acknowledge I've misread the results of a cursory Google search, and most of the titles that use "coup" in the headline are quoting Maduro. My bad.
However, there are still several reasons to disapprove of the re-naming to "uprising":
There are still a few RS that call it a coup, in their own voice.
The Daily Beast: "Guaidó announced that this was the “final phase” of the coup."
CBC: "Following the money behind Venezuela's coup" (while this is the title of the article and its first section, it's clearly not simply quoting Maduro)
Many other articles state, in their own voice, that Guaidó announced the "final phase" of a military plot to remove Maduro from office (or something to that effect). That is clearly synonymous with "coup". Notably, none of these sources are calling it an "uprising", except the CBC article which uses both terms.
NBC News: "Juan Guaidó on Tuesday called for mass anti-government protests and military defections, announcing what he termed the 'final phase' in an operation attempting to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office."
The CBC article: "The "final phase" of opposition leader Juan Guaidó's attempt to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from office began this morning — a popular uprising coupled with a military coup."
Global News: "Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó on Tuesday made his strongest call yet to the military to help him oust President Nicolas Maduro, although there was little sign of defection from the armed forces leadership and isolated clashes fizzled out."
The Independent: "Venezuela has seen a day of tumult and protests as the country's opposition leader Juan Guaidó began what he described as the "final phase" of his plan to take wrest control of the Venezuelan government from president Nicolas Maduro."
Many articles which call it an uprising say that Guaidó is calling for an uprising (or something to that effect). Hence, being perfectly neutral, the title would be POV if it were "uprising" (Guaidó's terminology) or "attempted coup" (Maduro's terminology).
NY Times: "Venezuela crisis: Guaidó calls for uprising as clashes erupt"
The NBC News article: "Clashes in Venezuela as Guaidó calls for uprising; Maduro decries 'coup attempt'"
Finally, to the extent that Guaidó is calling for an uprising, he is primarily calling for a military uprising (which sounds like double-speak for "military coup"). By all accounts, this has not happened to any appreciable degree, so unless we are to settle on "attempted uprising", the title is not as accurate as "attempted coup". (A "popular" uprising, insofar as it should exceed what would be called a "protest", hasn't yet amounted to more than a few clashes, either.)
Maduro is a terrible authoritarian kleptocrat, but by all accounts, Guaidó is seeking to use the military to seize power. Maduro's faults do not detract from the use of an accurate, non-vague description of Guaidó's action. Davey2116 (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for all that work! The Daily Beast (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) is a poor quality source, so with several of us digging deep, we are left, still so far, with only one source (CBC) referring to it as a "coup" (and they refer to it as both a coup and an uprising), and every other reliable source identified so far is not calling it a coup. Also your list expands the number of sources who don't call it a coup, and come up with wording to avoid calling it that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support speedy move to coup - Calling a coup a coup is not a comment on any aspect of it; it is not a comment on whether it's legitimate or illegitimate, homegrown or foreign-backed, authentic or not, etc. Calling it an uprising, however, is. More importantly, it leaves out that it was by definition an attempt at a coup. A coup is simply the overthrow of an incumbent government. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 06:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Article titles on Wikipedia are based on reliable sources: could you provide some to back up your reasoning? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk)


  • News outlets are not robots, every outlet has bias. Western media is not inherently more accurate or better than other media. And Western (and particularly American) media has been uniformly behind regime change.[1] We should not be using a euphemism when it clearly meets the definition of a coup. Zellfire999 (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support calling it an attempted coup: sources which argue it is not a coup are merely expressing their sources for Guaido. There was clearly an attempt to get the military to overthrow Maduro. That is an attempted coup.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sources have been discussed above, most reliable sources are using "uprising". Please avoid using "sources" as an argument without providing any(thing new). --MaoGo (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong support - This is a coup by definition. It is an attempt to overthrow the incumbent government, as stated by User:BrendonTheWizard above. It might debatable, open to interpretation and subjective whether this government is legally/legitimately/rightfully in power, but it is obviously objectively true that it really holds power over the country, even the harshest anti-Maduro sources don't deny this. Now, the sources refusing to call it a coup are indeed usually reliable sources, but we must keep on mind that these sources mostly have a significant anti-Maduro bias, which is reflected in their choice of words. Feon {t/c} 08:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    We have to center our decision on reliable sources. Most reliable sources cannot be deemed unreliable only because the use "uprising", what is left then?. --MaoGo (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    In a situation like this one, it is indeed hard to find sources which are not biased in one way or another. While they might still remain perfectly reliable for descriptions of what is going on (e.g. list of events that happened, order of events), their interpretations (e.g. exact choice of words, opinions) should be used very carefully. Feon {t/c} 09:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, the choice of words is not evident. That's why some editorial boards are explicitly stating why one should avoid naming it "coup". Uprising seems like the neutral stance between "coup" and "democratic transition", while at the same time it indicates resistance and revolt.--MaoGo (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: By WP:Title:
Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above in "Use commonly recognizable names".
  • --MaoGo (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - This suggestion is the best, calling it clashes is the most NPOV solution to this. All the arguments for calling it something else is just shitty, mediocre dog whistling. Syopsis (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Well except that the (failed) attempt to overthrow the government by force is a textbook definition of a (shitty) coup? There is already 2019 Venezuelan protests should we delete this article and merge into that one? (I think that's a fine approach). --LaserLegs (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: That's not a definition of a coup, wouldn't apply here even if it did and at any rate is just trafficking in the kind of shitty dog whistling I was referring to. My proposal would still be the best solution, call it a clash anything else is just prolonging this joke of a "debate" which should have died long ago. Syopsis (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Merging does not solve the naming problem for this particular event. --MaoGo (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
In my view it would actually allow us to abdicate responsibility for the naming problem entirely, by simply providing both views and naming the section something like "events of April 30" or "30 April clashes" or "'Operación Libertad'" (with quotation marks) or whatever. Cmonghost (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
We have an event that well meets notability; merging it away is as against Wikipedia norms as is (the tendency of some in this discussion, not you Cmonghost, towards) pretending that we can ignore reliable sources in naming an article. WP:TITLE. The other problem is that the main presidential crisis article is constantly pushing WP:SIZE limits, and we have split out content from there about half a dozen times as it has approached 10,000 words. Moving an entire notable event back in to there would be moving the wrong direction, and create size and UNDUE issues.

But, Cmonghost, I am contemplating your latest suggestion (somewhere below in this mess). You are one of the few (only?) editors who has presented a logical basis for wanting to rename the article, so I actually want to think about your idea :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

An uprising implies something 'of the people', like a spontaneous citizen's uprising to overthrow the government. This was nothing of the sort; it was one government attempting to overthrow the competing government with military force, hoping that military units loyal to the competing government would join in. That is a coup, or at least an armed civil conflict. Yes, there were concurrent protests, but that doesn't constitute an 'uprising' any more than the other mass protests over the last few months. What takes it over the edge is the clearly planned military action, which is not characteristic of an uprising. Citing sources that obviously have something to gain by calling it an 'uprising' just ignores what actually happened. Related, but I don't think the term 'coup' is negative by itself. There can be good coups or bad coups. It just describes a military-led takeover. (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Neither "military-led" nor "takeover" aptly describe the constitutional movement in Venezuela, which is driven by the people. Reliable sources understand this, and that's why they don't label it a coup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
But this article isn't about the constitutional movement writ large, it's about Juan Guaidó's attempt at a "final push" to remove Maduro from power (and install himself as interim president, hence the 'takeover') with the support of the military, which is why it's aptly described as a coup attempt. That the military failed to respond in large enough numbers for this to happen doesn't make it less of a coup attempt, just a bit of a flopped one. Cmonghost (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Cmonghost, when you say "install himself as interim president", that expresses a POV, against the reliably sourced view, based on the Constitution, that he IS the acting president of Venezuela. You can't 'takeover' something that you 'are'. Your logic on this point preferences one POV, and not the one supported by most reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
But as others have noted above, regardless of whether or not Guaidó is legally or constitutionally the interim president, he does not actually control the levers of power, and reliable sources don't disagree on that. He's not trying to take over the title "interim president"—he already has that title. But he is trying to take control of the military and the rest of the presidential powers, which currently rest with Maduro—and that's true regardless of whether or not you think he has the constitutional right to do that or not. Cmonghost (talk) 14:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
In 1958 there was a coup in Venezuela that ousted dictator Marcos Pérez Jiménez. Nowadays it has a positive connotation, but I think the events should meet the definition. If you have soldiers trying to storm the presidential palace, placing roadblocks around Caracas or broadcasts a message from VTV calling upon the population or Maduro to resign, I think it would be way more appropriate. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The hallmarks you describe are of a successful coup, or at least a coup with a chance of success. In this case, Guaidó attempted to execute a coup but was not successful because not enough of the military defected—that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt at a coup. Cmonghost (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: Not quite, curiously enough all of the hallmarks that I named happened during the 1992 coup attempts that Hugo Chávez led, both of which failed and where I could also add "airplanes bombing Caracas". Given this, I think at best it could be called an "attempt attempt". --Jamez42 (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you think the events of 1992 have to do with this, but I would be happy to rename the article to "2019 Venezuela attempted attempted coup". It would certainly be more accurate and specific than "uprising". Cmonghost (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:SPADE, and per our usual naming conventions, of which several examples can be seen here. In any case, calling it an "uprising" implies that it has popular support, which doesn't seem to actually be the case, or at least the populace is heavily divided. It's also unconstitutional, given that a proper Article 233 removal of Maduro would have replaced him with the Vice President, and even then, the term of the person who replaced him would have expired after 30 days, i.e. months ago, so it clearly meets the meaning of coup d'etat on its face. -- Kendrick7talk 14:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and this is not a typical situation, easily compared to others.) If you could provide some reliable sources to support your position, it would be helpful. Could you provide reliable sources stating that the uprising/whatever is unconstitutional? Do you have reliable sources for the idea that "the populace is heavily divided"? If so, they should be added to the abundance of sources indicating the opposite that are at Responses to the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, all of which show overwhelming support for Guaido.[14] Per WP:TITLE, article names should be based on sources, and if there are reliable sources supporting your opinion, we need to add them ! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    Also, see my response here re: citing an essay about disruptive editing (SPADE is not even a guideline) over policy on article naming. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    • This article is about the current "uprising", not the crisis in general. I just think we should call it what it is, rather than using a POV-pushing title. I'm sure once this incident is more than 72 two hours old, better sources will come to light. It's probably a little early to be even wasting a lot of time on this discussion. -- Kendrick7talk 15:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. "We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers".Per WP:NAMECHANGES--MaoGo (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree, User:MaoGo which is why it shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Where is the uprising? We're putting the cart before the horse here. -- Kendrick7talk 01:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
OR we follow the sources terminology and we use 'uprising' until most newsfeed refer to the event differently. Wikipedia is based on sources. --MaoGo (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I still say an uprising requires some evidence of people rising up. We are allowed to use common sense here. -- Kendrick7talk 14:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Kendrick7, there was a "cart before the horse" in this article, sooner than you point out. It is unfortunate that a desire to be on the main page, via WP:ITN, drove naming decisions here before the events had crystallized into anything. While editors long involved in the Venezuela articles were discussing where to develop the content (my preference was to begin at the main presidential crisis article, and then split content as/if needed, when we had a clearer picture of what the event would be named), an editor who has never before (to my knowledge) edited Venezuela topics put up an article, UNCITED by the way,[15] specifically for the purpose of nominating it at ITN. Letting a desire for mainpage coverage of current events drive editing decisions is what led to this problem. Had we developed the content at the main article, and THEN split it off as the event became more clear, at that point there would have been no sources calling it a coup, and a rational decision could have been made. That didn't happen, but the first problem was that someone unfamiliar with the terrain hastily put up a poor article for poor reasons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, SandyGeorgia, as events have progressed largely uneventfully, this whole article almost fails WP:NOTNEWS. Aside from a lot of political posturing, it would very hard to distinguish anything that has happened since G. called for an uprising from just another day of the normal protests which have been going on since January. -- Kendrick7talk 14:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
But Kendrick7, WP:ITN is all about NOTNEWS :) That's what they do! That we are still dealing with this issue, two days later, shows how disruptive it can be when someone unfamiliar with a topic barges in to impose their views. In this case, it kept some of us from developing more significant content in more significant articles. ZiaLater had started content in sandbox when another editor popped up an article so they could nominate it at ITN. What can one do? I'm happy the international media is paying attention to Venezuela, but would be happy, too, if ITN would not! When an article is driven to be constantly and quickly updated, you end up with crap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose. I suggest this proposal is closed per WP:SNOW and lack of consensus, while other alternatives could be considered. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting that although Jamez42 does not provide a policy-based reason for opposing, he does so later on in the page, with reliable sources. Jamez, you might want to address that here so the closing admin has policy-based reasoning to evaluate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I think my responses are scattered throughout the article, so I could provide a summary here. The uprising does not meet the characteristics of a coup or a coup attempt: there were no attempts to seize the executive power or any means that would help the defectors to do so: unlike previous coups are attempts in Venezuela, there were no captures or attacks of military or political targets, there wasn't a seizure of the state broadcast station or placement of roadblocks and the like; all of these are characteristic of a coup, have happened before in Venezuela and have happened in coups in other countries. There were no tanks rolling into the streets or clashes between the military, during the first of the two shootouts during the day, the rebel soldiers were even seen firing into the air; during the second one, colectivos shot at protestors, and later on policemen returned fire. In brief, if there was a coup plan, such attempt didn't even take place, and at the end, the protagonists of 30 April were the protestors. Last but not least, plenty of sources both in English and in Spanish refer to the events as an uprising. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't it the case that the original title was coup and it was changed by a single user without debate? Keeping the "uprising" title due to lack of consensus seems inappropriate in that context.Zellfire999 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the article was originally moved from coup by Jamez42 without any formal process; you can see it in the move log. Cmonghost (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
That's an incomplete history, Cm; see this, then it was corrected from coup to uprising, then someone moved it back (which was when the problem started ... that move back was disruptive and where the discussion should have occurred, but that's water under the bridge now). Unfortunately, because the original article was put up prematurely, the few editors who speak Spanish and could have been following local news as it came out and building content were instead dealing with this distraction. A distraction that was entirely driven by aims for mainpage coverage via ITN, rather than good editing decisions. The result was that a lot of content development that might have happened here, didn't.

The other problem that occurs when article development is driven by a desire to stay current for ITN is that we end up with SUCKY content. When an article is developed with WP:PROSELINE, reading it is dreadful, and it becomes very difficult to place new content in context. Content should be grouped in a way to present a coherent and enjoyable flow to the reader, which is definitely not by following a timeline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you consider the reversion to the original title "disruptive" but not the move away from the original title without discussion. I can't say I share your concerns about the creation of the article by someone who hasn't edited on Venezuela topics before—in my view the ability for this to happen is one of Wikipedia's good qualities, and one that makes it more democratic than an ordinary encyclopedia. Cmonghost (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Because of WP:BRD; it was at the point of the second move that it should have been discussed.

Also, have a look at Wikipedia:Requested moves; the first move was not controversial.

And, there's some nuance involved in calling it the "original title". I could have just as easily simultaneously copied the content from sandbox to a different name and we could have ignored the one-line premature version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Hang on, it says on the page you linked at WP:RMUM "if you make a bold move [in this case the move to "uprising"] and it is reverted, do not make the move again." So do you acknowledge that when the page was moved to "uprising", then reverted, it ought to have remained in that state rather than being moved again to "uprising"? (eta: also, the page for WP:BRD states clearly that it's an optional process) Cmonghost (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are there similar articles with "uprising" in the title? If so, how does this article compare to them? Halfway agreeing with User:Kendrick7's point of WP:SPADE, but there is also a POV calling the events a "coup". Another suggestion is to wait a bit. We have many international meetings occuring within the coming days discussing Venezuela and the situation is still unfolding.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, User:ZiaLater see[16]. A lot of those seem to be actual popular rebellions, involving people rising up, whereas here there's not yet much evidence of that happening even in sources using very pro-uprising language, e.g. "the capital on Thursday appeared to return to normalcy"WaPo. For future reference, if you click on Wikipedia's search magnifying glass without entering text, you can search things by title, etc. without being immediately taken to a page of that name. -- Kendrick7talk 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment:Hi, What was the nature of attempt to overthrow Maduro? coop or uprising ? Look! "National Security Adviser John Bolton continued to push accusations that Cuba is behind the failed US-backed coup in Venezuela, now claiming that 25,000 Cuban troops are in the country, and Venezuela would fall by midnight if they left."[1] AbDaryaee (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC) is not an RS. It has been considered at WP:RSN a few times. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Please focus on the topic, What about Fox News? here it is, John Bolton said: "the United States “already started” exerting pressure on Cuba to get their hands out of Venezuela and listed several examples: “We’ve restricted travel to Cuba, we've done a number of steps to stop the transfer of oil from Venezuela to Cuba at subsidized prices. That will put an enormous squeeze on the Cuban economy. I think the point about sending 20 to 25,000 Cuban security forces back to Cuba will have a big impact.”

Bolton went on to say that how Guaidó and the actions are being referenced in a serious problem."That's really a major part of the problem here. People incorrectly refer to what Juan Guaidó is doing as a coup. He’s the legitimate president. He’s trying to take control of the government,” Bolton said. “The coup here has been by the Cubans and the Russians who have sort of grafted themselves on to Venezuela. I think they're running it in some sense more than Maduro is.” [2] AbDaryaee (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Coup attempt per WP:SPADE and User:Zellfire999. EllenCT (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    Hi, EllenCT WP:SPADE is an essay—not even a guideline—and even at that, it is an essay that deals with disruptive editors, not content.

    WP:TITLE is policy; we name articles based on reliable sources.

    Do you have a policy reason for supporting a name for which not a single reliable source has been produced? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: it was easy for me to find these sources: [17], [18], [19], [20]. EllenCT (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The NYT is an analysis piece, not hard news, as Cmg above says to disregard.
  • The National Post page itself shows that they typically use "uprising" and they use the word "coup" to describe others' words: "after accusing him of trying to stage a coup".
  • does not support your case :)
  • The Guardian uses the word "coup" to describe other people's comments. They do not use the word in their voice. Nor do they in their much more substantial hard news reporting.
We still have no hard, real news outlet calling it a "coup". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: the QZ piece says, "De Bruin would say yes, if only an attempted one," and, "Under the Cline Center’s criteria, probably not." My opinion on this is in line with [21]. Here are some more sources on which I would like to know your opinion: [22], [23], [24], [25] EllenCT (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
In the first para, FAIR calls the opposition "conservative", when Popular Will is social democrat (Maria Corina Machado and Henrique Capriles are conservative-- the party of Gauido and Lopez is not). But FAIR being what it is, they still make the point that should concern us in naming decisions—reliable sources are not calling it a coup—so it is curious that this discussion is even happening. Even after FAIR names non-US sources that don't call it a coup, they go on to imply that a Trump-administration-hating media would line up behind the Trump administration, which is a far stretch. They might have scored if they suggested that the media was lining up to not call it a coup because their reporters were being imprisoned, shot or kicked out of the country, so they had an internal bias-- that would be more logical, but they didn't make that argument.
  • I am not familiar with ECNS, so didn't look. I can't characterize what kind of source it is, and whether it should figure in a discussion of article naming, where we should be looking at the preponderance of highest quality sources.
  • The ABC Australia article uses the word "coup" in their own voice only once, but calls it an "uprising" in their key points; not a strong case there. And they don't go on to describe anything that speaks strongly to the event as a coup. The text is describing an uprising of protesting civilians.
  • The New Republic article uses the word "coup" in the headline, while referring to it as an "uprising" in text (which makes me think clickbait); I like that they say that history will have to write this story. Here's a telling line: Contrary to Guaidó’s hopes, the military has not abandoned Maduro en masse." This is a good point of what Guaido is asking via the amnesty law and doesn't sound like a coup. They reveal a distinct bias with "when Guaidó anointed himself" (he was named by the democratically-elected National Assembly), but that is besides the point here.
  • Haaretz appears to have taken a Reuters piece that never uses the word coup (except in a historical context), and stuck coup in the headline: again, suggestive of clickbait.
In a policy-based article naming discussion, we need to see a preponderance of high quality, neutral sources describing this as a coup in their own voice, and we still have none. We are down to trying to ferret out instances of the word being used, and for as long as we have been looking, no one is coming up with BBC, The Guardian, Agence France-Presse, NYT, AP, Reuters, NPR, PRI, even Al Jazeera (bending to Trump?) ... any major news source ... discussing it as or calling it a coup. And all of those sources were generous and quick to label 2002 a coup even though Chavez had resigned. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why WP:SPADE is being quoted since there are important differences between a coup attempt and the 30 April events, as it as been stated before. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
General revulsion to the use of euphemism. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Foreign countries are currently split as to the legitimately of either person for President, calling it a coup at this point is too strongly editorializing as to who has the correct position under the constitution (POV argument). There is scope for new conservation if a more direct route is ultimately taken or attempted by Guaidó or the military, however, at this point we should wait to see how events transpire. Maranello10 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt while this one-day event obviously is indeed a coup attempt, it is better to keep the "uprising" and avoid the "coup" in title, because otherwise Wikipedia could face some severe negative consequences from the US government. I mean, various sources mentioned in this discussion are describing this event as an "uprising" for the very same reason. (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    WP:Sarcasm?--MaoGo (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    I wish. Unfortunately, negative consequences seem like a real danger. :/ -- (talk) 08:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Do not worry we have some countermeasures Wikipedia:Threats to Wikipedia. Try to state your support/opposition based on WP policies and not out of fear. --MaoGo (talk) 09:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Attempted military uprising[edit]

  • Comment Another alternative would be to call it an "attempted military uprising". Multiple RS (as cited above) which backtracked on the initial assessment as an attempted coup now describe Guaidó as "calling for a military uprising" [26][27][28][29]. The "attempted" would make it clear that this didn't actually happen (i.e., the military uprising failed, as noted in several of the sources I just cited such as NYT) while still distinguishing these events from the rest of the protests (which could also be considered part of an overall "uprising", but clearly not a military one). Cmonghost (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree this option is worthy of discussion (and thank you for making it a source-based proposition :) Would like to hear other opinions. 2019 Venezuelan attempted military uprising. I am not convinced that it is a fair and accurate title, because it is the overwhelming desire of the people of Venezuela (more than 80% in polls) to remove Maduro, and they play a role. But your logic is defensible :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see why the polls of the Venezuelan people are relevant in this specific case. It's unambiguous that Guaidó is calling not just for a general uprising (where polls of the general population could be relevant, though I'm still not sure they would play a role in the title choice, would they?), but a military one (as noted in the sources I cited). And evaluated as a military uprising, it's clear (eta: based on reliable sources, not just my own opinion[30]) that it hasn't been successful (hence "attempted"), as despite some defections, Maduro has maintained control of the Venezuelan military as a whole. Aside from the military element, it's not clear what distinguishes the events described on this page from the rest of the protests going on in Venezuela (as others have argued above), so I think just calling it "uprising" is unacceptably vague. Cmonghost (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I still need to be convinced that the fact that the "people" are broadly in this and part of the "uprising" should be dismissed. It's not a military putz; it's an entire population (almost) wanting change. Think of it this way: if chavismo had not disarmed the people at the same time it armed the colectivos--and the people could take up arms--would we be focusing only on the military? The people are in there, but unarmed. Convince me they aren't part of the <whatever we end up calling it>. Another way to think of the role of the people: it is not military personnel, but civilians, who are being shot in the conflicts. The people are the "combatants" so to speak; it is more than "military" as in a more typical situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The role of the people isn't necessarily dismissed if we use a more specific title. An (attempted) military uprising could still have substantial popular support, as this one does (even a coup could have popular support!). Calling it an attempted military uprising does not mean that there was not popular support (and that can be emphasized in the article itself, and already is), it just clarifies what makes these events different than the article they were split from. If we don't think the military aspect is important, it's not clear why this needed to be split off from the main page in the first place. Cmonghost (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The same day protests were registered nationwide, in 23 out of 23 states, just hours later Guaidó summoned the Venezuelans in a "non-violent" way, using his words. I cannot stress this enough. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I said anything about whether Guaidó was violent, just that he's called for the military to switch sides and support him, which is what distinguishes this uprising from the rest of the protests. That is what was supposed to make this the "final push" to get rid of Maduro. Obviously this call for military support (as it's described in the RS outlined above, both posted by me and those supporting the term "uprising"), would have to be using words (he's clearly not holding the military at gunpoint...)—what does that have to do with whether or not he called for a military uprising? Cmonghost (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Not totally convinced. Why can we follow the mainstream approach and name it "uprising" as all the sources above show. --MaoGo (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I changed my mind, it could work.--MaoGo (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As I think you'll see if you go back and check, many of the above sources actually go further than "uprising" and say "military uprising". "Uprising" is vague and could refer to anything. "Military uprising" refers to the specific event in which Guaidó called for the support of the military. Cmonghost (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Or we can call it a failed coup attempt, which is what it is. What uprising? Seriously, what uprising? No one came, it was over in a day. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose only because the military, in large part, did not attempt an uprising. One disgraced general fled to Chile, and otherwise it's business as usual. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs you disregarded all the sources above and you continue to use the same argument of "failure" to promote "coup" in the title?. --MaoGo (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
All these "sources" refuse to use the word coup because they consider Guaido the rightful president -- and that is taking sides. A coup is "the overthrow of an existing government" that's exactly what was attempted, and failed. What certainly, unequivocally and without question did not happen is a "military uprising". The military is on Maduros side, he's still chilling in Caracas. The POV warriors can try to spin this all they want, but in the end it was nothing more than Guaido standing on the side of the road with a disgraced general bitching about Maduro, before being dispersed with tear gas. I'm not even convinced it should have it's own article. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The best sources are careful, they call Guaido recognized president by 50 countries or something related to his oath. You seem to use POV language yourself: «that's exactly what was attempted, and failed. ... Maduros side, he's still chilling in Caracas... nothing more than Guaido standing on the side of the road with a disgraced general bitching about Maduro ». Wikipedia is based on sources, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --MaoGo (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
If we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS then you'll stop using Guaidos branding and call it what it is: a coup. 50 countries? So what? The UN? The other 150 counties? Seriously guy, if you can't recognize that Maduro is in control of Venezuela, I don't know what to do for you. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Honestly, you're coming across as the one who is WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGSing. You're ignoring an overwhelming amount of valid sources simply because they don't agree with you. ansh666 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Needlessly confusing as the military do not seem to be the ones attempting or promoting an uprising, and if it fails, the failure would not be theirs. Can we even name a dozen soldiers involved? -- Kendrick7talk 01:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, yes, there were only a few soldiers involved, and the whole thing seems to have been largely a bluff on Guaidó's part. (or he was duped by Padrino et al). I don't think "attempted military uprising" necessarily implies that the military is behind the uprising (though reasonable people can disagree on that of course, these judgments are tricky). In my view it's compatible with the reading under which it was Guaidó who attempted to get the military to rise up (and almost none did). Cmonghost (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Two days in to this discussion, with plenty of people looking at it, there has not been found even ONE reliable source in support of the word "coup" (CBC was put forward earlier, but even they have changed), with ample examples of high quality sources that describe it as an "uprising". But there hasn't been support either for "attempted military uprising" (which is at least an alternative that is defensible by reliable sources that have been provided). Any new ideas? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose to coup. Support to either "uprising" or "military uprising". The sources have been discussed and not a single source RS that favors coup over uprising has been found. We should follow RS as WP:Title.--MaoGo (talk) 11:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I took this new section as a total reboot. This is not my intention. I don't want to restart multiple discussions. Maybe this section should concern only new points of view on how to solve this intricate discussion. My comment 20 minutes ago holds but it is not adding anything new. --MaoGo (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that was my idea at least :) Or, if anyone has actually got a reliable source still calling it a coup, they might want to produce it. As of now, we have zero. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How are you defining "reliable?" If you view at as synonymous with "western," basically every outlet is explicitly pro-regime change[1] (although The Guardian nonetheless DID call it a coup in their own voice during their live coverage, the article title only changed after it failed). Of course TeleSur, RT, etc. all do in fact refer to it as a coup.[2][3]. This is not inherently the case however, as seen when virtually all US media reported that the National Guard burned aid trucks at the protest weeks ago (despite video clearly showing otherwise available the day of) and only retracting the story weeks later[4], while pro-Maduro outlets reported accurately that the opposition had stated the blaze[5]. All media outlets have an agenda, not just foreign ones. Whether this is a coup should depend on whether it meets the dictionary definition with respect to the man who is in actuality still head of state in Venezuela, which it clearly does. Zellfire999 (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ummmm ...if you don't know how Wikipedia defines reliable, I'm not sure a productive discussion can happen. If you want to disagree with the fact that RT and Telesur are not reliable sources, FAIR is considered a biased source, while The New York Times is considered a high quality reliable source, please take that discussion to the correct place to avoid disrupting this conversation. Wikipedia is based on RS, not our personal interpretations of dictionary definitions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    "virtually all US media reported that the National Guard burned aid trucks" Not sure. If I did not miss something, according to the NYT, that detail was retweeted by many US representatives and presented as such in FOX news, but aside from them, most RS where pretty careful with attribution on that. But well this is a discussion for another article. The point being that you cannot complain about most RS and use one RS to support your criticism. --MaoGo (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Zellfire999: I am saddened and dissapointed to read about the characterization as "western" media; there are plenty of national sources in Venezuela that can also be consulted, most of which describe the events as an uprising:
    El Pitazo, alzamiento
    Efecto Cocuyo, alzamiento
    Tal Cual Digital, alzamiento
    El Estímulo, quotes Guaidó, who says "the coup d' etat is on the side of Miraflores".
    @Jamez42: that one says in the URL it's a blog, although it looks like news ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: Interesting, this is the first time that I notice "blog" in the URL. I can guarantee that El Estímulo is a reliable source, and I should mention one of my favorite ones. It has excellent news and interview pieces. I'll leave some as examples:
    Corpoelec publica cronograma de racionamiento eléctrico sin incluir a Caracas
    El ABC de las protestas en Venezuela de 2017
    Susana Raffalli: El hambre te seca, te para el corazón y te quita la vida
    Este es el último deseo del Señor de los Papagayos --Jamez42 (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    Prodavinci Quotes Maduro and William Saab, who describe the events as a "coup", while mentioning that the Lima Group rejected the term. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    Now that you are discussing non-western media. Al-Jazeera calls it Uprising. And if we go to non-English media we have Alzamiento/Levantamiento in Spanish, soulèvement in French and 'Aufstand/Revolte' in German, none of those translates to 'coup'.--MaoGo (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I state again that quite a few of the sources that call it an "uprising" say that "Guaidó is calling for" an uprising, so they should be excluded on the same grounds that we have excluded sources that say that Maduro is calling this a coup. I also listed many sources that do not call this an uprising and use a synonym for coup instead, such as, "Juan Guaidó on Tuesday made his strongest call yet to the military to help him oust President Nicolas Maduro". The other major problem with maintaining the current title is that no uprising took place; at best, this was an "attempted military uprising", and by definition, this was an attempted military coup. My view is that an "uprising" implies a coordinated mass-movement, and what transpired here did not even attempt to match that scale, especially as Guaidó primarily called on the military, not the public, to help him oust Maduro; moreover, the phrase "attempted uprising" is awkward. Finally, the POV concern of using the title "uprising" has not been addressed. Davey2116 (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    And we have a long list of reliable sources that use the word uprising in their own voice, not Guaido's. If you believe "attempted military uprising" is a closer fit, that support goes in the section just above this one. Finally, you cannot claim the word used by the highest quality sources (uprising) is POV; by definition, if that's what the sources call it, that's what we call it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not necessarily POV to use the word "uprising" but it is POV to only use the word uprising, as that implies that an uprising actually took place, contrary to fact (as RS have now reported). Something like "failed uprising" [31][32][33] or "call for uprising"[34][35] would be more neutral. Cmonghost (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Why do we need a "reboot"? There was no "uprising", it never happened, Maduro took a victory lap with the military yesterday. We can call it a coup attempt, or a "failed attempt to start an uprising" if you just despise the word coup for POV reasons, but there never was an uprising. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think I explained that in my opening para. Generally, we discuss on Wikipedia to come to consensus; as of now, there is none. I was hoping for either new ideas or new sources: none so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's an attempted coup. I easily found several mass media stories calling it an (attempted) coup in their headlines without quotes or qualification, for my comments in the above section, and there are plenty more, e.g. [36]. I have been informed that these stories are not "hard, real news." You can have a coup against de facto leaders. An uprising, in my mind, is more than a few dozen people. I'm perturbed by the extent of the arguments for euphemism here. The most depressing thing is that this nomenclature dispute appears to be a US government-led effort. I only started paying attention to Venezuela-related articles on-wiki yesterday when someone brought these pie charts to my attention off-wiki. EllenCT (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
DUPLICATE, EllenCT has already entered that opinion above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Pardon me for assuming that "reboot" meant that you wanted to start over from the beginning, which is what I understand the word to mean. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @EllenCT: As if it wasn't clear since yesterday; I am glad someone was finally honest enough to bring it up. That problem (charts from someone who has no idea how Wikipedia works, or what my editing history is, and are discussed at my talk page, where you are welcome to join in and ask me anything you want, and tell that nincompoop he is, too) has been obvious throughout this discussion, and goes a long ways towards explaining why we have seen an influx of editors here who would never had paid attention to a Venezuela topic and are giving non-policy-based feedback on what should have been not difficult discussions on a fairly minor article.

    Where that comes home to roost in this discussion is that non-policy-based reasoning for a move will lead to a Move Review if a move based on faulty reasoning happens. We should only be looking at reliable sources.

    Instead we are seeing editors jump through hoops to try to justify positions that are not based in Wikipedia policy because of one Reddit editor's well unfounded speculation. My suggestion/hope is that you will join my talk page where I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have about the WP:EDITCOUNTITIS that Mr. Reddit suffers from. In this discussion, we should focus on policy, and we should find a way to develop a consensus. I was not opposed to the "military uprising" proposal, but it went nowhere either, so we have no consensus because of some uninformed and outlandish speculation raised by a nincompoop who knows nothing about the tool he used. Hope to see you at my talk, and hope this discussion can focus on policy henceforth. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Based on the actual content of the sources, it would obviously go against WP:SPADE to not use the term "coup." From USAToday: "In a video message, Guaido said he began the “final phase” of his plan to oust Maduro, and he called on the military to support him in his bid to end Maduro’s “usurpation.”" The definition of a coup is the sudden appropriation of leadership/power. The oppose !votes are more or less saying: "We can't call it a spade, the sources only call it 'a sturdy digging tool having a thick handle and a heavy, flat blade that can be pressed into the ground with the foot'" Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Another bit of original research which has zero to do with Wikipedia naming policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the same argument given to describe the 23 January proclamation as a coup, with the exception that this time Guaidó calls upon the military. Again, with no military trying to storm military bases, government buildings or power institutions, or at the very least violent clashes between opposing soldiers, I don't see how WP:SPADE applies here. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Your answer is in your own comment: the fact that he called upon the military is what makes it a coup attempt. And before you rehash the same argument about there being no planes bombing Caracas, you should take note that not all coups involve actual fighting (a coup backed by the threat of military action but no actual military action is commonly called a bloodless coup). Cmonghost (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question is "several dozen military personnel" an uprising? Did it even happen? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever the noun used, it now seems clear that the title should contain "attempted" or "failed", as this is how top sources are now describing it. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] Cmonghost (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
"Failed effort to beckon military" is my second choice. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. First of all, Maduro is not recognized as president by most of countries and international organizations and therefore there was no "attempt to overthrow of an existing government". Because the government of Venezuela is formed by Guaidó and the National Assembly. The last legitimate elected politicians elected in Venezuela. Second, because of this, most of realiable sources are not calling it a coup.--SirEdimon (talk) 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Guaidó is not recognized as president by "most" countries either. There are 195 countries and only 54 recognize Guaidó. Note also that (as already extensively explained in this discussion) "existing government" does not equal "legitimate government". This can be a coup regardless of whether you personally think Maduro is legitimate or not. Cmonghost (talk) 03:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
That's the crux of the issue isn't it? The number of people dwelling on "Maduro bad man, uprising good!" --LaserLegs (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I think quite a few editors should bear in mind that a coup attempt can intend to remove an unwanted / unpopular leader (which is exactly what Guaido and his followers intended to do here). A coup attempt is simply an attempt to depose of the incumbent government and take power, and this term is especially used in instances where the military and/or political factions conduct the coup. It's unbelievable how many comments seem to suggest that "coup" is a dirty word now. There was no question that the small-scale 2019 Gabonese coup d'état attempt still constituted a coup (even though the president wasn't even in the country at the time, but a small handful of military members briefly took control of broadcast systems and two people died), but for some reason when it's a much larger scale coup where a political faction allies with a greater number of military defectors and there's twice as many deaths and hundreds more injuries and arrests and the intent is explicitly to depose of the incumbent, suddenly we must ignore all incredibly basic (and seldom disputed) definitions because it's OR to call a spade a spade? (I can already see someone replying to sound the WP:OSE alarm because I mentioned another coup; OSE pertains exclusively keep/delete discussions and notes in the first sentence that such arguments are not by definition invalid). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - given the duration, size of the group and all circumstances, this was without a doubt a coup attempt. To suggest that it's not a coup because it's not an attempt to overthrow an existing government, because Maduro's government "doesn't legitimately exist", is farcical. Like it or not, Maduro's government is in control, which is all that matters in this situation. BeŻet (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
@BeŻet: Could you please elaborate? Arguments and sources have been given putting aside legitimacy claims. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Also this, interesting read: Who Is Venezuela’s Legitimate President? A Messy Dispute, Explained --Jamez42 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"Uprising" alone is not precise enough—alternatives?[edit]

Though I continue to support the move to "coup", the discussion on that front is clearly going nowhere for reasons it would be productive not to get into here. However, it's equally clear that "2019 Venezuela uprising" is an unacceptable name per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: The title utterly fails on precision, as it does not unambiguously identify the article's subject. "Uprising" (notwithstanding its POV tinge) could be applied to any of the recent protests/demonstrations in Venezuela. This can be remedied without making compromises on the other criteria—adding the words "failed" or "attempted", or rephrasing to "2019 call for military uprising in Venezuela" are still acceptably concise and natural, and arguably more recognizable. Many RS are already describing the events in this more nuanced way [43][44][45][46][47], so I don't see a counter-argument there either. Yes, many of these sources use "uprising", but they don't only use "uprising", and when they do they are frequently qualifying it.

Since the attempted "reboot" section above is still getting bogged down with the same tired arguments, I thought I would open this section explicitly for new name suggestions: any are welcome. I would personally be satisfied with "2019 failed Venezuela (military) uprising", "2019 attempted Venezuela (military) uprising", "2019 call for (military) uprising in Venezuela", or some permutation thereof. Cmonghost (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I'd like to add that I'm interested to hear from any supporters of the current title about why they think it's adequate given my post above. The discussion above has mostly focused on why "coup" is wrong (and fair enough, that's what LL's proposal is about), but there has been relatively little discussion of my point that "uprising" is too imprecise, which I've made a few times already. Many sources that have been used above to object to "coup" in favour of "uprising" do not actually use "uprising" alone but qualify it with "military", "attempted", "call for", etc. Cmonghost (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaoGo: @SandyGeorgia: regarding the above discussion, your feedback please. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question. I didn't oppose Cmonghost's first proposal so I don't see what I can add to help move this forward. Cmonghost listed half a dozen sources above, but didn't pull out a concrete single alternative, so I'm not really clear what is wanted here ... ???? He's asking for new suggestions. We've already seen what happens on this page if I make even a mild suggestion when I don't care one way or the other (Freedom v. Liberty), so I can't see why I should be the one suggesting. Give me a single suggestion to !vote on and I will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • PS. Every other article (there are about six I think) that starts with 2019 Venezuela <whatever> uses 2019 Venezuelan, for what it's worth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment we have dedicated more writing to this discussion than to the main article (see talk page size). Time to read and write articles has been reduced due to this discussion. I am focusing on other things for the moment. As Sandy, I have declared my part, I do not know if I can add something new to this section. --MaoGo (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Additional sources beyond the nine I provided above, all calling it a (failed) coup in their headlines without quotation marks: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. I would also note that Webster defines the word "uprising" as, a usually localized act of popular violence in defiance usually of an established government" (emphasis added) and we have no evidence that the dozens of soldiers had any popular support. Furthermore, I repeat that a coup can be staged against an illegitimate de facto government, no matter how many nations do or do not recognize it or its opposition. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    WP:CHERRY? Some of those sources have already been discussed. The coup vs uprising discussion should be carried in the concerning section above (or in the reboot). --MaoGo (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
    I also understood that Cmonghost was looking for new ideas here rather than a re-hashing, so I won't characterize those sources (relative to the many that don't use the word) in this section. That commentary would be better placed above so this section could move forward. (IF anyone moves the commentary, they may delete this comment from me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's find a consensus[edit]

Pinging users for an organised set of final opinions: @SandyGeorgia: @MaoGo: @EllenCT: @LaserLegs: @Cmonghost: @Davey2116: @BrendonTheWizard: @Jamez42: @SirEdimon: @Zellfire999: @Kendrick7: @Ansh666: @Maranello10: @AbDaryaee: @Syopsis: @Feon: @84percent: @BobNesh:

Try limiting responses to "Support move to coup attempt:", "Oppose move:", "Comment:" or "Other:". Thanks.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

...that's what we literally just did above. No need to do it again. ansh666 19:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Ansh666. Consensus is not determined by listing !votes or counting them. I see no need to add more bloat to the poor admin who has to close this, with duplicate information in list form, without rationale. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt as I've explained above. Davey2116 (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt BobNesh (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt Zellfire999 (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt per the above discussions Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt per WP:TITLE. --MaoGo (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt per above discussions. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt for reasons stated. Maduro is the president of Venezuela, whatever "50+ countries say" and an attempt to remove him by force is a coup. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt; the uprising failed.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt 84percent (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt - the word coup doesn't imply that the target is a legitimate government, just a de facto power center, but the word uprising implies popular support, for which there is no evidence here. EllenCT (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt - There was widespread uprising, and no such uprising has been put down. This seems to have been a failed coup, according to the available facts. -- Kendrick7talk 02:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt - As per above. "Uprising" seems very misleading, implying popular support and success. Nice4What (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt per above discussions. AbDaryaee (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt, because this is a coup attempt by definition, as explained above. Feon {t/c} 15:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt per discussion in sections above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose move to coup attempt for fucks sake just call it 2019 Venezuela clashes already. We will just continue debating this forever if we don't call it that. Syopsis (talk) 05:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support move to coup attempt — Reading the discussions and multiple articles, I agree with the title of describing this as a coup attempt. According to BBC News, "academic scholars" agree that describing an event as a coup is neutral and that "whether it was [a coup] or not is something independent of legitimacy". The table below is also misleading as some of the media and "Spanish language" sources describe the event as both a coup and uprising. I quickly found mulitple "Spanish language" sources that have described the event as a coup (golpe or golpe de estado) in their articles (See: 1, Milenio 2, El Destape 3, Metro International 4, Cinco Días 5, El Periódico de Catalunya 6, Marca 7, Diario de Yucatán 8). Overall, if academics state that describing this as a coup is neutral and we seem to have a consensus that this title should use the coup wording, I support moving this to 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @ZiaLater: Well, that's a bummer, because while I checked all the English-language, I copied the foreign language sources. Are you saying foreign-language sources in the chart are listed wrong, or that these additional "Both" sources should be added? (With the caveat that I am not sure all of these are reliable sources, and by looking at them, they are pretty clearly not of the most notable quality.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: Some use "coup" in their title and later use "uprising" in the body, likely a way of editorializing and to not report words. And honestly, these sources may have revised their coverage, but that should not matter.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @ZiaLater: let me simplify the question. Are you providing new sources, or are these already in the chart? Do I add these to "Both" or do I move them to "both"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: What I am saying is that a table will not help in this matter. Just like Venezuelan politics, the media coverage of this will be polarized on this topic. Since this is not a vote and the topic is so polarizing among user and the media, I separated my attention from the noise and echo chambers to base my decision on the scholars.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Ah, ok I see. We'll let the admin decide if the summary of sources helps; at least it may get people thinking.

    I have added those to the chart under "Both", with the caveat that these are such low-quality sources that we would never be using them anyway. No matter how far and wide people search, we have only found marginal sources using the word "coup", which is an WP:ONUS issue. This quality of sourcing does not evidence reliably sourced based support for the term. The chart shows that there are essentially no high quality sources using the word, no matter how we split hairs and how deep we dig. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

    @ZiaLater: @SandyGeorgia: The NYT (in English) has also used "coup."
    Jack Upland, that is an analysis/opinion, looking at a hypothetical. That is distinct from reporting on the event as a coup. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    SandyGeorgia That was my comment (which I forgot to sign), not sure why it is listed as someone else's. The article leads with, "To understand what makes a coup succeed, as recently happened in Sudan and Algeria, or fail, as it did this week in Venezuela." That seems to me to clearly be referring to this month's events as an attempted coup. Zellfire999 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I just came here to say that wasn't my comment!--Jack Upland (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'll remind that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that polls should not be a substitute for discussion. However, I trust that this could help with finding a solution; the discussions above are getting heinously lengthy. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    You are correct on both points; the raw number of accounts voicing their thoughts is not what decides the consensus, but this should certainly be of benefit to whoever takes on the enormous task of identifying a rough consensus (or no consensus) from this ever-growing talk page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    This rehash won't likely help at all; it just adds bloat for the closing admin to review. Consensus is not determined by !voting; it is based on the strength of the argument. It is unlikely the closing admin will even look at this. The selective pinging also renders it problematic. Based on what's on the page now, and the strength of the arguments presented, a controversial close will end up at Move Review anyway. Furthermore, that an extra section was added will possibly deter any future discussion or !voting, because people may see an overwhelming page and decide not to weigh in at all. For these reasons, I'm removing myself from the above list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: I know that this is not a vote. I created this section for the reasons you mentioned, the sections above have too much bloat and this is a simplified method of seeing where the consensus lies and it is simple to search the usernames above to read proper statements or arguments. Either way, this will be a taskful read for anyone (as it always is with Venezuelan articles and talk pages). Whether someone else wants to add to this section is their own decision and cannot be presumed that it will "deter" anyone since talk pages are open to all. Also, an admin is not required to close this discussion.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    There is no such thing as a "simplified method of seeing where the consensus lies" with a list. Consensus is not a !vote. It's not a count. It's not a tally. It's not a binary summary. This list means nothing to the closing admin; it is only adding offputting volume to the page-- for both the closing admin and other editors who might still offer input. (By the way, you haven't !voted.)

    The problem is that there is no consensus, many of the declarations are not based in policy, and "let's come to consensus" to solve this would imply not just a relisting and counting of where everyone stands, rather a discussion of what option we can come up with that people can agree on. This has been tried several times above, and we need to forge forward with ideas around which we can build a concensus.

    What we have in the section created here is a nightmare for the closing admin, who will now have to look at multiple places on the page to see if there are duplicates, and to see if the people entering a declaration in this section actually backed up their declaration with a policy-based reason. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of sources[edit]

Copied from User:SandyGeorgia/30AprilSources as of 8 May 21:46 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources use of coup to describe the event now at 2019 Venezuela uprising.

Tabloids, non-reliable sources, opinion, editorials and analyses pieces are separated after the chart.

  Source described event as coup
  Source did NOT describe event as coup unless quoting an individual, for example, Maduro
  Source switched from describing it as a "coup" on the first day, to "uprising" after first reports
  Source used both "coup" and some version of "uprising"
Sources presented Coup No Coup Switch
Both Notes
Up ABC News ☑Y Venezuela rocked by clashes as US backs uprising, threatens Cuba
Up Al Jazeera ☑Y Venezuela in crisis: All the latest updates

Up Associated Press ☑Y Venezuelans take to streets as uprising attempt sputters, no coup; The Latest: Guaido calls for more street protests Wednesday, "rejects characterizations of coup"
Both Australian Broadcasting Corporation ☑Y Venezuelans stage mass protests after military ignores calls to oust President Nicolas Maduro uses the word "coup" in their own voice only once, but calls it an "uprising" in their key points; using "uprising" without "coup" in other articles.[53]
Up BBC ☑Y Venezuela crisis: Defiant Maduro claims victory over Guaidó 'coup', uses the word "coup" in quotes, and attributes the word to Maduro allies Cuba and Bolivia, does not describe the event as a coup

Venezuela's Guaidó accused of coup attempt by government, does not call it a coup, indicates Maduro allies do
Venezuela crisis in 300 words, does not call it a coup, indicates Maduro does.

Up Bloomberg ☑Y Venezuelan Soldiers Don Blue Armbands in Uprising: Photo Essay
Switch Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ☑Y Used "coup" on first day,[54] switched to uprising.[55]
Up CNN ☑Y Venezuela's Maduro claims to have defeated 'coup,' as rival Guaido urges more protests, uses "coup" in quotes to describe Maduro's use, but calls it an uprising

Operation Freedom: Uprising in Venezuela begins, no coup

CNN, clearly uprising (repeatedly), although they quote someone once using the word "coup"

Coup The Daily Beast ☑Y Was a Russian Plot Behind the Venezuela Coup?

Switch The Daily Telegraph ☑Y Telegraph uses "coup" in May 1 headline, and quotes an "expert" using the word, but in their own voice, uses uprising.
By May 2, they are calling it an uprising, using the word "coup" only in quotes to describe what Maduro called it.[56] [57]
Up The Economist ☑Y A failed uprising against Nicolás Maduro
Up El País ☑Y El Pais (Spanish newspaper, English version)
Up Euronews ☑Y Guaido calls for fresh protests, Maduro remains defiant
Up France24 ☑Y New Caracas protests as US and Russia spar over Venezuela, no coup except Maduro claim

As it happened: Venezuela's Guiado calls for new protests in anti-Maduro uprising, uprising, no coup

Up FOX News ☑Y Venezuela’s Guaido calls for military uprising while flanked by soldiers at Caracas airbase: ‘The moment is now’
Both Global News ☑Y Global News: "Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó on Tuesday made his strongest call yet to the military to help him oust President Nicolas Maduro, although there was little sign of defection from the armed forces leadership and isolated clashes fizzled out."
Up The Guardian ☑Y Venezuela crisis: Maduro claims victory over 'deranged' coup attempt, only uses the word to coup to state how Maduro describes it, in their own voice, call it an uprising.

Guaidó's uprising seems to have flatlined. What's next for Venezuela? calls it an uprising, never uses the word coup.

Switch Haaretz ☑Y Venezuela Crisis: From a U.S.-backed Operation to a Military Coup, What Could Happen Next? On May 1, uses a Reuters piece that never uses the word "coup" (except in a historical context), uses the word "uprising" to describe the event, uses "coup" in the headline only. By May 2, using the word "uprising" without "coup", from an Associated Press piece.[58]

Coup The Independent ☑Y The Independent (I can find only this one brief use in all their coverage; they don't seem to be covering Vzla as seriously as other media sources.)
Up Japan Times ☑Y Venezuela's Juan Guaido calls for uprising but military loyal to Maduro for now

Both National Post ☑Y [59] [60]

Up National Public Radio ☑Y Amid Violence In Venezuela, Maduro Digs In And Protests Continue calls it an uprising.
Both The New Republic ☑Y New Republic uses “coup” in the title, but not in the article content, where they use uprising.
Up The New York Times ☑Y What We Know So Far About Juan Guaidó’s Call for an Uprising, calls it an uprising, points out that Nicolás Maduro calls it a coup

Trump, Seeking to Put Pressure on Maduro, Threatens a Full Embargo on Cuba, calls it an uprising, points out that Cuba's president, Maduro ally, calls it a coup

Rival Protests Grip Venezuela After Guaidó’s Failed Effort to Beckon Military, calls it an uprising, points out that Maduro Defense Minister, Padrino Lopez calls it a coup

NY Times: "Venezuela crisis: Guaidó calls for uprising as clashes erupt"

Up NBC News ☑Y NBC News: "Juan Guaidó on Tuesday called for mass anti-government protests and military defections, announcing what he termed the 'final phase' in an operation attempting to remove President Nicolás Maduro from office."
Up Reuters ☑Y Venezuelan protests peter out as Maduro hangs on; U.S. and Russia squabble, no coup except that Maduro calls it a coup

Explainer: Venezuela crisis puts Trump policy to the test, no coup, military revolt

Reuters, no coup, only uprising

Up USA Today ☑Y Officials for Venezuelan President Maduro say government fighting 'coup' as opposition calls for uprising
Up The Wall Street Journal ☑Y [61] Uprising, "coup" only when attributed to others
Up The Washington Post ☑Y They use the word "uprising" in their own voice twice. There is a section which uses the word "coup", but only in the context of Maduro claiming it is a coup. The word "coup" is contained within a quote once, and later outside of a quote, however the latter is a paraphrasing: "Maduro denied this in an appearance on State TV late Tuesday, calling the day's events a "failed" coup instigated by the United States."

Both Political news commentary ☑Y
Up Spanish language ☑Y
  • El Pitazo, uses alzamiento (uprising)
  • Efecto Cocuyo, uses alzamiento (uprising)
  • Tal Cual Digital, uses alzamiento (uprising)
  • Prodavinci, quotes Maduro and William Saab, who describe the events as a "coup", while mentioning that the Lima Group rejected the term.
  • El Mundo, alzamiento and levantamiento
  • ABC, levantamiento and its verbs, uses "coup" in a quote of Maduro's ambassador in Spain. The outlet has a whole gallery titled Las imágenes del levantamiento.
  • La Vanguardia, levantamiento
  • 20 minutos has a whole category called Levantamiento contra Maduro, almost the exact name of the article in the Spanish Wikipedia.
  • El Confidencial, levantamiento
  • La Razón, levantamiento, uses revuelta in the title.
  • Infobae, from Argentina, which uses levantamiento and quotes Maduro saying "coup"
Both Spanish language sources ☑Y
Up French language ☑Y The French equivalent to uprising is soulèvement, the following newspapers use this word, "coup" only used in quotes or in reference to historical coups.
Opinion pieces that state an editorial position or discussing the naming controversy
Sources that were mentioned in discussion that are tabloid or not reliable for this case


I think I got everyone; my apologies if I missed anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • The binary coup vs. uprising dichotomy used in the table here could give readers the false impression that the sources using "uprising" are using the word "uprising" alone to describe the events described in the article. I'd thus like to point out again here that many of the sources listed here (probably the majority but I didn't count) as using "uprising" don't use it alone; they modify it, typically using qualifiers "call for", "attempted", "failed", etc., as well as the descriptor "military". If the article is not moved as a result of this move request, we will thus need further discussion on a different alternative to "uprising" alone. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cmonghost: We Are In Violent Agreement. (Except for one part you left out: if the article is moved based on non-policy-based reasoning, we will end up at Move Review, doing this all over again.) So we are nowhere now. The binary dichotomy is intended to help folks in these discussions understand that they had best start thinking about how to come to a policy-based compromise, so my attempt succeeded, and you got it ! If we restrict the discussion to "uprising" v "coup", there is simply no way "coup" can be rationalized based on WP:TITLE policy and reliable sources, and since most of the people supporting "coup" (you being an exception) did not provide policy-based reasons, we have not given the poor admin who has to close this much to work with. We need to find a compromise. And you are just the person to suggest one :) In reading all of these sources, the word "plot" stands out. Put your linguist brain to work, and maybe this chart will help people realize that we need to start finding a compromise term, and as we move away from 30 April, sources are using more words. Surely we can find one to agree on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, it's likely that we will end up with further discussion because of no consensus anyway; IMO, the discussion was affected by external factors that made compromise towards building consensus unlikely. But there's no reason not to start working towards the compromise sooner rather than later, and I hope this chart helps show the need to do that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: there is another one, by The Nation, which uses "coup" to describe it. It also mentions "uprising", but only to criticize the widespread "Mainstream Media" usage of the term (which might also be useful somewhere else in the article, e.g. in a section about the media coverage), so it seems that it still belongs to the "coup only" group. Feon {t/c} 06:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There is also yet another one from The Nation, so we have two articles from this source. Feon {t/c} 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I will put that in, but I hope you see where that will lead. Politico is in the chart now, and it is a political commentary site more than hard news. I wonder if it should be deleted, and we should be focusing on hard news reporting rather than political commentary. If I add The Nation, then I've got to also go see what the National Review has done, and then we start down the political commentary slide. I do not know where WP:TITLE stands on this. Should we agree to leave out all political commentary sources with a known bias? Someone's list had Politico, and I included it because it went contrary to trend (using the term "uprising" in spite of left-leaning bias). Does The Nation belong in this list, or should we move it, Politico, National Review-- all of the political commentary and analysis sites to the bottom of the list? What an admin needs to see to close this according to policy is how reliable sources are reporting the event, and that is crystal clear from this chart no matter how much political commentary we can find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured out how to solve this. WP:TITLE tells us naming depends on English-language reliable sources, and we typical assign political news commentary to opinion. But I grouped the other-language sources in one entry, just to have them in one place, and let the closing admin decide. I can likewise group Politico, The Nation, and National Review (which predictably uses "uprising"[69]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done [70] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. You might want to replace ! style="background:#9400D3;"| Up with ! style="background:#A0522D;"| Both in the corresponding row, it is probably a mistake that happened due to copypasting.
That it was, thank you!  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
In the mean time, I found an article on The New American calling it a coup attempt, which also seems like a political commentary, but I am not sure. This one seems particularly interesting because it is an example of an anti-Maduro source calling it a coup attempt. Feon {t/c} 12:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 Done [71] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question Why are sources that say that Guaidó is calling for an uprising included? We are excluding sources that say that Maduro is calling this a coup. I hope we agree that Guaidó need not explicitly call this a coup for it to still be a coup. Also, why are sources "that do not call it a coup" (but also do not call it an uprising, except to say that Guaidó calls it that) automatically categorized as "uprising only"? See, for example, sources from the AP (whose wording is copied in other outlets, such as Fox), BBC, NBC News, NYT, Reuters, etc.; all of these are listed as "uprising only", yet several of these don't even use the term at all outside the title (e.g., NBC, Reuters), and none of them use the term outside of the phrase "Guaidó is calling for an uprising". Therefore, I suggest that a separate category is made for articles that use neither "coup" nor "uprising" in their own voice, which would include many of the sources in the chart; this is important because the chart as it currently stands is roughly claiming a media consensus when there really isn't one. Davey2116 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Please be careful. I checked NYT above and they use uprising outside the title and outside Guaidó's call statement, BBC, Reuters and NBC do it too [72] [73][74]. --MaoGo (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2116:, thanks for checking the work (that was the idea). Checking your examples now, but I ask people to consider this discussion through the eyes of the admin who has to close the move request ... if I adjust one or two or six items, does that change the overall picture? I believe the inescapable conclusion is that the highest quality sources did not call it a coup, and we are all digging for second or third-tier reliable sources that may have, and not finding much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Davey2116: OK, I looked. In general, remember, WP:ONUS (paraphrasing: The onus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Coup is disputed; we need reliably sourced evidence to include it.) The Move Request we are contemplating is to "coup". Regardless if "uprising" is not the right place to be (which may result in a secondary discussion), in order to move it to "coup", we need policy-based evidence and consensus that reliable sources call it a coup.
  • If a source says, "Gauido is calling for an uprising", that is a word choice made by the media outlet to describe what they in their opinion Guaido called for. It's not a quote. They could have chosen to describe it differently (and they have, in many ways, as pointed out throughout these discussions by Cmonghost).

    Whereas when the source reports that "Maduro is calling this a coup", that is not a media word choice in their reporting: that is a statement of fact, a direct quote, whether they report in quotes or not.

    Whether it's the title or the body, when a reliable source chooses not to use the word "coup" anywhere in their reporting, that is a choice made by the reliable source. Again, consider ONUS. We have sources that took reports that never used the word "coup" from AP or Reuters reports, and then put "coup" in their reprint headline, and those are characterized under "Both" (which can be counted either way), with the strength of the source taken into consideration. (My view is that the highest quality sources made an almost unanimous choice to not use the loaded word; I'm glad I'm not the admin who has to close this.) Article title is a choice they all made, although I submit that more weight should be given to the media outlets that do real, serious reporting from Venezuela, rather than just repeat AP or Reuters. And as far as I know, all of the editors in this discussion who know which outlets are actually doing indepth coverage, with boots on the ground in Caracas, support "uprising" because all of those sources do.

    I'm not sure if I've answered your question, but the big picture is that, per ONUS, we still have found only negligible, second-tier-sourced mentions of the word "coup", and we don't have a policy-based reason to move it there. We need to come up with a new name, a compromise. The argument here is not "gazillions of sources called it an uprising", so don't try to tally those; the argument per ONUS and TITLE is that practically no source of consequence called it a coup. I put this chart up not to "win an argument", but to demonstrate that we need to come to the table and develop consensus for a new name. Plot, revolt, whatever, if we don't have a viable choice in coup, but we have valid arguments against uprising, we have an issue that we won't be done with regardless of how the admin closes this Move request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, but with all due respect, that attempt to differentiate between "called for a coup" and "calls it a coup" is very problematic. There is a difference between the outlet making a statement on what the occurring event was and making a statement on what Guaido said. If one were to say "let's all start an uprising" and media outlets subsequently report They asked the people to start an uprising, that close paraphrasing is just not the same as just stating An uprising occurred. If we're going to reach a consensus, we have to note the context in which these terms are being used. If necessary, that table should have a column for citations which only paraphrased but did not comment on the events themselves. This is especially significant given that Guaido's call for an uprising preceded the event; it is certainly an undisputed statement of fact that Guaido asked of others to join him in starting an uprising, but if that's as far as the source goes to describe the event, then it's simply leaving out any description of the event which followed said calls, and it's preferable that the table reflects that. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @BrendonTheWizard: Since you find it problematic, I will go back and footnote the entries to distinguish. Have you already identified those that fit the category you describe, or should I start over? But again, I submit doing all this work will not change the conclusion. per WP:ONUS, to introduce controversial content, the onus is on those wanting to use the word "coup" to show that it is supported by reliable sources. That has not been done no matter what we find about sources using "uprising". Please advise if you already have a list, or if I should review every "uprising" source. Regardless of what the "footnote" analysis finds, those sources did NOT use the word "coup". (In fact, maybe it is easier to solve this by simply changing the heading on those entries to "no coup" ??) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you took the time to adjust it, but what I had in mind looked a little different; I'll draft my own example and get back to you as soon as it's finished. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 20:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


The move request has been relisted, meaning (likely) seven more days to try to find consensus. If we could consider alternates, and discuss to come to a consensus, we might make more progress than just re-hashing previous votes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, this was a non-admin action on a controversial move. Better see what's up with that first. [75] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The closure was also non-admin, without rationale, which is outrageous. I'd listed it at WP:AN/RFC. Suggest immediate re-open and re-list until someone who is actually going to consider the arguments made. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I consider that the move to coup discussion should be avoided. The sources above show that a most of the reliable sources above are not using coup and we should adhere to the guideline of respecting the sources. Let us avoid also clashes as it is a (more) imprecise term. I am open to consider other alternatives. Adding attempt or military to the title may still be considered. Is there any other term to consider/add? --MaoGo (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Scrapping my comment until I understand what happened with the relisting and the closing indicated above.--MaoGo (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I closed the discussion as not moved, I will reopen if continuing discussion gives a substantive rationale for consideration. Relisting does not serve to resolve any substantive point raised thus far. cygnis insignis 13:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Cygnis insignis: You could at least include a rationale for not moving -- given the significant discussion I'm sure you read and carefully weighed. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I have assumed discussion would be ongoing, perhaps petering out or a substantive consideration emerges, the determination above is a segue to that. Any rationale would be a vote, the close is summarising my evaluation by implication: there is no consensus to move at this time. cygnis insignis 14:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
        • So you read and evaluated every comment, and determined there was no consensus to be gleaned? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Goodness, no. I assumed a substantive rationale would have been the point the user's commenting keep hammering home. A could not glean anything from a standard read through the discussion, again, if there is a something I overlooked I'm confident that will emerge. Was there something I overlooked? cygnis insignis 14:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
            • Was there something you overlooked? It's hard to say, since you steadfastly refused to explain your rationale when deciding to close as "no consensus". --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
        • And rather than relist, you determine the best thing to do was to close the process? Really? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Yes, really. That part is not in doubt. cygnis insignis 14:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
            • "I have assumed discussion would be ongoing" how is that compatible with literally closing the discussion? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
              • It is compatible with discussion, obviously, but not with the proposed outcome, which would be unfortunate if that is what someone is invested in. I am not able to provide any more than 'there was no reason to move to that title', if there is one it can be weighed against the other proposals. That will produce the same outcome if there is a well formulated rationale to move it there, but that was not emergent in the RM. cygnis insignis 16:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: without expressing a preference, those seem to be legitimate proposals. The discussion around any possible move target would be advantageous before an RM, rather than the nomination of one that stymies evaluation of others. cygnis insignis 15:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: please, could you clarify your admin legitimacy and your relation with the close/move process. LaserLegs above questioned this [76] and I do not know enough about this process to understand what is happening. --MaoGo (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not an admin. A close is often, but not always, performed by an admin. If the consensus was to move, an admin may be required to perform that action. What I have done is arguably contentious or a solution, clearly a problem if anyone does it willy-nilly, all I can do to assure your of any "legitimacy" is to say I know may way round and realise the potential consequences. I think the solution is to have a discussion about potential titles, and the proposed title was not well supported or pröven (agencies changing their mind is pretty hefty evidence), if indeed this one is unsatisfactory to most considerations. cygnis insignis 15:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --MaoGo (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
No worries. cygnis insignis 16:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

People, we are all disappointed in a non-admin close without extensive rationale, but it looks to me like cygnis came to the same place some of us had arrived at as well. We don't have consensus, we need to come up with something we can compromise on. Why don't we take a few days off from this, and came back fresh with new ideas? That are discussed before rushing to process? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

    • It was moved from "coup" to "uprising" without a move discussion initially, we should move it back to coup which is what it was originally. Inaction is validating the first unsanctioned move. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Before the move proposal was opened, the consensus leaned towards moving to uprising; now the discussion has become broader. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
So in other words, you like the status quo and you don't want to revert back to the condition before the unilateral, unsanctioned move to "uprising"? That doesn't seem right to me --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's not rewrite history here. At the time you first moved the page to "uprising" (21:09 on April 30, [77]), there was no consensus, "leaning" or otherwise. See [78]. After your move was reverted, you then re-moved it contra WP:RMUM: "if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again." — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: could you please add the non-admin closure template referenced at WP:RMNAC to your closure template? Language here:

Any non-admin closure (NAC) must be explicitly declared with template \{\{subst:RMnac\}\} placed directly after the reasoning for the close within the \{\{subst:RM top\}\} template.

I would do it myself (if this is permitted), but I don't see any reasoning for the close, so I'm actually not sure where to put it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the template noting I'm not an admin. The close is intended to facilitate discussion on possible titles by eliminating a brittle debate on the present title versus the proposed one. Any reasoning that supports a title can be weighed with other proposals in a discussion that would precede the next RM, if that is required. cygnis insignis 04:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I, too, believe that it is not apparent that this discussion has ended in "no consensus", so I don't believe that a non-admin was justified in closing it. The eventual closer should carefully read the discussion and write a satisfying rationale. Meanwhile, the notion that a "no consensus" close maintains the status quo title that was imposed without discussion, should be debated. Davey2116 (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis:, I realize the discussion has been hatted and closed, but I hope you will agree with me that I should move the final version of User:SandyGeorgia/30AprilSources in to the section here, where it was transcluded from my user space, so that the content can archive together. Please advise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Fine with me, and I hope acceptable to others. The closed proposal may be referenced in of any ongoing discussion, if there was any other similar assembly of evidence regarding that proposal then transclusion would be a benefit. cygnis insignis 02:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks; I have replaced the transclusion from my userspace with the actual content from the last version, reflecting the adaptations in the discussion with User:BrendonTheWizard. [79][80]

Comment The discussion should be re-opened or an admin should look it over. Quite aside from there being over twice as many votes to move it to coup in the "let's reach a consensus" section, the original title was "coup attempt," so if there is no consensus that's the title that should remain. Not to mention it just plain meets the dictionary definition of a coup. Zellfire999 (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll remind again that Wikipedia is not a democracy and decisions are not based on votes, but along with consensus, the strength of the arguments. I will also remind that no, it does not meet the dictionary definition of a coup, as I have argued before, besides the the use of the term by reliable sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We do not apply majority rule, the first move was uncontroversial, and it is better to let the sources decide the name instead of a dictionary (definitions did not solve the Liberty/Freedom discussion either).--MaoGo (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how it's possible to claim that the first move was uncontroversial. No one is saying that there is a consensus for either side (though certainly the arguments for "coup attempt" are a bit stronger). Looking through the discussion, there was no point where there was a clear consensus in favor of "uprising", so how could the first move have been justified? Davey2116 (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Not only was the first move controversial, it was reverted and then re-moved with no consensus. It is ludicrous to claim that the move was uncontroversial given that it was reverted and then move-warred back. It is clear for anyone to see in the move log so I'm not sure why anyone would attempt to make this claim. See my previous comment here: [81]. I have yet to receive any satisfying response from anyone involved about this, only the same false line about it being uncontroversial or following consensus, which anyone who looks at the history can see never existed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the version of the talk page when the article was moved. As I stated in my edit summary, the discussion was leaning towards consensus. 'Two users and two IPs opposed that the first title was POV, in contrast to five that agreed that the move was necessary. The numbers are just to have a picture of the discussion, since there were also plenty of arguments to justify this. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the talk page looked like when the article was moved, because that was your second time moving the article, over objections and a reversion from other editors. Move-warring your preferred title back in after your move has already been reverted is disruptive. See WP:RMUM. "Leaning towards consensus" is not the same thing as consensus and it does not justify disruptive moving. There should have been a move request. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The past is gone; could we please move on to seeking solutions? We can re-hash for days, but we've all seen the sources. Regardless of how we got here, the way forward is WP:TITLE and WP:ONUS, not re-hashing old arguments. Let's find a new term. "Plot"? "Revolt"? "Attempted"? "Planned"? People please start new discussion sections below, put out ideas, and move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I would like to apologize for how slowly I've been preparing my own version of SandyGeorgia's sources table; I've been somewhat busy outside of Wikipedia but it should be ready soon. I also agree with LaserLegs, Zellfire999, Cmonghost, Davey2116 etc that it shouldn't have been closed just yet. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: I just gave the okay to have an update to the existing table, and you could do the same. but note also my comment at 13:27, 9 May 2019, I will reopen if substantive rationales and analysis emerge in support of that RM. The aim is to open the discussion of alternative titles, not to lock that one away. This gives the support case some leeway as it turns out. cygnis insignis 02:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
If anybody is bringing a new table for discussion I hope it is illuminating in some way and not too subdivided to make the decision more cumbersome. Also we are seeking for new options not going back to the same arguments. --MaoGo (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
WP:ONUS, WP:TITLE, disappointing reactions. I appreciate the work that Brendon is doing to sort the differences in uses of "uprising", but the other stuck-in-the-past reactions here are disappointing. Regardless of what happened in previous moves, there are not policy-based, reliably sourced reasons to include the controversial term "coup", per ONUS. We don't count votes to determine consensus; we look at the strength of policy-based arguments, and in favor of "coup", there were none. Sort the !votes by "ILIKEIT" versus TITLE/ONUS, and Cyngis did the right thing, which is encourage further discussion. Which is not happening. Whether closed by an admin or not, that doesn't vary. If an admin had moved it to "coup", we would be at Move Review now. So the point is, we should STILL be finding a consensus name for the article.

Rather than moving on to discuss a new term that we can agree on, this section has once again become a re-hashing of past discussions, with not a single effort to move forward. Disappointing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Because less than half of the sources I provided are listed in the analysis table, I ask that the non-admin closure of the controversial move be reviewed de novo by an admin. EllenCT (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Naming: Freedom or Liberty[edit]

Someone is changing them (back and forth). Operación Libertad can translate literally to either Operation Freedom or Operation Liberty, and reliable sources are using the two interchangeably. A few more use "Freedom" on a google search, and looking at bilingual sources (like Univision and Miami Herald) we find both. We need to pick one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Operation Freedom for me, for now; I can be convinced to change my mind, but it rolls off the tongue easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers1: You may want to comment here. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I also go with Operation Freedom, though I'm not too attached to it. Libertad means either liberty or freedom, (which in turn are basically the same thing). David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't care, if I had to choose I would use Freedom because it is the term we started to use before all this, see 2019 protests and blackout. B --MaoGo (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Context matters. Is Guaidó using it in terms of freedom vs confinement, or in terms of liberty vs oppression? Oxford has a few things to say about it and they don't pick definitions based on how well it "rolls off the tongue". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It sounds like he means it in the sense of freedom/liberty vs. oppression. Btw, the link you provided translates it as freedom (even though liberty seems like a reasonable translation). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Oxford translates it to both freedom and liberty, and provides context for when to use which. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • My suggestion would be to use the Spanish term (Operación Libertad) throughout, with a note in the lede and wherever else appropriate that it's been translated as both. Not ideal and probably against MOS somewhere, but perhaps better than the current inconsistency within the article. ansh666 03:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree with the suggestion. Until (and if) it gets an "official" name in English, there is no way to choose, so it is better to just mention both translations and mostly use the native name throughout the article, or use something or use something like "Operation Liberty/Freedom" (which, honestly, looks even worse), or just try to avoid the name as much as possible and descriptively refer to it. Feon {t/c} 08:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, Freedom and Liberty are essentially the same word in Spanish, Libertad. I can't think of another word. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jamez42, the idea is that we just need to settle on one or the other, to be consistent within the articles. Do you have a preference? I can go with either, don't want to have to keep changing. Reliable sources use them both, pretty much equally, so we can't really get any guidance there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I feel that Operation Freedom sticks more to the original feeling or meaning of it; I don't know if there's an intrinsic different meaning between freedom and liberty, but from I gather they are essentially the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Let the oxford dictionary help you decide instead of choosing based on whatever gits your POV agenda. They're actually not essentially the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
There is just one problem with this - both freedom and liberty translate to libertad. -- (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: That's a personal attack, I just gave my opinion as a native Spanish speaker. I read the Oxford definition and I considered the problem was the same, that both words translate as the same, and I understand that Freedom is the closest meaning of context. I don't have the natural intuition of a first language to say which one is better in English. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with LL, Liberty and Freedom carry different meanings. Does any one have a good way to select one over the other without falling into personal philosophies and opinions? There does not seem to be an evident majority in the sources but I may be wrong. --MaoGo (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Right. There is no evident majority in the sources, to anyone who speaks fluent Spanish, there is simply no difference, so it's personal preference. We have now consistently used "Freedom" across articles, so I guess we stick with it unless someone presents a good reason to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support using Operación Libertad per the comments of Ansh666, Feon, MaoGo, et al. Libertad can be translated to either Freedom or Liberty, which actually do have different use cases; let's not decide based on our own personal preferences or what "rolls off the tongue" better. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    I recommend that you not believe everything you read, Wizard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    Do you have anything more substantive than "don't believe them" to explain why so many editors are apparently wrong? LL cited the Oxford to show that there exists a difference between the two words, whereas you're simply telling us that such a difference does not exist. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    No, LL didn't do that, although I can see why you might think so. LL's link to Oxford gave us nothing to go on. And if it had, still, everyone who had an opinion chose Freedom. I don't care which you all choose: I just want the articles to use one or the other consistently. It really is our choice, since they mean the same thing, and sources use both, equally. Would you be happier if I switched to Liberty. Fine. I'll support Liberty. Because I Don't Care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Operation Libertad or Operación Libertad?--MaoGo (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why we are discussing using a foreign term when English is available: guideline MOS:FOREIGN, and WP:V policy that we base our text on sources. These are not anglicized terms. We have not one, but two words that are perfect translations in English. We don't need to confuse WikiReaders; we just needed to choose one. And we have no reason to ignore reliable sources that do use the two translations.

Why are there so many responses on this page that ignore Wikipedia guideline and policy for routine matters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines and the reader go first. Until further notice (a new argument or will to change everything to Liberty), we use Freedom.--MaoGo (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, as was already explained, the reliable sources are torn on whether to use Freedom or Liberty; not a single citation uses "Operation Freedom" in its title (though some use "Operation Liberty") and we went with freedom anyways because you like how it sounds? How is acting based on how something rolls off the tongue not ignoring guidelines when it's a clear example of an argument to avoid? Please exhibit more introspection before you vent your disappointment with the other editors here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 18:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Operation Freedom has been used as a translation by the media since mid March. Example The Guardian about Operation Freedom. Maybe they will write an article about the difference at some moment, but I doubt it.--MaoGo (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are not "torn": they each picked their own, which is not at all surprising, since the two words mean the same thing.

Please review the discussion before falling for "We went with freedoem anyways because you like how it sounds"; the chance for anyone to say they prefer Liberty over Freedom is right here in the discussion, and I was as free as anyone else to express a preference. So far, no one has preferred Liberty. (Curious: what gave you the idea that sources are torn?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's odd that the answers to the questions asked in that comment can be found within the same comment; you said it yourself: the sources each picked their own. A simple ctrl+f of "Operation Freedom" in the article yields not a single result under the "References" section, and within the bodies of these articles, sources tend to pick one or the other. In other words, sources don't have a consensus on it. This brings us to the question of how to decide whether to use freedom or liberty. !Voting based on how it sounds is, as was already described, an argument to avoid in discussions. It's great that editors have the opportunity to say which one sounds nicer, but that's obviously ignoring the guidelines (ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT). Brendon the Wizard ✉️
I don't think you are following the discussion; maybe we should try again after a break, or maybe someone else can explain in a different way what happens on Wikipedia when two things are exactly the same and sources do not distinguish. We choose. This was really supposed to be easy: just pick one. Accusing someone else of having a choice when there are supposed to make a choice is creative :) Let's do this. You pick one, and I'll support whichever is your choice: Freedom or Liberty. I'd be willing to bet any Spanish-speaking editor will agree to do the same (let you choose). Why? Because It Makes No Difference: they are the same thing. You choose, I'll support, and I'll put beer and pizza on the house that everyone else who speaks Spanish will also. I picked Freedom because it's one syllable less to have to pronounce: if you want to call that POV, maybe you know something about linguistics POV that I am missing, but I submit it just means I'm lazy. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Absolute synonyms are very rare in natural language, so any claims that two words are "exactly the same" should be taken with a heap of salt. Just because a word in Spanish can be translated into two different English words does not mean that the English words are the same. For example, the single English word "free" can be translated into French as libre (free as in freedom) or gratuit (free as in beer); that doesn't mean that libre and gratuit have the same meaning—far from it. Returning to freedom and liberty, they likely differ in terms of register (liberty having a more formal/legalistic connotation as is common with these Germanic/Romance-derived pairs in English). Simply using libertad (and noting the ambiguity upon the first use in the article) frees us from having to deal with these issues. Cmonghost (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
As a side note, it doesn't really make sense to appeal to the intuitions of fluent Spanish speakers when distinguishing two English words, just as it wouldn't make sense to appeal to the intuitions of an English speaker who told you the French words libre and gratuit are the same because they both can be translated as free. Cmonghost (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You are omitting that we follow reliable sources, and reliable sources use them both, in about equal measure. That ends the argument that there's a difference: for our purposes, there is not. Wikipedia bases these decisions on reliable sources, and those are split. No one who speaks Spanish here (like me) is saying there is some nuance that should be considered or a distinction between the two words (if someone does, I'll go with their choice, but it may cost me beer and pizza). A problem with going with Libertad, is that then we have to mix English and Spanish or go all Spanish, and either of those options are awful for our readers (requiring italics and diacritics per MOS, Operación Libertad' or Operation Libertad, as opposed to simpler Operation Freedom or Operation Liberty).

Seriously, people, the term is used ONLY FOUR times on the page. This was not an IQ test and we don't need to fail :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Again though, Spanish speakers don't have special authority in determining whether English words have different nuances. Yes, libertad can be translated as freedom or liberty, but that doesn't mean freedom and liberty are the same! It could just as easily mean that English draws a distinction where Spanish does not. This is a common problem in translation. Anyway, if we are taking intuitions into account, then as an English speaker mine is that the two words have different connotations. Cmonghost (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
And by not making a choice, you are not solving that problem for our reader, rather leaving them with an unnecessarily convoluted construct. If you truly believe this, then you should simply choose Liberty because it's closer to Libertad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Liberty is closer to libertad orthographically and etymologically, but not necessarily semantically. Cmonghost (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Operación Libertad for reasoning detailed in my reply to SandyGeorgia above [82]. Cmonghost (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    And, it's not that simple. If you choose to use a foreign term, we have diacritics and italics every time we type it. And we have a whole phrase, not just one word. Are you choosing ''Operación Libertad or Operation Libertad ? So, we have to define a term on the page, every page that uses it, and type diacritics and italics everytime we use it as well. I shall ping you to clean up every instance that is used wrong :) :)

    Not that we don't already, but Wikipedia is going to look well and good ridiculous using either of those convoluted constructs, when every reliable source already picked one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

    And by the way, read our guidelines and policies. Whichever choice you make, we still have to define it. So we STILL have to choose whether to define libertad as "liberty" or "freedom". By choosing a Spanish construct, you do not avoid the problem. You just make the page more convoluted for our reader. When we first use this foreign term you've chosen on the page, we still have to define it. So, we can type out Operación Libertad (trans. Operation Liberty or Operation Freedom). Is that your intent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone reading or editing an article about events in Venezuela would be too shocked to see some Spanish words. Apostrophes (for italics) and diacritics are fairly simple to insert on a modern computer, and if your keyboard can't do diacritics, the Wikipedia editor makes it pretty easy with the dropdown menu below the text entry box. I updated above to indicate that my preference is for the whole phrase to be in Spanish. I'm aware that a definition would still be necessary, and the solution you indicated (providing both options) looks fine to me. Cmonghost (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Got it. I actually have quite a hard time with the dropdown each time I have to insert an accent. Don't worry, I will just ping you in edit summary and let you clean up if we end up with this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This shouldn't cause any issues with the dropdown, considering that this discussion (at least to my understanding) isn't a proposal to rename the article. Clarifying what to refer to the operation as would only affect a term that's used a grand total of four times in the article, and most of those instances could likely be replaced with the words "the operation" Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you forget that the "event" (whatever we call it) is ongoing, and I may have the pleasure of continuing to type the convoluted construct. And the term is used in at least four articles that I can think of. So, easy for you to say; this convolution is leaving the people who actually write the articles with a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Most reliable sources actually now seem to acknowledge that the "uprising" has either ended, or never got off the ground in the first place (see the section discussing this below), so this may not be as big a problem as you're suggesting. At any rate, I hope you agree that minor inconveniences like these are a small price to pay to ensure accuracy. Cmonghost (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support using "Operación Libertad" It is the simplest, consistent solution, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support using "Operación Libertad" or "Operation Liberty" - even though I believe this was a coup attempt, I think this is a good compromise. BeŻet (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for Operation Freedom (as it was taken as default, Liberty is good as second option). Spanish wording is confusing for the reader and messy for us the editors and writers. --MaoGo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: for those supporting the Spanish wording, you have to decide also if you want that we write the name in italics or not. --MaoGo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    That would be a given, foreign language should always be in italics. I didn't do it when I first suggested it because I was on mobile. ansh666 19:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose using any variant of "Operación Libertad": This is very POV. Only Guaido and his supporters call it that and it implies that he is fighting for freedom, which is debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not any? This discussion is not about the name of the article, it is about how to refer to Guaidó's operation when needed (like in a quote).Options are Operation Freedom, Operation Liberty, Operación Libertad, Operación Libertad, Operation Libertad or any combination of those. --MaoGo (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think that's ambiguous. I would support using Operación Libertad to refer to the operation because that's what it's called, with "Operation Freedom" in brackets.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for Operation Freedom Preferred for non Spanish readers, editors and writers. AbDaryaee (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Former mayor Ramón Muchacho [es], a native Spanish speaker, translates Operación Libertad as "Operation Freedom". --Jamez42 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support using "Operación Libertad" or "Operation Libertad", until (and if) an "official" English translation appears (e.g. a key figure involved in "Operación Libertad" talks about it in English). Currently, there seems to be no way to decide between "Freedom" and "Liberty". Feon {t/c} 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


Really? I don't think so. This was a single day event, call it a coup or uprising. Protests are sure ongoing, the crisis is also ongoing. But protests and crisis started long time ago, not on April 30th. And they already have their own pages. Just look at the May 1st section. Not a single word about uprising. BobNesh (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you are following the news; when we start writing about 1 May, it will probably be longer than 30 April, considering all this is happening today as part of an ongoing uprising that started on 30 April. Do you follow Venezuela news? To get it, because press is blocked, you have to be somewhere like Instagram until the media can catch up. When there is not free press, there is a timelag. If you'd like to see how much there will be write about once the media reports it, please do see Instagram hashtag #1May, or #2May tomorrow, and so on. There is a delay with the press, unless you speak Spanish, and I prefer to wait for English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I do follow the news about Venezuela and I did follow the news about Syria. In the beginning, Syrian rebels were also enthusiastic like you, even more. Anyway, if this is an uprising, then it's pretty lame and idle. Protests don't equalize uprising. BobNesh (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Venezuelan protests (2014–present) is where most of this content belongs, along with the failed coup attempt as a subsection in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. There is no "uprising", no "final push", it's just more of the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree. This couldn't be further from "uprising". BobNesh (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It appears the uprising was confined to April 30. The events on May 1 should go in the protests article &/or the crisis article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be ongoing. I fact, I would say it was a failed attempt at a government overthrow. Perhaps that is significant in itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, there are plenty of national and neutral sources, although Spanish, that can be used despite of censorship. If there is a lack of details, I strongly recommend them:

  • Efecto Cocuyo
  • El Estímulo
  • Tal Cual Digital
  • El Pitazo
  • Vivoplay (mostly videos and YouTube)
  • VPITv (they make a lot of livestreams, mostly videos and YouTube)

El Nacional and El Universal can also be used as followups or complementary sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It could potentially say "coup failed, protests ongoing" or something. But there's definitely acknowledgement it failed at this point- see today's NYT article (which also refers to it as a coup)[1].Zellfire999 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zellfire999: I have also seen the same statements in the Washington Post that the "plot" had "failed". Will add this to the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


Greek statement repeatedly removed as "party politics"[edit]

@ZiaLater: The statement from the Greek government (specifically, the ruling party Syriza) is being repeatedly removed as "party politics". The only justification given thus far is that "The same information about Syriza has been removed numerous times on other Venezuelan articles". This doesn't seem to be a strong argument and I think a discussion on the merits would be more productive. Why remove this but leave in e.g. the statement from Canada, given that Chrystia Freeland is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party (the ruling party in Canada)? Note that this is not the same information as was deleted earlier (which included information about conflicts between the different parties)—it's just the straightforward statement from the ruling party. Cmonghost (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: We avoided including the responses of political parties because then the list would be endless. Official responses from national governments are fine. Ruling party ≠ national government. Chrystia Freeland was speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, not on behalf of the Liberal Party (unless this isn't clarified).----ZiaLater (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Sorry, but that's a slippery-slope argument that doesn't really hold up. As I've already stated, I'm not proposing to include statements from all the Greek political parties (or all political parties from other countries)—only from the ruling party(/ies). How would that lead to the list becoming "endless"? I note also that there's plenty of redundancy on the list, if we're now concerned about the length—for example, all the Lima Group nations are listed separately (with the same text) despite being listed in the Intergovernmental Bodies section. As for the Chrystia Freeland tweet, she never specified that she was speaking on behalf of the gov't of Canada: [83]. Are we now going to include all tweets from all government ministers? Cmonghost (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cmonghost: Providing statements from one party allows the inclusion of other parties to provide balance, thus creating multiple responses instead of a single response from a national government. Also, it is really really obvious that a Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks on behalf of a government. Thinking otherwise is grasping at straws at best...----ZiaLater (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: As I said, the proposal is to include the ruling party's statement only. I never said anything about allowing the inclusion of other parties. If they were included, surely they could be removed just as you are now currently removing the ruling party statement. It would be more productive if you read and responded to the proposal at hand without making one up that's easier to argue against. As for the Freeland issue, I would argue that it is also "really really obvious" that the ruling party of a government speaks on behalf of the government, and that thinking otherwise is also "grasping at straws at best"—which was exactly my point in bringing it up. Cmonghost (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Many later revised their coverage"[edit]

(Medialite source)
Text sourced: "though many later revised their coverage"
  • BeŻet, thank you for noticing this. My first inclination was to pull the entire clause as original research, but the source does support some level of verification for outlets that revised their coverage. Would the problem there be solved by changing the language? I am not familiar with this source, so do not know if we should be using it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
In the source it seems that only FOX News has "revised" their wording. Given this, I'm not sure if that's worth mentioning at all. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, if that is the case, then I say pull the whole thing. I am not sure who added the text, so I won't pull it yet, in case anyone else wants to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the whole "Some news outlets", if not, I would indicate that is CBC the one using the word, if not, I would maybe leave the text between parentheses with the failed verification so other users get to see the controversies in this talk page. (I won't oppose if you take the text in parentheses but it seems undue weight to use the plural with only one citation)--MaoGo (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the plural shouldn't be used with only the CBC citation, but rather than removing "Some news outlets" altogether, my preference would be to just add further examples. They do exist: EllenCT provided several examples above in the titling discussion, and the Mediaite article also describes CNN as using "coup" in their chyron (and Fox who switched). There are also some examples in SandyGeorgia's table above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We may add some sources and avoid the note but again this problem is linked to the "coup" vs "uprising" naming. Most sources above are using uprising, and the sources using coup are few. Adding that some sources call this 'coup' seems undue weight. --MaoGo (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
But removing the statement entirely would give the reader the false impression that only "Maduro allies and officials loyal to Maduro" referred to the events of 30 April as a(n attempted) coup, when in fact there are several reliable news sources that did so as well. This is not the same problem as the title, where we need to select one word/phrase to use: in the text of the article, we don't have to choose one name; we can instead inform the reader who is calling it what, with proper attribution. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
We can remove the whole text altogether the reactions are there and the quotes are all over the article. That paragraph is just calling for a bipartisan view on the matter. --MaoGo (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I just removed it. The inclusion of this would go back and forth just as if we included political parties in the responses. We have the responses from governments and intergovernmental bodies, we should keep it that way.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chinese article[edit]

The Chinese article is titled roughly as "Political disputes in Venezuela in April 2019"; its lead includes all of the terms used by the media in the lead (Venezuelan uprising, Venezuela's attempted uprising, Venezuelan military uprising, Venezuela's attempted coup, Venezuelan military coup). It seems like the same issue had to be dealt with. I think the title is a little odd, but nevertheless interesting. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

[84] Google translate version of the Chinese article. --MaoGo (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
If you take a look at the talk page of the Chinese article, (if I understand correctly) they updated the name of their article based on the discussions on this talk page. --MaoGo (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
That's my understanding too. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe so too. There is enough evidence! AbDaryaee (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Update: Looks like China supports Maduro according to the article, it says "The Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Caracas issued a statement on Sina Weibo's official account, saying that "China reiterates its support for Venezuela's independent development." Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang said that "the Venezuelan issue can only be resolved by the Venezuelan people, and Venezuela's stability is beneficial to the national interest and regional interests.". Do you think should we update that? --cyrfaw (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
That was an old link that was in the article but was removed because is from 30 March. --MaoGo (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a dreadfully unencyclopedic way to start an article. I am glad we don't have to be like other Wikipedias, because that is a low standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Iranian and Cuban meddling[edit]

Dear Friends, Venezuela has been invaded by Iran, Cuba, China and Russia now, and still we are analyzing the 30th April, is coop or uprising. for god sick that is enough. AbDaryaee (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Read this please, Remarks by Vice President Pence:" And while the Maduro regime has stood aside as millions of its own people have fled in desperation, it’s been more than eager to accept the aid and comfort of regimes in Iran, and Russia, and Cuba.

The Iranian regime has been working with Venezuela’s corrupt dictatorship to establish a safe haven for its terrorist proxies, and continues to do so as we gather here. Last month, a high-level delegation from Iran’s Foreign Ministry celebrated a very public launch of direct air service between Caracas and Tehran by Mahan Air, a blacklisted airline controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which President Trump recently designated as a terrorist organization.

And one of Maduro’s top aides — a former Vice President and currently the Interior Minister, Tareck El Aissami — is a drug runner and a money launderer who partners with terrorist networks to bring Iran-backed terrorists into the country. And today, Hezbollah is working to extend its dangerous network throughout Venezuela, and from there, throughout our hemisphere.

And while Iranian terrorists build safe havens, despite their denials, it’s clear that Russia also seeks a foothold in this hemisphere in Venezuela. Moscow is the Maduro regime’s biggest weapons supplier. In exchange for bartered Venezuelan oil, Russia provides military jet fighters and acts as a lender of last resort. Last month, Russia sent two military transport planes to Caracas in a show of support for the embattled regime.

But no one has done more to support the corrupt Maduro regime than the Communist leaders of Cuba. For nearly two decades, the Havana regime has sent thousands of Cuban teachers, engineers to Venezuela to prop up a failing regime. Cuban agents control the levers of power in many government agencies, especially the military and intelligence services. And as we saw last week, key decisions about Venezuela’s future are as much made in Havana as they are in Caracas. Venezuela isn’t merely a Cuban client, the people of Venezuela are essentially Cuba’s hostage.

And Cuba has robbed Venezuela of more than her freedom; she stripped her of wealth. Some estimates claim Cuba has extracted more than $35 billion in Venezuelan oil since 2005. In short, the struggling people of Venezuela aren’t just the victims of one dictatorship; the people of Venezuela are the victims of two dictatorships.

So this is the company that Nicolás Maduro keeps.[1] " AbDaryaee (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


@AbDaryaee: I just moved your comment to a new section. This is not the article to discuss this. There is an article dedicated to Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis and a section in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. If you have any relevant sources add them in their respective talk pages. --MaoGo (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo:I'll do it and I hope this long issue will come to a good conclusion.AbDaryaee (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Flights suspended[edit]

LLcentury I am moving this to talk because I am not sure how to fix it, as you requested in edit summary:

  • On 2 May, the Argentine and Brazilian governments suspended flights to Caracas due to the diplomatic uproar between the two nations.[1]


  1. ^ "More clashes in Venezuela's political crisis". KTVN. 2 May 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2019.

The text you originally added was about one company (not the countries), so adding that gives undue weight to possibly a minor player. Also the source does not verify that the government of Brazil suspends flights, as far as I could tell. Did I miss it? We need a source stating that the Argentine and Brazilian governments suspended flights-- not an individual travel agency or company. Also, unless the suspension is at the international level, the individual companies should not really be included in the scope of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please do not worry, LLcentury; I put this here mostly hoping that someone else could help you sort it out and readd to the article as determined. Saludos cordiales, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and where is that information "puttable" (I translated it as wearable) (sorry if that's gross). I can link several websites where Argentina forbids Venezueland to return because of the relationships at edge (though not severed very complicated). Thanks!--LLcentury (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Media analysis section[edit]

Putting this here if anyone wants to craft this section; none of these are hard news, they are all analyses or opinion pieces that state an editorial position about reporting the event:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Someone deleted the fact that the confrontation ended in Maduro's Victory, that Guaido failed to size the capital and instead it was added that Lopez was freed from house arrest (as if that was the result from the uprising/coup and not it's prelude). I am going to rewrite it but I hope it isn't altered again. If you think it's somehow biased inform me. Here is the old revision [1] Red Greek Revolution (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


Infoboxes are dumb enough with adding a "results" parameter to a conflict. Nonsensical to try to summarize convoluted events in simple parameters. But then, I would delete everything from Location down, and reduce the overwhelming five images in the infobox to three ... these bloated overcharged infoboxes are good for nothing, and often convey misinformation by trying to cram nuance into isolated parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I would say that it was never stated that the objective was to "seize the capital", making this unsourced content. Using these military terms will likely cause confusion. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The military insurrection had the clear aim of capturing the capital ie capturing the Presidential Palace, army bases, government buildings etc. And it was attempted too. I don't understand how this can be claimed to be unsourceed. Also the fact that the confrontation ended in Guaido's defeat is obvious. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Can you give a source that says that Guaido tried to seize the capital? I have never seen that, it is a very vague statement. Also Leopoldo being freed is a key moment of that day why remove it? --MaoGo (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

New title with "oust"[edit]

I propose 2019 plot to oust Nicolás Maduro or 2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro. Feedback on which is preferable would be appreciated, if people have opinions on that. Some WP:RS using "oust", "plot", "plot to oust", etc. (there are many more): [87] [88] [89][90] This is a neutral description of the events; unlike "uprising" it does not imply success or completion, and it's used in reliable sources (not that "coup" isn't neutral but let's not get into that). While "Venezuelan" is in the title of several related articles, I don't think it's necessary here; in fact, adding "Venezuelan" would make it sound as though Venezuela (the country itself) was behind the plot, which wouldn't make sense. Comments? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

May be a little too vague. How is this different from most of the events in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis ?--MaoGo (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I think that problem is shared by most or all titles proposed so far (including "uprising", "coup", "clashes", etc.). I think that has to do with the fact that the attempted [whatever it was] flopped; the events of 30 April really weren't that different than what's been happening throughout 2019. This could be remedied by adding "30 April" to the beginning of the title: 30 April 2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro for example. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment Although I appreciate the spirit of compromise and the good-faith proposal to find a name other than "coup" or "uprising", I worry that this proposal could get into hairy territory as one could reasonably argue that "attempt to oust" is more or less the same as "coup" therefore per WP:CONCISE it would be better to just use the word coup, but then we'd be back at square one; for that reason I think the best solution would be a concise, reliably sourced term which accurately describes the event without trying to comment on the end-goal or the motivations (in order to prevent another discussion about whether to call it a coup or an uprising). I have my own proposal that I'll be presenting shortly (I'll make sure to ping you and others as soon as it's ready, I just have a few more sources to double-check) Face-smile.svg Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't really think "attempt to oust" is any less concise than "coup d'état attempt"—correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "coup" alone was ever under discussion. I can see the appeal of clashes and would be willing to support it if it gains momentum but I think it's substantially less precise, I'll reply in more detail below. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@BrendonTheWizard: Be careful, you erased my comment there [91]. --MaoGo (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, I didn't intend to Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 01:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I support both this suggestion and the one by BrendonTheWizard below ("2019 Venezuelan clashes"). Davey2116 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Cmonghost; I responded below in BrendonTheWizard's proposal, hoping that combining responses will be easier to follow for determining consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

CAVIM president arrest[edit]

Something that bothers me is that during the uprising the arrest of CAVIM's president by forces loyal to Guaidó was reported, even by reliable sources, but I haven't seen a follow up on this or know what happened afterwards. His name is General Carlos Armas López, in case anyone learns more about the situation. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As a follow up, I'll say some sources state that Leopoldo's release was not planned in the negotiations and it upset some participants, reason why they didn't partake. I can't find the exact source, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Attempt to find a consensus: 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes[edit]

After the incredibly long discussion above, and after spending longer than I expected trying to sift through all of the sources, I think I finally have a case for a new term that should allow for a consensus to develop.

The contexts in which reliable sources use each term

Many thanks to SandyGeorgia for originally providing this extensive table of sources. I took issue with the lack of differentiation between sources that simply mention "calls for uprising" versus sources which explicitly call it an uprising, so I have created this modified version. In doing so, I noticed that clashes is another widely used term among reliable sources. I now believe that we should give this term serious consideration, as it could satisfy the concerns of all involved parties per reasons I note below the table.

  Source itself refers to event only as uprising in its own words
  Source itself refers to event only as coup in its own words
  Source itself refers to event only as another term in its own words
  Source uses multiple terms in its own words
  Source does not comment on the event in its own words
Sources presented Described as Uprising Described as Coup Described as another term Quoted as uprising Quoted as coup Neither uprising nor coup Both uprising & coup How the source uses these terms:



ABC News ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela rocked by clashes as US backs uprising, threatens Cuba

Uses the term "clashes" explicitly when describing the event

Uses the term "uprising" explicitly when describing the event

Mentions calls for uprisings by Guaido

Only mention of coups is US officials (namely John Bolton) rejecting the term

Clashes Al Jazeera yellow tickY See notes ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela in crisis: All the latest updates

Uses the term "coup" when referring to Maduro's comments

Every instance of the term "Uprising" quotes another individual (Guaido, the White House, Jair Bolsonaro, etc), but the term does not appear in scarequotes

The article uses "Clashes" explicitly more than once and without quoting or paraphrasing anyone




Associated Press ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuelans take to streets as uprising attempt sputters,

Uses the term "uprising" both in its own words and when referring to Guaido

Uses the term "clashes" in its own words on several occasions

Never includes the word coup,

The Latest: Guaido calls for more street protests Wednesday,

Use of the word coup quotes that other South American nations reject this characterization

Uses the word uprising in reference to Guaido's call for an uprising & the White House's hope for an uprising

Uses the term clashes multiple times without quoting anyone




Australian Broadcasting Corporation ☑Y ☑Y yellow tickY See notes ☑Y Venezuelans stage mass protests after military ignores calls to oust President Nicolas Maduro

Refers to it as a coup explicitly ("Guaido poses with Venezuelan soldiers to urge 'final stage' in coup against Maduro")

Refers to it as an uprising explicitly ("The Opposition Leader called for supporters to take to the streets in an uprising")

Mentions clashes between security forces and anti-government forces, but only as a caption of a particular incident

Clashes BBC yellow tickY See notes ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela crisis: Defiant Maduro claims victory over Guaidó 'coup',

Uses the word "clashes" in its own words in the first sentence (uses this term three times)

Uses the word "coup" in quotes
Never mentions the word "uprising"

Venezuela's Guaidó accused of coup attempt by government,

Uses the word "coup" in quotes

Uses the word "clashes" in its own words

Uses the word "uprising" to paraphrase what the Venezualan Defence Minister says, but likely in its own words

Venezuela crisis in 300 words,

Uses the term "clashed" in the thumbnail caption

Uses the term "coup" in quotes

Never uses the term "uprising"

Uprising Bloomberg ☑Y* Venezuelan Soldiers Don Blue Armbands in Uprising: Photo Essay

This is not an article and therefore it has no text (and therefore it can't possibly be cited as a source in mainspace) but its headline nevertheless uses the word uprising

Switch to Clashes

Previously Uprising and Coup

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y One article used both "coup" and "uprising" in its own words [92]

Second article used "Clashes" in its own words and only used "uprising" when stating that Guaido called for one.[93]

Uprising and Clashes CNN ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela's Maduro claims to have defeated 'coup,' as rival Guaido urges more protests,

Uses "coup" when quoting Maduro

Calls it "clashes" in its own words multiple times

Uses "uprising" in its own words multiple times

Operation Freedom: Uprising in Venezuela begins,

(This page actually links to excerpts from a series of articles; it is not itself an article)

Uses "uprising" in its own words

Uses "clashes" in its own words


Uses "uprising" in its own words

A quote (oddly from former US CIA analyst rather than a Venezuelan official) referred to it as a "junior officer coup," but the article does not in its own words

Coup The Daily Beast ☑Y Was a Russian Plot Behind the Venezuela Coup?

The url oddly calls it an uprising, but the text of the article explicitly denounces the "beautiful narrative of a national uprising led by the people and their chosen champion" and calls it a coup on multiple occasions

Switch to Uprising and Clashes

Previously Uprising and Coup

The Daily Telegraph ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Telegraph

The first article uses both "coup" and "uprising" in its own words at least once


The second article uses coup in reference to Maduro

The word "uprising" is used both in its own words and in reference to Guaido's words


The third article uses the word "uprising" but also notes that hundreds of people were hurt in "clashes"

Uprising The Economist ☑Y ☑Y A failed uprising against Nicolás Maduro

The term "uprising" is once used unambiguously in the outlet's own words; it is also used at least twice when referring to statements made by other individuals

The term "coup" is only used to quote the Venezuelan government

Uprising and Coup El País ☑Y El Pais (Spanish newspaper, English version)

The headline in the article tab is "Venezuela coup attempt"

The article's body also calls it an uprising

Uprising and Clashes Euronews ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Guaido calls for fresh protests, Maduro remains defiant

Very early in the article, it explicitly refers to the event as "clashes"

The word "uprising" is used both to quote Guaido and in its own words

Uprising and Clashes France24 ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y New Caracas protests as US and Russia spar over Venezuela,

Uses its own voice to refer to "clashes" in the first sentence; uses clashes a total of three times

States that Guaido tried to start a military "uprising" (ambiguous as to whether or not that means they believe the events that followed were an uprising; it mostly uses the word clashes)

Only use of "coup" is to quote Maduro

As it happened: Venezuela's Guiado calls for new protests in anti-Maduro uprising,

Mentions multiple time that protesters "clashed"

Only mention of "uprising" in the body was quoting Guaido, but the headline very clearly calls it an uprising

Uprising FOX News ☑Y yellow tickY See notes ☑Y Venezuela’s Guaido calls for military uprising while flanked by soldiers at Caracas airbase: ‘The moment is now’

Explicitly calls it an uprising many times

Uses the term clashes only in one image caption

Only uses "coup" when quoting governments

All three terms Global News ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Global News:

Calls it a coup attempt:

"Venezuelan government downplays results of ongoing coup attempt"

Calls it an uprising:

"Guaido launches military uprising to oust Maduro"

Calls it clashes:

"Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido on Tuesday made his strongest call yet to the military to help him oust President Nicolas Maduro, although there was little sign of defection from the armed forces leadership and isolated clashes fizzled out"

Uprising The Guardian ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela crisis: Maduro claims victory over 'deranged' coup attempt,

Calls it an uprising in its own voice

Only uses the term coup to quote Maduro's government

Guaidó's uprising seems to have flatlined. What's next for Venezuela?

No instances of the word coup

Calls it an uprising in its own words

All three terms Haaretz ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela Crisis: From a U.S.-backed Operation to a Military Coup, What Could Happen Next?

May 1st:

Called a "coup" in its own voice

Calls it "clashes" in its own voice; said that Guaido "leads an uprising" in the same sentence


May 2nd:

States early in the article that supporters of Guaido "clash" with pro-government forces

One instance of the term "uprising" (covered by paywall)

Still links early in the article to the May 1st headline which includes the word "coup", though the term does not appear in this article

All three terms The Independent ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y The Independent

The article describes in its own words the event as a coup and as an uprising, and also mentions the clashes that occurred as a result.

The article uses both the terms "coup" and "uprising" when referring to the words of other individuals (Maduro and Guaido)

Uprising and Clashes Japan Times ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Venezuela's Juan Guaido calls for uprising but military loyal to Maduro for now

The term "uprising" is clearly used in the outlet's own words to describe the event

The term "uprising" is also used to describe Guaido's calls for one

While the word "coup" is apparently listed as one of the article's keywords, this term does not actually appear anywhere in the article

The article also mentions that opposing sides "clashed" in its own words (referring to the event) and later quotes one side as trying to instigate "clashes" with the other

All three terms National Post ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y [97]

Uses the term "coup attempt" in its own words

Uses the term "coup" referring to Maduro accusing Guaido of staging one

Only uses the term "uprising" in the see also section linking to another article

Uses the term "clashes" once in its own term in the body, a second time in the caption of an image, and a third time in the see also section linking to another article


Calls it a coup attempt in the subtitle

Calls it an uprising in the article's title

Calls it clashes in the first sentence

Clashes National Public Radio ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Amid Violence In Venezuela, Maduro Digs In And Protests Continue

Calls it clashes in one instance ("Dozens were injured Tuesday [April 30] when clashes erupted")

The only two instances of the word "uprising" are quoting/paraphrasing people affiliated with Guaido

The only instances of the word "coup" are quoting/paraphrasing people affiliated with Maduro

All three terms The New Republic ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y New Republic

Uses its own voice to call it a coup in the title

Uses its own voice to call it an uprising

Uses its own voice to call it "clashes between protesters and security forces"


(likely multiple though)

The New York Times ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y What We Know So Far About Juan Guaidó’s Call for an Uprising,

Includes references to the word "uprising" in the context of Guaido calling for one

Uses the word "coup" to note that Maduro called it one

(A paywall covered the rest of the article)

Trump, Seeking to Put Pressure on Maduro, Threatens a Full Embargo on Cuba,

(A paywall covered all instances of the words coup, uprising, etc)

Rival Protests Grip Venezuela After Guaidó’s Failed Effort to Beckon Military,

(A paywall covered all instances of the relevant terms except for a mention of a "call for" an uprising)

NY Times: "Venezuela crisis: Guaidó calls for uprising as clashes erupt"

The url had the word coup in it, the first sentence (and title) called it clashes, and the rest was covered by a paywall

Clashes NBC News ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y NBC News:

Called it clashes in the title & again uses this term a few times throughout the article

Mentioned that Guaido called for an uprising, but does not refer to the event itself as one

Only uses the word coup when quoting others


(though some articles use none of the above)

Reuters ☑Y ☑Y Venezuelan protests peter out as Maduro hangs on; U.S. and Russia squabble,

No instances of the word "uprising"

Only instance of "coup" was quoting Maduro

No instances of the word clashes

(This particular article is to be listed as "Neither") Explainer: Venezuela crisis puts Trump policy to the test,

Only instance of the word "coup" is a quote

Only instance of the word "uprising" is in the future-tense

No instances of the word clashes

(This article would be listed as "neither" or possibly as "uprising")


The title of the article uses the word "uprising" in its own words to describe the event

The body of the article uses the word uprising to note the calls for one

No instances of the words coup or clashes

(This article is to be listed as "uprising")

Uprising and Clashes USA Today ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y Officials for Venezuelan President Maduro say government fighting 'coup' as opposition calls for uprising

The title notes that Maduro calls it a coup, while the opposition called for an uprising

The first sentence uses uprising in its own words to describe what occurred

Multiple image captions describe the "clashes" that occurred



The Wall Street Journal ☑Y [99]

Unfortunately, the paywall kicked in before I could find any instance of "uprising", "coup", or "clashes"

Uprising The Washington Post ☑Y

Also paywalled, but the title calls it an uprising in its own words

All three terms Political news commentary ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y ☑Y


  • I no longer advocate for changing the article's title to include the word "coup." It will not be possible to reach a consensus that satisfies all involved parties without having a clear consensus of sources to back it up.
  • Many outlets use more than one term simultaneously when referring to the event.
  • I now support using the word clashes and would hope that other editors, regardless of whether they originally preferred coup or uprising, would be willing to support this.
    • A significant percent of sources use this term in their own words, meaning this solution would comply with Wikipedia policy and meet the concerns of editors that initially preferred "uprising" to "coup" per WP:V, WP:TITLE, and others.
    • Editors that initially preferred "coup" to "uprising" (myself included) did so because we believed it is both accurate per definitions and neutral (as it does not suggest legitimacy or illegitimacy). The title "clashes" meets both of these concerns (it is accurate and does not comment on the legitimacy of either party)
  • As much as I would hate to make this incredibly long discussion any longer, it would be a shame if we don't come to any consensus after all this time, and I wholeheartedly believe using the word "clashes" would in fact be a solution that would work for all of us. It's reliably sourced, accurate, and neutral.

Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (second try)[edit]

  • Another one missed: @Blaylockjam10: to the discussion, reminding them to also review the proposal two sections above, and the close of the original move request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for your hard work! I believe "2019 Venezuelan clashes" is a sensible compromise. I support it and the proposal by Cmonghost above ("2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro") in the hopes that a consensus will develop around one of them. Davey2116 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) At this point, we might as well go with "Events that occurred in Venezuela on 30 April 2019". I did a few more searches, and continuing coverage seems at a glance to be fairly split between "coup" and "uprising" (and relatively few using "clashes" or any other proposed terms), with a larger number of ghits for "coup" offset by the fact that a lot of the articles are discussing whether or not it actually qualifies as a coup or not (with most coming to the unhelpful conclusion of "by some definitions yes, by some no"). I certainly don't see a consensus among sources, so I don't know how we'd proceed finding a consensus here, at least one that's based on sources. ansh666 01:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this is going into "Events that occurred in Venezuela on [30] April 2019". 'Coup' is not fairly split with uprising by the tables above! Either you are cherrypicking more non reliable sources or there are sources missing that you should present to us.--MaoGo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I was going off a glance. Ghits are about 2 million for uprising vs 6 million for "coup" but of course most articles that use "uprising" or other terms also have the word "coup" in some form. ansh666 05:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
See WP:GOOGLETEST, google hits is not the best way to determine the title. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I am very well aware of that, but it's still useful as a general barometer. ansh666 18:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support iff "30 April" is added: Thanks for your hard work on this. I think this proposed title has the same issue as "uprising": it's not precise enough. It could refer to any of the various clashes that have taken place between gov't and opposition, protesters and counterprotesters, etc. since Guaidó declared himself president in January. This is in contrast to something like "attempted coup" or "attempt to oust" which include the motive (which I don't think is controversial, Guaidó himself made it clear what he was after). In the interest of compromise I would be willing to support this, but only on the condition that "30 April" were added, so: 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes or 30 April 2019 clashes in Venezuela or similar. I think that would go a long way to making the title more precise. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    I would gladly support a modification which specifies that the event took place on 30 April; no harm in making it more straightforward Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 02:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
     Done I've added the date to the title. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 03:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you both BrendonTheWizard and Cmonghost for moving this forward, and for all this work!

    Whatever we end up with, I believe that April 2019 is sufficient, and we don't need to complicate it with the additional specificity of 30 April 2019 ... just a keep it simple thing.

    Cmonghost's proposed April 2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro does not quite work for me, because it sounds like a solitary event, when actually the attempt to oust Maduro has been underway since January 10.

    BrendonThe Wizard's April 2019 Venezuelan clashes works for me, but so does April 2019 attempted Venezuelan revolt ... or uprising ... or plot ... I am indifferent, and will rally around whatever others prefer, but I do feel more strongly about not needing the 30 in the title.

    Thank you again for getting this moving! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

    Please see my new commentary below, regarding the paywalled Wall Street Journal source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    I agree that we likely do not need the 30 in the title (as April has already passed and this was certainly the primary instance of clashes during that month). I too am indifferent about it, so I'm more than happy to adjust it to the other editors' liking. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 05:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support clashes--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Reuters present their reporting of a "crisis" and avoid the use other terms in their voice and headlines … as ever, boring and reliable. I consider that agency approach to factual reporting to be closer to wikipedia's goals in presentation of facts, what they did is worth emphasising. cygnis insignis 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure following a very reliable source should be a good argument but this was not followed. Also "crisis" is a little vague when you consider 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. AND Reuters also calls this event uprising.--MaoGo (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Absolutely support change to 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes - All this shitty debating could have been avoided if only my/Blaylockjam10's advice ([100] and [101]) was lisnted to earlier. What an unbelievalbe waste of time for everybody involved. Syopsis (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Although I don't find the term very appropriate, that I think "uprising" is more fitting and that it may cause confusion with the 2019 protests, I support that the change, so far, seems to be the best suggestion for a compromise. We can easily add the {{Distinguish}} template above to differentiate from the 2019 protests. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose clashes sorry for the trouble again, but I fail to give my vote to this. I have already denied clashes before. Clashes is as vague as oust Maduro, clashes is more to me like a sub-event in all this (also why call it in plural and not clash?). It also too similiar to 2019 Venezuelan protests An (attempted)(military) uprising seems like the most used word by sources above, and by guidelines we should stick to the sources. How does the new table reflect that clashes should be used? Clashes is indeed going to appear more because there were clashes in the uprising. Maybe the only way I would give my vote to April 2019 Venezuelan clashes is that we all agree on this is so we finally close the discussion, but only if we also agree that it is fine to call it uprising in some of the rest of the articles. --MaoGo (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Corrections to the new table, Al-Jazeera uses uprising in their own voice, example: [102].--MaoGo (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with anything other than coup. Both uprising and clashes seem excessive given how tame it turned out to be. I don't think a source 20 years from now would use any of these words. My preference is for the "the events of 30 April" followed by clashes. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This is very difficult since the event is still technically ongoing. I suppose I'm fine with leaving it as 2019 Venezuelan uprising for the time being, at least until these events play out further. We might have to go back later and change it, depending on what happens in the days/weeks to come. Uprising suggests that Guiado's call to (military) action captured great support, which it obviously did not (as he himself later admitted); Coup/coup attempt makes it sound like a more serious attempt to oust Maduro was made, all in one fell swoop - which did not happen here (yet); and clashes are just a subset of the larger situation at-hand here and doesn't capture the topic well enough IMO. Tough call. Temeku (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Cmonghost and BrendonTheWizard: do you mind merging these new proposal sections into third-level headings, under the original move request to keep everything together? I am concerned that people pinged might not see the whole picture, and that it should all archive together.

    Brendon, on The Wall Street Journal paywalled source,[103] here is info from ProQuest for you to adjust the table. This provides detail that we have not included in the article yet that is illuminating to this discussion, and I hope everyone will read it, as it could alter opinions about how to name the article. It uses and discusses all words on the table, saying those negotiating specifically rejected "coup". I chopped non-crucial words to avoid COPYVIO.

Forero, Juan (4 May 2019). "Venezuela's Opposition Came Close to Ousting the President—but the Plan Fell Apart; Regime insiders in talks with opposition are said to have lost confidence in the bid to remove Maduro". The Wall Street Journal – via ProQuest.

  • "For the past two months, key opposition figures ... met with highly placed figures in Mr. Maduro's government ... trying to cut a deal for a peaceful transfer of power."
  • "Meetings took place in Panama and the Dominican Republic ... [and] Colombia's capital"
  • "While both sides were far apart at first, they came to agree on one thing: Mr. Maduro had to go."
  • "Crucially, they decided, it was to be done not through a military coup," ... but rather through a court ruling that would permit the military to step away from Mr. Maduro and put the country on a path back to democracy." (MY note, this explains the mystery of why the involvement of Maikel Moreno, and convinces me that this is good, indepth reporting)
  • "Under the plan, the country's top court, the Supreme Justice Tribunal, was to recognize the opposition-controlled National Assembly, the last democratically elected body in Venezuela, as the legitimate representative of the Venezuelan people. The armed forces would then have legal grounds to abandon Mr. Maduro. The defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López, and others who were negotiating with the opposition, would join the new government."
  • "The deal, however, unraveled on Tuesday for reasons that couldn't be determined, leading to street clashes ... "
  • "... surprise, predawn appearance that day of ... López, alongside Mr. Guaidó—with both calling for an uprising—prompted those in the regime who had been negotiating to withdraw their support for the pact."
  • "appearance of Mr. López ... outside an air base hadn't been part of the script ... the two men's call for an uprising broke confidence with the regime negotiators, who then pulled out of the pact."
  • ""Leopoldo pulled the trigger quickly and we lost a golden opportunity to convince the Venezuelan military to oust Maduro," said an opposition figure in Washington who is in close contact with leading Maduro foes in Venezuela."
  • "It isn't known whether they [pulled out of the pact] because counterintelligence agents had discovered the plot or because key actors on the government side never had any intention of pulling their support for Mr. Maduro."

In its editorial stance, the WSJ is conservative, but its reporting is held in high regard, and this is the best reporting I've seen. The WSJ rarely gets it wrong on insider Venezuela information. Juan Forero (reporter) has reported from Venezuela for as long as I remember (previously if I recall correctly for The New York Times, and he has good inside contacts and knows the terrain.) This clearly shows it as Cmonghost has seen it: a failed bid to oust Maduro in one, coordinated event. This detailed reporting offers great insight into naming. My naming conclusions: reject coup soundly based on the players involved rejecting that, also reject clashes because the way the event unfolded led to clashes only as a consequence of the failed event. This reporting, four days after the event, provides some needed perspective.

I am back to thinking Cmonghost is onto something, more like April 2019 bid to oust Nicolás Maduro.

I don't have time today to add this content to the article; if someone else gets to it before I do, I can make any adjustments per the ProQuest content that I can access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: that it was "a failed bid to oust Maduro in one, coordinated event," leads you to "reject coup soundly based on the players involved rejecting that"? What if you saw a homeopathy editor saying, "reject placebo soundly based on the manufacturer rejecting that"? EllenCT (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@EllenCT:, first, "coup" is already rejected because sources do not support it; now we have the "perps" own words on "coup". Yes, I am inclined to give credence to this reliable source for four reasons:
  1. I have observed Juan Forero's reporting from Venezuela for about two decades. He is not the average norteño, gringo, anglo-sajon who does not know the terrain, the players, or the politics (which fully describes the FAIR report, where they just missed it in terms of not even knowing their way around La Carlota). Forero has been reporting on Venezuela for a long time, he has deep contacts, he has often been right.
  2. It was a mystery to me why a relative two-bit player like Maikel Moreno was named as involved; Padrino Lopez, Diosdado Cabello, Jorge Rodrigues, etc are the real decision makers, so why Moreno? Because of the legal aspect; now it makes sense.
  3. The involvement of Moreno lends credence to the notion that the final phase was to be a legal maneuver to facilitate a peaceful transition, not a forceful overthrow. That to me is not a "coup"; that is getting recognition within the legal framework to return to the Constitution.
  4. SPECULATION: There are few secrets in Caracas, and that Lopez may have "lost a golden opportunity" also dovetails with the polls the week after showing a loss of support for Guaido/Lopez, with more Venezuelans undecided who to support, which is highly suggestive of support switching to the more hard-line, conservative politicians because people blame Lopez for jumping the gun. It fits. I see no basis upon which to discredit this reporting. Not based on facts as reported by reliable sources, and not based on my own knowledge of the terrain and politics.
Yes to ouster, in the sense of a peaceful transition of power, no to coup, in the sense of forceful military overthrow. Were you able to access the full article somehow? What are your reasons for not giving it credence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Washington Post has similar coverage; that is now two high-quality reliable sources reporting in what supports an April 2019 bid to remove Nicolás Maduro from power
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
A shorter title could be used, such as 2019 Venezuelan conspiracy, but I there are many alternatives that may sound weird. We should also consider how likely it would be for readers to find the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support clashes, coup, and failed bid to beckon military, equally. This question is not that important, but "uprising" implies popular support, and while the opposition had that support, the event did not. EllenCT (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes or 2019 Venezuelan [uprising/coup/whatever] attempt. Clashes are the event that has clearly successfully happened, anything else was just an attempt (e.g. uprising attempt or coup attempt). Since clashes can last a short or a long time and the length matters, the title should reflect this with "30 April 2019" part, which would also make room for other notable clashes if another ones happen this year. On the other hand, "2019" will suffice for an "attempt" title. Feon {t/c} 15:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer [military] uprising attempt over clashes, per my comment above. --MaoGo (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 30 April 2019 Venezuelan clashes or 2019 Venezuela coup/military revolt attempt As said above, there needs to be something about this solitary event of a failed military revolt, not the protests around it. I continue to believe coup is the most truthful word, but "clashes" would at least not be inaccurate in the way "uprising" (which implies both popular civilian support and to a lesser degree success) is. Zellfire999 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing protests.[edit]

Someone tell me how this march could not be considered a Ongoing protest. 11 May 2019 March Mr.User200 (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: I was going to tell you that there has to be a limit of how many protests we can cover in this article. It is a good idea to move it to 2019 Venezuelan protests. I would remove it from this article because (1) we cannot cover every rally here and (2) this rally has not been so well covered as the rest (that's why I first called it WP:UNDUE). --MaoGo (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Also, remember to add publisher, authors and dates to your sources. --MaoGo (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In case someone erase it. [1][2][3]

Mr.User200 (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ EC, Redaccion; Comercio, El (11 May 2019). "Solo unos 1.000 manifestantes acudieron a la convocatoria de Guaidó en Caracas". Retrieved 11 May 2019.
  2. ^ Scott Smith (11 May 2019). "Venezuela's Guaidó asks for relations with US military". Retrieved 14 May 2019.
  3. ^ "Bajan los manifestantes en Venezuela Guaidó convocó a manifestaciones nacionales contra el gobierno de Nicolás Maduro, en reclamo de nuevas elecciones y la libertad de legisladores presos". El Vocero (in Spanish). 11 May 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2019. line feed character in |title= at position 37 (help)
I think I will indeed erase it, we have it covered in 2019 Venezuelan protests. --MaoGo (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@MaoGo: If we are not covering the 11 May protest on this page, we should not be covering the events on 2 or 4 May either. I am restoring the 11 May information until we reach a consensus on how many "ongoing protests" should be included, if any. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
To me that works. We should leave 1 May only because it is the only direct response to the event. This works like a tree, we have the main thing that is 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (but we cannot put everything there) and we have this day called uprising (same with other events like the blackouts or the shipping of aid day). The rest of minor protests should be covered in 2019 Venezuelan protests.--MaoGo (talk) 18:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm also fine with including 1 May only and moving the rest to the protests article. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Agreed then. Let's wait for a third advice anyway. Too many reverts today. --MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it; I'm happy to discuss further if there are any objections to this. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 01:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what you all are up to; this text is almost entirely related to the 30 April "event" (whatever we are calling it), and so is the Washington Post interview here. In some cases, the title of the article removed is about the uprising. I am not following the logic for considering these random 2019 protests. I must be missing a piece of the puzzle here. There is not a WP:SIZE issue in this article; I cannot see any logical reason to remove text from "aftermath". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I apologize for starting what looks like a bunch of messy edits (some people are not even discussing it here). When the first addition was made [104], this looked to me like an step into covering every single rally of Guaidó that would come next, without considering if there is something important to tell (now I see there was at least some announcement on 11 May) or just to tally the numbers of protesters. We had a similar exchange before in Talk:2019 Venezuelan blackouts#Protests April. My advice now is to cover the less notable rallies on 2019 Venezuelan protests not because of WP:SIZE, but because if the rallies continue, the coherence of this section will downgrade. We have to stop somewhere. Cmonghost preferred to take out everything, which for me is fine. As with the blackout, Guaidó probably is going to continue making several rallies of all sizes, some just repeating old announcements. The best is that we agree on some criteria for when we should cover a protest here. Also the protests article should have been abandoned at some point, but many people are still going back to it and linking it in the articles. The protest article needed some patchwork and I am trying to use it for something useful, like filling it with the less well-known protests that happen outside major events. --MaoGo (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No apologies needed! What I am not understanding is that text is being removed from this article that is directly related to this event by the sources. It is not about on what date the event occurs; it is about whether the text and source related to the 30 April event, as some of the text is.

The problem down the road is that there is (and will continue to be) a WP:SIZE issues at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. This article has to be briefly summarized back to the main Presidential crisis article at some point down the road, so removing detail from this article makes it harder for the reader to find. Why would send the reader to a protest article for content that is directly related to 30 April? We can't shove detail back in to the main Presidential crisis article.

Yes, we have to stop somewhere; new protests are added to protests, but content directly sourced and related to the 30 April events has been removed. If Guaido gives an interveiew discussing the failure of 30 April, that belongs in 30 April aftermath, as but one example.

As another example, the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts article is working fine; all subsequent updates to the power crisis have gone there. The problem there ealy on was that some wanted to count the blackouts (first, second, third), which isn't feasible in an ongoing situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: ok. So what is your take on the 11 May protest? --MaoGo (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Think of random reader five years down the road (or one of us, trying to locate information and sources). The 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis is the main article, the starting place. Then the reader is looking for what happened in this 30 April turning point. They find a brief summary to the Pres crisis article, and are sent to this article. Then they wonder what happened next. We send them to a dead-end street, at a Protests article that covers all manner of protests, and a few items of followup or aftermath of 30 April? No, develop the content here, and then, depending on what happens re 11 May, move it to wherever it fits, viewed from the advantage of distance and time. We don't know until events transpire and we can view things from the viewpoint of time where content best belongs.

Remember, we got into trouble with the naming of this article because an editor who has never touched this topic jumped the gun and created a coup article; had we developed the content in the main Presidential crisis article and waited for context to develop, we could have avoided tons of discussion and wasted time. There is nothing wrong with developing content here, where we have space, knowing that we may later trim it to a more appropriate place, depending on what happens. Content is being moved before we know relevance and outcome. If 11 May turns out to have little consequence in the big picture, then that content can be moved.

That's the way I would approach it; on the other hand, I am not as concerned about where we put 11 May as that people are moving content to protests that is clearly still related to 30 April, and basing that only on the date of the information. This strikes me as an approach that succumbs to what ails so many Venezuelan articles, which is ordering articles by dates (WP:PROSELINE) rather than by topic more logical to a reader.

Another example: think about why on Wikipedia today there is no summary, anywhere, of all of the reasons that gazillions of reliable sources say that the National Assembly is the only democratically elected body left in the country? Nowhere does Wikipedia summarize what happened with TSJ, CSE, NA, ANC, elections, etc ... think about keeping articles organized in a way that, five years from now, Wikipedia is left with a coherent explanation of the big picture, rather than collections of articles whose organization is forced by following a timeline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, I view this as a good move, because when it comes time to trim and summarize content back at the article where we DO have a WP:SIZE problem (Presidentical crisis), then everything is here and we can make logical decisions about where to put things from the vantage point of time, without having to chase around to different articles. This content can be at BOTH the protests article and this article, so that if we later trim it from here, it's already there. But look forward to our next (inevitable) trim at the Presidential crisis article, because it always pushes size limits. Add in multiple places, trim later from the vantage point of time and context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Moves to protest article[edit]

This page is only 3,300 words of readable prose; there is not a WP:SIZE problem. Why is text being moved to the protests article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia:Discuss at Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising#Ongoing protests..--MaoGo (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry :) I'm running behind, and have a huge To Do list to catch up, which I will be able to do over the weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Así fracasó el golpe contra Maduro - over inability to agree on Interim President[edit]

Fresh details were revealed by the Washington Post, which claimed to have spoken with a source who attended the meeting at Moreno's mansion. The plot was cooked up by four men including Chief Justice Maikel Moreno over cigars and bottles of Fiji water on his terrace:

  • - Cesar Omaña, a 39-year-old Venezuelan "businessman" based in Miami, "a chemicals trader and medical doctor who was working to defuse the crisis by liaising with contacts in loyalist circles, the U$ government and the opposition", "el ‘doctorcito’ de las importaciones agrícolas"
  • - Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, el ex-jefe del SEBIN
  • - Maikel Moreno, ex-intelligence officer-turned-lawyer, presidente de la Corte Suprema
  • - the "Source"

Omaña & Figuera promised Moreno, that senior government officials and the military would turn their backs on Maduro, but they needed him to help provide legitimacy to the coup. Plotters wanted Moreno to issue a decree calling Maduro's government illegal and reinstating power in the National Assembly, led by Guaidó.

The Supreme Court would withdraw legal recognition of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly and reinstate the opposition-led National Assembly that was deprived of its powers by the court in 2017 and that all other government branches have been refusing to recognise since 2016. Moreno had agreed to pull the plug on Maduro's rule by issuing a decree declaring his government illegal, giving the military a legitimate reason to join with Guaidó.

After the failed U$ backed coup Maduro lashed out at Figuera, calling him "a CIA mole", and accused him of helping plan the coup attempt. The president also stressed that he had full confidence in Padrino and Moreno.-- (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is in the article; unclear what point you are trying to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)