Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Barráez

There is a ton of Sebastiana Barráez in this article and it is undue. Since 2003, she has been described as an opposition journalist who has spread rumors of the Venezuelan armed forces seeking to coup the Venezuelan government. Prior to the operation, she had been in contact with one of the organizers, Javier Enrique Nieto Quintero, and his family since at least 2014. Shortly after the 2020 coup attempt, she said that the military would continue its attempts to overthrow Maduro. Well, three years later and Maduro is still standing. Barráez has been making these claims for two decades now and Wikipedia should not be a platform to repeat rumors. WMrapids (talk) 06:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

1. An anonymous writer going by the handle of "Bolivariano arrecho" (Pissed off Bolivarian) wrote a screed against a journalist on a chavismo website 20 years ago (ho-hum, what else is new); how do you even find this stuff? Not something to be taken seriously.
2. Journalists interview people; it's their job. A jouralist who specializes in military reporting will interview the family of a military person who was tortured. Nothing to see here.
3. "Well, three years later and Maduro is still standing" demonstrates a personal POV that has no place in discussions of source reliability and weight.

Barraez is not given undue weight; the ambush issue was raised very early on by many sources, and discounting the reports of a local reporter on the ground who knows the people and knows the territory and knows the culture (constantly in favor of US reporters) introduces US-centric bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Again, it is not about the POV of the chavista writer but about the continuous claims that she makes (the military will coup the government).
2. Reportedly tortured. It is still interesting that this reporter was willing to interview everyone and literally their mother in the situation.
3. What is POV about stating the obvious? Guaidó is gone and the military is (seemingly) still loyal to a Maduro who is de facto leader.

Barráez is simply a columnist that promotes military coup rumors. And it seems that she is stirring up the same pot again saying that there is "military support" behind María Corina Machado.

What is interesting is another apparent double standard; we can't have other experts like Neuman of the New York Times included due to being "undue" yet we can have the columnist Barráez's rumors spread throughout the article. If anything, that demonstrates a strong "personal POV" from a group of users. WMrapids (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Repeating: interviewing family members about torture is in no way out of the ordinary for journalism. Please stay on topic. Neuman is included and has been included, even to the extent of personal and unencyclopedic hyperbolic opinion like Neuman writes that Guaidó "hired a foreigner to 'install' him in the presidential palace". And when Neuman writes a book sharing his own opinions, he's no longer subject to the editorial standards he had to operate under at The New York Times. Barraez is writing as a journalist for a media outlet that has journalistic standards. Neuman edits are removed when articles are re-structured to further only his POV rather than balancing his POV with other accounts and sources; Barraez is not used that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Barraez is a columnist who writes about military rumors, so there is no oversight for her material either. When you placed that there were "three things happening at once" with the operation, you are re-structuring the article around her POV. WMrapids (talk) 02:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There were no changes to the structure in this edit; there was a paragraph added.

This is what a complete restructuring of an article to reflect one POV looks like.

The article is unbalanced by removal of information about the extent to which the operation was infiltrated and predetermined.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"The article is unbalanced by removal of information about the extent to which the operation was infiltrated and predetermined." Yeah, that's BS. There’s a whole section about "prior knowledge" of the operation and then even more from Barraez saying that the whole operation was a false flag in the aftermath section. There's already enough of her dubious opinion in the article. WMrapids (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

History of edits and discussion

1. 03:58, October 28, 2023; a description of the phases of Operation Gideon is added by SG.
2. 05:30, October 29, 2023; removed by WMrapids.
3. 10:17, October 29, 2023; reinstated by NoonIcarus.
4. 17:04, October 29, 2023; removed again by WMrapids.

Should the content explaining the various phases of what came to be known as Operation Gideon be included? So far, NoonIcarus and I support the addition; WMrapids opposes it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Reinstate, but I have not seen the argument against it.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The arguments against it seem to be about the three points I summarize above (1. a "Bolivarian Arrecho" criticized Barraez 20 years ago, and 2. she interviews military people, and writes about what they tell her, and 3. Maduro is still standing, so she must be wrong.). There are entire scholarly papers and books written about how Maduro has altered the military to assure the support of the military, and his use of Cuban surveillance to help assure he can't be removed, and they and other sources have views about the military and the power structure in Maduro's administration (where Diosdado holds the power but there are squabbles between the power factions of intelligence, military and Maduro, the figurehead) are in sync with Barraez's observations and views. She is not out in left field as the removals imply. Expansion of reading sources might aid in understanding of the big picture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be misrepresenting this. A lot of this is undue, especially from a columnist like her who is always promoting flashy coup stories. WMrapids (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should. With all the respect that I might have for WMrapids as an experienced editor, their description of Barráez shows their inexperience on the matter. From the recent death of a lieutenant ([2]) to growing tensions between Venezuela and Guyana, Sebastiana has worked on the subject for years, starting her career in 2000 and even working in the Venezuelan Congress before that. She has even been cited by the UN's Fact-Finding Mission on Venezuela several times ([3][4][5]). She's an subject matter expert. Calling her a "columnist" is a gross understatement. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Re-instated, 10:59, 31 October 2023. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of scholarly sources

This article has cited scholarly sources and books of repute: examples are respected publishers of scholarly journals like Taylor & Francis, or Corrales who is cited 50 times by other publications, and even Koh, which I thought dubious at first, and is not quoted or cited anywhere other than inclusion in a list of perceptions, is still cited by 12 other scholarly publications.

An obscure Brazilian paper cited by one other publication (an indication of how it is viewed by other scholars) is going way out on a limb to include a controversial POV. I have removed it.[6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Limited citation does not warrant exclusion. Can you provide anything else? WMrapids (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes; gain consensus on talk if you want to add an opinion from a very obscure paper, which no one else thinks worthy of citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be bordering WP:OWN if you are solely describing yourself as the "no one else" determining this. WMrapids (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:BRD and the specific wording there "one person". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll quickly note that the use of obscure papers has already been a problem in the past for the inclusion of controversial claims in articles. Tools such as Google Scholar citations or results should be used to assess this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm noticing a particular problem in relation to sources from Brasil or in Portuguese. Googling for use of certain terms and using obscure sources or publishers that are cited by no one is not how good research is done; there is an abundance of high-quality sources on this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Another

Similarly, this is an obscure Nigerian lecture cited by none; I've reverted as explained in the edit summary. Due weight is not established (much less in the lead) by finding one obscure source that uses one word that one wants to introduce. And if that's the best source for that term, the term is clearly not due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Forcibly" in the lead

This is edit warring (again). The word has been introduced to the lead by one editor and repeatedly inserted by that same editor, in spite of multiple removals, and never had consensus. The latest re-insertion (with an interesting edit summary) went along with deletion of information about the complexity of the different plots at different times; the combined effect is to obscure the murky and complex nature of what happened, and reduce it to only the coup POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The word "forcibly" has been there for awhile, remaining through hundreds of edits. The edit summary attempted to explain what was indeed happening; an armed force attempting to enter Venezuela and forcing Maduro from power against his will. There is nothing POV about explaining what happened. WMrapids (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The word forcibly stayed there while dispute resolution proceeded on talk, because not everyone edit wars. You first added it on 11 September, it was removed on 12 September, you re-added it on 1 October, and have re-added it twice since. Everyone else has explained multiple times that Operation Gideon was many things at different times to different people. It never had consensus, it stayed only because dispute resolution was ongoing; you've now re-introduced it a total of three times, plus the original insertion. That's edit warring, just as this was edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, with "everyone" being two people... The "many things at different times to different people" argument just doesn't cut it; the leaders of the operation clearly state their intentions were to remove Maduro and restore democracy. For the differing opinions, which will always be present in Venezuelan political articles, we have the government saying this was an assassination attempt and the opposition saying it was a false flag operation. While they can provide their own opinions, sources primarily say that this was an attempt to detain Maduro at a minimum. So looking through the political fog and opinions, it's clear that everything about this attempted *insert opinion* was through force. WMrapids (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Everyone trying to explain repeatedly is four people: NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and me. It was an attempt to remove Maduro from power; there are many ways that could happen. Whatever Goudreau was up to, or thought he was up to (not even knowing he wasn't calling the shots, and with the men not even knowing they had been infiltrated because they had no cell phones) is only one of those ways. Neuman's take on issues is not the entire story; it's one part of a complex plot that changed over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

According to who? WMrapids (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Since about July now, we have all been scouring and listing and reflecting hundreds of sources; I hope you are reading them and don't expect me to go back through all of them to summarize those you may not be reading. Long story short; there are many other viewpoints besides Neuman's and Venezuelanalysis and Telesur, etc and they are reflected in the article; please read them all. As an aside that provides one example, you are presumably aware that in the alleged "2002 coup", Chavez actually peacefully resigned with no arms being pointed at him, rather because he ordered his military to fire on peaceful protestors, and they refused? They didn't have to threaten him with firearms or force; they only had to refuse to carry out his orders because they didn't want to end up charged with human rights abuses. Francisco Toro has a good summary of that (although it's common knowledge) that you might look up. Other scholars have very good descriptions of why/how the new Maduro military is controlled, but authoritarian leaders can be removed from power without the use of force. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, this is all your speculation. This was an armed group that had a plan established to capture/neutralize Maduro. Period. However you want to interpret that in your POV is fine personally, but when you attempt to enforce that upon Wikipedia, it becomes a problem. WMrapids (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You might find the BBC Mundo account helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What about it? WMrapids (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That it's unclear whether any of the three gringos had any clue at what was going on, how good their communication was, who was told what by whom, and that likely most of the men didn't have contact with the outside world (although that last bit may be from a different source-- having read hundreds of sources in the last few months ... ). The BBC Mundo article is reinforcing what Barraez knew more directly because she had contacts on the ground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

See #Another (this issue was first discussed in that section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Using Summary style

When this article got too big, we went to summary style and, based on this discussion, chunked off the Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement, which is a sub-article about one piece of the larger plot. After we did that trim, collaboratively, more of the text came back,[7] and today more still was added. Even after I removed it, this article is back to 9,150 words of readable prose. In the Agreement here, we have the basics; detail is in the sub-article, and individual opinions-- that don't reflect a preponderance of sources-- should stay at the sub-article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Redundancy, repetition, misc cleanup

WMrapids for your attention:

1. Could you look closely at this edit? You've added that the event was characterized as an assassination attempt when, literally, the very next sentence says that. Could you work on better merging content to avoid repetition?
2. Here you added a sentence about examination of "every law possible" from a WP:VICE video, when the next paragraph contains essentially the same content ("all legal means" sourced to The Guardian, a higher-quality source). We don't need to say the same thing twice in two paras; could you please merge the content better to one thought to avoid redundancy?
3. Also in this edit, could you please keep WP:V in mind, and add timestamps so others don't have to correct your edits? Other editors should not have to watch 20-minute videos to complete a citation added by another editor who is not a beginner.

I'm asking you to correct these issues, rather than do them myself, so that a) you'll know to take care with similar in the future and so that b) we don't keep having similar, as in Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6#Fate of Cuba; original research, where it took multiple edits to correct two different versions of original research. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done--WMrapids (talk) 04:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Statements about legality, BLP issues

WMrapids not done, because this edit removes key information which creates bias and misleads the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

After re-arranging the content to group all mentions of some version of "every legal means" together, it becomes obvious that Vice News was an improper use of a primary source with no consensus for reliability with WP:BLP implications; three other high-quality sources come to different conclusions about legal means than this primary-sourced excerpt. I've kept the "bounty hunter" quote, while removing the bit that is contradicted by higher-quality sources. Four sources say different things; let the reader decide; don't lead the reader with sensationalized excerpts. My better inclination is that the "bounty hunter" bit should be removed for the tabloid aspect of the Vice News reporting, but I've left it pending feedback from others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

What was improper about Vice? What was "contradicted by higher-quality sources"? It's important to include quotes from Rendón as he is the main contact in this strange relationship. He essentially explains that after they could not find a legal avenue to remove Maduro, that they had to resort to force. Seems pretty cut and dried. WMrapids (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

On the question of what legal means or justification can be used to remove Maduro from power, as seen in this version, we have the following sources:

1. Faiola WAPO addressing legal means the committee discovered to move forward, including WAPO's secondary source commentary about Rendon's comments.
2. The Guardian discussing "all legal means", and not concluding or stating anything otherwise.
3. BBC discussing how they came to an agreement with Silvercorp (but does not go into the legal issue)
4. A CNN interview (primary) which is not used to refute anything stated by the higher-quality secondary analyses (Washington Post, The Guardian, BBC), rather only to provide a second source to Rendon's own words from a primary source as backed up by commentary already covered in secondary sources.

The instance of using the Vice interview (which you have again reintroduced here) is use of a primary source excerpt to state as fact ("Rendón said that the Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through legal challenges") something that disagrees with the secondary source statements and analysis found explicitly in The Washington Post, indirectly in The Guardian, and by omission in BBC and any other secondary source to my knowledge. This is improper use of a primary source, as we've seen also at #Boat firing video and generally throughout in earlier versions. There are BLP implications in this misuse of a primary source about which there is no consensus on reliability to contradict, for example, The Washington Post. This misuse of sources has severe BLP implications, and only high-quality sources should be used for BLPs. Nowhere does any secondary source come to the conclusion that an excerpt from primary source VICE interview states, and we don't know what was excluded in that excerpt and whether the full context is presented. There is no secondary analysis: just an excerpt, which could be taken out of context or incomplete. I want to ask you to please be more mindful of BLP implications when using or misusing primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your edit summary when reinstating this content also indicates you may not be giving appropriate weight to high-quality secondary sources. Do you have any secondary source which backs this Rendon selected interview excerpt? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids you have not answered the question. Do you have any secondary source which backs the selected excerpt of this interview, which could be taken out of context or selectively clipped to leave a certain impression? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

How is Vice a primary source? WMrapids (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about how to use or interpret a video excerpt; why this is not a secondary analysis of that excerpt has been explained repeatedly in discussions on this page. See for example #Boat firing video. I've been slowly working on cleaning this up, leaving that which is backed by secondary review, but there may still be some left in the article, along with the overquoting which is leading the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY, there should be no issue with inclusion if we are not making an interpretation or analysis of what Rendón is saying. We are simply providing what Rendón said. WMrapids (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are using a video excerpt that has no secondary commentary to contradict secondary sources, and you are doing that with BLP implications. I suggest you self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we are not interpreting what Rendón said and are properly attributing. Shouldn't be an issue. WMrapids (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue of the problems with and how to use video excerpts is explained very clearly to you at #Boat firing video. The additional problem here is that you are using an excerpt (and we don't know what else is left out) to contradict higher-quality secondary sources. With BLP implications in this case; in the case of the boat firing video, everyone ended up dead, so there aren't BLP implications. Here there are, and Wikipedia purportedly takes BLP issues seriously. I again suggest you self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, Rendón's statements don't contradict what is reported in secondary sources. The secondary sources report that the committee investigated all legal means while Rendón says that they could not remove Maduro through legal challenges (they could not remove him through a vote, a civil or criminal infraction, etc.) and resorted to the third party.

So this leaves me with a few questions:

1. What are the issues with a primary source if it is not violating WP:PRIMARY?
2. What BLP implications exist from a direct statement from Rendón?
3. Are there concerns with the wording regarding "legal challenges"?

Genuinely trying to clear things up here. WMrapids (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I will not be enticed into a bludgeoned discussion; the sources are listed above, and you are contradicting at minimum The Washington Post, and extending beyond what The Guardian says, with a video excerpt that may or may not be a complete register of everything Rendon said in the interview. All of this has already been explained to you wrt to the boat firing incident, and arrest warrants have been issues; the legality of the matter has serious BLP implications. I again suggest you self-revert the incessant edit-warring first and gain consensus on talk. Do you have a secondary source that unequivocally states that the Guaido administration was acting outside the law and "the Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through legal challenges" ? This is egregious and I am aware of no source that makes this claim, and I think I've read them all by now. Scholarly sources written after the fact certainly don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

There's not a statement saying that "the Guaidó administration was acting outside the law" and I have been trying to carefully word the statement so it presents this neutrally. Maybe you are misinterpreting this? WMrapids (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

So here, besides the edit warring, you are doing exactly what we've explained you shouldn't do at #Boat firing video. You are using a video excerpt to contradict higher quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And, since there are Interpol red alerts involved, this is an egregious BLP violation. Please self-revert per WP:BLP or we'll need to take this to higher dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about Interpol for? Why are you making threats towards me? WMrapids (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

BLP vios are about as serious as it gets on Wikipedia; I suggest you self-revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you close the RfC below due to forum shopping behavior and not participating with this discussion in the first place. You have ignored WP:RFCBEFORE and other dispute resolution processes in place. WMrapids (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You are welcome to explain your forum shopping charge on my talk page. There was plenty of RFCBEFORE, and egregious BLP issues can't stand for days because they are edit warred into an article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Gravity of BLP issue here

content copied from User:Orgullomoore/rationale supporting title of 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon

Adicionalmente, se investiga la participación y financiamiento en actos conspirativos por parte del supuesto gobierno de Guaidó en contra de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; tales como la denominada “Operación Gedeón”.

Additionally, the involvement and financing in conspiratorial acts by the supposed Guaidó government against the legitimately constituted authorities are being investigated; such as the so-called "Operation Gideon".

— Prosecutor announcing arrest warrant issued against Juan Guaidó on 2023-10-05 [8]

WMrapids you are using a selected video excerpt to contradict higher quality sources and the BLP implications are serious. CNN, Washington Post, CFR – queries about coincidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please see my reply above. WMrapids (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

History of content

1. 19:14, October 6, 2023 First added by WMrapids
2. 07:25, October 7, 2023 talk discussion initiated by SandyGeorgia
3. 14:42, October 7, 2023 removed by SandyGeorgia after a series of edits that introduces what secondary sources say, including removing this bit
4. 03:07, October 8, 2023 readded by WMrapids
5. 11:07, October 8, 2023 removed by SandyGeorgia with link to talk discussion
6. 14:37, October 9, 2023 readded by WMrapids
7. 15:22, October 9, 2023 tagged by SandyGeorgia

WMrapids never had consensus for this content, which has serious BLP implications and remains in the article because of editwarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

14:13, October 12, 2023, after RFC discussion which includes review of CNN en español video, a higher-quality source which explicitly contradicts the VICE excerpt, and three editors opining the current content is inappropriate, SandyGeorgia removes the content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC: legality of options

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Compromise installed 12 days ago, no new feedback; involved close per #Close ?. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Should the content (extracted from the more complete sourced version in this sub-article)

"the Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through legal challenges"

be included in this article? 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove all mention of VICE video excerpt re the legality of the options available per discussions above at #Statements about legality, BLP issues, #Gravity of BLP issue here and #History of content. This is an egregious BLP violation with severe legal consequences. The content contradicts higher quality sources like The Washington Post, and uses a brief excerpt from a source (WP:VICE) that does not enjoy consensus on Wikipedia about its reliability and should not be used when there are BLP implications. We have higher-quality secondary sources discussing the matter and we can't use a source that does not enjoy consensus on reliability to contradict those, with BLP implications. We don't know the full context of the statement, or what was left out of the brief excerpt; we know that no higher quality source makes this statement the way Wikipedia now is implying that the Guaido administration acted outside the law, and WMrapids has provided no secondary source that makes this claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  With zero help or response coming from the BLP noticeboard, and short of ANI, attention is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

  And now the statement has migrated to this: "Rendón would say in an interview with Vice News that the Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through judicatory processes and that they would begin focusing on having an armed third party capture and remove Maduro from Venezuela." All from one excerpt of an video around which we have no idea what else was removed or not included. "Pick him up" is now with arms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

• Maintain excerpt/Bad RfC SandyGeorgia seems to misinterpret the statement that is provided directly from J. J. Rendón himself that, in summary, says that the Guaidó administration tried to remove Maduro through judicial processes, that those processes were fruitless and that the Guaidó administration then began to investigate having third party military contractors capture and remove Maduro. There are also no BLP claims to make as no specific individual is named for such actions in the excerpt. The excerpt makes no claim on the legality of such actions (this was explained in multiple edit summaries [9], [10]), only that the legal/judicial processes were futile, so not sure what issue/contradiction SandyGeorgia is seeing here. It appears that SandyGeorgia is attempting to forum shop since they did not get any response from their previous entry at WP:BLPN. SandyGeorgia ignored WP:RFCBEFORE (there was no other discussion with other users and no other attempts of dispute resolution were made), refused to answer questions on what BLP/wording issues existed (instead they avoided good faith and remarked "I will not be enticed into a bludgeoned discussion"), they refused to answer on their apparent misinterpretation after they said the excerpt suggested "the Guaido administration was acting outside the law" and instead chose to open an RfC. This should be closed.--WMrapids (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
•  Comment: For those not knowing about the source of the excerpt, it is from this video from Vice News ranging from about 3:39–4:13.--WMrapids (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
• I might be a grumpy old curmudgeon but I hate videos as sources. I really loathe and detest them. Why oh why can't Vice News just write articles in text like a proper source?
  I'm not seeing huge conduct issues from SandyGeorgia. Forumshopping is when someone asks a question, doesn't like the answer, and then asks the same question in a different venue hoping for a different answer. That's not what happened here. I'm seeing a good faith dispute.
  I'm not seeing the BLP issues here either. The disputed text isn't saying that the Guaido administration was acting outside the law. It's saying that Rendón said that -- which Rendón did, on video. Unless Vice News is using AI to make deepfakes of Rendón, that is.
  I absolutely do see SandyGeorgia's source reliability concerns. Vice News isn't exactly the most reliable source ever to cover this issue, but it's the only source to make the disputed claim. This is a very grave and serious objection to including it. And all we've got is a video that's been cut and edited, possible by several different hands, for various purposes.
  I'm reluctant to say we should remove the disputed text and do nothing else, because the disputed text does so much to explain the motives for what happened. Is there an alternative?—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall thank you for taking the time when it seems no one else will. To answer your question about what other sources say (any alternative), it may help to review the additional detail at the sub-article, Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement. To be the best of my knowledge, this is all we've got in terms of sources on the legal issues, and certainly no source entertains the original-research-word "armed" which is now in the article. I would be curious to know, after reading the full account, your view on "explains the motives", related to Goudreau's, Alcala's and Colina's prior and later actions, which the Guiado administration says it was not involved in, and which other sources say was an operation that ultimately went forward because of other motives related to infiltration by Maduro intelligence and moles. But to get that part of the saga, you'd have to read the whole laboriously overquoted too big article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  So I understand that as a straight choice between including the disputed content and removing it. I was wondering whether it might be possible to replace it with something to the effect that, "In a video clip posted by Vice News, Rendón said..."?—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall, I suggest we might find something else from another source to get at the same or similar point, without the sensationalization because, on the question of WP:VICE as a source, the reporter reveals something about their own motive by headlining their main article with "MAGA", when the article and issue have nothing do with "MAGA", and all high quality sources indicate no reason to think Trump was involved in what happened ultimately – another reason to be concerned about how they edited video excerpts, and why I believe this particular excerpt from this particular source is problematic. I'm uncomfortable with any version of "Rendon said" from this source, when we don't know what all or else Rendon said, and the Maduro administration (who well and good knows what goes on on Wikipedia) is issuing arrest warrants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'd be entirely in favour of finding something from another source to get at the same or similar point, and I commend this as an outcome.—S Marshall T/C 14:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall I am at a disadvantage as I am traveling and editing from an iPad/hotspot with limited battery. But re-reviewing all the sources, the best I can come up with is a) the excerpt is at odds with everything else Rendon says elsewhere, and b) we might be able to get something from this CNN Spanish interview. But ... I can read the transcript, but cannot get the interview itself to play from my connection. If you translate the transcript at least, you may get a sense of whether we are overstating the case and that one VICE excerpt might be out of context. That's the best I can offer until I get on a real computer. Perhaps someone else can find something in Spanish, but I'm fighting a slow connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, Sandy -- Spanish isn't one of my languages. Our standard schoolboy/girl languages are French, Welsh, Irish, and Scots Gaelic. I learned French, and when I got to choose a second one, I picked German.

  I've done my own searches and come up with the Guardian and the BBC articles that you've already mentioned above. So we've got:

1) Guaidó had set up an advisory group to brainstorm ways to end the Maduro regime. Rendón’s job was to advise the commission on how to make that happen. [Rendón] said the commission explored all legal means of ousting Maduro, including piracy laws. The commission also interviewed security consultants... [which] resulted in an agreement in October for "an operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro." -- The Guardian.

2) Guaido's supporters began to consider removing Maduro in a surgical military operation. -- The BBC.

I do think it's reasonable to say on the basis of those sources that Rendón considered using mercenaries to remove Maduro by force because, in Rendón's opinion, there was no judicial route and no political route to removing him. It's pretty clear that those mercenaries would be armed.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

S Marshall with apologies again for the delay, I am now settled for a few days with a real computer and internet connection. I have now watched the full CNN en español video, which has made me even more convinced that the VICE video is selectively edited, as the CNN video is not. VICE gives us an edited excerpt; CNN was a live interview where we get the full context of everything Rendon says. I can't recommend the video to anyone who isn't fully fluent in Spanish, as Rendon speaks rapid-fire, and there are several moments where I can't pick up his exact words, but beginning at the 2:00 mark he emphatically lays out all the legal means they explored, and beginning at the 3:00 mark, he quite emphatically denies that at any time they contemplated anything illegal. It would be most helpful if some Spanish speakers would weigh in on that but unfortunately, they aren't. After viewing this, I'm more convinced of the biased presentation by VICE, and that we shouldn't be using it all, and that we must remove the statement there now. I'll spend today reviewing everything else to see if I can find a more neutral way to get at the same point WMrapids wants to make, but my first inclination is that a) we have already done that, and b) we are still trying to use selective quotes to lead the reader. More later, and once again, thanks for your help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing how this goes against everything Rendón has said in the past. As S Marshall has said (and how I have tried to emphasize in the edit) is that there was not a political or "legal" route to remove Maduro, so they looked at all the legal ways to remove Maduro by force (which is where the "universal enemy" and other theories come into play). In no way is this arguing that something was "outside the law". WMrapids (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if hiring foreign mercenaries to do that was lawful in Venezuela.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Actually, in the constitution there is Article 350 that "The people of Venezuela ... shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights", which Rendón does cite as a way to justify the actions of the Guaidó government to overthrow Maduro. Of course this is terrible legalese as it is open to interpretation, but it exists. Thanks for jumping into the chaos with us! WMrapids (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Good Lord, that's astonishing.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

S Marshall yes it is, and a full explanation here would be off-topic, but the short story is that Venezuelans boycotted an election (during a time when voting was mandatory) because they knew the outcome was predetermined by fraud, and the super majority that gave Chavez allowed him to personally write his own constitution, with absurdities like the aforementioned Article 350, and others which are now routinely ignored anyway by chavismo. That early boycott during Chavez's administration is among the reasons many analysts later state that Venezuelans themselves are responsible for what happened to their democracy, as Chavez also then had a super-majority to pack the supreme court. I hope this digression gives you some context that helps view this whole Gideon affair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

S Marshall there is quite a bit of nuance missing in the above discussion, which I may have time to explain while my battery lasts. "Mercenaries" were never to be hired as suggested. The Agreement specifically said the (three) non-Venezuelans were not combatants, only advisors (setting up camps and the like). Venezuelan exiled military would enter the country and sleeper and disaffected Venezuelan military would join, and they viewed themselves as "freedom fighters" obeying their own constitution (written by Chavez to explicitly state that one is obligated to act before an undemocratic whatever the terms were-- can't look them up from this connection). And on force, the nuance that is left out is that the plan (at one point, who knows what Goudreau went off with) was to encourage a popular uprising, in which Maduro might have resigned as Chavez once did, so armed force is still going beyond what the sources say. So there's a lot of nuance in the excerpt taken only from VICE, but if others don't want to engage this problem, and are leaving all the discussion to one or two or three editors, it's becoming wearisome. I suspect there isn't a lot of interest in maintaining neutrality or accuracy in this article, because there's a war in the Middle East and it's an old topic, and it's too much for one or two editors. I think we have a BLP vio in the article now, and I remain shocked that it has stood. Thanks for helping, best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As I and S Marshall have said, there doesn't appear to be a BLP violation, so please stop making such accusations. WMrapids (talk) 01:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

My opinion remains that the wording in the article now is a BLP vio, based on a less-than-BLP-worthy source, and I can see that S Marshall is working diligently towards sorting through the better sources and understanding a very nuanced, "murky" and complex situation. I appreciate S Marshall's typically sound approach and help, but don't think we're there yet. And we remain at the unfortunate point of not having enough people to develop consensus, as we also have two people saying to remove the content that is there now. (If I'm understanding correctly, neither does S Marshall support what is there now, as they suggest we find an alternate, so if I'm understanding correctly, I support that what is there now should go as we await consensus.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, SandyGeorgia, for those kind words. I'm hampered by both my deep ignorance of Venezuela and everything else to do with South America; and also by my inability to read Spanish, combined with my fear and loathing of automated translations, which can misrepresent or even invert the meaning of the source text. I'm going to confine myself to editing this article's talk page for the time being because I don't have the knowledge to edit the mainspace. What I do have is considerable experience of navigating Wikipedian content disputes, but that's not sufficient to make me a competent arbiter or mediator in an article of such importance and complexity. All I'm doing is offering another perspective. I very much hope that other Wikipedians show up as well.

Although this article isn't a biography of a living person, the BLP policy still applies to it. The key part of that policy says that when we're discussing living people: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Removing references to the Vice video is right, having regard to that policy, because better sources are available.

But BLP policy doesn't require us to remove negative information about living people when that negative information is well sourced. Rendón did consider hiring foreign mercenaries to overthrow the government, because the Guardian says so after interviewing Rendón, and because the Vice video (despite its flaws) does clearly show Rendón saying that this is what he did. I think the article should say so. And I also think it's entirely BLP-compliant to depict Jordan Goudreau as a hamfisted operator who misrepresented his instructions to depart a long way from what he was contracted to do.

As SandyGorgia rightly says, I do not endorse the current wording of this article, in this or any other respect. In my view the whole article needs a colossal editing spree -- firstly to remove all repetition and redundancy; secondly to streamline many convoluted sentences; and then thirdly to ensure the most scrupulous adherence to NPOV.—S Marshall T/C 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

S Marshall I should be able to view that final video tomorrow, and get back to all of your excellent commentary-- maybe with a proposal for alternate wording using sources other than VICE. My apologies for the delay due to my road trip and hotspot/iPad editing difficulties, and thanks again for all you've done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, removing repetition, redundancy, overquoting, and POV has been worked on for a month and proven difficult because it pops back up as soon as it's trimmed, often without discussion, or sometimes even after discussion. I don't hold out much hope on that front unless others get involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The interview is interesting. Rendón says that Guaidó did not control any armed forces, that they did "feasibility" studies and went with the "eventual" path of finding an external armed force. Rendón also says that in the full document (which hadn't been revealed yet) that there was no mention of killing Maduro though when the agreement was published, it mentioned that Maduro could be "neutralized" in the rules of engagement. WMrapids (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be able to watch that video until day after tomorrow ... the thingamajig that I bought to keep my iPad charged while traveling doesn't work. Maybe by the time I can view it, we will have gotten more than one person caring to lend a hand here ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing us to the discrepancy between what the BBC and The Guardian sources say, and the Agreement that was leaked. There is indeed quite a difference. But let's not conclude that the BBC and The Guardian are wrong quite yet. Let's consider instead that they might be talking about a different time.

Rendón seems to have explored the options in phases. He started off looking for a political route to win at the ballot box, then a legal route to depose Guaidó in a court room. When they were unfeasible he explored other options. They're saying he then considered hiring foreign mercenaries (in the source, "security consultants", but I don't think such obfuscatory euphemisms belong in a Wikipedia article). He must have been very candid with the BBC and the Guardian journalists to say that. Rendón's an interesting character.

In any case, although the sources are unequivocal that these were his thought processes, he doesn't seem to have gone so far in the actual Agreement. As you rightly say, the Agreement frames Silvercorp/Jordan Goudreau as akin to a cadre, handing a well-developed operational plan to the armed Venezuelan patriots who would actually carry it out.—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• Remove per S Marshall's comment, as well as my longstanding concern of the use of a Vice video as a source. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• Comment am I the only bothered by the RfC multiplication? --ReyHahn (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  No. I also find it bothersome. How would you address the edit warring if not via RFC? We have an issue of one user attempting to persistently inject highly objectionable content and refusing to listen unless the consensus against that content is overwhelming. And it has been difficult to show overwhelming consensus because there's only 2-4 editors contributing to the article regularly, hence the multiple RFC's in search of broader consensus. That's my take on it, anyway.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I may not be understanding what you mean by "multiplication", but in case it means you are inquiring about two RFCs on the page, one is pretty much done now anyway, and per Orgullomoore. BLP vios simply can't be left unaddressed on the page, particularly when they are being edit warred in, and the BLP noticeboard resulted in zero feedback, and other regular editors of this article seem to be waiting to be pinged to weigh in on items, besides which, outside input is useful. A MUCH better solution when BLP issues are involved would have been to get some feedback from the BLP noticeboard, but that didn't happen. Another alternate is for more people to watchlist the article and stay on top of edit warring as it occurs, bringing that to talk quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  To have more than one RfC running at the same time suggests a highly controversial article with extraordinary problems. We mostly see it in articles about US politics, or the conflicts between India and Pakistan or Israel and Palestine. RfC uses up a lot of volunteer time, and volunteer time is Wikipedia's limiting resource, so RfC is an "expensive" process, if you follow me. Which doesn't mean don't use it -- please do! Some problems need attention from previously uninvolved editors. It means: please try not to suck up all the oxygen.—S Marshall T/C 17:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Re "a highly controversial article with extraordinary problems", there are alternate explanations, as Orgullomoore explains, and volunteers are already spending lots of time on this page, just explaining basics. I wouldn't have gone to an RFC if a) the first RFC had not essentially already concluded, or b) someone/anyone had responded on the BLP noticeboard. I am loathe to go to ANI as the last ANI thread about behavioral issues here got exactly one outside editor opining, so ... RFC was what was left. Your help is most appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  @S Marshall: Regrading a separate RfC, Siroxo explained that Venezuelan topics, despite be a very contentious (there were recently two presidents), did not have general sanctions. ActivelyDisinterested recommended to me to limit the use of RfCs as they take up the time of the community, though it seems both Sandy and I have both used them in order to include more opinions. If we have limited community input on such a contentious topic, what is the best direction moving forward? WMrapids (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  Wish I had a good answer for you but I don't. :( —S Marshall T/C 23:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  The best direction moving forward is always the same: a) no more edit warring, b) engage talk, c) don't re-instate text that has been reverted once without gaining consensus on talk. That is the pattern on this page, and not everyone edits that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reboot

From discussions above, we have a CNN interview where Rendon discusses all options explored and specifically and emphatically denies the exploratory contract ever envisioned any illegal action. We have a WP:VICE (not a BLP-worthy source for controversial material, and the only source in this section red-flagged by Headbomb's reliability script clip excerpted from a longer interview, see VICE video starting at 3:39) used to support the claim that the "Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through legal challenges", later changed to "the Guaidó administration concluded that Maduro could not be removed from his position through judicatory processes and that they would begin focusing on having an armed third party capture and remove Maduro from Venezuela".

No source makes the claims in either the first or second version, which is supported only by WP:VICE, which may be a selectively edited excerpt without context; WP:BLP requires that we use high-quality sources for BLP claims, and we have (including the CNN interview) four higher-quality sources than VICE.

A compromise or alternate wording is sought for this section. Sources state:

1. Faiola Washington Post:

   The effort involved speaking to more than a dozen attorneys about the legalities of such a mission, Rendón said. They looked at the “universal enemy” argument — once used to prosecute pirates — that formed the basis of some Nazi renditions after World War II. They compiled a dossier on the failed Bay of Pigs attempt to liberate Cuba from the government of Fidel Castro. ... Questions of legality dogged the prospects of such an operation in Venezuela. But committee members ultimately decided that articles of the Venezuelan constitution, coupled with the U.N. Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, might offer the legal cover they needed to potentially move forward.

2. The Guardian:

   Guaidó had set up an advisory group to brainstorm ways to end the Maduro regime. Rendón’s job was to advise the commission on how to make that happen. [Rendón] said the commission explored all legal means of ousting Maduro, including piracy laws. The commission also interviewed security consultants... [which] resulted in an agreement in October for "an operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro."

3. BBC:

   Guaido's supporters began to consider removing Maduro in a surgical military operation.

One problem with the BBC source is a timeline that may be misconstrued by readers naive to the overall picture. One para states that "So Guaido's supporters began to consider removing Maduro in a surgical military operation", and the very next paragraph states that "The first training camp was set up in the Colombian city of Maicao in June." As the article explains, those camps were set up by Alcalá well before any Rendon agreement, and the efforts of Alcala/Nieto/Sequae/Goudreau (three Venezuelans, including one widely alleged to be a Maduro mole, and one "mercenary") continued well after the Guiado administration cut ties with them; we can't use that timeline to make claims about Rendon in his capacity with the Guaido administration.

This brings me back to all we have is that Rendon's committee contemplated "all legal means" as stated by high-quality sources. We can't pin on Rendon/Vergara/Guiado statements about what Alcala/Nieto/Sequae/Goudreau did on their own. We don't have any BLP-worthy source saying the Guaido administration did anything extralegal or contemplated anything extralegal; I can see room for adding in something thatt among the proposals contemplated was the "security consultant" per The Guardian, or something along those lines as a way to state they contemplated hiring "mercenaries" among all options, which they never formalized as the agreement was specifically exploratory with all kinds of outs and caveats. But, we still don't have a source saying "mercenaries", because again, the agreement specifically stated that the three foreigners were in an advisory capacity, non-combatants. Open to suggestions for compromise that hew to the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Help the ignorant Englishman here. When Rendón denies contemplating anything illegal, isn't he relying on that amazing principle in the Venezuelan constitution where armed insurrection against the state is lawful?—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  As The Washington Post says, they ultimately settled on an arrangement that was based on (probably, but never stated???) Article 350 of the Constitution; that seems to be a logical scenario, although it's not explicitly stated. But to whatever extent they did rely on Article 350, or something else in the constitution, activation of Article 350 would imply Venezuelans, not "mercenaries", so I don't see how we can use that argument in the context that the disputed edits do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  S Marshall besides Article 350, there is also Article 333; see Venezuelan presidential crisis#Justification for the challenge. I'm not sure which one is referenced by the Washington Post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To my eye, the natural meaning of the sources is that Rendón contemplated hiring "security consultants"—an obfuscatory euphemism that means mercenaries—to do the dirty deeds, even though his eventual decision was otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

He did not just contemplate; he signed a provisional, working agreement (never fully acted upon) to hire Goudreau, so to that point, you are correct. But the problem comes in mixing the word mercenary when the 800 men were Venezuelan ex-military exiled in Colombia; the 800 men Goudreau/Alcala/Nieto promised was a reasonable expectation of a Venezuelan force, because more than 1,400 who opposed Maduro had left for Colombia, Brasil, and there were others in the US, and others expected to rise up within Venezuela. See Venezuelan crisis defection#Defectors. So we still can't say Rendon was hiring a "mercenary" force; he had a provisional agreement with Goudreau, a security consultant, for the non-Venezuelans to be non-combatants, in an advisory and training capacity, and the expectation that Goudreau with Venezuelans Alcala/Nieto/Sequae would bring the 800 Venezuelans from exile. How can we call Venezuelans fighting for their own democracy "mercanaries"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Would using some vague term help? Let the users that want to go deeper decide. Like "remove Maduro by all legitimate means available?" I am amazed of the lengths to which this article has been examined. You could write a thesis on the topic. We should try to be reasonable here. Sources contradict and some sources provide information that is not corroborated by others. Shouldn't it be a Wikipedia guideline to communicate only the events that are clearly corroborated by most reliable sources, leave specific or uniquely sources out (specially when controversy arises)? Maybe nothing should be said at all. --ReyHahn (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  As it is a BLP issue, my concern is we are working much too hard to try to say something that no BLP-worthy source says, and the reporting that the AP and The Washington Post did on this issue was pretty impressive ... they dug in deep, and if they could have said something like we are trying to say, they would have. Ditto for Bellingcat. We are perhaps letting the tail (WP:VICE) wag this dog, and it's for similar that VICE does not enjoy the reliability reputation on Wikipedia that the other sources do. We are trying to say Rendon hired mercenaries, when what we have from sources is that Rendon signed a preliminary agreement with a security contractor who promised to bring Venezuelan men, but proved unable to deliver on his promises, so the agreement never went forward. We may be becoming too US-centric and forgetting that Venezuelans ran what turned into a debacle, allegedly because of Maduro intelligence infiltration which drove them to their destiny, while Goudreau was somewhat clueless off in Miami. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  What are the arguments in favor of keeping the excerpt again? I agree if there is just a unique source of sometimes dubious quality, better not discuss it, specially under BLP considerations.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  ReyHahn, see the edit summaries at #History of content. I think if any reader has relied on sources like VICE, Al Jazeera, the Rolling Stone, and Neuman's book (which is acerbic), they will have a different perception than anyone who has relied on the majority of high-quality sources, including scholarly, and that perception of events may be hard to shake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Our text doesn't need to say what the BBC and The Guardian say. But it needs to mean what the BBC and The Guardian mean. I understand those sources as saying that Rendón seriously thought about foreigner-led insurrection against the government, and I think they're based on Rendón's own testimony. It's my position that the article must contain text that means this.

I want to add that although The Guardian is a reputable and reliable source, where they differ from the BBC, I would personally prefer the BBC. The BBC has a charter that commits it to political neutrality, and it tries, even though it occasionally falls short. The Guardian openly grinds axes. I'd be particularly cautious when talking about Goudreau, who's nailed his colours to Trump's mast, and therefore will inevitably be demonized in The Guardian.—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

So how can we get from what the BBC says/means to proposed text? The first part of your statement, "Rendón seriously thought about foreigner-led" is well-supported by sources (he signed an agreement thinking that Goudreau would/could lead the Venezuelans, and has stated all options were on the table, so not in doubt, although I would replace 'foreigner' with non-Venezuelan); on the second part, "insurrection against the government", there were two governments, one from the "last democratically-elected institution" (Washington Post), and Articles 333 and 350 of the Venezuelan Constitution ... and all of that together renders "insurrection" a less-than-best word choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

What about: Among the options Rendón and the committee seriously considered was a military operation led by non-Venezuelans to capture and remove Maduro. I believe that is within what the sources say and what they mean. This part is tricky, though: Operation Resolution stated the "Service Provider Group will advise and assist Partner Group in Planning and executing and operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolas Maduro (heretoafter "Primary Objective"), remove the current Regime, and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaido." The Agreement defined the "Service Provider" (Silvercorp) as "advisors", the "Partner Group" as "exiled Venezuelan military", and a "Task Group" as the "combination of [Silvercorp] personnel and Partner Group", so "led by" might be slightly off. Organized by or assisted by, or "advised and assisted" by? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not delighted with "non-Venezuelan", because it's a negative and I personally think articles should be phrased in simple declarative sentences. Maybe: Among other options, Rendón began to contemplate an insurrection against the Maduro regime. Foreign contractors would incite and support Venezuelans in a military operation to capture Maduro and replace his government with Guaido's. How's that?—S Marshall T/C 13:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Getting closer, in theory, but in practicality:

• Rendon or the committee?
• Is "began to" really needed? Why not just "contemplated"? All of his statements and reliable sources make it clear they always contemplated all options -- I'm not sure any one option developed over time more than any other.
• There have been problems in this article with the word regime, even though high-quality sources use it.
• And if we get others to opine and settle on wording, what citations will be attached to that?

I'd be personally thrilled if we had more voices in this matter, as I feel like you're honing in on workable content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that we need more voices.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise you inquired above whether this was resolved. Subject to the minor questions just above, S Marshall and I seem to have come to a workable version, but we need more voices to a) resolve those questions, and b) figure out what sources to attach to this text should we use it. For example, I'm not sure (short of digging back through hundreds of sources) which source supports the "incite and support"; I know it's out there somewhere, but it would be helpful if we had more editors weighing in who could dig back through the sources to get this proposed text finalized and fully cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sandy: as I noted above, I was not actually referring to this thread but rather the final subsection of the discussion you originally pinged me to. That said, I'm happy to lend a hand. My time is still limited though, so it my take a day or two just to get up to speed, and significantly longer to find the time to work through the sources. If the pool you'd like me to review first (the ones you think are most likely contain the content that support the compromise/consensus language to be added) could be identified and listed, that would be a big help. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

On "incite and support", my position is that our articles need to mean what the sources mean. They don't have to say what the sources say; in other words, it's important not to plagiarise the sources' wording. My position is that "incite and support" is what the BBC and The Guardian mean.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

S Marshall, apologies for the outdent and length, but I hope it helpful to add translations for you (which maybe Snow Rise will review). My concern is that you are correctly interpreting what the BBC and Guardian mean about the overall Operation Gideon, but Gideon was not just one thing and a) the BBC mixes up phases of what it became, and b) in this part of the article, we are dealing specifically with the phase that involved Rendon and the Guaido administration. I'm looking for a source that ties the pieces together; when the BBC says "Guaido supporters", they are in a phase before Rendon's involvement. For clarification, see:

Hay tres etapas que rodearon la operación que terminó llamándose Gedeón y que tuvo su día culminante el 3 de mayo 2020 en Macuto: la preparación de la Fuerza de Tarea por parte del mayor general retirado (Ej) Cliver Alcalá Cordones, hasta que fue traslado a los Estados Unidos en un avión de la DEA. El segundo episodio es la actuación del capitán Antonio Sequea al asumir el control de todos los campamentos hasta que lleva a la operación suicida a Macuto y Chuao. Y finalmente lo que llevó al contrato con la empresa Silvercorp y las acciones de los cuerpos de seguridad venezolanos hasta Diosdado Cabello.

There are three stages that surrounded the operation that ended up being called Gideón and that had its culminating day on May 3, 2020 in Macuto: the preparation of the Task Force by retired Major General (Ex) Cliver Alcalá Cordones, until he was transferred to the United States on a DEA plane. The second episode is the performance of Captain Antonio Sequea when he assumes control of all the camps until the suicide operation to Macuto and Chuao. And finally what led to the contract with the company Silvercorp and the actions of the Venezuelan security forces until Diosdado Cabello.

— Step by step, how Operation Gideon was created and ended with the ambush of the Venezuelan military

Of those phases:

A finales de junio 2018, el diputado Toledo cita a Bogotá, a Alcalá Cordones y le presenta a Jordan Goudreau, quien lo pone al tanto de lo que pretende hacer. Desde ese momento Alcalá y Goudreau se hacen muy cercanos, se identifican por ser militares, por entender el arte de la guerra y más aún cuando general le explica que tiene planificada una Fuerza de Tarea y lo lleva a los campamentos.

At the end of June 2018, Deputy Toledo summons Alcalá Cordones to Bogotá and introduces him to Jordan Goudreau, who informs him (Alcalá) of what he intends to do. From that moment Alcalá and Goudreau become very close, they identify themselves as being soldiers, by understanding the art of war and even more so when the general explains to him (Gordeau) that he has a Task Force planned and takes him to the camps.

— Step by step, how Operation Gideon was created and ended with the ambush of the Venezuelan military

And ...

Desde entonces viene la propuesta del contrato con Silvercorp; la empresa para cubrir los extremos legales contrata a varios abogados norteamericanos que blinden el contrato desde las leyes norteamericanas, pero también desde los tratados internacionales. El estratega designado por Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez para asegurarse el éxito del contrato, es Juan José Rendón.

From then comes the contract proposal with Silvercorp; to cover the legal extremes, the company hires several North American lawyers to (protect/shield) the contract according to North American laws, but also from international treaties. The strategist appointed by Juan Gerardo Guaidó Márquez to ensure the success of the contract is Juan José Rendón.

— Step by step, how Operation Gideon was created and ended with the ambush of the Venezuelan military

That is, we still need to get from "Goudreau, who informs him of what he intends to do" to what Rendón's committee explored. I would support that we're pretty much there if we augment the Guardian and BBC with the CNN en español interview and the Infobae source (info we unfortunately info have only in Spanish). Rendon said in the CNN interview:

'Acuérdate que el gobierno legítimo del presidente Guaidó no controla una fuerza policial en el país, por lo tanto se analizan todos los escenarios: alianzas con otros países, acciones propias, alzas de personas desde adentro, de los militares que están allá, uso eventual de actores que estaban fuera, militares retirados. Todos esos escenarios, como bien lo dijo el presidente: estamos analizando cosas por encima y por debajo de la mesa, se hicieron. De ahí a que se llegara a un acuerdo efectivo con este señor [Jordan Goudreau] al margen de la firma de ese acuerdo, no se le dio nunca luz verde' afirmó J.J. Rendón.

'Remember that the legitimate government of President Guaidó does not control a police force in the country, therefore all scenarios are analyzed: alliances with other countries, own actions, recruitment of people from within, of the military who are there, eventual use of actors who were outside, retired soldiers. All those scenarios, as the president said: analyzing things above and below the table, were done. From there, an effective agreement was reached with this man [Jordan Goudreau] apart from the signing of that agreement, it was never given the green light,' said J.J. Rendon.

—Rendon interview with CNN

Your last proposal was:

Among other options, Rendón began to contemplate an insurrection against the Maduro regime. Foreign contractors would incite and support Venezuelans in a military operation to capture Maduro and replace his government with Guaido's.

If we were to augment the sources with the CNN video, could we get to:

Among other options, Rendón contemplated an insurrection against the Maduro administration whereby foreign contractors would advise and support Venezuelans in a military operation to capture Maduro and replace his government with Guaido's.

That avoids the explicit part about "inciting" per Articles 333 and 350 of the Constitution, as they aren't specifically spelled out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Another source that might provide background is Associated Press, "Along the way, they would raid military bases in the socialist country and ignite a popular rebellion that would end in President Nicolás Maduro's arrest." and "Goudreau told the volunteers that — once challenged in battle — Maduro's food-deprived, demoralized military would collapse like dominoes, several of the soldiers said." That gives us the "incite" part, but the AP makes it clear this is after Guaido's camp distanced themselves from Goudreau. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Could we have two sentences rather than one, to manage down the Flesch-Kincaid score? I'll also switch "contemplated" to "considered" and "administration" to "government" for the same reasons. That would give us

Among other options, Rendón considered an insurrection against the Maduro government. Foreign contractors would advise and support Venezuelans in a military operation to capture Maduro and replace his government with Guaido's.

—S Marshall T/C 06:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In using "administration", I was attempting to respect the feedback at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6#Government, administration, officials; in this instance, though, I don't see a big difference in one over the other, as they are treated equally (the problem in that old discussion was the lack of parity in how the Guaido and Maduro governments were treated). Now, if we are almost there, who will install? It increasingly troubles me on this page that it seems necessary to ping other editors for feedback, which is not the way I am used to collaborating ... do we have enough consensus to install? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

We could maybe boldly try it and see if anyone reverts.—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Green light here.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done [11], thanks so much for all the help, S Marshall and thanks ReyHahn for weighing in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Close ?

Any further comments/concerns? Can this RFC be closed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Reasons and ways to end RFCs says: "if consensus is undoubtedly clear, even an editor involved may close the discussion. The editor removes the rfc tag while closing the discussion." Does anyone have anything to add here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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

We can archive this @NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, Orgullomoore, and SandyGeorgia:?--WMrapids (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of archiving to keep the talk page size manageable, but on the other hand, this page has seen multiple occurrences of issues resurfacing as soon as a section is archived, in spite of consensus developed in the archived section, so as long as the page size is not approaching 200KB (as it was in the past), I'd rather see some assurances that all has been read and digested and I won't just have to then un-archive if the issue resurfaces. The amount of work to keep up with that kind of editing is starting to wear even my patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

SYNTH removed to implicate US, which no quality sources do

This edit and this one introduce sources unrelated to this article; synthesis removed. Re Colombia knowing, we've already mentioned it was the least-kept secret in Venezuela; the whole world knew. Please stop trying to introduce unrelated sources saying the US was involved in regime change in this operation; that is well covered by high-quality sources who deny the US was involved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not to implicate the US at all, just saying that they may have had prior knowledge according to sources. This is presented by WOLA, which is a reputable organization. With your argument that "the whole world knew" so let's exclude the US and Colombia, then why even place Venezuela in of having advanced knowledge? Everyone knew, right?

Also, how is "The US administration pursued regime change against Maduro" much different than "The US administration of Donald Trump pressured for the exit of Maduro", especially when there are ample sources?

There is no attempt at implicating anything here and it appears that reliably sourced material is instead being removed without good reason. WMrapids (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

De Fronzo says: "the Trump administration tried to increase its pressure on the Venezuelan government by indicting President Maduro on narcoterrorism charges and offering a reward of $15 million for information leading to his apprehension and conviction." That's quite different from what the removed edit sought to claim, on SYNTH.

Separately, we already have Trump in the "Advance knowledge" section. Throughout the text, we've also made it clear Colombia knew, in several places. Using sources from 2019 (that pre-date this event), and sources that don't even mention Gideon, is SYNTH. The deleted edit goes beyond that, to try to implicate the US/Trump directly in the various plots that became known as Gideon. We went over this already at Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6#McClatchey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but we have plenty of sources discussing the attempted regime change in relation to the event and it's background.

What is the issue of including the US and Colombia in the intro? It's not to suggest anything, just that they possibly had knowledge. Maybe they warned Maduró of the plot just like the US warned Chávez in 2002? We are here to present the information to the readers, so purposefully keeping this information out of the intro seems pretty deceptive. WMrapids (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Look at the "Prior knowledge of the operation" section. We have concrete sources that Venezuela knew early on/all along, and the AP knew by a certain date. We have sources that it was a worst-kept secret. We have sources that Trump administration officials supposedly knew; presumably that means the CIA should have known, and would have told Trump, but we don't have a source for that. What source do we have on Colombia? A logical way to approach this is to find non-SYNTH sources to work in to the Prior knowledge section, and from there discuss with others whether then we have due weight to add to the lead. I believe I've read all the sources, and I have not seen anything to indicate that Colombia and the US belong in the lead. And we have a source (I can't recall which) saying that to the extent (either Colombia or the US ???) knew, they hoped that the arrest of Alcala would stem the operation. Which it did-- a bunch of the exiled military left as they believed the operation to be infiltrated; there were few men left by May, as one source says, they wandered away because they knew it was infiltrated and Goudreau hadn't delivered. This was a Venezuelan thing in Colombia, with three gringos who seem to have gotten in over their heads, and as BBC Mundo says, may or may not have understood they were infiltrated, depending on what Sequae told them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Just this week I found this report by Colombia's El Espectador describing that four of the detainees in Colombia related to the operation were Maduro's security officials: [12]. I see that it is already mentioned in the article, but it is another reference and yet another proof of knowledge beforehand. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE: Israeli commandos and US Fourth fleet

Removed, see WP:ONUS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Goals of the operation

Doing my best to not edit war, but with this edit, it clarifies that the operation was to establish Guaidó's leadership in Venezuela. This was reverted by Orgullomoore. Can we establish the goals of this operation?

It seems clear that Silvercorp and friends wanted to:

1. Infiltrate Venezuela
2. Forcibly remove Maduro
3. Establish Guaidó as president

Any objections? WMrapids (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids: I don't know that we can say that the invaders had any particular loyalty to Guaidó. They appear to have been motivated by the cash rewards, profit, and/or desire to remove Maduro. The best evidence that they intended to install Guaidó is the contract, and we already have this in the lead: "After the incident, various news outlets published an agreement between the Guaidó administration's Strategy Committee and Silvercorp, signed in October 2019, the terms of which provided that Silvercorp would organize an operation to remove Maduro and establish the Guaidó administration in exchange for a share of future oil sale profits. Committee members said that they had withdrawn from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019." I'm happy to look at any sources that might show otherwise.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging talk. Most accounts/sources are from Rendon or what we know about that agreement (which is not the ultimate operation that occurred), and less from Goudreau, Alcala and Nieto, and they were the ones who executed the operation. There is constant conflation in this article for what Rendon/Vergara briefly signed on to and then backed out of versus what Goudreua/Nieto/Alcala and later even Sequae did, moving forward on their own after Alcala's absence and Sequae's take over of the camps. Forcibly is a constantly inserted original research word, considering the plan to infiltrate and support a popular uprising. The motivation for the bulk of the group was to restore democracy to their country; there were only two people had a cash motivation (three, with Goudreau, who wasn't there and may not have had a clue what was going on with the Sequea factor), and then there's the cash reward for Colina that motivated five others. All of these differing issues in the "murky" situation have been conflated to lay everything on Rendon, which isn't the way it went. I suggest reading the Barraez analyses of the three different phases of what came to be known as Operation Gideon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, sorry if that sounds hurried or brusque, battery issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, unsure what you mean by "silvercorp and friends" because even within the camps there were problems, Goudreau wasn't there, few had access to outside communication, and most men left as they understood it to be infiltrated ... they weren't all on the same page ... we can't say most of exiled Venezuelans -- or even the three gringos --- cared who was president, they wanted democracy restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to help archive this section: I also do not think number 3 is that clear as it is time constrained. I think we have seen that this topic is more subtle than that as Sandy and you have pointed out in many subtopics.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting point, ReyHahn, as we are possibly forgetting throughout this article that Guaido was always positioned by the National Assembly as an interim or transitional or acting president, per the Statute Governing the Transition to Democracy, which provided for a short time limit to free and fair elections (where Guaido would not even have been a likely candidate over Machado or Lopez, for example). We might review the article to see if we're leaving faulty impressions that there was some "coup to establish a new president", when there was instead a legal framework and a timeframe established to democracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll help with archiving as well and agree with this (unless some source appears). WMrapids (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, as I said, unless a source appears, which it did. So why is this sourced information being removed again (besides the WP:OR opining above)?--WMrapids (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not the source, but how you use sources; we don't cherrypick one source for the lead sentence when we have a dozen others that say different things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Which source explicitly says that establishing Guaidó's leadership was not an objective? Omission does not count. WMrapids (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Almost every source says that removing Maduro from power, because he was never legitimately elected, was the objective by all different plots (with the exception of the infiltration plot). Guaido was the person at the time; there were different players at different points. The common objective was to restore democracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia: Well, the Miami Herald agreed that the operation was to establish Guaidó.--WMrapids (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Add Miguel Tinker Salas[13] Vox, Europa Press,[14] Prensa Ibérica[15][16] and El País[17].--WMrapids (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus and SandyGeorgia: Hello?--WMrapids (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: That really didn't sound like a question, sorry. In short, the main issue stems from the difference between the General Services Agreement and its Attachments, as well as the opposition's withdrawal, and all claims start from there.

Knowing how controversial this dispute is, since it has continued for a month and a half and that at least three editors have opposed to the inclusion, as well as all of the reasons above, probably the safest is just to remove it altogether. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

This seems more like interpretation of the situation from the user instead of providing information stated by the new sources, which state that installing Guaidó was a goal. WMrapids (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued at #Additional POV introduced to the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

POV tag

@SandyGeorgia: To recap, since I have lost track of the article's progress: what issues would remain to be solved in order to remove the POV tag? Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Give me a few days to find time to review and revisit; the adversarial editing style has meant I had to step away for an extended period, and now I've lost track of where we stand. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, 22, please ping me; I have multiple medical visits on the horizon in the next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Wish you the best! Please take care. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: thanks, appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

1. Forcibly: still no idea from whence comes this word, undue.

   Removed (but now worse, will detail separately) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

2. Third para of lead (about Strategy Committee) gives undue weight to one aspect of an abandoned plan that was but one small part of the overall history of an evolving plan that was different things at different times to different players. The article overplays (relative to sources) this aspect, leading the reader to believe the US/CIA/Guiado were involved, while downplaying the role of exiled Venezuelans.

   Problem persists; the lead never mentions the key players in the operation, rather takes an entire paragraph on an agreement that was abandoned, and repetitively does so (repeating info from the first paragraph).

3. Background: "hired a foreigner to install him"-- I remain mystified at why we are including one author's hyperbole.

   removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Negotiations with Guaido segment is given UNDUE weight, same as 2 above; it was one (abandoned) part of a plan that changed over time and ended up unrelated to the Strategy Committee planning, and has its own full article. Statements like ... Sucre stated that such discourse, together with phrases used by some in the opposition proclaiming "that there is no electoral exit before a criminal government", could lead to "any possible means to force Maduro's departure". ... (one person's random opinion) belong in the sub-article. Most sources (scholarly, or after-the-fact, that is NOTNEWS) treat this phase as something that was floated, abandoned, and denied ... but we have it as one of the largest single sections of the article, in a section that is trying to lead the reader. The excess detail here has crept back from the sub-article, and needs to be trimmed again to just the facts of a plan that happened and was quickly abandoned, unrelated to what eventually happened. The word count can be trimmed in simple ways by taking out detail on payments, overquoting and the like, which are provided in sub-article.

   Persists, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

5. Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations section gives undue attention to Denman (listing his badges and such); Denman and Berry were not key parts of Operation Gideon (they were more key prizes to Maduro). Most sources discussing the operation don't give this much weight to Denman and Berry, other than stating they were former Green Berets. Overall, the article spends more time talking about them then it does Alcala, who was a key planner, or Sequae, or Colina, for example. We also waste word count on ridiculous detail like what airports they flew from and to. We don't need quotes about Denman's "most meaningful thing he's ever done", for example. The article overplays the role of two Green berets at the expense of the 60 Venezuelans, some of whom died, and the planners. Perhaps some of the Green Beret info can be removed to the article of their employer, Silvercorp. By overplaying their role, the article is trying to lead the reader to believe the U.S. was involved, and is overly US-centric, downplaying the role of Venezuelans.

   Problem persists (eg whether Denman's parents or girlfriends knew what he was doing) ... Denman and Berry were a minor part of what Alacala, Dequae, Nieto Quintero and Colina were up to, and we give no such detail on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

6. Landing attempt section: We still have "the Maduro administration announced" with Reverol and "their version". We're not making it clear that Reverol and Diosdado and Padrino Lopez gave different accounts. "Their version" is whose version, because the stories changed to fit the narrative of different parts of the administration. We repeat the same problem later with "Venezuelan spokespersons" reporting on the dead ... Reverol said some things, Cabello said others, Padrino Lopez others. We should be clear on who was claiming what.
   The neutrality tag can be removed from that section IMO; these bits are more useful for posterity (as the whole story may emerge someday), but less related to POV.

   Problem persists; by leaving out which admin official said what when, we are obscuring the FAES role, which is meaningful to the outcome (not to mention specifically deleting content about the FAES doing the intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

7. Reactions: Maduro administration -- why are we quoting Luis Parra ?

Overall, the article has been stable for a few weeks, we haven't seen introduction of new UNDUE/POV material, and the issues left above probably mean we can downgrade the POV tag to {{Unbalanced}}, with inline tags or section tags on those specific sections which are still POV/UNDUE/UNBALANCED. It's no longer blatant POV, rather a matter of UNDUE weight, that leads the reader to conclusions not supported by sources or facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I see that the idea that the POV tag might be removed was overly optimistic, and now we have sources like Democracy Now in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What is wrong with Democracy Now!? The source reliability list says additional considerations, yet this is information is attributed to notable Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas, who they interviewed about the event. WMrapids (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll respond to your list:

1. Seems to be good now. Was going to remove it myself (yeah, I know I put it there) after reading MOS:EDITORIAL. Apologies.
2. Third paragraph is fine as this is something that was widely discussed about the event. Information about US involvement is properly attributed.
3. We could replace this with the multiple sources now saying that one goal was to install Guaidó.
4. This section is required. As said above, this is a very vital part of the article that needs explanation.
5. I'm indifferent to this. While multiple articles do in fact go into detail about the other former Green Berets, I can see how it doesn't necessarily have to be included.
6. Mixed feelings about this. On one hand you want more details about who said what, yet on the other, you want less details on American individuals involved? It is readable as it is now without going too much into detail.
7. Parra is fine as he was the disputed President of the National Assembly of Venezuela at the time, so still pretty notable. There was a commission that was created by him to investigate the incident. Not sure why this hasn't been excluded.

Some other NPOV concerns include that the wording about accusations by the opposition regarding the possible executions is undue in its wording and information about prior knowledge of Colombia and the United States keeps being removed. WMrapids (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have tried addressing the concerns of the five first points and removed the POV tag on top, while the sixth point remains and I left the cleanup tag for that section. Per this version, could the tag stay removed? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I may have time to look tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Also the seventh! Just noticed it after the edits, tried addressing that as well: [18]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me know if the article stabilizes to where I can see how much POV remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: Is this version acceptable? I feel like it addresses most of our concerns, though I don't want us to remove the NPOV tag if we are still having disputes. Points 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Sandy's wishlist have been dealt with. WMrapids (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I will look in once the article has been stable for, say, about five days, as I've found with these articles that I frequently update my opinion only to see the text change hours later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

These are the total edits since I entered the list above; not only has the POV not improved, it has gotten worse. More detail in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Overly-detailed POV execution accusations

Well, I raised my concerns above about the execution accusations and made the edits, yet they were reverted. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ... reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The information removed was minor aspects of the allegations, which is placed seemingly to sway the user with "evidence" to support the allegations. Per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail..." Well, the "depth of detail" includes numerous claims; that the bodies were hidden, the number of images in the report, detailed descriptions about dead bodies and how they were affected, the number of bullet holes in a boat, whether or not there was gasoline in the boat, the location of weapons, the location of the shooters, the lack of blood, etc.

All of these unnecessary details result with an impartial tone in the article and they must be removed. WMrapids (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Odd that the article would leave out discussion of what happened on 3 May, while including so much on unrelated events months before, and minor characters in the operation (Berry and Denman). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The details explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial, and as such have due weight in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The summarized information does this adequately. If we were to place intricately detailed information in an article to "explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial", then we would be attempting to lead the reader to support the opposition's POV. WMrapids (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The information is not "intricately detailed": there were no bullet holes in the boats, and all individuals were shot point-blank with evidence the bodies were moved. Not only was this information pushed down from the section where it belongs (the landing attempt), it has not been excised completely; this looks like an attempt to hide information citing the FAES ambush aspect, in which the men (except those with unshaven heads) were killed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Additional POV introduced to the lead

When citation overkill is found in a lead (considering leads don't require citations), it's often a tip-off to POV, as is found in this case. The lead now says:

• to infiltrate Venezuela by sea and remove Nicolás Maduro from power and establish the leadership of Venezuelan opposition head Juan Guaidó.

The (excessive) citations (with their overquoted excerpts) are:

1. Democracy Now: U.S. Mercenaries Captured in Venezuela After Failed Coup Attempt Compared to a “Bad Rambo Movie” (two days after the event, before full information was known): "It all appears to be an attempted coup. ... The reality is that this involved disgruntled Venezuelan military, former police, deserters, political opponents of the Maduro government, and was training in Colombia, and somehow thought that by landing two boats ... that they would somehow manage to get to Caracas and capture Maduro and install a new government.

   This source which does not enjoy consensus as to reliability and should not be used to source a controversial claim) starts displays its POV by highlighting "mercenaries" in the title (there were two hired Americans, and 60 Venezuelans, with the Venezuelans in charge while the Americans didn't know what was going on). Besides being biased, the source nonetheless does "not" state that the goal was to install Guaido, so doesn't even cite what it claims to cite.

2. Miami Herald: "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó, whose name appears on a contract purportedly signed with the coup plotters."

   All parties and reliable sources agree that contract was abandoned; it was not the plan executed, and positioning this in the lead is POV and undue.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó. The mention of the document Guaidó reportedly signed does not take away from the Miami Herald making their conclusion; Guaidó being placed in power was an objective. WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

3. Defronzo 2021: "Operation Gideon was supposed to capture and remove Maduro and his close associates from power so that Guaidó could take over Venezuela"

   "take over Venezuela" indicates the POV of this source (Guaido was then recognized by the free world as the interim leader, with a clear transition plan in place), but nonetheless, it is one source that does include that POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

   Again, this is interpretation of a source's statement and does not suggest a bias whatsoever. Even if a bias were present, it does not suggest unreliability. WMrapids (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

4. Vox: "plan to send two teams into Maracaibo and Caracas, extract Maduro from his presidential mansion, and install Guaidó as president."

   Vox is the main source to make this claim (that's two).

5. Europa Press (newly introduced to the lead only): "'Operation Gideon', an armed intervention of mercenaries and ex-military soldiers aimed at overthrowing President Nicolás Maduro and installing Juan Guaidó as president.
6. A newly introduced obscure Mediterranean Press: "Operation Gideon ... intended to 'capture, arrest or remove Nicolás Maduro' from power in Venezuela and install Juan Guaidó"

So, months (and months) into developing this article and examining all sources, three new or obscure or non-reliable sources were found, augmented to one POV source, to make this claim in the lead ... in contrast to the scores of other sources we have in the article. This is classic citation overkill: cherry-picking a few sources (including those obscure and POV) that make the claim, and putting UNDUE and POV information in the lead by attaching six citations to it, ignoring the scores of sources used in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: What makes Defronzo, the Miami Herald, Europa Press or Prensa Ibérica "obscure or non-reliable sources"? WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said; please re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids at no point did you gain consensus for re-adding this disputed material here on the talk discussion, and yet ... re-add it you did. We build articles via consensus, not via edit warring. We clearly discussed the problems with this content here on talk (eg, the Miami Herald was talking about an operation that was acknowledged as abandoned by all parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And I replied saying "The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó" since they write "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó". Since there is no other "Gideon", you are making assumptions about what The Miami Herald is trying to say instead of what they actually said. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation errors introduced

In this version, numerous citation errors have resulted from renaming the refs (for reasons I can't decipher). The errors are:

• 53. Cite error: The named reference WSJ26Jun2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 54. Cite error: The named reference wapomiamicondo2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 55. Cite error: The named reference Bloombergcom20202 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 68. Cite error: The named reference MT-career-info2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 70. Cite error: The named reference wapomiamicondo3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Why is WSJ26Jun renamed to WSJ26Jun2; Bloombergcom2020 renamed to Bloombergcom20202; MT-career-info renamed to MT-career-info2; and wapomiamicondo renamed twice, to wapomiamicondo2 and wapomiamicondo3 ? I have suspected these kinds of errors result from copying over citations from other articles or other wikis. Please check for citation errors when done editing; if they don't show, you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Citation errors introduced

In this version, numerous citation errors have resulted from renaming the refs (for reasons I can't decipher). The errors are:

• 53. Cite error: The named reference WSJ26Jun2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 54. Cite error: The named reference wapomiamicondo2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 55. Cite error: The named reference Bloombergcom20202 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 68. Cite error: The named reference MT-career-info2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
• 70. Cite error: The named reference wapomiamicondo3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Why is WSJ26Jun renamed to WSJ26Jun2; Bloombergcom2020 renamed to Bloombergcom20202; MT-career-info renamed to MT-career-info2; and wapomiamicondo renamed twice, to wapomiamicondo2 and wapomiamicondo3 ? I have suspected these kinds of errors result from copying over citations from other articles or other wikis. Please check for citation errors when done editing; if they don't show, you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Initial brainstorming to prep for writing Requested move proposal

See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Novel article title and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Aim for RFC rather than RM.

If everyone has had enough time to consult sources identified so far

Sources:

• ReyHahn
• SandyGeorgia
• WMrapids
• Orgullomoore

might we start brainstorming, per #Timeline point 3.2, possible article names so that we can narrow those down to the three or four most likely candidates for a Requested move? Please add alternates along with a brief summary of their pros and cons, don't !vote ... we'll get to that once we draft the neutral RM and launch it. There's a #GENERAL discussion section for overall comments. @Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon

Operation Gideon arguments in favor

• The status quo, but with a better when-where-what definition than the current Operation Gideon (2020) (what happened is debated, the when and where are clarified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Used by the large majority of sources in addition to essentially all scholarly or book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral point of view; avoids partisan labeling of the "murky" event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Is what sources say when they want to be explicit about which incursion, attempt to spark an uprising, or coup attempt they are talking about; therefore, it conforms most closely to the criteria of the policy laid out at Wikipedia:Article titles. See here for illustrative quotes and a slightly more detailed rationale.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Used by Maduro's government. Adicionalmente, se investiga la participación y financiamiento en actos conspirativos por parte del supuesto gobierno de Guaidó en contra de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; tales como la denominada “Operación Gedeón”. 2023-10-05 mp.gob.ve--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Operation Gideon arguments against

• The Military History WikiProject guidelines advise against using military codenames. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Covers when and where, but leaves "what" murky (so do sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Multiple uses of Operation Gideon, including another Venezuelan operation.--WMrapids (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Favors one POV.--WMrapids (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

2020 Venezuelan coup attempt

Coup attempt arguments in favor

• Used by generally reliable sources and various international newspapers of record.--WMrapids (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Common sense name for an attempted overthrow of a government.--WMrapids (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
• Meets naming criteria more than its alternatives (recognizable and natural as it is precise, concise and consistent, per naming conventions on events).--WMrapids (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Coup attempt arguments against

• Favors one POV SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Used by no scholarly or book sources, and not used by a large number of high-quality sources at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

GENERAL discussion

Early on in this process, I favored working some version of Silvercorp into the article name. More familiar with all the sources now, I no longer think that appropriate. What ultimately happened may have been "Goudreau's folly" and naivete over the level to which Cuban intelligence could infiltrate and affect the direction of the operation, but the planning and motivation was Venezuelan military exiles who viewed themselves as "freedom fighters" trying to recover their democracy. It wasn't only Silvercorp/Goudreau.

While I appreciate the earlier expressed desires of others towards some version of incursion, landing, raid, etcetera, sources are divided on those terms, all have some problems (how do you invade your own country? did the landing even happen? etc.), and simply sticking with the neutral term used by most sources (Operation Gideon) avoids that stickiness. It's OK to breach a guideline of one WikiProject if no better alternative can be found.

I am open to persuasion of other alternates, but after a month immersed in sources, I believe the best option is where we already are, and have nothing new to offer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Have to agree with this assessment. Various terms have been debated at length, and nothing is as commonly identifiable as the codename. MILHIST not using codenames is a surprising guideline, but forcing a POV/inaccurate/uncommon name isn't a solution. Kingsif (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with SandyGeorgia's assessment. When s/he first came on the scene and I noticed the sudden uptick in activity on this page and yet another heated move request, my thought was, "Oh boy... here we go again." I have had disagreements with SandyGeorgia on certain details regarding sources and style, but I have always seen ample evidence of his/her creativity, skill, and determination to reach the right result for the right reasons. Ultimately, the suggestion is to keep the name we have, but conform it to longstanding styling conventions and specify that it happened in Venezuela. That's perfectly reasonable to me and something I can get behind. Sorry for taking a little while to respond: work schedule is rough!--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore your post under "OG arguments at favor" at 23:27 is a very persuasive and logical argument, but what we need to do at this stage of formulating the RM is come up with a brief and as-neutral-as-possible list of pros and cons that we can use for launching the RM, where others may then argue their individual preferences in their own response to the RM. Might you extract your (excellent) analysis to a sandbox or subpage, and shorten it to the first sentence here, with a link to the analysis ? (You can call me she/her, although I don't give much thought to pronoun issues :) You can write paragraphs when the RM actually launches, but we have to launch the RM with a statement that neutrally summarizes the options. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thx so much! When we sandbox the Requested move, it will contain a brief neutral question (should this article be named X, Y or Z), followed by one para summarizing pros and cons based on prior discussions for each. If we had WMrapids "pro" list on coup, we'd be close to ready to start sandboxing the proposal ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Sorry for anwsering late, I have been busy with the Nobel Prize articles. I agree with much of what has been said. However I just had a popping idea. Have we considered a title that sees this from the government perspective? "2020 Venezuelan rebels capture" or something along those lines?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  ReyHahn I've been still hoping you'll come up with a third option ! But I'm not sure we have sources to back a choice like that suggestion ... we don't want to water down the Requested move by adding things that may dilute the main decision. We need a really viable third option if we are to add one ... one that meets all the naming requirements and is widely used by sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  Would it be still be advisable to propose a third option along the lines "2020 Venezuelan coast raids"? What are the cons again? Raid defined as a "a surprise attack by a small force" seems to define it well [19]. --ReyHahn (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn: Good to hear from you! For what its worth, and I am not at all proposing this as a title, if we were to describe it from the Maduro administration's perspective, I think it would be 2020 Venezuelan failed terrorist sea incursion. They tend to use that kind of language to refer to this event, but when specificity is desired they'll use "Operation Gideon" in scare quotes. See my rationale linked above for details.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Where do I have to look? Sure, I do not meant to write it in Maduro's language if not it will be called "2020 Imperial USA coup d'etat into Venezuela", but want I mean is to change the perspective of the article instead of centering it on the plan, focusing it on the capture of the rebels itself. It would allow to discuss this as it is a "weird" happening that was stopped. However it suffers from the same problem, I cannot get an specific title that fits the sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn: See here.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn to propose a new alternate name, it should a) be well represented in sources, and b) meet as many of the requirements for article names as laid out in the analysis linked by Orgullomoore. My conclusion after now reading almost all of the sources, is that we don't have another alternative. If you can make a case for one, as Orgullomoore has, I'm listening :) At one point, I thought "2020 Venezuelan maritime invasion" was a possibility, as so many sources describe it that way, but that, too, is POV, as it leaves out the whole matter of the plot being infiltrated and directed by Maduro's intelligence.

Another factor to consider is that an RFC/RM can quickly go south and end up in no consensus if too many alternates are proposed, so to put forward another possibility, it should be very strongly supported by sources, and meet as many of the article name considerations as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your fringe description of the event is concerning. Not only have you made previous charges of "Cuban intelligence" interfering with sources, now you are describing the event as being "directed by Maduro's intelligence" despite no sources saying so. WMrapids (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Already addressed at Source analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really... WMrapids (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

We absolutely have multiple sources saying that Maduro intelligence moles directed the operation to an ambush. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn another idea I've contemplated is 2020 anti-Maduro plot, as the Associated Press uses that description in at least four headlines, and several other sources, including at least one scholarly source, use it as well. But it presents a problem of precision and concision; sources discuss many other anti-Maduro thingies, so it a search doesn't lead to Gideon, and it doesn't say what this "plot" is. So I can't convince myself it's any better than the generic Operation Gideon, and it still leaves out the aspect of the operation being infiltrated by intelligence agents. We should take time to get this right, in case you can find a way to make that possibility workable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the issue, I guess this title also suffers from the same problems. I will try to dig the sources and propose a definite title as soon as I can. I think Orgullomoore made a good argument for Operation Gideon. I just was hoping to avoid Yes vs No kind of situation.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn, 2020 Venezuelan maritime invasion attempt is one for investigation. If I get time, I'll come back with a list from scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

2020 Venezuelan maritime incursion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, some information about how the neutral Operation Gideon "favors one POV" would be helpful towards sandboxing the Move request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CODENAME:

"Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view)." WMrapids (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, understood. (Wondering if you are aware that Delcy Rodriguez used "Operation Gideon" to describe it just this week?) At any rate, that provides a summary of what you are referring to. Did you want to provide a more specific list to the generally reliable sources that call it a coup? That is, do you want a link to your source page worked in ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not as passionate about Cuban and Venezuelan politics as you seem to be, so no, I was not informed nor does it matter. WMrapids (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly not WP:POV. WMrapids you seem to claim that Operation Gideon is WP:POV, Sandy explains that it is used by all parties. Please consider either on dropping that argument or expanding on it, it does not seem fit.--ReyHahn (talk) 08:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of the term by those with an opposing POV does not change that presenting the article through the operational lens of the attacker is POV. WMrapids (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn, I'm not (as of now) concerned about being able to work this viewpoint into a neutral summary of arguments pro and con, but we'll have time to work that out once we sandbox the proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

First draft of Requested move in sandbox

Per Step 3.3 of the Timeline, I have started a first draft of the requested move at User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft. I intended to cover every point listed above; please whack me with a wet noodle if I missed anything, misstated or goofed anywhere – it's only a first draft.

To hold the summaries to a limit and keep them equal: the Op Gideon summary is now 110 words, while the Coup summary is 83; are there 27 more words that might be added to the coup summary, or 27 words that might be subtracted from the Op Gideon summary, to keep them equal ?

It will probably take us several drafts to get this close to where we can ask for outside input; I don't want to take others' time until we are a bit further along. Once we get closer to agreement, I'll move it out of sandbox and put the draft here on talk. After we have agreement on the summaries, and external advice on the format, then we can launch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn if you have time now, might you look at this next? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The analyses are very short is that enough for the RfC? I hope users click on the links. Is there a reason to not use bullets as above? Maybe it is also worth it to say that there are while other common names are possible and have been considered, none stand out. My cons against coup also include focus on goal vs what was actually attempted, I do not know if it fits there somwhere. If you need to remove words you can reduce on the Military History guideline and link to it.--ReyHahn (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn, an opening that summarizes previous discussions is usually kept very short. Remember that people can expand in their own Support/Oppose entries with their own rationale, highlighting links they believe important. I was more concerned that, for an opening that should be neutral, they may be too long! And I was concerned that bullet points would get so long they wouldn't be read. The aim is just a short, neutral summary. I'll put up the next draft after more people have offered feedback ... probably a day or so more ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

PS, you asked in edit summary if I've "passed this to others"; I pinged you because you earlier asked to always be pinged, but I Really Hate this business of always pinging people to discussions on a page they are following, as it too easily turns into canvassing (and I hate being pinged myself to pages I follow). If others haven't found the time to weigh in within a few days, then I'll Ping the World -- in your case, I saw that you had gotten temporarily unbusy, but others may be busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for all this. It has clearly taken a lot of energy from us all (specially you). I tried to go over previous RMs on pro-points for coup but I could not get more key words for it. I just think that I am pretty much aligned with you for now, so if we have to keep it short then the summary seems ok. I'll try to meditate on it.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Second draft of Requested move in sandbox

See user:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft

Only ReyHahn responded to the request for feedback on the first draft. I have reworked the second draft to shorten Option A so that both blurbs are now the same length, and to make the links to source lists and commentary more noticeable.

Could others please have a look so we could progress towards getting external feedback per the timeline, so we can launch the Move request? @Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm absolutely fine with it and support it. I couldn't have said it better than myself.--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per your draft, there are only a few changes to suggest.

1. The Maduro administration doesn't call the operation. From what you link, the Maduro administration explicitly states "'Operation Gideon', as it was called by the mercenaries and terrorists" and " the so-called 'Operation Gideon'", emphasizing that the opposition utilizes such terms. The Maduro government does say that the event was an attempted coup and assassination in their own voice and definitions, however. Remove this from the proposal as it is inaccurate.
2. The wording "Venezuelan Operation Gideon" also intends that the operation was performed by Venezuela. Please add this as a con or maybe change the proposal to "2020 Operation Gideon in Venezuela."
3. Please change "It favors the POV that the event was a coup" to "It favors the POV that the event was a coup attempt".
4. Please change "is not used by a number of high-quality sources at all" to "is not used by as many sources" since, yes, it is used by generally reliable sources, though not as many and such wording is more neutral.

That's all I can think of now and will have more to come with sources and such next week.--WMrapids (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

How is Venezuelan Operation Gideon suggesting Venezuela did it but not Venezuelan coup attempt?--ReyHahn (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

There is already a consistent naming convention that is easily identifiable to readers when it comes to coup attempts, but the wording of "Venezuelan operation" is different as there are little to no use of "*insert nation* operation" in existing Wikipedia titles. WMrapids (talk) 21:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

To WMrapids' first point, I think it would be fair to say the Maduro administration calls it that, "albeit using MOS:SCAREQUOTES and MOS:QUOTEPOV-like weasel words such as 'so-called' and 'supposedly'"; but the fact of the matter is they do use this operational codename when they want to be explicit about which subversive anti-revolutionary terrorist assassination plot and coup attempt they are talking about. I agree with ReyHahn that "Venezuelan Operation Gideon" does not suggest it was carried out by the Maduro regime, just as "Venezuelan coup attempt" would not. I think WMrapids' point about attempt is fair and should be implemented. I think we will need a creative solution to the "not used by as many sources" issue you raised; I don't agree with WMrapids' proposal above.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been waiting to allow time for others to weigh in. My role in presenting the summary was to attempt to faithfully include all points raised by all editors; as enough time has elapsed for opinions to be registered, now I'll add my own opinions. Per WMrapids' four points above:

1. Orgullomoore way back here when I mentioned your post at 23:27 being logical and persuasive, I was referring to you having pointed out that Operation Gideon had become the common name-- the name used for clarification and precision even by those sources that referred to it as a coup, particularly your example of the way the BBC worded it (you noticed that the BBC said "Operation Gideon was a deeply flawed coup attempt". Notice that it does not say: "The 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt was deeply flawed.") This is an argument for common name and precision, but I agree with WMrapids that extending it to say that it is the term used by the Maduro administration is adding something to the RFC that will be easily shot down. In other analyses (eg mine), we identify and separate what sources call it in their own voice from what they attribute to others. So when a source attributes the coup wording to the Maduro administration, but calls it something else in their own voice, we don't say the source calls it a coup. In this example, we can't say the Maduro administration calls it "Operation Gideon", rather that they are acknowledging that others do; that's an argument for common name and precision, but not an indication that it's the term used by them. Perhaps it is the way I built the draft, trying to minimize the words to keep the word counts equal, that got this messed up. I suggest we can fix WMrapids' concern, and still include your point by changing the current:
   • 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon is used by the majority of media outlets[1] and the Maduro administration,[2] and most scholarly[3] or book sources.[4] It is what sources say when they want to be precise[5] ... to ...
   • 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon is used by the majority of media outlets[1] and most scholarly[3] or book sources.[4] It is the common name sources use when they want to be precise[5], including the Maduro administration,[2]

   which I suspect is what you intended anyway ??

2. I agree with ReyHahn and Orgullomoore that there is not a problem with this as phrased.
3. I agree with WMrapids on this point, and will correct that in the next draft.
4. I understand WMrapids concern on this point, but the fact remains that a number of high-quality sources avoid the term coup. In trying to keep the word count equal, things get jumbled; spelling this out takes more words. How about addressing the concern by changing:
   • It favors the POV that the event was a coup, is not used by a number of high-quality sources at all,[8] and no scholarly[9] or book sources[10] uncovered to date. ... to ...
   • It favors the POV that it was a coup attempt, some high-quality sources avoid the word coup completely,[8] and no scholarly[9] or book sources[10] uncovered use it.

Separately, way way back in the beginning of our analysis of possible names, ReyHahn was wanting to work in a third option, for those who may opine that sources don't broadly support coup, but may be uncomfortable with code name. I suggest we might contemplate:

• 2020 failed Venezuelan incursion

From the sources at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources, we can see that almost every source does use the word incursion, it's a better description than "attack" since it's unclear if an "attack" ever happened, and multiple sources refer to it as failed regardless of which noun they use. Some say "maritime incursion"; we could also go that way if people think it helpful. I am still concerned that if we don't present a viable third option, the move request could end at no consensus.

WMrapids, you said "will have more to come with sources and such next week"; could you let us know in terms of when we are ready for the next draft and to bring in outside feedback? I don't want to ping those editors in 'til we're close to ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

For sure, I'll keep you all updated. For point 1, those are only a few sources from the Maduro administration using the codename, so it would be important to see how widespread that usage amongst his government actually is. And the proposed wording for point 4 is improved and neutral, so thank you. WMrapids (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia With respect to # 1 above, yes, that works for me.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, make the change of "is used by various international newspapers of record and generally reliable sources" to "is used by various international newspapers of record, generally reliable sources and generally reliable Venezuelan sources". Still looking at some more sources, which should wrap up by the end of next week.--WMrapids (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I planned to work on Draft 3 (and hopefully then be ready to ping in the outside group) today, as soon as I catch up from travel around the house. But regarding your 23:54 request, and this version of your source list, there are some wrinkles to be worked out before I can move to the next draft. WP:CRITERIA specifically states that Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Your source list includes two Brazilian (Portuguese) sources (CNN and Intercept) in your basic list. Your list also includes a section called "International usage" where the Brazilian sources might be a better fit. Although "International usage" is also a bit misnamed, as you have Australian, UK and other sources up in your main list. You might better split them into "English-language sources" and "Non-English language sources"; it's OK that you've listed the non-English-language sources for personal or illustration purposes, but they aren't part of the article naming criteria, and the two Brazilian sources a) should be moved, and b) it should be clarified in your chart that they aren't English-language sources, as that info is now hidden from the reader who doesn't click the link to CNN. For the same reason, we should probably leave out your suggestion that it is used in "generally reliable Venezuelan sources", unless those are in English. If we go that direction, we would then also leave out Orgullomoore's reference to Maduro's government using the term, and leave it to the two of you to work that information into your own declarations ... but I need for all of you to discuss and come to consensus on this so I can work up the third draft, so @NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

It's OK with me if some of my argument is left out of the RFC presentation and I make those arguments separately.-- Orgullomoore (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, WP:RSUEC also says that English-language sources are preferred, though not required. We can pick apart things all day, so it’s just best to let the users decide based on the information provided.

As for the generally reliable sources using different languages, it doesn’t change that they are generally reliable.

For VENRS info, we can just keep that in my sandbox page. WMrapids (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids, the RFC will link to your source page (as I did in the sample in Draft 2), so could you correct the two Brazilian sources before I work up the third draft? The idea being that we are all comfortable with a general consensus RFC statement that isn't misleading newcomers -- the two Brazilian entries are not English sources, which is what Article naming relies on, and that's not clear in your table/list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

What is misleading? WMrapids (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids 1) the current version of your sourcelist has CNN Brasil flagged as United States, and never indicates it is non-English (readers have to click to know that), 2) you have Intercept identified as Brasil, but do not indicate it is non-English, and 3) you have both of those (and possibly more) listed in a way, along with the overall page organization, that doesn't separate non-English sources from English-language sources. WP:CRITERIA is based on English-language sources; we should avoid misleading editors who come to opine in the move request by, for example, leading them to think that CNN Brasil and Intercept are English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

And in fact, you have the same for Voice of America, so I'm concerned that the entire table should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Does not mean that the sources themselves are unreliable, especially per WP:GREL or that it is misleading. WMrapids (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I have not said they're not reliable. Our aim here is to come up with a brief statement for the Move request that we can all agree does not have errors, even as we have differing opinions, so that new readers don't have to check. Your source list has non-English sources listed, not separated from the English sources, making it disingenuous for the rest of us to endorse it as a link on the Requested Move blurb representing WP:CRITERIA. It would not be optimal for others to have to point out, on the RM, that your source list has errors-- that will just muck up the Move request. Could you please address this detail so we can move forward? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Any source list that we attacht to it should be easily verifiable and as transparent as posible.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and in this case, the non-English sources are hidden; one has to click on the links to see they are not English, hence not applicable to WP:CRITERIA. At least they should be highlighted as non-English, or separated to a non-English section, as are the Venezuelan sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to display languages and I will add them to the list, but overall, the sources are still applicable. WP:CRITERIA says "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious." We wouldn't be discussing and splitting hairs over this article if it were "simple and obvious". The use of the English-language quote you include links to WP:VERIFY, which states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones." So there's nothing wrong with other languages being used. The emphasis on English language in WP:CRITERIA is mainly related to common names in English that differ from a native name (for instance, in English we have Cologne and not Köln). Finally, it is important to remember Wikipedia has no firm rules and to recognize that "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". Some of the world's largest media outlets and newspapers of record call this a "coup attempt" in one way or another, so preventing the use of these sources through wikilawyering would be deceitful towards readers and users. WMrapids (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is not a difficult thing; I am only asking that you make it obvious which sources are non-English, so that independent editors can make their own decisions, knowing that we've presented the sources clearly. You can argue your case when the RM is up; for now, we need a straightforward, easy to read, not misleading, consensual move request, and presenting non-English sources, without identifying them as such, is misleading. I am not preventing you from doing anything: I'm asking that you present the sources in such a way that editors can either agree or disagree, without having to do the work to realize which sources are English and which aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done WMrapids (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I will look in tomorrow; out of steam for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I glanced at your last diff, and appreciate that you identified all languages. But CNN Brazil is not the same as CNN, and is not United States; could you please re-identify the name and the associated country? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done--WMrapids (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you update your entry for NYT on your sandbox after this edit?--WMrapids (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Mañana ... when on real computer, will catch up on everything here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: After all this time, is only now that I had the chance (and remembered) to take a look at the draft. We're discussing the Second draft for the RM, is that correct? I still think a geographical title should be considered since I think it hasn't been given as much discussion as other alternatives, but that's a can of worms on its own that I simply don't want opening. I think that the descriptions are mostly alright and that any additional arguments can be put in the discussion, and I'll keep an eye out in case a third draft is created. Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Third draft of Requested move in sandbox

User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft

@Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids: the third draft is at user:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft; I'm unsure whether we have sufficiently nailed down Option C, but hope we are close now to asking for outside input on the format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but why we decided to add option C?--ReyHahn (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn I raised that at 13:58 15 October above; as I didn't get any feedback, I went ahead and worked it in to make it easier for others to visualize, accept or reject. I am concerned that if we don't have a third option (something in between the two bookends), others will start proposing others, derailing the RM and ending in no consensus again. I am not wedded to this; I'm just not getting enough feedback to know whether to add or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I dropped my insistence on it, convinced by you that it might distract too much. Anybody else cares to comment on this? We might better add a comment in the RM to say: that in order to avoid noconsensus, if this option is preferred, it is recommended to provide a second option.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

ReyHahn it is over a decade ago now, so I no longer know where to find it, but I once put up an RFC that was totally derailed when every Tom, Dick and Harry randomly added on their own idea for how to solve a problem. The end result was that there was no consensus, and the problem continues today. If we want a third option, my thought is that it's better for us to propose one, so the RM doesn't go off in a million directions and end with no consensus (that is the same thing I was saying earlier, and then when no one came up with a third option, I agreed we didn't need one, but I'm still concerned we end at no consensus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I lean for no option C. That way it will be a clear cut decision for all. If an option C arises after the RfC starts we will have to handle it as organically as we can. Maybe we can mention it in the RfC (we considered this but...) but not as an option?--ReyHahn (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Got it (hope others will opine, too!!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it goes without saying you know how to write an RM, but it looks good. Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia Please update as there are book sources supporting the use of "coup" or "coup attempt". WMrapids (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids I already have Maher listed (and had it in my summary, but misstated at Draft 3, now fixed).

The ISBN for Baud/Navalny Case is ISBN 9782315011346 and it is not searchable; could you please add at least a paragraph excerpt and the indication of chapter or page or something for finding it?

The ISBN for Rogers/Soldiers of Fortune is ISBN ‎978-1472848017 and returns an invalid character/parameter error, so same problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Better now? WMrapids (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

WMrapids halfway: Rogers returns the page on preview now, but the Baud ISBN produces nothing on WorldCat, so the book cannot be found in a local library and is not searchable, so a better/longer excerpt of the content is needed. Also, Maher is a passing mention in a completely unrelated book. And my list doesn't include non-English sources, as WP:CRITERIA is based on English sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

At any rate, because of the dubious publisher, I'm not going to pursue Baud any further, and have updated User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft to account for new books found. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia You can add scholarly journals using the "coup" terminology too. Whether you want to differentiate between "non-English" in the entry or whatever is up to you, but journals use it as well. The statement "use by scholarly and book sources is mixed" is suitable.WMrapids (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what the suggestion is here, but I am not adding non-English entries, as article naming policy depends on English usage. I have added so far every scholarly journal I've found; I will catch up with your new finds once I'm finished updating the Sanctions article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Looking forward to the RfC--should be interesting! | Orgullomoore (talk) 00:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Orgullomoore ReyHahn is concerned about having an Option C; Kingsif offered no opinion; what do the two of you think about whether we should offer Option C, or drop it (see discussion above) ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to prevent the RfC from turning into a "none of the above" marathon. | Orgullomoore (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely anyone would vote for it and of course there are style issues, but it gives a sense of what "the next best option" could be if A and B are vetoed, which I think is helpful. Kingsif (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft

We have been working since 7 September at cleaning up the article and reviewing sourcing towards prepping for a Move request.

Draft 3 of the proposed Move request is at User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft. In this discussion, experienced Move requesters offered advice and help, @Paine Ellsworth, Redrose64, and Amakuru: we are mixed on the benefits of including Option C, but have progressed to an overall state where feedback would be useful. Besides overall impressions and advice, specific questions are:

1. Since I can't test the subst'd request without launching it, might you all comment if I have formatted it correctly (now enclosed in nowiki tags)?
2. Thoughts on the third option (C).
3. Any other wisdom you might offer ...

Thanks for the help ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I usually test substitutions by using the Show changes feature to see what code will be emitted without saving it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

First, you and the other editors who have worked on this issue deserve thanks for your Herculean effort to resolve the naming of this article! This manner of improving Wikipedia will hopefully catch on. My thoughts on the options are that editors should make a preliminary choice of A, B or C, and then open a move request for that choice. Over time I've noticed that the best way is to request a rename to one certain, specific title, rather than initially offering two or three options, or no options (<current title> → ?). In this case, would also suggest that it be asked in the RM nomination that participating editors refrain from offering their favorite new titles and focus their rationales only on the specific move request at hand (that's new! and might be contentious in and of itself). Again, thanks to all editors who have worked hard on this issue! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip, Redrose64, and please accept my second apology for my technical inabilities; months ago, when I became frustrated that the subst was rejected with an error message when I tried to test it in my sandbox, I missed and forgot the (d'oh) solution to move it over here to test it with preview (it works on this page), so thanks for the help.

We haven't heard from Amakuru, but have helpful info above from Paine Ellsworth (thank you!); I was wondering if you or Amakuru have any additional advice on how to proceed? It sounds like offering the third option is not a good idea.

The dilemma based on what Paine Ellsworth offers is that the clear consensus on this page is for 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon, with one editor disagreeing; 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon corrects the when-where-what deficiencies in the current name (Venezuela isn't mentioned). So if we follow Paine's advice, we would be opening the Move Request for that name. But that doesn't seem entirely useful, as it doesn't resolve the coup dilemma. That leads to my next follow-up question.

Would it be reasonable to proceed as follows ...

1. move the article now from Operation Gideon (2020) to 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon as an uncontroversial move merely to correct the when-where-what, and then,
2. open the Move request with the target of 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt?

Would this help us avoid the multiple choice RM and get to a clearer resolution, and would the interim move to the clearer when-where-what title be accepted as uncontroversial ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, realise you've pinged me a couple of times now, looks like a lot of good discussion and work has been put into getting this right. Personally I'd query a couple of things here... Firstly, I don't think we should do an interim move to 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon... That isn't really a when-where-what title but more of a when-where-propername which just looks rather odd to me. It's either Operation Gideon, or it's the 2020 Venezuelan whatever-it-is. And secondly, on the specific point Paine raises about forcing discussion to be on a single proposed title only, unfortunately in my experience that never works. Editors who participate in RMs don't like to be told they can't vote for something, and if they suggest alternative titles to the one proposed then closers will take those into account. But with luck, you should still be able to work to a solution with that approach. Just see which way the consensus goes and a good closer should find for thr title which matches the consensus and evidence best. Not sure if that answers your question at all, not happy to give other advice if required!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Thx, Amakuru; it certainly does help. I've seen enough RFCs go south that I know there's a risk of no consensus no matter how hard we try to set this thing off on the right foot! So, waiting to hear from others, but it sounds like we may have the format right where it needs to be, and once we finish working in late source finds, we might be ready to roll. Thx to all of you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Amakuru. Make the proposals and see how users decide. WMrapids (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Would have to agree with Amakuru as well. Thought that trying to focus editors mainly on the specific proposed title and asking that they refrain from offering their own pet title proposals would be at some level controversial. Amakuru's right about that, of course. The negative vibes would not help. Editors are perfectly capable of coming to consensus eventually. However, I do think that in the nomination of a move request, to propose one specific title has the best chance of leading to consensus. But to coup or not to coup, aye there's the rub. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this as well, though my main concern is having enough participation to determine a clear consensus, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. In order to avoid accusations of canvassing, are there limits we should have for notifying others? Thanks for your help everyone. WMrapids (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: And thank you for your help bouncing between the articles and providing feedback! WMrapids (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Timing

WMrapids, when do you plan to finish your source work so I can update my source list and the draft?

A bigger problem now is an issue raised in several other dicussions by others (and with which I don't disagree). After months of prepping to run a proper Move request, so we can get a real and lasting consensus based on informed, broad and independent feedback, at other fora it has been pointed out that we are likely now at a state where the community is saturated with the number of spurious Venezuelan RFCs cropping up everywhere. In that environment, what is the best time to launch this RM and is it better to wait for some of the others to close? After all the work at getting this one right, is the response now going to be, ho hum, another spurious Venezuelan RFC with walls of text? Should this launch as soon as WMrapids let's us know their source list is done, or should it wait for some other RFCs to close? It's getting embarrassing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Waiting, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Should be all set. I needed to take a break from this article.--WMrapids (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)