This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Colombia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Post-Cold War task force Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance). South America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Venezuela Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 7 as Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 6 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Source lists: user:ReyHahn/macutoraid, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11, user:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideas for discussion

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

Wait six weeks for the next RFC

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

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

Source discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novel article title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My re-prioritization of WMrapid's list above:

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

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

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

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

Aim for RFC rather than RM

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

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

Should this article be titled

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

=== Option A argument in favor ===

=== Option A argument against ===

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

Please discuss Option A pros and cons here.

=== Option B argument in favor ===

=== Option B argument against ===

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

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

=== Survey ===

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

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

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

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

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

Brainstorming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources

Source lists: user:ReyHahn/macutoraid, User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11, user:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON

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

See User:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edits to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentence of lead

The first sentence of the lead says:

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

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

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

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

Resolution?

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

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

Bellingcat's source states the following, regarding the disembark: In the early morning hours of Sunday, May 3, reports began to surface on Twitter of military activity out at sea off the coast of Macuto, a small city on Venezuela’s coast just north of Caracas. In one video shot before the sun had come up, a man films what looks like police vessels out at sea. There is a helicopter flying the area, and gunshots can be heard. It doesn't states that there was a "fight" or a "firefight", and this detail is more important knowing there weren't wounded or dead reported among Venezuelan security forces. It's more accurate to describe the section only as a "Disembark", and I have added the Disputed tag in the section in the meantime for the same reason. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. They were implementing the attack as soon as they were heading for Venezuela. Time to stop splitting hairs. WMrapids (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bellingcat sources--relative to the amount of detail provided in other sources-- is pretty disappointing (they may be reliable, but their work in this event is subpar to other sources). WMrapids you could have made your point without adding the last sentence, which is personalizing rather than focusing on content, and not all sources support your personal point of view. The questions raised about the absence of a firefight, and the evidence presented to the European Parliament and International Criminal Court are worthy of discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up on why ICC progress was stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an attempt at original research as it seems you are trying to find a reason why not to describe the attack as, well, an attack ("It doesn't states that there was a 'fight' or a 'firefight'"). We aren't here to make conclusions from interpreting sources, we are here to place the information sources provide. Sandy, while you are suggesting that "The questions raised about the absence of a firefight, and the evidence presented to the European Parliament and International Criminal Court are worthy of discussion", we also need to be careful about avoiding WP:SYNTH moving forward with this topic. WMrapids (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here I placed a hopefully informative update on talk (not all readers of this page might know that the ICC is unlikely to respond to anything on a timely basis, and might wonder where things stand), in a context where I have repeatedly asked if there are more sources than the three in the article. The accusation of OR and policy lecture are unnecessary; I well know why we are here and how to use sources, and I won't be advocating to add this content to the lead if we don't have more sources, and as I've explained in the next section, even if we do end up adding something, I'd trim it considerably. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide some examples later, but I want to point out that an investigation on the situation of Venezuela is ongoing and most of the events investigated are not public. The only thing that is known is that crimes after 2017 (and 2014) will be investigated, but saying that "there hasn't been a response", as claimed by WMrapids, seems to be a misunderstanding of the process. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect, coming back to this: Diego Arria, Venezuela's former UN ambassador, filed a complaint against Chávez in the ICC in 2011 ([6]). When Diosdado Cabello said that "For those who do not vote, there is no food" in 2020, deputy Delsa Solórzano said she would file the declaration in the ICC ([7]). The evidence of extrajudicial killings and conditions surrounding El Junquito raid have likewise been filed several times in the ICC ([8]). None of these times there has been a rejection by the Court and, if anything, the prelimintary examination and later investigation for the country was opened years later. There isn't a reason why such declarations should be any less relevant. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5##Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This entire section is a mess and needs a complete rewrite. It was largely sourced to an AlJazeera television broadcast soon after the event and is too divergent from other accounts from high-quality sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, satisfactorily rewritten to encompass all views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, WMrapids reverted the rewrite, which is of course very frustrating.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should have been discussed? WMrapids (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titling the "Attack" section

@NoonIcarus and Orgullomoore:, "Disembark" is not a choice that convinces me for this section. Perhaps we could spend some time discussing how to handle this, considering the variety of ways sources discuss the event and the numerous word choices (even the sources can't decide what to call this thing, so why should we-- Wikipedia follows, it doesn't lead, and we have no clear lead here).

One thought I have is to go to a timeline format, which would leave that section neutrally labeled ... something like:

• 2.0 Planning
  • 2.1 Initial promotion: March–May 2019
  • 2.2 Colombia Silvercorp established: June 2019
  • 2.3 Negotiations with Guaidó representatives: August–November 2019
    • 2.3.1 Signature dispute
  • 2.4 Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations: December 2019
  • 2.5 Alcalá extradition to the United States: March 2020
    • 2.5.1 Prior knowledge of Maduro government
  • 2.6 Final preparations, Associated Press article: April–May 2020
• 3 Events of 3–4 May

Avoid labeling it at all, since even sources are undecided on what to call the thing (I just listened to a CJR podcast where the interviewer resorted to "whatever"). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I'm liking the Bellingcat description of the event as an "infiltration" by "expatriate soldiers", but I doubt that is used in enough sources for it to be a real option. If I thought it would work, I'd lean towards "Infiltration attempt: 3–4 May", but that is probably a word unique to Bellingcat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the timeline format and "Events of 3-4 May."--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids and ReyHahn: I am unsure whether to ping you to discussions. I hate pinging, but it's unclear if you are following the discussions here or prefer to be pinged. Please advise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to follow the conversations when I can but I am often overwhelmed by the many threads. Do not hesitate to ping me, please do it more often. Is this about the name of the section?--ReyHahn (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The term used for the 1967 raid in Machurucuto in spanish was "Desembarco" maybe "landing could be a better term? If not maybe just "events".--ReyHahn (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on "landing" would be that the boats actually never made it to land before being intercepted. The allegations from the Maduro side are that boat # 1 shot at helicopters and they fought back and got sunk before the government sent out a rescue team to look for survivors. The allegations from the human rights complainants is that boat # 1 was intercepted and its occupants executed before a firefight was staged. All sides appear to agree that Boat # 2 was escorted / signaled to shore in a specific spot, where the occupants were arrested. That's why I like "events," because it's generic enough to include all sides of the story with respect to the invaders' "arrival" to Venezuela.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit that I didn't know the details of the capture that well, thank you very much for sharing them. I understand now why "Disembark" might not be the best title. It stemmed mostly from the fact the Bellingcat only mentions that shots were heard at the time, but it isn't known if there was a shootout. Would it be too weird to propose a title such as "Unfolding"? If that's the case, "Events" could be a safe bet. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, feel safest with the word events. Anyone who can say what happened or didn't happen on either boat is either dead or buried deep enough in the Helicoide that we're unlike to ever really know. Because of the WP:NOTNEWS breathless way that Wikipedia articles are built as news reports come in on unfolding events, we end up going too far beyond what more scholarly sources support, and putting statements about events into WikiVoice when we don't really know what happened, and we're unlikely to get any local witnesses to disagree with chavismo's version. We should go back and do a serious re-check on attribution on all of the Events, and make sure all version (not just Al Jazeera's) are represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I am not troubled by "landing attempt", as that is how Corrales describes it, and it's at least neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Landing attempt seems fine. WMrapids (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much going on, which is why I took a break as well. In the next few days I will review all of the edits since there are some that I already know will be disputed. WMrapids (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be good for you to catch up on the talk page before editing? In this edit, you altered a section heading that had been discussed previously by three other editors, without having joined the discussion yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I miscounted; four editors disagree with attack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raid, incursion, attack

WMrapids in this edit, you removed the well-cited word raid (which as you will see at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 is used by a very large number of high-quality sources, and far more often than the word attack), while you left your preferred word attack (reinstating it as a section heading, see above). Ditto for incursion, which occurs far more often in sources than attack. Could you explain? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can no longer tell who wrote what, but the content in this section (contrary to how the content was originally built) is now leaving the decided impression that there are scholarly sources supporting the "coup" POV, when in fact, we have uncovered none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit in an attempt to resolve the concern about conflating journalists' and scholars' characterizations.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am partial to the way I originally did it, which was to a) only use best sources, and then b) make no characterization about the quality of the sources at all, as that lets the reader decide. I hope we are intending to do just that in the Move request. I'm afraid that when you divide them this way, it gets us into borderline original research; we know no scholarly source describes it as a coup, and we know they all describe it as "Operation Gideon", but we don't have a source that states same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all ears on a proposal that works for everyone. Can we look at a few options and see what we can agree on?--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orgullomoore. My main concern was to resolve Iskandar323's edit from weeks ago to add mention of coup to the article. But now all viewpoints and characterizations have been obliterated from the article, so we no longer have a balanced representation of sources and discussions of all different characterizations of the event in the article, or to present for a measured consideration of what to name the article. I'm not sure why one editor can undo edits based on consensus of multiple other editors, but that seems to be where we are now. Fresh out of ideas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure why one editor can undo edits based on consensus . . ." I know! It's not fair.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on an idea that I'll spell out tomorrow when I have more free time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See #Current version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This is the edit that gutted the neutrality of the Landing attempt section (18:13, October 1, 2023) and that needs careful attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 13:59, October 1, 2023 version is the rewritten "Attempted landing" section that had incorporated all viewpoints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at #Cacique. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, NoonIcarus, ReyHahn, Iskandar323, and Burrobert: With all of the recent editing (we're pushing up to 300k bytes now?), we are stretched thin on focus. This began as a title proposal and has morphed into rewriting the whole article while disputing ever minuscule description ("mercenary" vs "dissident", "attack" vs "disembark"). While these may be valid, this talk page is very unwelcoming to unfamiliar users who want and need to be involved.

I suggest that we focus on one topic, then move on to the next.

My list by priority would be:

1. "Coup attempt" NPOV and inclusion
2. Article title
3. Dispute and other tags
4. Intro
5. Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon (organization of article?)
6. "mercenary" vs "dissident"
7. "Attack"

Since we are not making a large, lasting change here, ranked voting would be OK in this instance, but it is important that each of us are involved in every one of these topics in order to have a more thorough consensus. If we split up amongst the topics, some users are going to miss out and a false consensus will emerge with the limited users involved. Please take the time to decide what we should prioritize moving forward. WMrapids (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge 1 and 2.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all stretched thin on focus: I have a clear idea of what still needs to get done to be prepared for a non-GI-GO move requests, and we're getting there (slower than I anticipated because of disruptive editing). How do others see the objective, here ? I hope our objective is to get the article in clean "enough" (not "great" or even "good", as this article is so sub-par and laden with POV and original research and UNDUE content that we can't pretend to aim for that) that independent editors can make informed decisions when we launch the Move request. One of the largest content RFCs I've ever seen was at J. K. Rowling, and only after everyone on the planet had weighed in was it discovered that the premise of the RFC misrepresented the sources (grossly), so that by the time editors did (and they finally did) start collaborating, we found ourselves saddled with a conclusion based on very broad feedback that was bogus, because it was GIGO. If we want an enduring outcome, we should present an honest appraisal of the sources; that takes work, but will be worth it in the long run. A big problem here is that paywalled sources don't have accessible archive-urls added to the citations so that everyone can read them , so I'm slowly working through those as I review sources; we want new editors to be able to read the sources! There is no hurry; please understand that slow and steady will yield a better outcome in the long run.

We are not rewriting the article; I am putting things on talk as I encounter them while I'm trying to clean up sourcing issues, and they don't all need to be addressed before RM launch; some do, though, so I appreciate your priority list. But I, for one, do not want to waste the broader Wikipedia community time to opine on a move about an article that is laden with POV, UNDUE, and OR that is not flagged for attention. Mercenary v. dissident is an unimportant matter on that scale; most of the others are not.

The other thing is you may feel pressured because you may be in a hurry, but note that different editors have different interests, and Iskandar323 appeared interested in the Resolution v Gideon organization issue. Working on Wikipedia can be messy, but there is no deadline. The sooner editors understand that slow and steady collaboration wins the race, the easier the task and the sooner we get to where we want to be.

By next week, we should have sourcing and citations cleaned up, POV and OR and disputed content either cleaned up or tagged, and be ready to do begin working on sandboxing the actual move request.

I have a different suggestion for helping improve focus and manage the workload: the talk page is large and will grow larger; get the old Move requests into Archive 4 (they are 66KB), and then agree to archive off to Archive 5 anything that is finished/resolved as soon as that happens. That will make it easier to see what work remains. The intent is that the page not be unwelcoming to newcomers by the time we get to this; I made short discussion sections with the idea that we should be able to easily resolve the small things and kick them to Archive5, with all the old move requests at Archive4, which we can easily link at the top of RM. Does anyone object to sending both of the old move requests to Archive 4, and using a system where when we agree something is resolved, we can send it to Archive 5? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support for archiving the RM and the "Better title" section. We have opened 17 sections in less than 1 week.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the sources, I misspoke when I said Mercenary v. dissident is an unimportant matter on that scale; most of the others are not. See #Mercenary, insurgent, dissident; there was substantial POV, now removed with the exception of one instance, where I requested a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I understood it, the renewed discussion would help to make improvements in the article that would make the move discussion easier. From what I'm reading, this seems to be the case in the last discussions. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

My priority list and timeline:

1. Review all sources so that paywalled or dead links have an archive-url if one is available.
2. POV, OR, UNDUE cleanup or identification to prep for Requested move; the article has pronounced POV issues everywhere. Identify all of these issues and if they can't be cleaned up before we launch the Move request (RM), at least they are identified.

   There is more, but these include at least #Tags??, #Odd lead insertion (not yet resolved IMO), #Analysis, #Recent edits to the lead, #DeVos, #"Attack", #"Macuto massacre", #General Services Agreement, #Silent Professionals UNDUE, #More VICE problems: Aleman UNDUE, #Mercenary, insurgent, dissident and #Background section: SYNTH and UNDUE. Extreme excessive quoting leading the reader and bloating the article. Missing content.

   Struck some done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Struck more done. The remaining problematic section is #Attack, but I feel it insufficient to justify the POV tag, which I suggest can now be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Struck. Attempted landing satisfactorily rewritten, but other POV issues subsequently introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   This is not all fixable before an RM, but we can at least have a list and see if there is anything we can come to consensus on pre-RM to have the cleanest possible version before launching the RM. The POV is quite beyond whether or not the word "coup" is in the title (but coup does need to be worked in to the lead in a balanced way, because it is a significant viewpoint-- problem is previous insertion was unbalanced ... and we can better write a balanced insertion of "coup" in to the lead once a couple of other outstanding POV issues are cleaned up in the body. It is almost always best to leave the lead work 'til last).

   Re #Operation Resolution v Operation Gideon, if we are able to do this pre-RM, I think it will be helpful not only in cleaning up the POV, UNDUE, OR issues, but also make the content more likely to be read and digested by independent editors coming to the RM. If we can get to this, it will help; if we can't, so be it.

   Struck, no longer necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   As of this version, my view is that only the "Attempted landing" section is in dire need of improvement before a viable move request. It's still a wreck with mostly poor sourcing from the early days. At that version, I'm willing to remove the POV tag I placed, if others are satisfied. I've now worked in at least a dozen after-the-fact scholarly sources, and they don't view the event as a coup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Struck and updated: Landing section satisfactorily resolved, then un-resolved, and POV issues re-introduced elsewhere (infobox and see other new discussions), so POV tag remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Launch Requested move per #Wait six weeks for the next RFC
   1. Spend a few days to a week reviewing the various source lists and offering comments to each other to help avoid confusing new readers and lengthening the RM when we launch (that is, identify any errors before we get in to the middle of an RM).
   2. Spend a few days to a week discussing the Article naming possibilities; come to consensus on which three or four options to include.

      See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Initial brainstorming to prep for writing Requested move proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   3. Sandbox the Requested move and write pro- and con- statements collaboratively as a group
   4. Get external feedback on our final format and launch Request move
4. Return to address any remaining "coup attempt" issues based on Requested move feedback and conclusion.

Thanks for getting this ball rolling, WMrapids; if we can archive off sections as we resolve them, that should help with management. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General Services Agreement

Almost 500 words of lopsided, overquoted, unbalanced text was added to an article that is already burdened with UNDUE content and approaching WP:SIZE limits. This is bound to slow down progress, and increase the talk page size, because now others have to sidetrack from other work to either fix the lopsidedness, or maintenance tag it. I filled in one missing piece, and then added in most of the needed balancing bits, but the article is 8,500 words long now, and more than 20% of that is in the Agreement section. The amount of content there is UNDUE (this is one small part of a very big story), and it could use a serious trim starting with reducing the overquoting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is still work to be done here, so moving this to its own section; will detail as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional bits so far (please please provide archive-urls on paywalled sources (I'm having to do all that work alone and it's slowing me down from more productive work):

1. The secondary source analyzing the primary Meganalisis poll makes no mention of the Silvercorp issue; this is original research and undue without secondary analysis. Maybe that content would fit in the reaction section, but I'm not a fan at all of those original research reaction sections using primary source polls.
2. Why is Aleman there ? WP:VICE and whatever contrapunto.com is are not adequate sources for inclusion of this content.
3. Why are we sourcing content to a video (which is primary use) when we have scores of high-quality sources available. And why do we need to repeatedly state what Guaido (and everyone else) says, rather than summarizing that to just the highest quality sources, since we have so many? All of the sourcing to the Al Jazeera youtube can be replaced with better sources, and the article is bloated by excessive quoting and repetition rather than just "Redon said X, Guaido said y, Goudreau said Z", let the facts speak for themsleves. The excessive quoting and repetition is leading the reader-- not neutral.
4. Why are we highlighting one non-neutral NGO's opinion when we have scores of high-quality neutral sources ? That's cherry-picking one non-neutral primary source opinion, and more, positioning it at the start of a paragraph for prominence, creating POV.

Working on neutrality and reducing to eliminating the overquoting and repetition here should be able to result in reduction by at least a third of its size, if not more; the size of the section, relative to overall preponderance of sources, gives undue weight to one matter in a large issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1, I found a secondary source for poll data and added it here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: I came back and remembered that at WP:VENRS you described Meganálisis as a "pro-opposition" pollster that "frequently collaborates with WP:BREITBART". I wanted to ask if this affects your use of the poll. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. If an opposition pollster is willing to show polls criticizing a lead figure, that is noteworthy. WMrapids (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to whether this is resolved. You claim elsewhere that sources that link to deprecated sources should be deprecated. At any rate, to resolve this, are you satisfied that I replaced that improper use of a primary source with a secondary source that was not SYNTH? That is, is the poll matter resolved now ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed, moved and consolidated everywhere I can, but the article is still above 8,000 words of readable prose, there is much left out, and the main section-- Attack-- has not even been written. What is there now was written initially from a television transmission right after the event, and it's in bad shape. The Attack section is now 700 words; the General Services Agreement section is almost twice that-- taking almost 15% of the article. I trimmed what excessive quoting I could, but it still goes in to laborious detail that could be better explored in its own article.

I suggest splitting the contract to its own article, and using summary style to shorten it to about 500 words, so that Attack and other parts of the article can be written without passing size guidelines and making the article unreadable. The General Services Agreement section is the single largest piece of the article, and double the size in KB of the next largest (Attack). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you have an idea of possible split articles? I think that trimming content and removing unnecessary details would be better of the page (as I did with the banal American biographies info), but I'm not totally opposed to the idea. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Washington Post scan

1. General Services Agreement between La Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela and Silvercorp USA. Or shorten to
2. General Services Agreement between Venezuela and Silvercorp.

Whether reduction is accomplished by trimming content here now, or splitting it to a sub-article, the prose size is now at 8,400 words, while the heart of the article ("Attack"-- describing the actual event) is essentially unwritten (what's there now is scarcely useful and wholly incomplete). Once "Attack" is written, the article will exceed 10,000 words of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I would usually recommend the usual "Reactions to X" article, but that section does not seem to be as long. The General Services Agreement might be a good alternative due to its size, although I worry about notability. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid any official title linking it to Venezuela as it was between Guiadó and Silvercorp. WMrapids (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exact name of the agreement is given ... in the agreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that title is vague and POV. Recommending Guaidó–Silvercorp General Services Agreement and then stating later in the intro "Formally known as the 'General Services Agreement between La Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela and Silvercorp USA'". That would be more suitable. WMrapids (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't consider that POV when Guaido denies signing it ? How can Wikipedia state in WikiVoice something that a living person has denied ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what would a solution be? Guaidó delegated tasks to his officials, so they were acting on his behalf. It is POV to say that "Venezuela" was involved since that would be saying that Guaidó (or his representatives) represented the state of Venezuela. WMrapids (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As sources and most of the free world said he did. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 October, the article is at 9,200 words of readable prose-- see TOOBIG at the size guideline page. A huge portion of that is in the Agreement section, which is UNDUE compared to any scholarly analysis of the event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to move what you say is undue and possibly POV to its own article, would that open up the justification of deleting or heavily redacting that article? WMrapids (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it would, as the topic of the Agreement itself seems to me to meet notability, and is even covered by high-quality sources, but since I'm a disaster at WP:AFD, I wouldn't take my word on that. (I don't recall saying that section was POV; it's just out of proportion here to the way sources handle that aspect of the subject.) What would be problematic would be moving the content to a POV article title; the name of the agreement is the name of the agreement, and if Guaido (as opposed to just his representatives) entered into it, it was in his capacity as the leader of La Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela as recognized by most of the free world. Considering that this article has not moved away from a state of POV, perhaps worrying about SIZE is something that can be deferred for now; I brought this up in the expectation this article would be moving towards a better-quality assessment by this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note that the UN's Fact Finding Mission on Venezuela released a report today, where it mentions the claims of extrajudicial killings. (A_HRC_54_CRP8_CleanVersion.pdf, page 95) The section can otherwise be archived. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Why would they put the report out only in Spanish-- that's goofy? It isn't going to be very helpful even as an External link. Quick skim, it seems to mostly deal in the torture of relatives and of those detained after 4 May, or did I miss something? I didn't see where it dealt in the actual victims of Gideon (but I skimmed very quickly). What's most helpful about the report is the context it provides for the general environment ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is mostly that the issue has due weight, being covered by an international organization like the United Nations. I can imagine there is only a Spanish version so far for being published so recently, but a translation could come later along with coverage by third sources. Regardless, I stress once again that this should be included in the lead. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to EL, but I'm at a loss for how to use it in the article; we need secondary commentary or review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you add such a large external link when you are raising concerns about size? WMrapids (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confused about the difference between article size and the size of an external link, which has no impact on article size. WP:SIZE give helpful information about how article size is measured, and Wikipedia has no restriction on the size of articles linked to as far as I know.

Also, in this edit, can you explain "completely unrelated", given that a large portion of the report pertains directly to Operation Gideon detainees ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake as I missed it, though if we are going to argue about slippery slopes on other topics, we shouldn't include external links quite yet. WMrapids (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What slippery slope on what other topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids you haven't answered this, and I'm still unclear on whether there is a valid reason for removing the link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated EL here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11; see also user:ReyHahn/macutoraid and user:WMrapids/sandbox/OPGIDEON and User:Orgullomoore/Orgullomoore's Long Nonselective List of Headlines Regarding Operation Gideon Between 7-23 May 2020

I still have more work to do, but am far enough along that a trend is apparent. Could others please examine my work so far, and could we move towards phase 3.1 of the timeline laid out above? Please use User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11 to raise any errors there, so as not to burden this talk page.

The previous claims on this page based on cherry-picked source counting about the preponderance of the word coup are inaccurate and misleading. There are some sources that consistently label the event a coup, while there are numerous and high-quality sources that never describe it as a coup. There is an almost equal spread between raid, incursion and invasion, while there is widespread use of Operation Gideon.

The strongest cases made for coup are from Bloomberg, Miami Herald, and The Telegraph. While most high quality sources choose to never describe it as a coup, there is enough significant coverage describing it as a coup that omitting that from the lead creates POV. Mention in the lead that some consider it a coup should be carefully constructed to avoid undue weight, while also avoiding a laundry list; perhaps we can discuss that after we have discussed the three different source lists and identified any omissions or errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t this all a big operation of source counting in general? WMrapids (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A list of sources cherrypicked to support one term, without analysis of what all sources do, is undeniably sourcecounting.

What I would like to focus on is, what are the strongest sources in support of the notion of the event as a coup, so that we can work that significant point of view in to the lead in a balanced way, without creating a laundry list. Do you agree that the strongest cases are made by Bloomberg, The Miami Herald and The Telegraph, or do you have an alternate?

Numerous high-quality sources do not treat it as a coup, so that part is much less difficult to sort out; we should be able to work on adding the "coup" aspect to the lead if we can agree on which are the highest quality and best sources in support of that point of view. What won't advance the NPOVing needed in this article is the continued promotion of the demonstrably false idea of the prominence of the "coup" aspect relative to the preponderance of sources, including the best and most recent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you highlight Operation Gideon for comparison?-ReyHahn (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReyHahn I could do that, but I feel like then I should pick a color to highlight every alternate term, which could become garbled. My main point so far is to hone in on which sources to use for the "coup" allegation, as we do need to work that in to the article per the significant but minority NPOV aspect. Perhaps after we have done that part, I could go back and make adjustments to the list (which I'm also not finished working on, but am traveling). For now, I'm seeking high-quality reliable sources that treat it as a coup, when most don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not suggesting to highlight every term but Operation Gideon is the current name. Anyway maybe it is better without any highlight? We are looking for a way to measure all the possible terms with a similar scale, as we area looking for a notable alternative.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made this list (User:Orgullomoore/Orgullomoore's Long Nonselective List of Headlines Regarding Operation Gideon Between 7-23 May 2020) back in the day, in case it's of any use to you guys.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Orgullomoore! For the reasons laid out by ReyHahn at #Source discussion, I started my work by date from the most recent (searching ProQuest), working back towards the oldest, so I mostly haven't yet gotten to what sources were doing as the event was unfolding. When I found a high-quality source like The New York Times or Reuters, for example, that never used the term coup, I then switched from working backwards by date to instead doing a specific search on that outlet to be sure that was correct. Time separated from the event and dispassionate analysis from peer-reviewed sources trump WP:NOTNEWS reporting, and I've yet to find a scholarly source that describes the event as a coup, so I'm not overly concerned about continuing to work back to older dates, although I'm still picking away at finishing. It's helpful to see that your early headline analysis agrees with my analysis later: coup is an infrequent descriptor for this event.

I'm not sure where this leaves us with a possible Requested move, as we aren't getting regular participation on talk from WMrapids despite pings, and they are the editor insisting on coup in the title. I have found no evidence that would support coup in the article name. Perhaps we can move on to brainstorming other ideas. Based on my reading of hundreds of sources so far, plus the weight of the scholarly sources, I'm at a loss for how we can call this article anything but some version of Gideon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think the most accurate label I've seen is Goudreau's Folly! If only it were to catch on. But yes, I agree that "Operation Gideon" is the least bad option at this point in time. And I also agree that it's important to look at what sources are calling it after the dust settled.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to the Folly (I thought I was so clever, who knows why AP and WaPo didn't consult me first :) The best I can come up with for an article name is that getting the when where what right would yield 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon. If we could find a way use the non-specific plot, I'd prefer that to all the other options (raid, incursion, invasion, etc) as it's just more general. But I'm not sure a change other than to get the when were what is warranted, now that I've spent weeks in the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should focus on the raid/incursion/landing part because that is what is actually notable. What about something along the lines 2020 Venezuela incursion attempt/ intercepted incursion?.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If others could please focus for now on whether my source analysis is good enough and complete enough (or do I need to dig back further date-wise), we could then have a source-based discussion. None of the scholarly or book sources or peer-reviewed sources written at some distance from the actual event are describing it as anything other than "Operation Gideon", best I can tell. (With the exception of one book that is unrelated to anything Venezuela and just a passing commentary from a controversial author.). Have others looked for recent scholarly sources and analysis I may have missed? If y'all can opine on the sources, and how to use them, we can then move in to having a source-based discussion of names. (The way we cut through the extremely controversial topics at the J. K. Rowling FAR was by first determining how to use the best sources, and prioritizing peer-reviewed and scholarly sources written at some distance from the events; if you do that, the text has an easier time writing itself.) Can we brainstorm naming ideas after others have stated whether the source lists are good and valid and free of errors or omissions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok about the sources, I am concerned by the scholarly sources. As participant of science article editing, I have experienced several problems with academic journals. There are a large number of predatory or pay-to-publish journals. If you want to find flat Earth peer-reviewed papers you will get them. However, in physics, the theories are very precise and the good journals are pretty much well established, so we know when something is undue. When two papers are in conflict there are ways to resolve this based on math and accuracy of the models. If not we can look at what appears in textbooks. What is the filter for politics articles here? is it based in the authority of the author? Does any of us known how to evaluate these academic pieces or the reliability of these journals? I have the impression that academic journals for politics and sociology sometimes (not always) share many similarities with personal blog posts. --ReyHahn (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ReyHahn; I agree that is a problem with journal publications (and more so with books).

On the scholarly/journal articles that I've incorporated into the article, Corrales is an author who knows Venezuela well; Bull, Harwood and Villa give indepth reviews that I don't think we can justify excluding; and Koh is probably a bit iffy. But what's of more interest is that I came up with no journal article that discusses the event as a coup, and that conclusion doesn't seem to change if we account for politics, and excluding Koh won't change it. At least they are mostly peer-reviewed, and the same can't be said for the book.

On the books, the quality is highly varied. Of those I've added, Neuman is so frankly biased and lightweight in its treatment that we should take care. He published a book about his views as a journalist, his bias is clear (anti-Guiado), so we have to take care to avoid his hyperbole, and one of the book review criticisms of his work is that he was too light or naive on the Cuban issue. I omitted Maher as a passing comment on an unrelated topic from a controversial author; some may disagree with that choice; we should discuss. Mijares gives a thorough treatment that we can't ignore, and same for DeFronzo, although his bias is obvious. But again, the conclusion doesn't change regardless of politics; books sources (like journal sources) written at a greater remove from the actual event simply aren't calling it a coup.

On the reliability of the journals, Taylor & Francis is generally very high quality and can't be ignored. Using Fordham Law Review could be questioned. I'm not familiar with Current History or Defence Studies. But for all of these instances, I don't think we're using any of these sources to cite anything controversial in the article; if so, let's dig in ? Do you see instances where using any of these sources is problematic? For instance, with Neuman, I've already replaced some of his personal hyperbole (makes for an easy bedside read for those not thoroughly familiar with Venezuela, but too personalized and not peer-reviewed) with sources that make the point dispassionately.

Where I've most used these sources, and found them helpful, was in the Background section, which had earlier been cobbled together via SYNTH. I found that most of them gave a concise analysis of the background, and thought them helpful for that purpose.

This is the kind of discussion we need to have about sources to lead in to naming, so thanks for raising this. If you have a specific concern about a specific source, we can outline that and ping Ealdgyth (a historian and one of the best source reviewers in the Featured article process), but she is SO busy that I hesitate to ping her unless we have a specific question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a distinction between sources that do not use that terminology of "failed/attempted coup" specifically and those that do not treat or describe the events in any way as a coup attempt. Sources that say the raid, invasion or incursion had the express intent of deposing Maduro or unseating his government are still describing a coup attempt regardless of whether they use that particular piece of abridged French-origin terminology. And all of these sources would be distinct again from any sources that might, for example, dismiss the raid as being intent on removing Maduro – that, for me, would be a source not describing a coup (attempt). There appears to be a view in some quarters that "coup" is slanted terminology ... and that is an opinion that people are welcome to hold, but for me it is simply a four-letter descriptive word for the removal of a head of state. As for why certain media sources eschew the word, that I can't determine. It would be curious to see if it formed part of the style guide or consistent practice of any outlets or if it is simply an elective language choice on a story-by-story basis. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point I have contemplated and investigated (original research alert :) . I suspect (but this is speculation) that the reason the sources are hesitant to call it a coup rests in the fact that Guaido was the leader of the country as recognized by virtually the entire free world, so that whether or not he signed that agreement, they view it as expatriate military trying to remove the usurper (to use Guaido's term, for lack of a better one). Of interest to me is that virtually all the sources who do not call it a coup did call other events a coup, so I don't suspect it's a style guide thing.

I think the nuance in this is probably found in the US Neutrality Act:

But, on the other hand, when a nation with which we are at peace, or the recognized government thereof, undertakes to procure armed vessels for the purpose of enforcing its own recognized authority within its own dominions, although there may be evidence satisfactory to show that they will aid the government in the suppression of insurrection or rebellion, in a legal view this does not involve a design to commit hostilities against anybody. [9]

Perhaps it hinges on whether one views Maduro as a head of state, which most of the world did not. In other cases, US citizens were charged with violating the Neutrality Act: in this case, it appears the authorities thought the situation murky enough that they couldn't make that stick with Goudreau.

At any rate, that is my speculation only, having investigated that angle out of curiosity. I don't think it's about avoiding the terminology, rather, recognition that Maduro wasn't the leader of the country according to most of the free world, hence the "murkiness". Although we don't know why they avoided the word, they did, so we still have a situation that Wikipedia follows secondary sources, doesn't lead, and if sources aren't calling it a coup, neither can we. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, sources do clearly call it a coup... WMrapids (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some do, some don't - see the separate source analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which analysis? There is so much "analysis" all over this messy talk page. In any case, it should be the decision of a larger group of users to decide the description of this article. However, this discussion is drifting further and further into original research (Goudreau's Folly?) and fringe theories (Cuban intelligence?) which is not helpful. The previous move discussions always returned to supporting the coup wording, so it is a valid proposal. Not saying that it should be the only proposal either (not sure if we figured out the multiple proposal system). WMrapids (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The analysis at the top of the section you are posting in. If you could take the time to review and comment on that analysis, that will help move us all closer to formulating proposals for the eventual Move request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the "coup attempt" wording should be a main proposal beside any "novel" title proposal that is suggested here, though through a quick glance, it still seems that there are no ideas after nearly a month. WMrapids (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "main proposal"? All proposals are contemplated equally by anyone coming to a Move request discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 here's an analysis that helps explain the "murky" territory, and could explain the hesitancy of some sources to call it a coup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Some sources were muzzled from describing it a coup attempt, though plenty of other reliable sources have. So it's time to leave it to the decision of users. WMrapids (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids you reviewed that summary of scores of sources in ten minutes? Are there any important sources that are missing? Are there errors in my analysis? It would help us all prepare a good Move request that won't waste the broader community's time if we take the source issues seriously and don't present errors or omissions or misunderstandings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, I took a break and am still not done with my sources. However, there are still ample sources that describe this as a coup attempt and plenty of users support the move. WMrapids (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Figures I guess. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Since I know you hate infoboxes, I wanted to let you know that I reworded the "action" field in the infobox, which was just added, in order to prevent continued reverting. If you feel that there are important original research issues, though, I would proceed to remove this. NoonIcarus (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus I posted a proposal yesterday just before boarding a plane, but apparently it never posted (perhaps I didn't have an airport connection after all). I'll redo it below. We are finally making good progress on NPOVing the article, and I see Orgullomoore has begun cleaning up the "Attack" section (inappropriately named by the way, what attack? POV) to also begin NPOVing it, but we will never achieve neutrality in an infobox on an article of this complexity. Proposal below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox proposal

See also Proposals and MOS:INFOBOXUSE, WP:ARBINFOBOX and WP:ARBINFOBOX2

Infoboxes cannot convey nuance, and MILHIST infoboxes may work for wars, or battles, but they don't work for this article (which was neither). As long as we try to fill every parameter in an "Infobox military conflict", we will run in to problems with nuance that cannot be conveyed in short parameters.

I propose that all nuanced and controversial bits be simply eliminated from the infobox; just because an infobox has a parameter, doesn't mean we have to use them (in fact, we don't have to use infoboxes at all). This was not a classic "military conflict", and some of the parameters will always prevent us from achieving NPOV in this article. I propose to eliminate these nuanced and controversial from the infobox:

1. Action
2. Result
3. Belligerents

Let the readers read the article to decide whether Guaido or Russia were belligerants; we can't state these things as facts, and by forcing nuance into an infobox, we are assuring long-standing POV issues in this article, or multiple RFCs, generally opined on by folks who won't know the nuance anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have any objection to removing "Belligerents," but I think the Action and Result fields are fulfilling an important purpose currently. Specifically, the Action field gives the reader a one-liner about what the purpose of the incursion/invasion/attempted coup/infiltrated plot was supposed to be, and the Result provides information about the significant events that followed as a consequence. I would be fine if the "Action" label itself were removed, without removing the information.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerent information is important as it provides readers information on the parties involved at a glance without reading through a headache of an article. WMrapids (talk) 04:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids please catch up on the talk page and take greater care with edit summaries; consensus can change, the information was not "arbitrarily removed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed against the consensus of a discussion that the user already participated in... WMrapids (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids could you explain why you re-instated only part of the infobox that was there before consensus was reached to remove "belligerants"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I returned what was reasonable as the prior consensus from 2020 was the inclusion of Guaidó and many others. The presence of Cuba and the United States were also present in "Support" portion, though correctly removed. WMrapids (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Russia. Their only alleged role was to offer assistance with the search operations which, according to the article, ultimately did not pan out. I also restore the "Commander of Combatant 1" field.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a quick note that the discussion in question (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 1#Guaidó in the infobox) already mentions that said change was disputed. Three years ago and it was already troublesome. If it stayed that long, it was probably the same reason why it has stayed this year: to prevent further edit warring. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I endeavored to phase out the Bay of Piglets documentary uploaded to YouTube by Al Jazeera English on 4/29/2021, to get rid of those ugly "better source needed" tags. But actually, the documentary is a very good source that contains an interview of Ingrid Castañeda (19:30 mark), one of the policewomen who detained the occupants of the second boat with the assistance of local fishermen. This is the only place I have seen her name disclosed, much less an interview describing how the encounter went down. It's also the only place I have found support for the statement that the roof of boat # 2 had to be removed and uniforms thrown overboard to lighten the boat (17:25 mark). There are other sources that explain the motor failure and fuel issues (e.g., the 11/18/2020 Miami Herald "How Betrayal . . ." article). I don't think the citations to the video should be removed. It would be great if there were an article reporting everything contained in the documentary, but there's not, as far as I have been able to find.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Always be aware of the Cuban intelligence effect, and vary the sources as much as possible. Source 1 says X, source 2 says Y. What do we really know about Ingrid Castaneda, and why are we willing to completely trust the unreviewed commentary of people in a television show that happened early after the event? Vary the sources, don't take one early television interview as the end of a complex story with effects of Cuban intelligence. Differing accounts came out after the early reporting. Maduro knew about the plan. Who was Ingrid Castaneda? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um... are you really going into a fringe rant about "Cuban intelligence"? Just simply attribute things and keep it going. WMrapids (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, section rewritten by Orgullomoore to encompass all views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unresolved, rewrite was reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does Al Jazeera has an article along with the documentary? I cannot help but feel that the source is a primary reference. I can help looking after information about Ingrid Castañeda if needed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NoonIcarus: Unfortunately, no; not that I have been able to find anyway. If you search "Operation Gideon OR Operación Gedeón" AND "Ingrid Castañeda" you will find nothing.----Orgullomoore (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising that we have now a Wikipedia article extensively citing not one, but two primary source Youtubes when a considerable number of reliable secondary sources are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orgullomoore, what I had tried to do when writing the "perception" section was to limit the sources to only high-quality or scholarly to avoid having it turn in to a laundry list. I was forced to lesser sources on the coup indication, as there aren't a lot of high-quality sources for that, so I used the strongest we had, but generally I tried to stick to only the kinds of sources that would pass muster in, for example, a featured article. My thought was that, if we don't draw a line on that section, it will quickly spiral into a laundry list full of trivia, and we need some sort of limitation or definition of what we would add there. Re this edit, my suggestion is to avoid using a lesser quality source like WP:VICE (not a high quality source, and not a high quality article even), as that opens the door to a laundry list. Probably one of the better sources also used that term ??? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your preoccupation on WP:VICE is strange. They have provided thorough reports on the event, were cited by reliable sources and context matters. Perhaps this is more suitable in a NPOV discussion? WMrapids (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I disagree that VICE is inherently low quality and agree with WMrapids's point that context matters when it comes to judging the reliability of sources. I think the same point applies to the Al Jazeera documentary. However, I don't have a strong position regarding whether "ramshackle" is removed from what I believe is already a laundry list, so please feel free to remove it if you believe it detracts from the quality of the Perception section.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orgullomoore I'm not concerned enough to remove it; just raising the point that unless we establish some sourcing parameters, the section can spiral out of control to include every possible adjective out there-- that's why I tried to stick to scholarly sources wherever possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! Now we have a situation where both of us are unconcerned. LOL. Well if anyone else has an issue with it, let it be known that it's not a hill I'm prepared to die on and they can go right ahead. As long as we are moving generally and collaboratively in the right direction, I'm chill.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cited content removed

In this edit, the "bizarre", "murky" that is used in the lead was removed, leaving content in the lead which is not in the body, breaching WP:LEAD. Almost every single source uses one or the other of those terms. I don't care whether the adjectives stay or go, but I do care about uncited content in the lead.

More importantly, though, this bit was also deleted:

• raised questions about different versions of the narrative.^[1][2]

See, for example, Neuman's list of questions about the narrative at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox11#Books. Why was that content removed (cited to two good sources, one being the high-quality Washington Post)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the edit should be undone. The edit summary: "A list of adjectives seems unnatural while actual terminology seems valid. Removing the list of adjectives." does not make sense to me. What is meant by "actual terminology" as compared to "a list of adjectives"? I agree that it is worthy of mention that most sources that talk about the event call it something like bizarre, doomed from the start, ridiculous, ramshackle, etc. It shows that there is widespread astonishment about the amateurishness of the whole thing. The statement that it seems unnatural does not justify the removal. I could understand suggesting an improvement to the format.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've addressed the problem of the lead not summarizing content in the body by adding some of that content back to the Attempted landing section (where it may be a better fit anyway, but not wedded to that). Orgullomoore, you may have better formatting ideas; I just don't want to mention the bizarre aspect in the lead if it isn't cited in the body, and that has always been in the lead (oddly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really creative resolution. It also gave a voice to my uncited and then removed statement that it was difficult to ascertain or verify the facts because almost everyone who would know the details is either dead or gagged. Good job!--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One stone, two birds ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that the source was removed (we already discussed what happened on my talk page), but listing a bunch of adjectives for the event is plainly strange. Should we provide adjectives provided by the Venezuelan government as well? Which adjectives do we include? Now actual descriptions of the event are more suitable (coup attempt, attack, invasion, etc.) WMrapids (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids if you read the talk page, you'll find I explained that. I represented every view that was prominent in the sources, and then also added on maduro's and guaido's views. I used those adjectives supported by highest quality or scholarly sources, except for the case of coup (because there are no scholarly sources supporting that view), in which case I instead used the strongest sources we have for the word coup. I've asked you since 12:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) if you have sources that are omitted from the source analysis, or stronger sources for the coup viewpoint, which I will gladly add if you provide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I am kindly reminding you that my edits are not to satisfy you, especially since you are the one who is making hundreds of edits to edit an article about something that happened over three years ago and overtaking this process. I will work on my own time, so please stop. WMrapids (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids although several editors have disagreed here on talk with your edits to the characterization of the event, you have now for the second time, removed very well cited content. That's not collaborative editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been little to no true discussion about including useless adjectives and taking up more space in an article you have size concerns about. So please don't criticize me about collaboration. WMrapids (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We still have "observers described the operation as amateurish, underfunded, poorly-planned, having little or no chance of success, and a suicide mission" uncited in the body of the article, yet included in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Can we keep the editorializing nonsense out of the article? It does not provide any support to encyclopedic content. WMrapids (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, WMrapids, I consider what you are doing to be disruptive. I addressed the concern of the sentence that has been in the lead for years not being adequately cited. I then restored the stable version. You arbitrarily decided that you don't like it and removed it twice. How are we supposed to collaborate if you just impose your will inflexibly?--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful with aspersions and review WP:BRD. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issue at hand.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up now on the diffs of rapid-fire massive changes, WMrapids, you (at least) twice removed this content from the lead, which best I can tell, has been there for years, and you removed it after Orgullomoore took the effort to make sure that content in the lead was cited in the body. I fail to see how you can say that calling that kind of editing "disruptive" is casting aspersions, because one naturally wonders why that text in the lead didn't trouble you before, when it wasn't even cited in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids in this edit, you add Goudreau's (editorialzing) opinions (a statement whose benefit to the article escapes me), yet in this edit and this one, you delete what you call editorializing that is cited to very high quality sources (something that is cited to a very high quality source is not a BLP issue). I'm very confused about your edits today. I understand you've been away for a few days, and that's fine, but discussing your edits on talk might help lower the issues occurring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, the first diff you linked to is my edit, not WMrapids'. I removed the sentence.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to come back later then to find the edits I'm referring to; editing is happening very fast, without discussion, and my diffs are getting distorted. Editing without the WWT tool is not fun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now maybe you know how I've felt through this whole process. Too much happening all at once. WMrapids (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Orgullomoore, and sorry for heading out for a social event and leaving cleanup on that to you. (I had multiple diffs up at once, and trying to track back on that now, after so much edit warring, probably isn't worth the time now.) WMrapids, you may have misunderstood what I intended as an apology to Orgullomoore for getting the wrong diff because the WTT tool doesn't work here. Working on large talk pages with a lot going on is not uncommon on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now catching up; WMrapids this is the edit that confused me. Which part of MOS:EDITORIAL, which you cited in edit summary, is invoked in that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another removal of cited content

Another problem with the removal of cited content is that we are now in a position of prepping to ask the community which term to use to describe the event, but having deleted the terms used by a majority of sources (raid, infiltration, incursion and anti-Maduro plot) from the discussion. All of these descriptions were cited to high-quality sources, while coup (which lacks preponderance among high-quality sources) was retained. WMrapids favors describing the event as an attack, but sources favor other terms, and for the best possible Move request, I wonder why we are excluding terms favored by sources, and suggest re-instating them pending a Move request resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The high quality sources and terms should be reinstated, then.--Aréat (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've tagged what remains after WMrapids' edits as lopsided, since only those WM prefers are left, while others more prominent have been removed. We risk wasting the community's time in asking them to opine on what to call the article if we are leaving out the most prominent views, and highlighting the least prominent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those terms were synonymous and a waste of space (Invasion = infiltration, etc). WMrapids (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think we should let that decision be made by independent readers who come to the Move request to evaluate all options? For whatever reason, different sources have pronounced preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:VNOT. Sure, sources may have a lot of descriptions through the process of editorializing their stories, but it does not warrant inclusion, especially if such descriptions are synonymous. You were concerned about article size regarding the General Services Agreement and called for the removal of the information, yet you seem to support placing synonymous adjectives and a lengthy list of supporting sources. This is strange. WMrapids (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you again to WP:SIZE; sources do not affect readable prose size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I brought up the numerous sources used to support the inclusion of various, unhelpful adjectives. WMrapids (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources does not affect the readable prose size; I don't understand why you keep raising this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current version

As of this 05:12, October 2, 2023 version, we have:

Journalists varied between describing the plot as an attempted coup,^[1][2][3][4] attack,^[5] invasion,^[6] raid,^[7] landing^[8] and operation.^[9] Some scholarly sources referred to the operation by its code name, "Operation Gideon."^{[10][8][11][12]}

This has several problems.

1. We're not referencing only journalists. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and three years after the event, there are scholarly and book sources written at some remove and allowing for more dispassionate or peer-reviewed analysis.
2. We say some scholarly sources refer to it as "Operation Gideon", which is wrong, but see point 3.
3. We're starting down the some-several-few-many-all path, which never ends well, and is often original research when inserted into articles. We still have no scholarly source that describes it as a coup, and virtually every scholarly source or book describes it as Operation Gideon, as do the large majority of journalistic sources, but that isn't something we should be burdening our readers with anyway because a) it's original research, and b) our readers don't know the distinctions we make in our editorial choices between high-quality and other reliable sources. As editors, we can make editorial decisions about sources and how to use them, but that's behind the scenes, on talk, transparent to our readers.
4. We're listing first the only option that has very few high-quality sources backing it.
5. Because I originally chose only one or two of the highest quality sources to represent each option, the appearance from the way the list is now is that very few sources support, for example, the word raid or incursion, when those are among the most frequent characterizations of the event.
6. That even sources are confused and have questioned the narrative has been (wrongly, IMO and that of others) deleted from the article by the consensus of one editor. This leaves it unclear that the narrative isn't trustworthy, and that there is murky and bizarre nuance in the event and the narrative. We haven't yet seen an understandable reason for that deletion.

Proposal next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for how to characterize the event

We want readers (and those coming to opine on a Move request) to be aware of the absence of black-and-white answers on this topic. We shouldn't be implying there's one or a "right answer" here. I propose:

1. Reinstate the removed content about the murky narrative (or some version thereof).
2. Don't grow the adjective list beyond murky and bizarre; that's enough to convey the issue, and we don't want a laundry list.
3. Don't burden the reader with what type of source (scholarly, journalistic, whatever) we are using; they won't know the difference, and Wikipedia editors-- who do-- know what they're looking for, and don't need to be told.
4. Reduce to only using the scholarly sources for the event characterizations, except make an exception for the coup option, as we don't have a scholarly source, and use the four top sources (which is what we've done).
5. Order the characterizations by preponderance in sources (DUE WEIGHT)
6. Can we all agree it's in general terms an "anti-Maduro plot" (a term used in many sources), so that we don't need a scholarly source for that ?

Making these changes would leave us with something like:

Media sources, analysts and individuals used terms like murky^[1][2] and bizarre^[3][4] to describe the plot and events, and raised questions about different versions of the narrative.^[5][2] Sources varied between describing the anti-Maduro plot^[6] as: an operation^[7] referred to by its code name Gideon;^{[8][9][10][11][12]} a failed incursion, infiltration, insurrection, invasion or raid;^{[5][13][14][9][7]} and an attempted landing,^[8] or coup.^{[15][16][17][4]}

Discussion of Proposal for how to characterize the event

• Support proposal to present a mostly scholarly-sourced overview of different characterizations of the event; let the reader decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the proposal. It's a reasonable compromise that is well thought out.--Orgullomoore (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, we should let the reader decide on how to characterize these issues.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support based on it's fair representation of all points of view. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Installed. (I suggest we re-convene after the WP:RM to reduce the sentence depending on how the article name is resolved.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids could you please provide the source upon which you base this edit? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it it did not explain how they would remove Maduro and others, which was by force. It was not through means of applying pressure or democratic process, but through violence. WMrapids (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids, I asked which source you are using to support "official positions"; could you please supply one? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that Maduro and his allies held "official positions" as in they were officials who oversaw a government, military and institutions. Being an "official" is separate from the presidential crisis. WMrapids (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids I'm asking for a source; do you have one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. WMrapids (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should refrain from using Cacique in the article as they have provided contradictory reports. With the Miami Herald, they say that a group of moles leaked the information, though with Vice News, they say that a dissident meeting with their family was captured and tortured for the information. WMrapids (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out where Vice News claims their informant is the same person as Cacique ? A timestamp would help; another source said that four escaped. Also, if we exclude Cacique, how do we justify using Vice News' video at all ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See at 13:15. And again, context matters. We don't use all the statements presented by sources. Sometimes sources provide statements from random individuals on the street providing their opinion. This does not mean the source itself is unreliable. WMrapids (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids 13:15 is Nieto, not Cacique ??? At 13:40, an unnamed person is speaking. Where do we find that person is the same as Cacique? Four people escaped. Also, could you explain where you locate the date for the YouTube? I can't find it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at 13:40, though I gave you the extra 25 seconds for context. At 8:32, it shows the label "Cacique: Mission Supervisor", which is the same designation that Miami Herald gives them and narrows down that this is the same Cacique. So this same Cacique is giving two separate stories on how Maduro officials got their info. WMrapids (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inconsistent. He says in the VICE documentary that the Maduro regime first extracted certain details from the arrested dissident. He told the Miami Herald that 2-3 days before the operation, the coordinates were sold. Meaning that the arrest of the dissident during a family visit was much earlier. This is also consistent with the Maduro regime disclosing the locations of training camps and the identities of Goudreau, Denman, and Berry in March.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (and that's why I've also asked WMrapids to explain where the date for the YouTube is found ... I'm not familiar with editing in a way that sources articles to YouTube, so don't know where to find that data. I don't believe we have an inconsistency, but the dates would certainly be a helpful matter here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple ways to find the date. An easy tool for this is here, where you can just paste the video URL to extract all metadata. To find it in the YouTube video page, you need to expand the description sentence. By either method you should be able to tell that the video was "publishedAt": "2021-10-27T20:00:03Z" Orgullomoore (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! (Never cited an article to a YouTube before, and hope to never have to do it again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cacique says that the information Maduro officials had was "mainly" from the arrested source. So the majority of the information according to Cacique in the Vice News video is from the arrested individual yet in the Miami Herald article, it appears that there were moles. WMrapids (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He actually says "primero que todo."--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to restore content at Attempted landing

No valid reason has been provided for the massive removal of content on 18:13, October 1, 2023 that returned the Landing Attempt section to one largely cited to an AlJazeera Youtube and leaving out other accounts; I support restoring content from this 13:59, October 1, 2023 version that had incorporated all viewpoints. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that in my absence, a lot of POV edits were performed. Some edits attempted to describe the Maduro government as a "socialist regime" or "regime" in Wikivoice while other edits attempted to place the highly POV narrative that the attempted attack was a false flag or resulted in executions in the main section about the landings. The users who have been participating seem either supportive or indifferent to these POV edits. This needs to stop immediately. WMrapids (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids there's a handy tool called "who wrote that" which demonstrates that you added one of those instances of regime that you just deleted; I think we can hardly single other editors out for following what you established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show the edit? WMrapids (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give me five more minutes; as we saw at Nelson Bocaranda, where Who Wrote That? isn't working, I suspect WWT might be returning an error in this case. Have you installed WP:Who Wrote That? (it's quite handy, and quicker than WikiBlame). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like installing browser extensions. Not trying to badger you with questions, but if I made such an edit, I'd like to know and would be the first to apologize for such behavior. WMrapids (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, struck: WWT is glitching at this article as well. It is attributing almost the entire Landing attempt section to you, which is incorrect. As I've only seen this happen now twice, both instances with your edits, I suspect it's something caused by something about how you edit-- perhaps the stinky visual editor is glitching, but I raised this last month at WP:VPT, and a ticket has been submitted-- now we have to wait for the developers to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I'm always causing trouble ;) Thanks for striking! WMrapids (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite irritating that WWT has these developer issues, as it's a much quicker tool to use than WikiBlame <sigh> ... my sincere apologies for the mistake ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the edit that broke the Who Wrote That tool, and it's not hard to see why. A major rewrite of an entire article in one edit, sans discussion, makes it hard to imagine what tool could get the authorship attribution right. (Since WWT and page stats are returning the same authorship number, this means it is not only the WWT tool that can't properly attribute content with an edit of this nature.) After this edit, the tool attributes entire bit about "According to the Maduro regime" to WMrapids, and examining that edit, it's not hard to see why. WMrapids, if you could make your edits in smaller increments, it might be easier on everyone, including Wikipedia's authorship tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Government, administration, officials

In the same vein, I applaud you for removing those instances of regime and agree it's problematic (while noting that numerous sources use the same word), but I'm curious that you replace it with "Maduro government"[10] while denying that Gauido's was a recognized government;[11] this seems contradictory and POV. Could you explain the absence of parity ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that hindsight is 2020? What is the most neutral wording for you? Was also thinking that "Maduro administration" or "Maduro officials" might be better. WMrapids (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever is the choice, it needs to be applied consistently to both. There was a Maduro government and a Guiado government; a Maduro administration and a Guiado administration; Maduro officials and Guiado officials. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "officials" wording seems most appropriate. WMrapids (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Officials" wouldn't work in this instance, where your edit summary said "what government?" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My edit does work because Guaidó was the name, brand and product for his "government". WMrapids (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves out the legitimately elected National Assembly, which is a POV issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adminstration is perhaps the most neutral term for both given that it was in some doubt who the legal government was at the time. "Officials" carries a sense of officialdom, and the same issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me ... in the edit where the parity was removed, administration would work, as it was Guiado and his close appointees who were weakened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beginnings of establishing parity; there is more to do. Throughout, the article had referred to Maduro's administration in unqualified terms, while always qualifying Guiado's administration. I have not yet examined the entire article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids, in this edit you rewrote the Background section to first backtrack to 2014 and Lopez. That rewrite contained several bits that did not reflect what the source says, but more importantly, we have one (or perhaps a few) sources making the connection to Lopez (and in this case, based on unnamed sources), where almost all sources discuss the presidential crisis as being instigated by the "fraudulent" 2018 elections, and the 2017 nullification of the voters' will in the 2015 National Assembly elections. During most of all of that, Lopez was in prison. So I've reordered the flow to begin with the DUE WEIGHT issue mentioned in most sources (the "fraudulent" election and National Assembly), while retaining almost all of the Lopez assertions you added (even though they cite unnamed sources), and correcting a few bits that did not represent what the source said in the process (the source does not say, for example, that Guiado spent months trying to hire mercenaries), as well as keeping the military bits grouped together.[12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, since the referenced edit added content dating to events of 2013 and 2014, I have completed that narrative for neutrality, as the additions provided no context for Lopez's actions, and left the impression he was the only one with an issue with how Maduro came to power and his repressive autocratic policies. It's unfortunate that section has grown so large, but the aforementioned edit left it lopsided and unbalanced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon

OG 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)[reply]
• Used by the large majority of sources in addition to essentially all scholarly or book sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral point of view; avoids partisan labeling of the "murky" event. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Is what sources say when they want to be explicit about the event they are referring to. For example, in this letter from the Special Rapporteur to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, footnote 1 says: El 3 de mayo de 2020, el gobierno de Venezuela anunció que en la costa de Macuto, en el estado de La Guaira, las fuerzas armadas de Venezuela frenaron una incursión armada destinada a asesinar al presidente de Venezuela. A dicho suceso se le conoció como “Operación Gedeón”. Likewise, in this March 2022 article published in the Miami Herald, the author writes: The soldiers, Green Berets Airan Berry and Luke Denman, were arrested in May 2020, captured in what came to be known as Operation Gideon — a failed attempt to spark a popular uprising in Venezuela. In another Miami Herald article: More than four dozen men who set out in motorboats on the first day of May from Colombia as part of a botched coup known as Operation Gideon, a doomed attempt at ousting Venezuelan strongman Nicolás Maduro, were betrayed by five companions who sold the exact landing coordinates shortly before departure, says a high-ranking insurgent. The brother of Luke Denman, Mark Denman, wrote in November 2021: In early May 2020, Airan Berry and Luke Denman were taken hostage by the unlawful Maduro regime in Venezuela in a widely publicized incident which became known as “Operation Gideon.” Even the BBC article that has been advanced in support of the campaign to rename this article as 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt says: Operation Gideon was a deeply flawed coup attempt. Notice that it does not say: "The 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt was deeply flawed." These quotes show that, even when sources call it an incursion, an attempt to spark a popular uprising, a botched coup, an incident, a coup attempt etc., when they want to specify which incursion, attempt, botched coup, incident, or coup attempt, they invoke the name of Operation Gideon. They show that the name "Operation Gideon" is more recognizable than saying, e.g., "2020 Venezuelan incursion," "2020 Venezuelan attempt to spark a popular uprising," "2020 Venezuelan botched coup," "2020 Venezuelan incident," or "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt." They show that Operation Gideon is a natural way that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. They show that Operation Gideon provides precision when an author is struggling with what to call this event. They show that Operation Gideon, after the dust settled, is what the bizarre, murky, whatchamacallit of an event came to be known as. Operation Gideon is a concise way of referring to the botched maritime incursion and coup attempt that occurred in early May 2020. Operation Gideon is, granted, not completely consistent with typical Wikipedia naming conventions, but the policy laid out at Wikipedia:Article titles requires consideration of all five of the criteria for article titles (recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision, and consistency). Operation Gideon is the name that conforms most closely to these criteria and, as SandyGeorgia points out, 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon is an improvement upon "Operation Gideon (2020)" insofar as it is a conventional "when", "where" and "what" title--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OG arguments against

• The Military History WikiProject guidelines advise against using military codenames. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of OG

2020 Venezuelan coup attempt

Coup arguments in favor

Coup arguments against

• Favors one POV SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Discussion of Coup attempt

Add Other Options with subheads here

(replace this with subheads to add another option, etc)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Orgullomoore your post 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 the launch the RM with a statement that neutrally summarizes the options. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]