Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Reviewed: WYCB
  • Comment: Note that there's a potentially controversial move discussion ongoing. Move discussion closed -- reviewer Bri

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment This event is so bizarre that I'm confident that there are plenty of alternative hooks that can be considered, if any user disagrees with the current one. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed. We have to find a better one. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remember it has to be neutral and indisputable. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. --cyrfaw (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Reviewer's notes – Newness OK, created May 5 and nominated May 8 · Length OK, 51 kB >1,500 · Sourcing: 141 sources nearly one per sentence, no controversial statements or quotes unsourced · Passes Earwig's copyvio detector · QPQ good, WYCB promoted by Yoninah 12 January · Hook cited to Time after discussion 27 May

See comments above. One might note that the claimed seized condoms could be considered military purpose, as are sometimes used to prevent water from entering gun barrels. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the move discussion closed, but there is an open RfC on the talkpage of neutrality in the section Analysis especially about the use of the term "coup attempt", and the section is still marked POV. I don't see an intractable problem here, and consensus appears to have formed around "keep and rework". Not a showsotpper for DYK in my opinion, in fact more readers might help to reformulate it as requested. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed ALT1 to ensure NPOV in the hook. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bri, ALT1 is fine (and such a minor change I don't think we need another reviewer). The sources do get mixed up - did you fix it in the article as well, or should I do that? Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The article is using the AP article, but at the AP rather than TIME. Is the hook good and everything? Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are the same story. I referenced AP May 4 by Goodman and Smith (via Time). Don't see that same AP story in the article. Citation for the sentence Goudreau stated the operation was forced to rely on "donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia" because he was not paid by Guaidó's team is dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Yes - they used the same headline - changed it now. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I marked this as passing the DYK criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: That would be the link the reviewer told me to replace above. I'd have to find the edit to see which ref was removed and check if it was actually correct. The article may have been updated since the start of May, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif, it's been a while. If the footnotes don't support the hook fact, then either this needs a new hook dependent on different facts, or new sourcing that support the hook fact. Thanks for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a change of hook is in order, if there's now only one source (sensitive topic). It's not the simplest article to write an appropriate hook for, I just thought the American angle was interesting. I'll see what I can do, but may withdraw if there's nothing both interesting and water-tight. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Can I phone a friend? @Jamez42 and ReyHahn: do you guys have any hook suggestions? Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42's suggestions from the talk page here: Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I don't think it has been included in the article, unlike the statement about the condoms, which I'm almost certain that it was removed. I'm not sure if adding it would make the hook eligible, but it's understandable that it also needs more support. Toi other editor, like I said in the talk page, feel free to change the grammar or phrasing if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: Thanks for the clarification - to be eligible, the information needs to be in the article. It seems to be a real interview, so sourcing for this one (unlike the condoms) is no issue. I can see about adding this. Kingsif (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review needed for alt hooks 2-4. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 is probably the most unusual option here and perhaps the most attention grabbing. It's cited inline; assuming good faith on the Alberto News source (although the Google Translate translation seems to check out) since the NY Mag link doesn't mention it. Rest of the review per above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't use ALT4, I'd prefer ALT2. ALT3 is a bit more on the obscure side since while Alexander is well-known, the battle is probably not so much outside of people interested in history. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ALT2 is the best idea. It actually says something about the raid and is well worded. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline.
  • @Kingsif: the article has a "failed verification" tag and the Analysis section has a big template on it. Is this ready yet? Do you want to comment out sentences/sections until after the main page appearance? Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: Yes and I have done so - I'm glad it's also returned to stability, hopefully discussions can be concluded on the analysis. The failed verification sentence has been removed. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign involvement

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]

Requested move 24 May 2023

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]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:
@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]
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]
@NoonIcarus It is also a coup attempt. Read the definition of coup d'état. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:58, 30 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:

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]

Thank you for your feedback, @Carlp941:. I will try to provide additional input, per your recommendation.

Something that wasn't mentioned in the last discussions (because it didn't happen yet) is that deputy Wilmer Azuaje reported that the members of the incursion were subject of extrajudicial killings (instead of casualties during a shootout), as well as torture, reports similar to some related to El Junquito raid. Azuaje said that the pictures proving were taken by the CICPC forensic police (some of which are included in the Cambio16 article) and he submitted the evidence to both the European Parliament and The Hague. As such, there have been reliable sources that have used the title Macuto massacre:

Needless to say, none of this sources refer to the event as a "coup", which the only exception of Cambio16, which quotes Aragua's governor and says "alleged", and many of them repeatedly use "Operation Gideon". Just to be clear, I'm not proposing this should be an alternative for the current title, and I believe it's far from being the most common name, but I'm rather using it as a reminder of how divisive the issue is, and how "coup" is far from the best alternative.

I was originally planning to offer more sources, but for the time being these should be enough to prove the point and to renew the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No CIA mention?

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]
Categories