This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Gideon (2020) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Operation Gideon (2020) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Operation Gideon (2020) was copied or moved into Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement with this edit on 2023-10-08. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
@ SandyGeorgia: To recap, since I have lost track of the article's progress: what issues would remain to be solved in order to remove the POV tag? Kind regards, NoonIcarus ( talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Overall, the article has been stable for a few weeks, we haven't seen introduction of new UNDUE/POV material, and the issues left above probably mean we can downgrade the POV tag to {{ Unbalanced}}, with inline tags or section tags on those specific sections which are still POV/UNDUE/UNBALANCED. It's no longer blatant POV, rather a matter of UNDUE weight, that leads the reader to conclusions not supported by sources or facts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Also the seventh! Just noticed it after the edits, tried addressing that as well: [1]. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I raised my concerns above about the execution accusations and
made the edits, yet
they were reverted. Per
WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ... reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
The information removed was minor aspects of the allegations, which is placed seemingly to sway the user with "evidence" to support the allegations. Per
WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail..."
Well, the "depth of detail" includes numerous claims; that the bodies were hidden, the number of images in the report, detailed descriptions about dead bodies and how they were affected, the number of bullet holes in a boat, whether or not there was gasoline in the boat, the location of weapons, the location of the shooters, the lack of blood, etc.
All of these unnecessary details result with an impartial tone in the article and they must be removed. WMrapids ( talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The details explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial, and as such have due weight in the article. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
"explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial", then we would be attempting to lead the reader to support the opposition's POV. WMrapids ( talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
When citation overkill is found in a lead (considering leads don't require citations), it's often a tip-off to POV, as is found in this case. The lead now says:
The (excessive) citations (with their overquoted excerpts) are:
So, months (and months) into developing this article and examining all sources, three new or obscure or non-reliable sources were found, augmented to one POV source, to make this claim in the lead ... in contrast to the scores of other sources we have in the article. This is classic citation overkill: cherry-picking a few sources (including those obscure and POV) that make the claim, and putting UNDUE and POV information in the lead by attaching six citations to it, ignoring the scores of sources used in the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
WMrapids at no point did you gain consensus for re-adding this disputed material here on the talk discussion, and yet ... re-add it you did. We build articles via consensus, not via edit warring. We clearly discussed the problems with this content here on talk (eg, the Miami Herald was talking about an operation that was acknowledged as abandoned by all parties. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
"The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó"since they write "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó". Since there is no other "Gideon", you are making assumptions about what The Miami Herald is trying to say instead of what they actually said. WMrapids ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit reintroduced UNDUE content, without gaining talk consensus, about a sub-aspect of the eventual May 3 events which had already been summarized from Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement, and was not part of the actual event, and which attempts to paint Leopoldo Lopez as having a broader role in the May 3 events than sources support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I put in an edit summary to this edit, but for some reason it was not published: The material is in the article under Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Prior_knowledge_of_operation, which I clarified. The source says:
I wasn't able to find that article that they claimed to have published. I didn't look hard though. It may be in the Wikipedia article somewhere. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: You added the POV tag back in September 2023 with the edit summary: "having now spent a week immersed in this article and having now read almost all the sources, and watching more POV being added during that week, this article is undoubtedly POV, as detail on talk at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#We_need_to_focus..." That section has since been archived on October 16, 2023 to: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_6#We_need_to_focus.... Do you still have concerns? If so, what are they? If not, what needs to be improved?
I have not read over the article and do not know if it is POV or not. I have not read through the voluminous talk page discussion either. But I would be interested in improving the article, if there are specific problems that can be corrected. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Gideon (2020) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 120 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from Operation Gideon (2020) appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 18 July 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Operation Gideon (2020) was copied or moved into Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement with this edit on 2023-10-08. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
@ SandyGeorgia: To recap, since I have lost track of the article's progress: what issues would remain to be solved in order to remove the POV tag? Kind regards, NoonIcarus ( talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Overall, the article has been stable for a few weeks, we haven't seen introduction of new UNDUE/POV material, and the issues left above probably mean we can downgrade the POV tag to {{ Unbalanced}}, with inline tags or section tags on those specific sections which are still POV/UNDUE/UNBALANCED. It's no longer blatant POV, rather a matter of UNDUE weight, that leads the reader to conclusions not supported by sources or facts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Also the seventh! Just noticed it after the edits, tried addressing that as well: [1]. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I raised my concerns above about the execution accusations and
made the edits, yet
they were reverted. Per
WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ... reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
The information removed was minor aspects of the allegations, which is placed seemingly to sway the user with "evidence" to support the allegations. Per
WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail..."
Well, the "depth of detail" includes numerous claims; that the bodies were hidden, the number of images in the report, detailed descriptions about dead bodies and how they were affected, the number of bullet holes in a boat, whether or not there was gasoline in the boat, the location of weapons, the location of the shooters, the lack of blood, etc.
All of these unnecessary details result with an impartial tone in the article and they must be removed. WMrapids ( talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
The details explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial, and as such have due weight in the article. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
"explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial", then we would be attempting to lead the reader to support the opposition's POV. WMrapids ( talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
When citation overkill is found in a lead (considering leads don't require citations), it's often a tip-off to POV, as is found in this case. The lead now says:
The (excessive) citations (with their overquoted excerpts) are:
So, months (and months) into developing this article and examining all sources, three new or obscure or non-reliable sources were found, augmented to one POV source, to make this claim in the lead ... in contrast to the scores of other sources we have in the article. This is classic citation overkill: cherry-picking a few sources (including those obscure and POV) that make the claim, and putting UNDUE and POV information in the lead by attaching six citations to it, ignoring the scores of sources used in the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
WMrapids at no point did you gain consensus for re-adding this disputed material here on the talk discussion, and yet ... re-add it you did. We build articles via consensus, not via edit warring. We clearly discussed the problems with this content here on talk (eg, the Miami Herald was talking about an operation that was acknowledged as abandoned by all parties. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
"The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó"since they write "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó". Since there is no other "Gideon", you are making assumptions about what The Miami Herald is trying to say instead of what they actually said. WMrapids ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
This edit reintroduced UNDUE content, without gaining talk consensus, about a sub-aspect of the eventual May 3 events which had already been summarized from Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement, and was not part of the actual event, and which attempts to paint Leopoldo Lopez as having a broader role in the May 3 events than sources support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I put in an edit summary to this edit, but for some reason it was not published: The material is in the article under Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Prior_knowledge_of_operation, which I clarified. The source says:
I wasn't able to find that article that they claimed to have published. I didn't look hard though. It may be in the Wikipedia article somewhere. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@ SandyGeorgia: You added the POV tag back in September 2023 with the edit summary: "having now spent a week immersed in this article and having now read almost all the sources, and watching more POV being added during that week, this article is undoubtedly POV, as detail on talk at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#We_need_to_focus..." That section has since been archived on October 16, 2023 to: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_6#We_need_to_focus.... Do you still have concerns? If so, what are they? If not, what needs to be improved?
I have not read over the article and do not know if it is POV or not. I have not read through the voluminous talk page discussion either. But I would be interested in improving the article, if there are specific problems that can be corrected. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)