This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Venezuela C‑class High‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America / Post-Cold War C‑class 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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Post-Cold War task force

Following the attempted 'Bay of Pigs'-style invasion of recent days, which was led (and the soldiers trained) by former US military personnel, it seems increasingly obvious that this whole thing is much better described as an attempted coup than any kind of mass uprising. Devgirl (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how two events led by different people over a year apart prove anything is anything? Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretations of facts by editors are not welcome in Wikipedia since it constitutes "original research" which is forbidden here.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and no sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US Senator Chris Murphy just tweeted out that the US Government was indeed behind the coup in an attempt to install Guaido as their puppet. What a world we live in where people will just admit over twitter to taking part in crimes against humanity. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk did the same with Bolivia, it's just... bizarre. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a handful of accounts continually revert the factual edit that a US Senator with ties to the US Foreign Intelligence community (making him an acceptable WP:SPS) confirmed that the United States had organised the coup attempt to install Guaido. I call on these editors to cease reverting legitimate edits lest they cause an edit war.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a nonnotable tweet, has any reliable news source covered it yet? Also it says "tried" and "kind of coup" so the whole thing does not say anything more than what is already in the article, specially in the background.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've found a story in UrduPoint plus the expected Venezuelan sources. Also, it's worth noting that this was uploaded in tweet form and press release form at the same time since it comes from a conversation Murphy had with Elliott Abrams. Overall, I think it would be a valid addition to some part of the article (maybe the US reaction section) as long as we don't claim that he was referring to himself when saying "we". Connor Behan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guaidó movement has been backed by the US, US has tried to contact Maduro government officials to make them shift sides. Most of this is already in the article. It is unclear what this tweet is providing, it is vague, not news, and does not explain anything else about US involvement that day.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Macktheknifeau: please do not revert as you did here [1]. Please discuss before removing the tag.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The line succinctly explains that it was not mere "US contact" or "US attempts to make people shift sides" but was in fact a coup sponsored & organised by the United States Government, which is a central reason to why the coup happened in the first place. Your tag is unnecessary and your edits are becoming disruptive. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why is this tweet relevant and why is it it relevant to the lead? Also it is clear that US was supporting Guaidó and helping him to contact government officials, but is this new tweet adding anything new? Also I still hoping that somebody comes up with a reliable source that found this notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also remember WP:3RR.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is this possible source which is not from Venezuela, Russia or Pakistan. It establishes that the meeting where Chris Murphy said these words is notable but it doesn't quote him verbatim. Connor Behan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Macktheknifeau: please revert the undue weight template. Templates like these are not to be removed until a consensus has been found or the discussion has stalled.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The line succinctly explains that it was not mere 'US contact' or 'US attempts to make people shift sides' but was in fact a coup sponsored & organised by the United States Government, which is a central reason to why the coup happened in the first place, in order to install Guaido as a puppet leader. It also takes it's source directly from a high level Government official who is deeply involved in a section of the US Government involved in foreign affairs. If you want to start wikilawyering, you started by blanking the paragraph in question multiple times for invalid reasons. (First-10:02 August 6, Second-1:01 August 7) (there were several anonymous IP's that did the same thing). Then you changed to try and smother the paragraph in wiki-lawyering by adding pointless tags to it based on your own further edits rather than using the original line. WP:UNDUE is about giving an insignificant "viewpoint" too much detailed of a description, it not relevant to a single line, factual reference. Looking at your user contributions, I would like to ask if you have any WP:COI to disclose in regards to Venezuela political articles?Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm in favour of including Chris Murphy's remarks in the article, this comment is out of step with WP:AGF. Also, we should really keep quotation marks around "a kind of coup". When Wikipedia uses weasel words, we remove them. When the original speaker uses weasel words, we let it be the reader's WP:DECISION whether they alter the meaning. There are definitely other examples of people using "coup" in an imprecise / exaggerated way that would still be consistent with mere contact and persuasion. Connor Behan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A "kind of coup" that involved armed conflict that killed at least 4 people and involved significant property damage & civil unrest as a result of an opposition leader attempting to overthrow the leader of the country, isn't attempting a "kind of coup", it is a coup (except only perhaps as a "failed coup"). The weasel words don't change the reality of what happened and Wikipedia should reflect that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Macktheknifeau: I wanted to discuss the line before removing the paragraph again, you are not allowing for any discussion and you want to bypass discussion templates. I am not questioning Chris Murphy claims, I am questioning its importance in the article and in the lead. Maybe we could leave it somewhere else in the article, especially in the section where we discuss US involvement, but his tweet is not an event on its own and probably does not deserve a placement in the lead. For the record, I have only acted in the reverts with my username indicated in the article history, and I have explained why. Please discuss what information is new in that Twitter thread and why it is important in the lead with respect to other information in the article. Please assume WP:Goodfaith and leave the Wp:COI arguments and personal accusation aside.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing "bad faith" about looking at a users contribution history and asking if they have any undisclosed COI considerations. I've said twice now why that information is important. It specifically confirms that the coup was organised by the United States Government. The rest of the article as it relates to the United States doesn't include that specific information. It includes other elements like - John Bolton's attempting to get the Defense Minister & Presidential Guard to force out Maduro in a non-specific "peaceful transition", that the US Department of State was "caught off guard by Guaido launching the final phase a day earlier", Mike Pompeo complaining about Russia, Trump threatening more sanctions on Cuba, a reference to a pro-Guaido ambassador trying to get an appointment to talk to US Southern Command (that he apparently never did according to the article), un-named US officials calling it a Venezuelan "Bay Of Pigs" and lastly some Pompeo boilerplate propaganda about "freedom and democracy". None of those make a single reference to the now confirmed fact that the United States organised the coup attempt. The coup being organised by the United State's importance to this article about the coup should be as obviously important as the inclusion of the Germany invasion of Poland in the introduction to the World War II article. The US organising the coup is the Proximate cause for it, and that should clearly be in the opening paragraphs. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the tweet is not providing further evidence of a strong US operation there, it is saying that they tried to organize a "kind of coup". This can be interpreted in many ways, to me it is just confirming that they were supporting Guaidó and doing anything possible in their reach to promote the operation that day. All which was confirmed before. It is not like US army was present on the spot that day or anything else.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, when a US Senator confirms the US Government organised a coup (regardless of what "kind" it was), then it confirms that the US Government organised a coup. The US Army, and "how strong" the US operation was is irrelevant to the core fact that it was organised by the US Government. The US Army isn't the only US group that gets involved in sponsoring and organising foreign coups. You are grasping at straws to try and justify the removal of a central reason the coup/uprising attempt took place. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we add the tweet later in the article and that we add a phrase about US actually pushing SEBIN chief and Mikel Morenor to support Guaidó (the former did).--ReyHahn (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I completely oppose removing the paragraph that the tweet is a reference for, from the opening of the page. To repeat yet again, the tweet, and the paragraph that uses it as a reference, is there to explain a central, proximate cause for the coup/uprising and as such is important enough to be in the opening section. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also note you added another irrelevant tag to the article. There is absolutely nothing about the introductory paragraph that justifies an NPOV tag. Please stop weaponizing tags & Wikilaywering in an attempt to justify your actions.Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And please avoid seeing Wikipedia cleanup and discussion templates as "weapons". Wikipedia templates are here to motive discussion and attempt a consensus. I just added the NPOV template because you could not agree to add a more specific template to the section under discussion, if you do not oppose I will remove the NPOV template and put a more specific one on the paragraph under discussion. With respect to you refusing my proposal, I am still trying to understand your position. You say that when a US Senator confirms the US Government organised a coup (regardless of what "kind" it was), then it confirms that the US Government organised a coup, but the tweet is not confirming anything more than US supporting Guaidó campaign, call it a "kind of coup", as the Senator says, but when people read the article, the lead should serve as a summary, that paragraph is neither discussing how US did so, it is based in a barely notable tweet, it is using charge language (check WP:COUP), and it is already clear from previous paragraph that the whole operation was to remove Guaidó from power (so nothing new there). Nothing in that tweet seems like news, it does provide extent, actions or reasoning. And if you are proposing that US should be more present on the lead, I fail to see how that tweet that is going to make it more clarifying.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah looking at WP:COUP it doesn't seem that Murphy's tweet is clear enough to warrant the inclusion of the current section in the introduction Chloehoey (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The use of "coup" should be avoided in Wikipedia article bodies unless discussing an event has been named a "coup" by reliable sources." Which it was, by the Senator: "we organised a coup" (tweet minus the weasel words) "it blew up in our face when all the generals that were supposed to break with Maduro". It is quite clear and obvious that the "we" and "our" is referring to the United States Government as a whole. Additionally, WP:COUP isn't a policy, it's a random essay written by one person with zero input from anyone else. I've found several new references and added them to the article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be only focused on wanting to call this a "coup", but please allow me to reframe the discussion once more. We are discussing the matter of the tweet and aside from the senator saying "[a kind of] coup", it is still unclear why is relevant and why is novel. One other user here agrees that "kind of" should be in the text and another agrees it is not lead material, so you do not have the consensus here, Wikipedia is based on that. Also your sources are CounterPunch a politically biased source per WP:RSP, and labourheartlands, a barely known source focus on political opinion article. Please provide 1 reliable source, a motivation for the text (aside from saying that a US sentator is complaining for trying to get Maduro out of Venezuela, not news), and a rationale for having that on the lead.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of those sources. Counterpunch is not an "unreliable source" according to the WP:RSP page you linked (I checked it before I added it, knowing that you'd complain about it) and it's supposed "bias" doesn't make it inherently unreliable. As for the other source, last time I checked we don't decide reliability because an individual editor has never heard of a source. I am really tired of explaining this to you but you appear determined to fail so I'll do it again: It is "relevant and novel" because it succinctly explains that the United States organised the coup, from a high ranking member of the Government that organised it, and that fact is clearly important enough to be in the opening section in the same way that the line "Invented in 1891 by Canadian-American gym teacher James Naismith" is in the opening parts of the article on Basketball. Wikipedia doesn't require some special "motivation" to add a line to an article, the one I've already said is more than enough of a reason to include it. You asked for more sources, I've now added three in total. You complained about undue weight, I showed you why that policy isn't applicable. You've repeatedly asked for reasons why this paragraph should remain in the article. I've given them. I suggest it might be time for you to take a look at WP:NOTPERFECT and perhaps considering if you should WP:DISENGAGE rather than continue this negativity. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid turning this around the sources only, you know it is a least notable subject, if not that would have appeared all over the place. I would like that you please answer to the question, you say "it succinctly explains that the United States organised the coup", please explain what does that mean in this context? that explanation is what should be on the lead not the tweet, but you avoid already existing content and want the tweet just because you like the label he used (but you avoid the "kind of" of course). Please, distance yourself from using WP:DISENGAGE, it is you that does not have the consensus.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really familiar with wikipedia's policies so I'm offering a non wikilawyer opinion. I read the above discussion and the sourced articles and then tried searching for some context. I don't think the quote should belong in the lead because it doesn't adequately reflect the contents of the article. There should likely be some sort of mention of foreign involvement in the lead and the article body should include the quote... but there was just such little reaction, discussion, or even reporting of the quote outside of Latin America which makes it hard to write about on a wiki article. (The counterpunch article talks about the Latin American reaction. I don't know enough to say if it's in the scope of this article or not.) Murphy's quote does support this article by the Washington Post, but the article does not directly label it a coup. (the logical conclusion is that it was one but editors aren't supposed to interpret right?) TheEyesOfTexas (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt → 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – Per similarities with Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023, it is obvious that this was also a coup attempt. Juan Guaido called on a small number of troops to overthrow Nicolas Maduro in a manner similar to the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. So, citing NoonIcarus' own proposal on the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt talk page, with WP:CONSISTENT (we have February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt) and WP:PRECISION, this article title should follow the example of others before it, especially due to the similarities with other events and the surprising choice to use "uprising" instead when the article is very similar to others. WMrapids (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Give us all a rest will you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hate to be a "not an argument" guy - but this is not an argument and @WMrapids's case is strong. Carlp941 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Pinging users involved in similar move. @Jaredroach, Braganza, Elelch, Zellfire999, Alcibiades979, Louis Waweru, Kawnhr, LLs, BastianMAT, CaribDigita, Aréat, Yilku1, JasonA34, Kawnhr, Krisgabwoosh, Carlp941, Blindlynx, Icarusatthesun, StellarHalo, and Snarcky1996:--WMrapids (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• A call of a coup is not an actual Coup attempt Braganza (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate? There was a plan and call from Guaido to take the airfield and presidential palace in an effort to establish Guaido as president. So, it was more than a statement when there were troops on the streets. WMrapids (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Uprising attempt is actually the title of this page? This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, has no basis in reliable sources, skirts established precedent, and is spitting in the face of Wikipedia's neutrality policies. I strongly support moving the page to 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état. Carlp941 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  postnote: rereading the reliable sources there is some support for this in reliable sources. I still believe precedent overrides it. Carlp941 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Definitely think this is a strong case with WP:CONSISTENT. WMrapids (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency. Wikipedia is not the opinion page of a Liberal/Conservative American media. Just because Western medias who happens to support the Venezuelan opposition, and who are of course deemed by like-minded Wikipedia contributors to be the only "reliable sources" that are to be used on Wikipedia, do not wish to put terms on these event that are correct yet not necessarily positive for said Venezuelan opposition, that should not mean that we should refrain from using these terms, these definitions, that simply factually describe the events at hand.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the Peruvian case cannot be compared with this article, since a "coup d'état" is one thing and a "self-coup" is another. In Peru, the second thing happened, since it was the incumbent president (Pedro Castillo), who illegally tried to dissolve the congress and assume full powers. This was not what happened in Venezuela.--Elelch (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The precedent of WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION still apply though. We are not discussing about the type of coup that happened, but how we should title such articles. So, there obviously should not be difference in naming procedure between this article and the Peruvian article. WMrapids (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and bad move request, per WP:POINT. This move discussion was started just nearly two hours after the move discussion to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was closed, , as if it was a response to the result, an article of which the nominator was the creator and a main opponent of the move. I highly recommend participants to read through the 6 June 2019 move discussion, as it was arguably the most thorough regarding the topic, which should prevent repeating the same points again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just noticed that virtually the same move proposal was made for the Operation Gideon (2020) article, due to the pings I thought it was a single request. I find the WP:POINT issues and the canvassing of editors outside these articles concerning. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• CLOSE until further discussed and OPPOSE per the same reasons of the last three move requests. The move request have been extensively discussed in the past and a new request merit news information and reexamination of the evidence and arguments. See comment.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I think this conversation should be closed, if necessary a discussion would have been favorable first, specially after all the problems with previous move requests. Also worried by WP:CANVASS.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: @NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: Please assume good faith. Wikipedia policy was cited for the proposed move and users involved in a similar discussion were contacted. Nothing more.--WMrapids (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: I sincerely ask for the same reciprociation. Could you please consider to remove the move request and discuss it further before moving through wit it. The last move request was "moved" because a partial consensus was reached between different parties. We can revisit this together and some points can be reviewed without calling for massive list of votes for a fifth time.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been about four years since the last move. Please have faith in the process, a consensus will be established. And don't worry, none of this is personal. You seem to have an extensive history editing on Venezuelan topics, so I have nothing but respect for your opinion on this topic. :) WMrapids (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time is only an issue if new sources reflect some specific revisions. About the canvassing, it would really help if you provide some details on the different perspectives of the users pinged, if they shared a similar views in other discussions then I recommend you to read the policies on why that should be avoided. Again, it seems like a rushed request and with the proper discussion much of the nuances could be revisited without having to re-spark some of the tension points that were already resolved four years ago.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a difficulty finding consensus on the previous article, so the perspectives on users vary. So, one can be confident that there are no canvassing issues since users had separate views. Regarding the previous discussions, it seems like many users supported moving the article titled to include the "coup" wording, though the process was drawn out by users who used the typical "source table" to deflect away from the issue, and we can now see that the policies of WP:CONSISTENT WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE are of higher value when naming an article. Users in the archived discussion also suggested the more obvious option to call a spade a spade. WMrapids (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulties were drawn from a previous conversation and a partial consensus was reached in the previous move. Please explain how a source table is deflection in such a complex discussion. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please also WP:Assume good faith on previous discussions. This request seems inadequate due to the lack of any new evidence to reopen the topic in the request statement. Again all that I am asking is that the motives should be discussed and finely studied before starting a new request, if not this move request will continue to pop frequently independently of the results.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As nominator.--WMrapids (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The move has been proposed based on what was decided in Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023. However, both cases are not comparable. In Peru, the then incumbent president (Pedro Castillo), illegally tried to dissolve the congress and assume full powers, which by definition is a self-coup, since it even fits perfectly with the definition provided by the Dictionary of the Spanish language: "Sef-coup: Violation of the legality in force in a country by whoever is in power, to gain a foothold in it" [2]. In Venezuela, no such thing happened. Rather, the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro's presidency was in question and Juan Guaidó was instead declared president by the Venezuelan National Assembly (January 2019) and recognized as such by many countries before the uprising occurred (April 2019), so they are definitely not comparable situations. I am not going to discuss which side was right or wrong at the time in the venezuelan crisis, but if the basis of the request here is the mere comparison between the situation of Peru in 2022 and that of Venezuela in 2019, it doesn't seem enough to me.--Elelch (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A rejected change based on this logic is something I can live with. this is reasonable. Carlp941 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Carlp941: Does that mean you would consider striking your previous support to the move? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am open to it. Carlp941 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to give it a few days to see how the arguments play out, then come back and re-read everything and see if i want to chance my vote! Carlp941 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at your argument, the legitimacy of the presidency of Peru is also in question right now, with some nations stating that Pedro Castillo is the president while others say that Dina Boluarte is. The nebulous affairs of politics during constitutional crises is very polarizing, but in the end, we see who who is left holding the reins of power. Elelch, I am sure you would agree that Boluarte is currently president of Peru. Using hindsight (it was also apparent at the time and in the hours after this "attempt"), we can see that Maduro held on to power over Venezuela's institutions. And like you said, the whole "right or wrong" argument is murky, so instead of focusing on that, we should pay attention to what was really happening; Guaido called on the military and supporters to forcibly remove Maduro from office. And if we throw in WP:CONSISTENT and Carlp941's concern of WP:NPOV concerns (this title and article obviously leans in support of the Guaido movement's attempt to remove Maduro), the proposal to move this title to 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt should be obvious. WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In addition to the obvious WP:POINT reason for this proposal, the nominator could not provide any reason or new sources that warrant overturning the consensus of the previous move discussion from a few years ago. WP:COMMONNAME still stands. Wikipedia is based on what most reliable sources say and trying to use a less popular label based on personal interpretations of which events are "similar" is just Wikipedia:Original Research. Also, no reason to think that the current title is less WP:CONCISE. StellarHalo (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]