This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Colombia B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin America B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America / Post-Cold War B‑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 B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Post-Cold War task force Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? 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 B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Venezuela B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53557235

The two sources sources used as references for the inclusion of Russian involvement in the operation ("Agentes rusos rastrean a implicados en “Operación Gedeón” en Carayaca" and "Russian troops to help Venezuela search for members of failed incursion: report") mention, based on official information that was originally published from a state military command center, how at least eight Russian special forces members were operating drones over Venezuela as part of a search operation after participants of the raid. On the other hand, the first two references for American involvement don't mention any relation at all, besides speculation and accusations by the Venezuelan government ([4][5]), and its third source only includes an accusation by one of its participants that said that plotters met at the Trump Hotel (which it should be mentioned that is not a government building), and at most, that US officials were aware of the plan. The information is extraofficial, contrary to the Russian involvement sources, and there is no mention of direction participation by American officials in the operation ("Venezuela coup plotters met at Trump Doral. Central figure says U.S. officials knew of plan"). Cuba was removed from the infobox for the same reason and Silvercorp USA is already included to reflect the participation of Americans in the operation.

Saying that the same standard is being held for both sides is wrong, as they are very different situations. The inclusion of alleged US involvement would be misleading at best and outright false in the worst case scenario. I am removing it from the infobox for this reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like an incredibly well-explained double standard. Yet the USA should be listed in the info box as a supporter of the coup attempt, due to information found in this article itself. Guaido, who has never received a single vote for the office of president, is recognized by the USA and was one of the original backers of the operation. Former US military, employed by a US mercenary outfit, disclosed to their family and friends (as credibly reported) that they believed that the US government was involved.

Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, in case you didnt know 2601:5C4:200:5C40:A9F6:590C:8B7E:5DAC (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An American private mercenary company (already included in the infobox) is not the same as the United States government. Could you provide sources regarding this, just as I did? --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gideon (2020) → 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – Per similarities with Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023, other users found more than enough sources describing this as a "coup". An armed group contracted by Juan Guaido attempted to overthrow Nicolas Maduro. The current title of "Operation Gideon" requires a disambiguation page and is not broadly used in literature. 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 and 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt) and WP:PRECISION, this article title should follow the example of others before it. WMrapids (talk) 17:35, 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) 18:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure, were there some discussion about the claims of the government?

  But generally soft support Braganza (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Braganza: Reading about the crisis (and with the hindsight of three years), Guaido never held any real power over the institutions in Venezuela and attempted to hire mercenaries to overthrow Maduro. So... if the shoe fits. WMrapids (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me dig through sources and see what the common name is—blindlynx 18:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Blindlynx: Seems that there plenty of sources here describing it as a "coup". WMrapids (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a lot of source indeed. I wonder why it wasn't renamed before, then. I'm going to dive in this huge discussion first, but a priori I would be just as in favor as I am to rename the peruvian page.--Aréat (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I wonder the same thing as the current name is confusing. The El Junquito raid was also know as “Operation Gideon”, so it can be difficult to distinguish. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed with @Aréat here. Let's be consistent! Carlp941 (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason was because it wasn't determined that it was the most common name by the sources. In a few sections below there are over 80 sources showing the contrary.

  Quoting the closing comment: Like in the previous discussion, there isn't a consensus amongst reliable sources on what to call it, but in this case, it's whether the incident warrants the lofty title of "coup attempt". A lot of what I said in the (later re-opened, then re-closed by another with the same result) close of the Bolivian political crisis article sticks here too: "coup" is a very emotive word to use and thus there's a high bar for its use. Maybe when the dust settles in a few months, we can revisit this, but right now, I don't see any consensus here or in reliable sources to use the term "coup" yet. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:PRIOR - I think we should be broadly moving away from the previous discussion. It is nearly 3 years old, we can take a reading of reliable sources now and see what the common name is. If we fail to reach a new consensus, we can fall back on the old one. Carlp941 (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  cool, operation whatever is also a bad name policy wise—blindlynx 21:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. As with two recent nominations (Operation Weserübung → German invasion of Denmark and Norway at Talk:Operation Weserübung#Requested move 12 May 2023 and Operation Margarethe → German invasion of Hungary at Talk:Operation Margarethe#Requested move 11 May 2023), the proposed title is a descriptive one, while the existing header is only recognizable to students of military history. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• support per WP:CODENAME and wp:commonname—blindlynx 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and close move request no new arguments or evidence provided. See also comment below. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this request was made without taking into account WP:CANVASS, only calling for users on the previous conversations that have similar opinions instead of calling for all users that have intervened before. Also an attempt to WP:POINT by similar move request at the same time, with similar statement, by the same user. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No canvassing intended. Since we had good participation on the other page, the inclusion of users who participated in a similar move is logical. Also, there is no disruption and if you are implying that my edits are disruption, I would like to remind you to assume good faith. Wikipedia policy was cited for this proposed move. WMrapids (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which other page? Disruption or not, the quickness of the request seems to have been influenced by general comments on another topic without taking into considerations the discussions or details of these pages separately, or at least it is not reflected by the two identical move requests statements.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:PRIOR and WP:CCC. Previous discussions are not standing policy and each situation from a discussion is determined on a case-by-case basis. That is their purpose. Their outcomes do not dictate what goes on elsewhere. Previous consensus is not an argument on its own. Rather than assuming motives on weak evidence, can we discuss the move request at hand? Carlp941 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As nominator. Also, great point by Roman Spinner--WMrapids (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and bad move request, per WP:POINT, as stated by ReyHahn. This move discussion was started less than 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 8 May 2020 move discussion.

I will avoid repeating these points unless needed, but I want to offer an example with related articles to illustrate why the move shouldn't proceed: we don't call the Bay of Pigs Invasion the 1961 Cuban coup d'état attempt, or the Machurucuto incident, where Venezuelan shores where invaded in an eerily similar fashion, the 1967 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Any person familiar with Venezuelan historiography should know how weird the mere proposal would sound. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)[reply]

Again, assume good faith. Roman Spinner makes a good point. The current title is not concise as there are multiple redirects for "Operation Gideon". So, if we are going to be consistent and concise, we should follow the similarities of other Venezuelan coup articles. WMrapids (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not propose the Macuto Bay raid title instead, which is way more specific and the article's original title? Is odd that the proposal is so similar, to rename it as a coup attempt, specially when you mentioned both requested articles in the discussion: If we are to use your same reasoning, then the 80 undetermined sources seen in your archive link describing Operation Gideon (2020) as a "coup" should be enough to open a move discussion of that article to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", right? Why is that not described as a "coup attempt"?. All of this leads only to conclude that this request is in response to a result contrary to the one expected. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Because sources describe the incident as an attempted "coup"? And of course, after you presented the information about the Venezuelan articles, it raised questions about the current titling of articles. A consensus was established and I accept it. Is wanting the concise titling of articles a bad thing? WMrapids (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Bay of Pigs Invasion is the common name used in sources. This is not the case with this event that was widely described as a "coup" (check the sources), especially since there are not 3 other articles about "Bay of Pigs" such as the current issue with "Operation Gideon". So, the comparison does not stick. As for the Machurucuto incident, that article is in very poor condition, so it should hardly be used as a comparison when we have several other Venezuelan coup articles that serve as precedent. WMrapids (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I will offer some comments regarding the cited policies, if the move is not prematurely closed due to the cited reasons, now that I have more time and considering that, at least in the case of WP:CONSISTENCY, said policies were not mentioned in the last discussions.

WP:PRECISE was cited in the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move discussion because the previous title, "2022 Peruvian political crisis", could be confused with the existing Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), partly because they happened in the same country, close from one another, and how similar the events were (namely the string of presidents being removed and dissolutions of the assembly). None of this happens in this case: Operation Gideon redirects to its main article per WP:PTOPIC and not the disambiguation (which only has two articles), which is about the 1948 military operation in Palestine. Very difficult to confuse this event with the Venezuelan crisis. The other similar event in 2018 is already named El Junquito raid, meaning there's no ambiguity in that case, but even so the raid was a government operation to neutralize a rebel leader, and it is also easily distinguishable from a maritime invasion by American mercenaries. This is actually related to the following point:

The move as a coup attempt would paradoxically make the title less precise, not more. WP:PRECISION was also quoted in one of the previous last discussions to argue against moving to "coup": Macuto raid is even more precise. We have to make a difference between the plot and what actually happened. 2014 protests in Venezuela were also about overthrowing Maduro, but were are not calling that a coup just because some news mumble about it.. Given the amount of violent attacks and uprisings in Venezuela, they're usually referred to the place they take place in: the Caracas helicopter incident, the attack on Fort Paramacay, the Caracas drone attack, the Cotiza upsing, attack on Fort Santa Elena [es] and the takeover of Fort Escamoto [es], just to mention a few. The two could arguably be considered to be named 2017 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, but they would fail to convey the information that the current titles does and could even lead up to confusion with the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis, who was called by some by a self coup by Maduro. Lest we also mention how common plot and coup accusations by Maduro are: Announcements of foiled coups and plots against the government have long been a part of the Chavista discourse. A study by the Caracas-based newspaper Ultimas Noticias counted 63 alleged assassination plots between when Chavez took office in 1999 and his death in 2013. Since then, such claims have come even more frequently. President Nicolas Maduro's government has denounced more than a dozen purported plots since coming to power 15 months ago, as mentioned by the Associated Press ("Venezuelan conspiracy theories a threat to critics"), and the number of attempted coups claimed by the Venezuelan government outnumbered all attempted and executed coups occurring worldwide in the same period , as stated by Foreign Policy ("Coup Fatigue in Caracas"). "Coup" has essentially lost all of its meaning in Venezuela, and I doubt that it will recover it unless there's a successful one that ousts the government.

WP:CONSISTENCY was cited in the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move discussion because the dissolution of Congress was compared by analysts to the 1992 Peruvian self-coup, where Alberto Fujimori dissolved the Congress too, a fact that is even mentioned in the article's lead. This begs the question: what are the similarities of this even with the February 1992 and 2002 coup attempts? They are very dissimilar. In 1992, rebels took control of the Zulia and Carabobo states, they arrested governor Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, and fired upon the presidential residence until dawn, where the president's family was. President Carlos Andrés Pérez would have been killed during the coup if it wasn't for bulletproof windows recently installed in the presidential palace. In 2002, rebels even briefly managed to remove President Chávez from power and dissolve all of his institutions. Nothing similar happened 2020, whose operation is called "amateurish, underfunded, poorly-planned" and even a "suicide mission" in the article's introduction. A good interpretation of WP:CONSISTENCY would be the February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, because both took place in the same years, months apart from one another, against the same president, its participants held the same beliefs and their causes were practically the same. It's the reason why I mentioned the Machurucuto incident, which is very similar to the Macuto raid, and the policy would probably apply better to all the attacks and raids that I mentioned earlier. "Operation Gideon" was possibly not the preferred title, but it was chosen as the "less disliked" at the moment, as mentioned by ReyHahn. "Coup attempt" is very unlikely to garner the same status.

Last but not least, it should be mentioned that one of the WP:COMMONNAME was a main reason argued in the Peru move discussion, and as it mentioned then, literally no other language use the term "coup". In all of the discussions regarding Operation Gideon, it has not been demonstrated that "coup" is the most common title, and after all this time it probably won't. All of these reasons show that this is a false balance being done, and not the application of a precedent. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Not long ago I remembered about the historical Falke expedition [es] of 1929, a maritime incursion carried out by Venezuelan exiles to overthrow dictator Juan Vicente Gómez. As it can be appreciated, once again, it has not been referred as a "coup". --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

@NoonIcarus and @ReyHahn seem adamant on assuming bad faith where there is none, and I am asking you to please stop, and continue to base your discussions in policy rather than knee-jerk opposition. Your comments and arguments are pretty contemptuous in tone, and I do not understand why. @WMrapids is applying the principles they believe in to articles about similar events in the region. As for WP:POINT, please keep in mind WP:NOTPOINTY:

"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"."

For me to see bad faith in @WMrapids, they would have to be applying principles they disagreed with to make a point, or hope to provoke enough opposition to overturn the decision on the Peruvian self-coup attempt article discussion that did not go their way. Neither is happening. @WMrapids's argument has always been This is what I believe the consensus of reliable sources is, this is what I believe would be neutral, and this is what I believe would be consistent - applying that principle in multiple articles is not WP:POINT. I suggest you re-read the discussion on the move request for Peru self-coup attempt article to have this point illustrated for you. Here are some samples of @WMrapids applying that principle to argue against moving to a title with self-coup:

•"Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue". WP:CONSISTENT was suggested due to the similarities with the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis article.

•Regarding WP:CONSISTENT, this event is pretty similar to the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis as both events involved the dissolution of Congress, both were described by some as a "coup" and both did not involve the military (one of the main components necessary for a coup)

•To add to the WP:CONSISTENT argument, we already have the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis, but can also add the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, the 1993 Guatemalan constitutional crisis, the 2011–2012 Papua New Guinean constitutional crisis and the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. All have been described as coups by some, though they have not had it in their article titles

•This still does not take into account WP:NPOV regarding the weight that the word "coup" has a descriptor. Also, there is not much of a precedent with such descriptors in an article title, so it does not help with WP:CONSISTENT in the same way "constitutional crisis" would.

Those arguments did not prevail, and the consensus was that WP:CONSISTENT should be applied differently. @WMrapids is accepting that.

I saw that you cited this bit of the discussion to argue for WP:POINT:

• Is odd that the proposal is so similar, to rename it as a coup attempt, specially when you mentioned both requested articles in the discussion: "If we are to use your same reasoning, then the 80 undetermined sources seen in your archive link describing Operation Gideon (2020) as a "coup" should be enough to open a move discussion of that article to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", right? Why is that not described as a "coup attempt"?". All of this leads only to conclude that this request is in response to a result contrary to the one expected.

Rather than reply there and contribute to an already heated argument, I will respond here. In isolation, this is a decent argument. However, I am making a judgement call based in good faith. I believe that @WMrapids is accepting the consensus of previous pages, given the impossibility of changing the self coup article, their extensive productive editing history on similar topics, and their willingness to open discussions rather than make disruptive edits. I am begging you to do the same. If @WMrapids hoped to provoke enough opposition to overturn the decision on the Peruvian self-coup attempt article - that is simply not happening and I would oppose such a move. The peru self-coup article has had multiple move discussions within the last year - it would be unreasonable to expect new changes. Given WMrapids extensive good faith editing and discussion history on similar topics, please do not accuse them of bad faith without extensive evidence.

I am saddened that good faith is being abandoned here without good cause, and editors are entrenching themselves in opposition to a single editor because that editor is editing many articles about contemporary Latin American politics. @NoonIcarus - I appreciate your comments that stick to debating Wikipedia:PRECISION. Can we please keep it that way, not making these discussions personal? @WMrapids, thanks for opening discussions on many topics on recent Latin American politics, a lot of these articles need updating and renewed discussion, and I appreciate it. Carlp941 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need of going at such lengths, the comments were made yesterday and the last lengthy comment completely avoided bringing the issue back. I think that I speak for ReyHahn saying that we already stated our concerns, and now it's only up for the closing user to evaluate them. They don't deny the contributions that WMrapids might have had regarding the topics at hand, and are only related to how the procedure was started, which I would avoid repeating but will only mention that the exact same thing happened in the 8 May 2020 discussion (with the exact same responses).

In any case, I really appreacite your compliments. Do you have questions regarding the last points I raised? I would be happy to answer them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:45, 25 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" [6] (and many reliable sources called it a "coup"). That was not the case with the Operation Gideon. Rather, beyond its ambitious objectives, it was an almost symbolic action by a tiny group with no chance of success, as the article itself points out. If the basis of the request here is the mere comparison between the situation of Peru in 2022 and that of Operation Gideon of 2020, it doesn't seem enough to me. Rather, if I had to make a comparison, Operation Gideon is much more like the so-called Andahuaylazo, a military uprising that took place in Peru in 2005 that was led by a retired Peruvian Army major who and 160 army reservists that demanded the resignation of then-President Alejandro Toledo. This action, although it was an uprising in arms, was never called "a coup attemptp". Things must be taken in their real dimension and impact --Elelch (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We did not decide to move back to the self-coup name based on the dictionary definition of self-coup, but that there were enough reliable sources that called it a self-coup and NPOV concerns were not enough to override the usage of the common name. I do not know why you reference the dictionary definition, it has no relevance on either discussion. I ask that we side step the dictionary definiton, because then we'd get into a pointless debate of which dictionary to use, rather than basing our arguments on policy. Dictionaries are weak sources anyway. I will agree with you, and say that the self-coup of Castillo and these events are not very similar and WP:CONSISTENT doesn't apply between the two articles.

  If you are comparing this to Andahuaylazo, I relunctantly have to ask, did you read about this event in detail? The two could not be any more different. This was not "an almost symbolic action by a tiny group with no chance of success" like Humala's uprising - it was organized effort by military contractors to decapitate a government, seize control of key institutions, and take control of Venezeula by force. They had a government in waiting, a list of opposing groups to supress upon taking power, and a planned suspension of constitutional rights. It allegedly became a bounty hunting mission when it lost support of the Venezuelan opposition, and when its organizers were discovered and denied support by the US government. Just because the attempted overthrow was led by lying incompetents does not mean they were not seriously trying to kidnap or kill Maduro and topple his regime. I think a more apt comparison would be The Bay Of Pigs Invasion, a serious but incompetent attempt by outside actors to overthrow an unfriendly government. Reliable sources even occasionally derisively refer to the Operation as "Bay of Piglets" , here, and here. Perhaps this is a good starting point for looking for an alternative name if we don't want to use the word coup? Carlp941 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs, which was an invasion planned and directed by none other than the United States Government (with President Kennedy directly involved), with Operation Gideon, carried out by a small group led by a simple private military company and at a time when the legitimacy of the Maduro presidency was in question. You are free to have your opinion. Mine is that this does not qualify to be called a "coup attempt", much less if the basis of the proposal has been to compare it to the attempted coup in Peru of 2022, which as I explained, is a totally different event.--Elelch (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You literally can compare the two. Many reliable sources have, as I linked above. I am repeating myself here, but there is a derisive nickname (Bay of Piglets) because many people feel the comparison is valid. My point isn't necessarily that we should name the article The Bay of Piglets, but that we should be looking at what reliable sources call the event, what they compare it to, and use that reach a consensus.

Are you fully reading my replies? I ask because your reply is unnecessarily hostile - I actually agreed with your point on the attempted coup in Peru being substantially different enough to not apply WP:CONSISTENT. Yet you are writing as if I disagree. Please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. We're not a forum, I am not trying to "win" an argument. Carlp941 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlp941: What do you think about the Machurucuto raid? Not only did it take place at Venezuelan shores by foreign agents, but also had a very few number of participants and fail spectacularly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elelch you are grossly dishonest. The stated intent was to remoive Maduro from office. It was absolutely not "a symbolic action", that is an incredibly dishonest argument. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support With all the evidence provided, and given what the very definition of the term "coup d'état" is (if you have voted oppose, go read it urgently), it is baffling that we even need to talk about it. It say volumes about the pervading liberal, USA-centric and more generally Western-centric worldview of the majority of Wikipedia contributors. Alas, Wikipedia get less and less neutral and objective day after day, it read more like an opinion article from CNN or The New York Times nowadays.

Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Just addressing some of the concerns above. A big issue with using Operation Gideon as the title is that there are three different "Operation Gideon" articles. The El Junquito raid was also "Operation Gideon", but we are not using "Operation Gideon (2018)" as the title.

However, per WP:CONSISTENT, we have many Venezuelan coup articles, including:

• 1908 Venezuelan coup d'état
• 1945 Venezuelan coup d'état
• 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état
• 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état
• February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
• November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
• 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt

So we obviously have precedent with coup articles that would make WP:CONSISTENT relevant for renaming this article in the same manner.

Now, with WP:PRECISION, it states: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.

With the term "Operation Gideon" being used, it is too precise and is hardly even used by reliable sources. However, plenty of sources describe this event as a coup attempt (I mean, it is pretty obvious with mercenaries and all). I also have to thank blindlynx for bringing up WP:CODENAME as it only further supports moving this title. The article Killing of Osama bin Laden is not titled "Operation Neptune Spear" for a good reason. Neither should an attempted coup be titled by its code name.

Moving on to the "coup fatigue" argument; this is just a deflection by those sympathetic to the Venezuelan opposition. Yes, looking at the history of Maduro's government, it appears that he would cry wolf about "coups". But we are not taking Maduro's word, we have reliable sources openly describing this event as a "coup". And these sources also provide documentation that the Guaido "government" contracted the mercenaries who attempted to remove Maduro. Whether or not Maduro knew that the bunch were heading his way or not does not mean that this group of armed men did not attempt a coup.

Finally, regarding the whole naming convention proposed by NoonIcarus of "Venezuelan uprising attacks happened in X, so it should be named 'attack on X' like other articles". This isn't applicable at all. The Caracas helicopter incident was just a ruckus. The Attack on Fort Paramacay (which is also not titled by its WP:CODENAME) was just a group attacking a fort to steal weapons. The 2018 Caracas drone attack was a whole mess of unknowns. This event was different entirely; a group of mercenaries attempted to forcibly remove Maduro from power and they had a signed contract with Guaido. This wasn't an "attack" or "uprising", this was an attempted coup.--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT here appears to be confused with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of course we all probably agree that "coup attempt" is an existing title convention, both widely used and an acceptable one, and that there are articles for Venezuelan history that use the term, just like most countries. The thing is that WP:CONSISTENT states: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. Citing the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt discussion as a precedent, I reminded the similarities between the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and the 1992 Peruvian self-coup, as well as pointed out the glaring differences between Operation Gideon and both the February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. We don't call the 2020 United States presidential election as the "2020 United States Championship", or the WWE Universal Championship or the WWE United States Championship as the "WWE United States War" only because the title convention exists. The last comment has failed to prove how these articles are similar, save for "violence against the Venezuelan government".

With WP:PRECISION, there appears to be a contradiction in its interpretation: at first the nomination argues that the article may not be precise enough anc can generate confusion with other articles, but later on it seems to say that the title is too specific, to the point of being obscure. Which one is it, then? This seems to be a better argument for moving the article to "Macuto Bay raid", which was the original name. All of the previous articles I mentioned are violent events during the Crisis in Venezuela (which are actually grouped in the Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela short sidebar template under the "Armed violence" section). They use the convention of using the name of the place and the type of event, be it attack, raid, uprising, takeover, or just incident, the latter of which already distinguishes all of these nuisances nuances. It has not been proven why "coup attempt" would be a better alternative per WP:PRECISION. The use of "coup" by the Maduro government affects the coverage by independent sources, something that cannot be ignored, and the there is already a high standard to be met to proceed with such a move. Quoting from the related Bolivian political crisis 15 November 2019 move discussion: There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument about the WWE and United States elections is just confusing, so I'm not going to go there... And it is not just Maduro describing this as a "coup attempt"; many sources do this (over 70 sources). Many institutions that had an incentive to remove Castillo described his actions as a "coup" too. So we have the reliable sources saying it was a "coup attempt" (WP:RS), a consistent naming history (WP:CONSISTENT) and we avoid confusing operational names (WP:CODENAME). And with your confusion surrounding WP:PRECISION, why can't it be both if the current title is awful? The proposed move seemed pretty obvious, but here is the more detailed explanation for you. The current title is too precise with a WP:CODENAME, too similar to the other bunch of "Operation Gideons" and it was an attempted coup, not just a "raid" or "attack", so it is more precise having "coup attempt" in the title. Deflecting towards articles that were not coup attempts is not the way. WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will probably have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the policies. At any rate, over 80 sources don't refer to the event as a coup, which was the reason why there wasn't a consensus to proceed with the move last time. It wasn't proven that it was the most WP:COMMONNAME by reliable sources then, and most likely it won't this time around either. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you fail to differentiate from those sources (some of questionable quality) is that many use separate wording.

Of those 80 sources, here are the descriptions listed by their prominence:

• Operation Gideon - 15
• Raid - 12
• Incursion - 12
• Invasion - 9
• Attack - 5
• Plot - 4
• Oust - 3

In comparison, there are 70 sources that directly call the event a coup, not 15 calling it "Operation Gideon" (which shouldn't even be used per WP:CODENAME), not 12 calling it a raid; 70 sources using "coup". Now if there were 80 sources calling this specifically something else, ok, then your argument would hold weight, but you don't have 80 sources. WMrapids (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The point still stands that said sources don't use coup as a term. I'm sure many other sources of "Operation" or "raid" can be found, but the point being made is that "coup" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, with over half of the sources ignoring its use. The discussion shows that the current one was the less controversial, and it was nominated by the same editor that first proposed the move of the article to "coup", after the request failed. If you can prove that this is an even less controversial term, then perhaps towards the consensus can be made. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding the meta-discussion about a previous discussion all that useful in creating a new consensus. It's been long enough that there is likely an academic common term for these events, and a scan through of news sources has not produced consensus here. I'll go through some databases and try to find a common name there. Carlp941 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that coup is often used in those sources as referring to Maduro's government perspective ("according to"). There hasn't been enough time or relevance for this topic to be rediscussed in media, so the perspectives of previous discussions are still valid. I could only find a book on recent Latin America history that barely mentions the event [7] (no coup) and even in this case it is referred as assassination attempt only in Maduro's voice.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been enough time to discuss this in media, it has been three years. I am unsure why so many here feel the need to lean so heavily on the previous discussion to reach consensus. Keep in mind WP:STANDING. I think 3 years of time is plenty to move past it. We will find agreement on new ground rather than retreading old ground repeatedly. WP:STICK is a good read for these situations.

Even if academic sources only mention the event in passing, I think they should weigh heavier than news sources. Here's a few I have found:

International Crisis Group. (2022). Tensions in the Neighbourhood. In Ties without Strings?: Rebuilding Relations between Colombia and Venezuela (p. Page 2-Page 6). International Crisis Group. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep45586.5 - only mentions it as Operation Gideon

Alton, R. A. C., & Struble, J. R. (2020). A Case for the Potential for Destabilization as a Threshold Criterion to the Use of Military Action by States Under the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 52(1), 25–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27089580 - calls it a "failed coup plot called Operation Gideon"

Isaac Christiansen. Linkages Between Economic and Military Imperialism. World Review of Political Economy. 2020. Vol. 11(3):337-356. DOI: 10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.3.0337 - only calls it a coup

Here are some more recent news pieces on the events, and all terms are in the source's own voice unless specified otherwise:

Ex Green Beret claims Maduro foe is avoiding Miami lawsuit. (2022). Canadian Press, The. - uses both "Operation Gideon" and "coup"

Despite apparent breakthrough, these Americans held by Maduro regime were not freed. (2022). Miami Herald, The - uses both "Operation Gideon" and "coup"

Woman indicted in Colombia for aiding to form an armed invasion-attempt. (2021, February 27). Legal Monitor Worldwide, NA. - uses "coup" and "invasion"

Inside Operation Gideon, A Coup Gone Wrong. (2021, January 1). Rolling Stone, 1347, 40. - self-evident which terms it uses

Given your source as another one in the tally, I think there is an consensus among reliable sources forming around calling it "Operation Gideon" and mentioning that it was also a coup. I'm gonna wait a few more days to definitively vote, but I am leaning towards opposing the move. As an aside I'm irked by the suspicious lack of the use of the term "coup" in the lede. The lede also cites no sources for multiple contestable claims, and uses every term for the event but coup. That should be fixed. The reliable sources use "coup", so should we. We should also use sources. Carlp941 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, a coup attempt at venezuela and it's not orchestrated by CIA? Seriously? 141.255.4.231 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

do you have WP:RELIABLE sources that say they were involved?—blindlynx 15:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So until then wikipedia will be the voice of USA foreign policy? 141.255.4.231 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources to support your claim means propaganda? How the hell does that logic work? Please read WP:NOTFORUM—blindlynx 16:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]