![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Pinging the IP who added back information on the cruise ship, information that has no RS connecting it to the subject, and LaserLegs, who asked about it at ITNC. I feel it's a simple removal, but feel free to discuss the merits. @ 83.11.114.66 and LaserLegs: Kingsif ( talk) 15:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Aside from a Medium (website) blog post from "Mision Verdad" I don't see any article relating the raid with the ship sinking. Why was it reinstated?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 11:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The raid took place in Macuto, not La Guaira. Could someone please fix this in the infobox? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Did we discuss the name? I understand why we change from Operation Gideon to La Guaira naval attack, but why La Guaira and why naval attack? In the news I've seen Macuto being used more. Naval attack makes me think that there was a confrontation between naval ships. Did I miss something? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I lack an "international" perspective or point of view from abroad, so I can understand if an alternative title is needed. My two cents would be to use the name of the state instead of the city, "Vargas naval attack". I fear that it might be confued with a pirate attack back in the colony or an independence battle, but I don't know about remarkable similar articles. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is clear that it is specifically Macuto (Reuters and AP are just being vague), I think we should use either Macuto beach raid or Macuto armed incursion or something similar. Also nobody is using naval.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on sources and indicating its "amphibious" nature, I propose we move this to Macuto Bay raid. 'Incursion' could also work. Please discuss below. Kingsif ( talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would consider nominating this article for DYK, as it was not good for ITN. The article should be nominated in a few days. -- cyrfaw ( talk) 10:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 05:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Kingsif ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
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
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 teamis dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
All the governments that have 'responded' are either those concerned (Colombia/US) or Maduro's buddies; it is clear there is not going to be an international government response, and to therefore only include the few that automatically give unfaltering support to whatever Maduro says is a form of bias. The section adds nothing, the UN statement is empty, I suggest removing the entire section. Kingsif ( talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As we are listing living persons accused of crime we should be careful with the new table of arrests and casualties, if it is not properly referenced it should go.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPCRIME, I oppose that the all the names of the suspects should be included. As a chronology, I think it would be better for the article to differentiate arrests and indictments, as it can differentiate events and indictments. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the result should be "plot foiled," or some other concise description of the fact that both motorboats were stopped before they reached land, i.e., the plan was dead on arrival. Currently it also contains (1) the fact that the Maduro regime launched the Escudo Bolivariano defensive campaign, which consists of nothing more or less than deploying 25k soldiers to look for other people who might be trying to topple his government (not a rare occurrence); and (2) the fact that the Maduro regime issued 20+ arrest warrants for those implicated in the plot. Neither is false, I'm just not convinced they deserve to be in the infobox. The Escudo Bolivariano is the part I find particularly disproportionately emphasized if kept in the infobox because what head of state would not launch a defensive campaign in response to the uncovering of a military attack? I previously removed the Escudo part from the infobox based on my understanding of Maduro claiming in his TeleSur interview that the Escudo already existed. Now it's back; not really sure who put it back or if it was intentional and haven't tried to find out. Whether the campaign preexisted or not, I would suggest it doesn't go in the infobox. Because I don't want an edit war, I'm trying to build consensus among recent concerned editors: grp ( ZiaLater— ReyHahn— Jamez42— Kingsif— Acalycine— Cyfraw— Nice4What) -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 04:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Rebel attack repelled by government forces; some weapons captured by the opposition.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: I don't understand why are we keeping Guaidó in the infobox. First even if Guaidó had contacts with Goudreau, Guaidó eventually scrapped the deal. Secondly, this article is about the attack which eventually did not have any backup from Guaidó. What am I missing?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Inviting recent users to help with consensus: @ Kingsif: @ Orgullomoore: @ LaserLegs: @ Acalycine: @ Thanoscar21: @ Jameslightell: @ Cyfraw: @ Jim Michael: @ NickCT: @ Ortizesp: @ Goodposts: @ Patjorgensen92: @ Burrobert:
Should Guaidó's support be in the infobox labeled specifically for 2019 only?---- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment. My opinion is that indicating Guaido's support in the Infobox is appropriate so long as it can be confirmed and we make clear that the support was eventually withdrawn. Particularly if the audio recording Maduro's government put out purporting to show Guaido on a VOIP call indicating he would sign and return the agreement in about 30 minutes (Youtube vid id: SfmnF-g2kzQ). If that's authentic, then of course the article should reflect it. If it's propaganda, then obviously not.--
Orgullomoore (
talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
In a rare moment, all sides in this seem to agree that it was 1. a massive failure 2. briefly supported by Guaidó before he withdrew. Perhaps it's indicative of how completely ridiculous this was that both the attack-er and attack-ee have a similar narrative. Seems to be that Guaidó (2019) should be in the infobox. Kingsif ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
J.J. Rendón, Guaidó's official that admitted signing an agreement with Jordan Goudreau, declared that there wasn't a military operation and that the raid was a false flag attack. Iván Simonovis and PanAm Post have argued similar positions.
A retainer agreement means that the work in question will be specified later. Hiring (or planning to hire) Silvercorp USA is not the same as sponsoring a specific plan, including this one, and the signed agreement does not seem to include any of the details of the 3 May operation. Even if this was the case, it is misleading to include that Guaidó supported the plan broadly "until November 2019" because the agreement was signed on 16 October and this support would have been, at best, for a few weeks and not an unspecified amount of time that could be months.
This, on top of the fact that the stable version did not include Guaidó on the infobox and that there wasn't support during the conflict, should be reasons to remove Guaidó from the infobox. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Narcotics Rewards Program info does not fit in with the background section when it is mentioned a second time with Alcalá later in the article. Maybe it can be mentioned in the lede, but the detailed info should be in the Alcalá section.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to add and remind that one of the apparent leaders of the operation, Clíver Alcalá, was indicted and arrested after the program's announcement, and as a response was one of the first ones to allege that an agreement was signed between the opposition and rebels. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Versions of this sentence keeps showing up:
"According to the PanAm Post, it was postulated that what became the actual invasion was planned and financed by Diosdado Cabello as a false flag operation to victimize the government international community and neutralize their enemies; the article compared the operation with the 1929 plot to overthrow dictator Juan Vicente Gómez planned by Román Delgado Chalbaud (which was financed by Vicente Gómez himself), and alleging that Cabello was aware of the conspiracy beforehand and that Maduro's administration had infiltrated the operation, even scheduling some of their meetings. Rincón also highlighted the fact that the operation continued despite having been infiltrated, that Goudreau released information to media outlets about the number and movements of fighters despite it being a supposedly secret mission, and that the invaders were able to enter Venezuelan waters, cross several checkpoints and landed without being seen or captured."
I previously added the author's name and date of publication, but somebody took it out and put it back in PanAm's voice. This is the article cited to support the sentence:
[11]. It is written by Emmanuel Rincón, not on behalf of the journal as a whole. This is the biographical blurb on the writer: "Emmanuel Rincón es abogado y escritor venezolano, autor de cinco novelas, ganador de diversos premios literarios internacionales, con un grado en Modern Masterpieces of World Literature de Harvard University. Su último libro publicado es el ensayo 'La reinvención ideológica de América Latina'."
The article was published 2020-05-09. This is the lines purportedly supporting the assertion:
La historia en efecto es cíclica y repetitiva, el que lo niegue, es por falta de conocimiento. Una de las novelas más fascinantes de la literatura venezolana pertenece a uno de los escritores que más respeto en el país, se trata de «Falke» de Federico Vegas. En ella, Federico relata la historia de Rafael Vegas, su pariente, quien participó en una conspiración para derrocar al entonces dictador, Juan Vicente Gómez, en 1929. Comandada por Román Delgado Chalbaud, la operación fue en completo fracaso, esto se debe a que, tal como la historia sugiere, el financista de la operación fue el propio Juan Vicente Gómez, quien lo hizo con el propósito de agrupar a todos sus enemigos en el exterior en una misión infiltrada, conducirlos al país y así capturarlos a todos en un solo esfuerzo. Venezuela vuelve a ser víctima de los caudillos autoritarios maquiavélicos. El 28 de marzo del presente año, 37 días antes de ser capturados los miembros de la Operación Gedeón, Diosdado Cabello, el número 2 del chavismo, anunció una conspiración que estaría siendo orquestada por un norteamericano al cual presentaba en un esquema con el nombre de «Yordan» —y en efecto, había un «Yordan», pero con J, y se apellidaba Goudreau—. Allí menciona que se topó con el exgeneral chavista Cliver Alcalá en el concierto de Cúcuta, y que desde entonces todo empezó a formarse. Pero allí no termina todo, ese mismo día Diosdado también aseveró que «algunas reuniones las hicieron porque nosotros dimos la logística, ven cómo estaban de infiltrados», el chavista asegura que la «oposición» se «robó los reales» de la operación, y por ende la misma se detuvo: la infiltración y financiamiento de ellos es lo que la saca a flote. Esto coincide con la versión emitida por JJ Rendón, el estratega de Juan Guaidó, quién le declaró y compartió evidencias a Orlando Avendaño para el PanAm Post, que indican que la relación con Silvercorp, la empresa de seguridad del norteamericano había sido finiquitada en octubre del 2019, y que la misión exploratoria no siguió adelante. Esto deja en evidencia que la tiranía de Maduro orquestó el movimiento para luego victimizarse ante la comunidad internacional y a su vez dar de baja a sus enemigos. En la operación que ellos mismos orquestaron asesinaron al menos a 8 soldados venezolanos, y otra docena ha sido capturada en supuestos distintos operativos.
If you take a look at the article, you'll see this is a persuasive piece. The author ends with a call to the international community to stop turning a blind eye. You can also see that he is drawing conclusions based on statements of politicians. Accordingly, if we are going to relay these assertions, the correct attribution is "[author], in an analysis of public statements made by [politician name], the operation was...." I'm going to go ahead and put it back in the author's voice like it was, but I would suggest reporting the facts, not exiles' emotions based on their reading of public statements-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
Isn't an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing a government called a coup? Shouldn't this be the 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt? -- LaserLegs ( talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Reverol has now said coup:
According to Reverol, the group, which departed from neighbouring Colombia, planned to carry out "terrorist attacks", including assassinating officials. He added the plan aimed "to increase the spiral of violence, generate chaos and confusion ... and with that lead to a new attempt at a coup d'etat". [12]
Please discuss. Kingsif ( talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.From the sources of the article, the use does not appear to be widespread. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.) using the term 'coup' would it take for consensus to be reached? Here are some other sources:
The most recent controversial change is the assertion that Guaido himself signed the services agreement with Silvercorp. It was added recently on the basis of a Vox report. I'm looking into the report, but I don't think we should state it as a matter of fact given (1) Maduro's history (and the history of dictatorial regimes generally) of falsifying "evidence" to discredit political opponents; and (2) the flat denial by Guaido that he signed. The only "evidence" of a signature by Guaido I've seen is the copy that the Maduro regime is flailing around which, again, I don't trust. On the other hand, the copy Goudreau released to Factores del Poder contains only Rendon and Vergara, and they both admit to signing it; in fact they've stepped down so as not to be a distraction to Guaido's cause. So–@ ( ZiaLater— ReyHahn— Jamez42— Kingsif— Acalycine— Cyfraw— Nice4What)–please discuss whether and why we should present the allegation as a fact. Thanks.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
Goudreau made his pitch to Rendón and his group in a Miami condo last September. He dubbed his plan “Operation Resolution,” which was basically a beefed-up version of the Alcalá plan featuring 800 men instead of 300. The real selling point, though, was almost surely the price he was asking. Instead of charging in the billions, Goudreau requested $213 million from Venezuela’s future oil earnings, along with a $1.5 million retainer. After a few more meetings, Silvercorp USA and the committee signed a deal in October. Rendón told the Washington Post that the deal was a trial balloon, basically, to see if Goudreau could deliver on his promises. But the full general services agreement and attachments, which can be found online, explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup.
“An operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro...remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó,” section 4a of the attachment reads.
Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
Maduro’s government on Friday, however, released audio of an alleged phone conversation between Goudreau and Guaidó. The Venezuelan opposition leader notes his unease with the plan, but states its the right move for his cause.
Rendón acknowledged to CNN en Español on Wednesday that his signature is on the contract, though he maintained the deal was preliminary. “It was an exploration to see the possibility of capture and bringing to justice members of the regime,” he said, adding that the committee also looked at other methods to achieve their anti-Maduro goals.
"It’s possible that one source of potential funding was Roen Kraft, a member of the famous cheese-empire family, who reportedly tried to fundraise for the effort partly by promising his contacts inside access when bidding for government contracts in Venezuela once Guaidó was installed. Kraft has denied this, telling the AP, “I never gave [Goudreau] any money.”It's an excellent article, but since this is a word-vs-word dispute, we shouldn't present one side's word as fact and the other's as misrepresentation. Or if we are going to assert Guaido is lying, we should at least back it up with more than one vague sentence in one tertiary source. Do we have any other sources asserting not only that the agreement "features" the signature of Guaido, but explicitly reporting that Juan Guaido in fact signed the agreement on behalf of his administration with the intent to bind the administration to its terms, or at least distinguishing which pages of which copies in whose possession contains what signatures?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
"Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning. As for what was actually said by Guaidó, he said he had "no relationship nor responsibility for any actions" by Silvercorp. No one denied that he signed the papers according to sources. If you can find a source stating otherwise, we can see about changes. Also, the wording in the article currently says "repotedly", so it is still portrayed as an allegation in respect to them.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Guaidó and his officials reportedly signed the General Services Agreement in Washington, D.C. with Goudreau on 16 October 2019; Guaidó would later deny signing the agreement.Please wait to see if others are buying that as NPOV, because I'm not. Therefore, please keep it out for now. Accusing a living person of lying without a factual basis is defamatory, and you need only consult the relevant policies to perceive its seriousness and applicability to this situation (i.e., one involving potential criminal activity where the person accused is unequivocally denying the allegation and accusing the profferers of the document upon which the report you cite relies of forging his signature and falsifying his voice, subjecting him to potential torture, violence, and prosecution in a Kangaroo court, on a publication viewed by approx. 900 people per day according to the Special page). Like I said, you need to either seriously hedge and come out boldly with something like: Guaido ardently denies he signed the document. There are articles which contain suggestions that a document exists where.... Or something like that. We are skating on very thin ice and I'm very worried about your willingness to just slap it in there as if it were some well-established fact. So please at least wait for others' comments before you go re-inserting that. Please, seriously; it's not acceptable.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
![]() | This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. (May 2020) |
In the immediate aftermath of the foiled plot, the existence of a formal General Services Agreement between the Strategic Committee was disclosed to the public through several outlets. On the one hand, Jordan Goudreau made an appearance by video call on a political commentary show called Factores de Poder, and during the call Goudreau showed the camera a copy of the General Services Agreement bearing the signatures of Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta, a Cuban-born attorney based in Washington. Soon after, the Maduro government, through State-owned media, published an alleged copy of the agreement purporting to bear the signatures just mentioned, plus the signature of Juan Guaidó himself. Guaidó vigorously denied this, stating he never signed any document. In addition, a recording of a conversation allegedly showing Guaidó discussing the contract with Jordan Goudreau was also aired on state media and commented on by the Maduro government's General Prosecutor. Guaidó vehemently asserted that the supposed recording was falsified and did not depict him.
Despite Guaidó's unequivocal denials, at least one generally reliable source, online news website Vox, published an article by Alex Ward featuring original reporting based on conversations with former Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos, who reportedly witnessed the training camps in Riohacha. In the article published 11 May 2020, the author placed his interviews with Mattos in the context by synthesizing reporting from other sources, including the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Washington Post, Military Times, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, and the previously-mentioned Factores de Poder. The author also republished information originally posted on social media platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. In the piece in Vox, a purported copy of the first 8 pages of the actual General Services Agreement (not the 42 pages of attachments which Rendon admitted to signing) is republished. The republished images bear a watermark reading "Scanned with CamScanner." The Vox piece does not indicate the source of the purported copy. That copy shows what appears to be the signature of Juan Guaidó, and the Vox piece itself contains the following remark: "the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
It is undisputed that a 41-page document containing various "Attachments" was signed in Washington, D.C., on 16 October 2019, between Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta. According to Goudreau and the Maduro government, Juan Guaidó also signed the agreement or some part of it. For example, a report in the Washington Post described the dispute as follows:
Goudreau counters that the agreement — supplied in part to The Post by Goudreau, with a more complete version provided by Rendón — bound the opposition to his services and initial fee. A seven-page document provided by Goudreau carries Guaido’s signature, along with those of Rendón and fellow opposition official Sergio Vergara.
at least one generally reliable sourceto describe Vox should be removed - it is effectively OR and is based on Wikipedia's editorial guidelines rather than an independent RS describing it thus. Perhaps the tone could be more formalized, but it seems to fit purpose. Kingsif ( talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This article needs better sources such as in this excerpt After it came to light that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, J.J. Rendón–a signatory to the agreement on behalf of Guaido–indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019. Juan Guaidó, his Strategy Committee, and officials of the Colombian and United States governments have all emphatically denied any role whatsoever in the incident, and some opposition officials have described it as a "false flag operation". from the intro in which all these statements are made but no sources are provided. Elishop ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I anticipate my recent edits asserting unequivocally that the operation is a false flag set-up will be seen as nonneutral. However, if you take a look at the sources I provided, I think you will find that this is an accurate description of what occurred. This was not an attempt to invade Venezuela so much as an intel plot to lure dissidents led by delusional Johnny Bravo types into their arms to kill and arrest them. I'm ready to stand by the facts, so please discuss.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Without getting involved in this, I suggest dropping the idea of having it included until a nice solid western RS picks it up. Panampost is reliable, but doesn't seem to have connected the threads yet. As believable as a false flag would be (the theories of such are given a mention at the Caracas drone attack article, too), I do not want to attract any kind of nonsense until it can be solidly defended. Kingsif ( talk) 01:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sequea refirió que a mediados de marzo, cuando viajó Guaidó a su gira que terminó en Estados Unidos, Jordan Goudreau se comunicó con él y le dijo que se había reunido con Guaidó en la Casa Blanca, y había sido ratificado como jefe de la operación armada contra Venezuela.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
I think probably anything that the government or the former Maduro regime puts out has a huge component of disinformation to it. Most recently, we’re seeing their campaign about this alleged invasion of the country, which they seem to have had something to do in creating themselves. But it’s it just– anything that they put out is really, really suspect.
— Ambassador Michael Kozak.
I think what’s even more harmful is the Maduro regime’s ability to use official accounts coupled with state-owned or controlled media outlets and its allies’ messaging apparatuses that work together to convince audiences that the disinformation touted by Maduro is true. Secretary Pompeo has said on many occasions that our sanctions do not target the innocent people of Venezuela and they will not prohibit humanitarian assistance, but Maduro’s claims to the contrary continue and we’ve observed accounts linked not just to Maduro, but also to Iran, Russia, and Cuba, that have all tried to suggest that these sanctions impair the ability of them to be able to obtain humanitarian assistance. So they take these claims and then they amplify them by accounts that are engaged and coordinated, inorganic, or inauthentic activity, significantly amplifying the presence of the claims in the information space. So that’s one of the trends that we’ve seen from the GEC’s perspective.
We’ve been focused on diplomatic and economic efforts and political efforts to try to persuade the regime, and it’s very simple what the objective is: to hand over power to a transitional government that can organize free and fair elections and resolve the political crisis in Venezuela. You can’t do it with Maduro. The reason the crisis exists in the first place was Maduro used his power to completely rig and discredit the elections in 2018.
— Ambassador Michael Kozak
– Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that there are some problems with "the tone of the article", my experience with POV templates is that they rarely push for a change unless we can pinpoint where the problems are. Sometimes a Template:POV lead or another template in a specific section can help. If you look at the article many templates have been added already. @ NickCT: could you describe in more detail why you added the template [17]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyHahn ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Orgullomoore: In an edit with the reason of making quotation marks consistent, you turned them all into text quotation marks (angled), rather than html ones (straight); and it looks like they were all consistently straight before, so I'm not sure why the change was made at all. Anyway, Wikipedia only uses the straight ones, can you go back and correct this, since conflicting edits won't allow me to undo it? Kingsif ( talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to express again my concern for the length of the "Planning" section, which is longer than not only the "Attack" section, but almost the rest as well. I'm not proposing to split the article, and rather I find a merge with the "Background" section or a little of trimming to be more attractive options. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mattos said he was surprised by the barren conditions. There was no running water and men were sleeping on the floors, skipping meals and training with sawed-off broomsticks in place of assault rifles. Five Belgian shepherds trained to sniff out explosives were as poorly fed as their handlers and had to be given away.
The detail of the planning section is vital and it will not be suitable on any other article. Where would you put information about the planning of the attack? Oh I know, in the article about the attack! Any removal of the details may be seen as whitewashing information of some of the parties invovled.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: I disagree with having an analysis section. We can find analysis from all sort of "experts" saying all sorts of things, these are opinions but when they are not from people already involve in the affair it becomes unclear why should we given them a spotlight.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this inclusion as well, we have the Reactions section to include notable declarations and Wikipedia is not an essay. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: The discussion continued in another
discussion in a different section on this page.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 13:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
May somebody set up an archive for this talk, there are a lot of discussions that seem closed. I could eventually look up how to do it, but maybe somebody has more experience on this.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Done the archive seems to have worked, if somebody thinks one of the discussions was archived too soon, we can either bring it back or restart the conversation again.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So the section by Emmanuel Rincón describing the events as a false flag operation seems pretty WP:FRINGE, not analytical. The author seems questionable. He is a columnist for PanAm Post, an pro-opposition news site, with columnists usually falling under WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. PanAm Post also cooks up his profile on their site, saying Rincón has " a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard ( see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). Many of Rincón's books are self-published too, which also raises WP:QUESTIONABLE concerns. Overall, I do not know why a self-published author who has a cooked-up "degree" is given the same weight as analysis by NGOs and other professionals.
Overall, we should Remove this opinion piece by Rincón.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@
ZiaLater: Oh, so in that case we are talking about a translation issue, because Rincón wrote about a falso positivo (in Spanish). I think there is overlap between the two definitions, but in any case I removed the ref so we don't have to worry about the issue unless and until it comes back up.--
Orgullomoore (
talk) 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC).
I feel like placing PanAm Post next to articles by BIG generally reliable sources (The Times, The Telegraph, Polygraph.info., Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.) gives it undue weight. It is not the most reliable source, so I do not see where you are seeing a good comparison to actual high-quality sources.That begs the question: is the PanAm Post article as reliable as the rest of the sources in the Analysis section? Or are the sources in the Analysis section as "unreliable" as the PanAm Post article? What about PanAm Post in general?
Rincón is clearly not credible. Inflating your own credentials is a big red flag. Contra the above comments, I don't think the fact that the Rincón article was included is evidence that the whole section should be removed. It's possible to draw a line between professional analysts, such as some of those currently quoted in the section, and a charlatan with a fake degree, such as Rincón. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
draw a line between professional analysts...and a charlatan with a fake degree? And how do we adjudicate what degrees are fake and which are authentic?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Orgullomoore. My position is that Rincón should be removed only if it is determined to be
WP:FRINGE, and a distinction should be drawn between this and
WP:QUESTIONABLE. WP:QUESTIONABLE states that Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
No such claims have been brought up so far, and quoting from
the current RfC on PanAm Post: An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above.
I haven't looked into this specifically in detail, but I think care should be taken between saying that credentials are embellished and outright fabricated. I also have to ask how
WP:SELFPUBLISHED applies specifically in the article.
Regarding the specific content included, my only intention in its moment was to reflect with an important source the theory that the raid was a false flag to use as a scapegoat and to incriminate dissidents (such as with the Caracas drone attack), although fortunately this seems to have been covered in the Reactions section and with the specifications that the attack was infiltrated, that although similar, it still has differences with a "completely" false flag attack. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | @
ZiaLater said: I'm really glad about that too. Good job guys!-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 23:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
There was a UNSC meeting today regarding the failed raid. All sources in Spanish mention that. In addition, the US has blocked a Russian-backed statement condemning the use of force in Venezuela. -- cyrfaw ( talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Pinging the IP who added back information on the cruise ship, information that has no RS connecting it to the subject, and LaserLegs, who asked about it at ITNC. I feel it's a simple removal, but feel free to discuss the merits. @ 83.11.114.66 and LaserLegs: Kingsif ( talk) 15:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Aside from a Medium (website) blog post from "Mision Verdad" I don't see any article relating the raid with the ship sinking. Why was it reinstated?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 11:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The raid took place in Macuto, not La Guaira. Could someone please fix this in the infobox? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Did we discuss the name? I understand why we change from Operation Gideon to La Guaira naval attack, but why La Guaira and why naval attack? In the news I've seen Macuto being used more. Naval attack makes me think that there was a confrontation between naval ships. Did I miss something? -- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I lack an "international" perspective or point of view from abroad, so I can understand if an alternative title is needed. My two cents would be to use the name of the state instead of the city, "Vargas naval attack". I fear that it might be confued with a pirate attack back in the colony or an independence battle, but I don't know about remarkable similar articles. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it is clear that it is specifically Macuto (Reuters and AP are just being vague), I think we should use either Macuto beach raid or Macuto armed incursion or something similar. Also nobody is using naval.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on sources and indicating its "amphibious" nature, I propose we move this to Macuto Bay raid. 'Incursion' could also work. Please discuss below. Kingsif ( talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I would consider nominating this article for DYK, as it was not good for ITN. The article should be nominated in a few days. -- cyrfaw ( talk) 10:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk) 05:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Created by Kingsif ( talk). Self-nominated at 16:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
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
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 teamis dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
All the governments that have 'responded' are either those concerned (Colombia/US) or Maduro's buddies; it is clear there is not going to be an international government response, and to therefore only include the few that automatically give unfaltering support to whatever Maduro says is a form of bias. The section adds nothing, the UN statement is empty, I suggest removing the entire section. Kingsif ( talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
As we are listing living persons accused of crime we should be careful with the new table of arrests and casualties, if it is not properly referenced it should go.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Per WP:BLPCRIME, I oppose that the all the names of the suspects should be included. As a chronology, I think it would be better for the article to differentiate arrests and indictments, as it can differentiate events and indictments. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the result should be "plot foiled," or some other concise description of the fact that both motorboats were stopped before they reached land, i.e., the plan was dead on arrival. Currently it also contains (1) the fact that the Maduro regime launched the Escudo Bolivariano defensive campaign, which consists of nothing more or less than deploying 25k soldiers to look for other people who might be trying to topple his government (not a rare occurrence); and (2) the fact that the Maduro regime issued 20+ arrest warrants for those implicated in the plot. Neither is false, I'm just not convinced they deserve to be in the infobox. The Escudo Bolivariano is the part I find particularly disproportionately emphasized if kept in the infobox because what head of state would not launch a defensive campaign in response to the uncovering of a military attack? I previously removed the Escudo part from the infobox based on my understanding of Maduro claiming in his TeleSur interview that the Escudo already existed. Now it's back; not really sure who put it back or if it was intentional and haven't tried to find out. Whether the campaign preexisted or not, I would suggest it doesn't go in the infobox. Because I don't want an edit war, I'm trying to build consensus among recent concerned editors: grp ( ZiaLater— ReyHahn— Jamez42— Kingsif— Acalycine— Cyfraw— Nice4What) -- Orgullomoore ( talk) 04:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Rebel attack repelled by government forces; some weapons captured by the opposition.-- Jamez42 ( talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: I don't understand why are we keeping Guaidó in the infobox. First even if Guaidó had contacts with Goudreau, Guaidó eventually scrapped the deal. Secondly, this article is about the attack which eventually did not have any backup from Guaidó. What am I missing?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Inviting recent users to help with consensus: @ Kingsif: @ Orgullomoore: @ LaserLegs: @ Acalycine: @ Thanoscar21: @ Jameslightell: @ Cyfraw: @ Jim Michael: @ NickCT: @ Ortizesp: @ Goodposts: @ Patjorgensen92: @ Burrobert:
Should Guaidó's support be in the infobox labeled specifically for 2019 only?---- ZiaLater ( talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment. My opinion is that indicating Guaido's support in the Infobox is appropriate so long as it can be confirmed and we make clear that the support was eventually withdrawn. Particularly if the audio recording Maduro's government put out purporting to show Guaido on a VOIP call indicating he would sign and return the agreement in about 30 minutes (Youtube vid id: SfmnF-g2kzQ). If that's authentic, then of course the article should reflect it. If it's propaganda, then obviously not.--
Orgullomoore (
talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
In a rare moment, all sides in this seem to agree that it was 1. a massive failure 2. briefly supported by Guaidó before he withdrew. Perhaps it's indicative of how completely ridiculous this was that both the attack-er and attack-ee have a similar narrative. Seems to be that Guaidó (2019) should be in the infobox. Kingsif ( talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
J.J. Rendón, Guaidó's official that admitted signing an agreement with Jordan Goudreau, declared that there wasn't a military operation and that the raid was a false flag attack. Iván Simonovis and PanAm Post have argued similar positions.
A retainer agreement means that the work in question will be specified later. Hiring (or planning to hire) Silvercorp USA is not the same as sponsoring a specific plan, including this one, and the signed agreement does not seem to include any of the details of the 3 May operation. Even if this was the case, it is misleading to include that Guaidó supported the plan broadly "until November 2019" because the agreement was signed on 16 October and this support would have been, at best, for a few weeks and not an unspecified amount of time that could be months.
This, on top of the fact that the stable version did not include Guaidó on the infobox and that there wasn't support during the conflict, should be reasons to remove Guaidó from the infobox. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The Narcotics Rewards Program info does not fit in with the background section when it is mentioned a second time with Alcalá later in the article. Maybe it can be mentioned in the lede, but the detailed info should be in the Alcalá section.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to add and remind that one of the apparent leaders of the operation, Clíver Alcalá, was indicted and arrested after the program's announcement, and as a response was one of the first ones to allege that an agreement was signed between the opposition and rebels. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Versions of this sentence keeps showing up:
"According to the PanAm Post, it was postulated that what became the actual invasion was planned and financed by Diosdado Cabello as a false flag operation to victimize the government international community and neutralize their enemies; the article compared the operation with the 1929 plot to overthrow dictator Juan Vicente Gómez planned by Román Delgado Chalbaud (which was financed by Vicente Gómez himself), and alleging that Cabello was aware of the conspiracy beforehand and that Maduro's administration had infiltrated the operation, even scheduling some of their meetings. Rincón also highlighted the fact that the operation continued despite having been infiltrated, that Goudreau released information to media outlets about the number and movements of fighters despite it being a supposedly secret mission, and that the invaders were able to enter Venezuelan waters, cross several checkpoints and landed without being seen or captured."
I previously added the author's name and date of publication, but somebody took it out and put it back in PanAm's voice. This is the article cited to support the sentence:
[11]. It is written by Emmanuel Rincón, not on behalf of the journal as a whole. This is the biographical blurb on the writer: "Emmanuel Rincón es abogado y escritor venezolano, autor de cinco novelas, ganador de diversos premios literarios internacionales, con un grado en Modern Masterpieces of World Literature de Harvard University. Su último libro publicado es el ensayo 'La reinvención ideológica de América Latina'."
The article was published 2020-05-09. This is the lines purportedly supporting the assertion:
La historia en efecto es cíclica y repetitiva, el que lo niegue, es por falta de conocimiento. Una de las novelas más fascinantes de la literatura venezolana pertenece a uno de los escritores que más respeto en el país, se trata de «Falke» de Federico Vegas. En ella, Federico relata la historia de Rafael Vegas, su pariente, quien participó en una conspiración para derrocar al entonces dictador, Juan Vicente Gómez, en 1929. Comandada por Román Delgado Chalbaud, la operación fue en completo fracaso, esto se debe a que, tal como la historia sugiere, el financista de la operación fue el propio Juan Vicente Gómez, quien lo hizo con el propósito de agrupar a todos sus enemigos en el exterior en una misión infiltrada, conducirlos al país y así capturarlos a todos en un solo esfuerzo. Venezuela vuelve a ser víctima de los caudillos autoritarios maquiavélicos. El 28 de marzo del presente año, 37 días antes de ser capturados los miembros de la Operación Gedeón, Diosdado Cabello, el número 2 del chavismo, anunció una conspiración que estaría siendo orquestada por un norteamericano al cual presentaba en un esquema con el nombre de «Yordan» —y en efecto, había un «Yordan», pero con J, y se apellidaba Goudreau—. Allí menciona que se topó con el exgeneral chavista Cliver Alcalá en el concierto de Cúcuta, y que desde entonces todo empezó a formarse. Pero allí no termina todo, ese mismo día Diosdado también aseveró que «algunas reuniones las hicieron porque nosotros dimos la logística, ven cómo estaban de infiltrados», el chavista asegura que la «oposición» se «robó los reales» de la operación, y por ende la misma se detuvo: la infiltración y financiamiento de ellos es lo que la saca a flote. Esto coincide con la versión emitida por JJ Rendón, el estratega de Juan Guaidó, quién le declaró y compartió evidencias a Orlando Avendaño para el PanAm Post, que indican que la relación con Silvercorp, la empresa de seguridad del norteamericano había sido finiquitada en octubre del 2019, y que la misión exploratoria no siguió adelante. Esto deja en evidencia que la tiranía de Maduro orquestó el movimiento para luego victimizarse ante la comunidad internacional y a su vez dar de baja a sus enemigos. En la operación que ellos mismos orquestaron asesinaron al menos a 8 soldados venezolanos, y otra docena ha sido capturada en supuestos distintos operativos.
If you take a look at the article, you'll see this is a persuasive piece. The author ends with a call to the international community to stop turning a blind eye. You can also see that he is drawing conclusions based on statements of politicians. Accordingly, if we are going to relay these assertions, the correct attribution is "[author], in an analysis of public statements made by [politician name], the operation was...." I'm going to go ahead and put it back in the author's voice like it was, but I would suggest reporting the facts, not exiles' emotions based on their reading of public statements-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
Isn't an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing a government called a coup? Shouldn't this be the 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt? -- LaserLegs ( talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Reverol has now said coup:
According to Reverol, the group, which departed from neighbouring Colombia, planned to carry out "terrorist attacks", including assassinating officials. He added the plan aimed "to increase the spiral of violence, generate chaos and confusion ... and with that lead to a new attempt at a coup d'etat". [12]
Please discuss. Kingsif ( talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.From the sources of the article, the use does not appear to be widespread. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.) using the term 'coup' would it take for consensus to be reached? Here are some other sources:
The most recent controversial change is the assertion that Guaido himself signed the services agreement with Silvercorp. It was added recently on the basis of a Vox report. I'm looking into the report, but I don't think we should state it as a matter of fact given (1) Maduro's history (and the history of dictatorial regimes generally) of falsifying "evidence" to discredit political opponents; and (2) the flat denial by Guaido that he signed. The only "evidence" of a signature by Guaido I've seen is the copy that the Maduro regime is flailing around which, again, I don't trust. On the other hand, the copy Goudreau released to Factores del Poder contains only Rendon and Vergara, and they both admit to signing it; in fact they've stepped down so as not to be a distraction to Guaido's cause. So–@ ( ZiaLater— ReyHahn— Jamez42— Kingsif— Acalycine— Cyfraw— Nice4What)–please discuss whether and why we should present the allegation as a fact. Thanks.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
Goudreau made his pitch to Rendón and his group in a Miami condo last September. He dubbed his plan “Operation Resolution,” which was basically a beefed-up version of the Alcalá plan featuring 800 men instead of 300. The real selling point, though, was almost surely the price he was asking. Instead of charging in the billions, Goudreau requested $213 million from Venezuela’s future oil earnings, along with a $1.5 million retainer. After a few more meetings, Silvercorp USA and the committee signed a deal in October. Rendón told the Washington Post that the deal was a trial balloon, basically, to see if Goudreau could deliver on his promises. But the full general services agreement and attachments, which can be found online, explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup.
“An operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro...remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó,” section 4a of the attachment reads.
Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
Maduro’s government on Friday, however, released audio of an alleged phone conversation between Goudreau and Guaidó. The Venezuelan opposition leader notes his unease with the plan, but states its the right move for his cause.
Rendón acknowledged to CNN en Español on Wednesday that his signature is on the contract, though he maintained the deal was preliminary. “It was an exploration to see the possibility of capture and bringing to justice members of the regime,” he said, adding that the committee also looked at other methods to achieve their anti-Maduro goals.
"It’s possible that one source of potential funding was Roen Kraft, a member of the famous cheese-empire family, who reportedly tried to fundraise for the effort partly by promising his contacts inside access when bidding for government contracts in Venezuela once Guaidó was installed. Kraft has denied this, telling the AP, “I never gave [Goudreau] any money.”It's an excellent article, but since this is a word-vs-word dispute, we shouldn't present one side's word as fact and the other's as misrepresentation. Or if we are going to assert Guaido is lying, we should at least back it up with more than one vague sentence in one tertiary source. Do we have any other sources asserting not only that the agreement "features" the signature of Guaido, but explicitly reporting that Juan Guaido in fact signed the agreement on behalf of his administration with the intent to bind the administration to its terms, or at least distinguishing which pages of which copies in whose possession contains what signatures?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
"Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning. As for what was actually said by Guaidó, he said he had "no relationship nor responsibility for any actions" by Silvercorp. No one denied that he signed the papers according to sources. If you can find a source stating otherwise, we can see about changes. Also, the wording in the article currently says "repotedly", so it is still portrayed as an allegation in respect to them.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Guaidó and his officials reportedly signed the General Services Agreement in Washington, D.C. with Goudreau on 16 October 2019; Guaidó would later deny signing the agreement.Please wait to see if others are buying that as NPOV, because I'm not. Therefore, please keep it out for now. Accusing a living person of lying without a factual basis is defamatory, and you need only consult the relevant policies to perceive its seriousness and applicability to this situation (i.e., one involving potential criminal activity where the person accused is unequivocally denying the allegation and accusing the profferers of the document upon which the report you cite relies of forging his signature and falsifying his voice, subjecting him to potential torture, violence, and prosecution in a Kangaroo court, on a publication viewed by approx. 900 people per day according to the Special page). Like I said, you need to either seriously hedge and come out boldly with something like: Guaido ardently denies he signed the document. There are articles which contain suggestions that a document exists where.... Or something like that. We are skating on very thin ice and I'm very worried about your willingness to just slap it in there as if it were some well-established fact. So please at least wait for others' comments before you go re-inserting that. Please, seriously; it's not acceptable.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
![]() | This section's factual accuracy is
disputed. (May 2020) |
In the immediate aftermath of the foiled plot, the existence of a formal General Services Agreement between the Strategic Committee was disclosed to the public through several outlets. On the one hand, Jordan Goudreau made an appearance by video call on a political commentary show called Factores de Poder, and during the call Goudreau showed the camera a copy of the General Services Agreement bearing the signatures of Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta, a Cuban-born attorney based in Washington. Soon after, the Maduro government, through State-owned media, published an alleged copy of the agreement purporting to bear the signatures just mentioned, plus the signature of Juan Guaidó himself. Guaidó vigorously denied this, stating he never signed any document. In addition, a recording of a conversation allegedly showing Guaidó discussing the contract with Jordan Goudreau was also aired on state media and commented on by the Maduro government's General Prosecutor. Guaidó vehemently asserted that the supposed recording was falsified and did not depict him.
Despite Guaidó's unequivocal denials, at least one generally reliable source, online news website Vox, published an article by Alex Ward featuring original reporting based on conversations with former Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos, who reportedly witnessed the training camps in Riohacha. In the article published 11 May 2020, the author placed his interviews with Mattos in the context by synthesizing reporting from other sources, including the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Washington Post, Military Times, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, and the previously-mentioned Factores de Poder. The author also republished information originally posted on social media platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. In the piece in Vox, a purported copy of the first 8 pages of the actual General Services Agreement (not the 42 pages of attachments which Rendon admitted to signing) is republished. The republished images bear a watermark reading "Scanned with CamScanner." The Vox piece does not indicate the source of the purported copy. That copy shows what appears to be the signature of Juan Guaidó, and the Vox piece itself contains the following remark: "the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
It is undisputed that a 41-page document containing various "Attachments" was signed in Washington, D.C., on 16 October 2019, between Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta. According to Goudreau and the Maduro government, Juan Guaidó also signed the agreement or some part of it. For example, a report in the Washington Post described the dispute as follows:
Goudreau counters that the agreement — supplied in part to The Post by Goudreau, with a more complete version provided by Rendón — bound the opposition to his services and initial fee. A seven-page document provided by Goudreau carries Guaido’s signature, along with those of Rendón and fellow opposition official Sergio Vergara.
at least one generally reliable sourceto describe Vox should be removed - it is effectively OR and is based on Wikipedia's editorial guidelines rather than an independent RS describing it thus. Perhaps the tone could be more formalized, but it seems to fit purpose. Kingsif ( talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
This article needs better sources such as in this excerpt After it came to light that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, J.J. Rendón–a signatory to the agreement on behalf of Guaido–indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019. Juan Guaidó, his Strategy Committee, and officials of the Colombian and United States governments have all emphatically denied any role whatsoever in the incident, and some opposition officials have described it as a "false flag operation". from the intro in which all these statements are made but no sources are provided. Elishop ( talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I anticipate my recent edits asserting unequivocally that the operation is a false flag set-up will be seen as nonneutral. However, if you take a look at the sources I provided, I think you will find that this is an accurate description of what occurred. This was not an attempt to invade Venezuela so much as an intel plot to lure dissidents led by delusional Johnny Bravo types into their arms to kill and arrest them. I'm ready to stand by the facts, so please discuss.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Without getting involved in this, I suggest dropping the idea of having it included until a nice solid western RS picks it up. Panampost is reliable, but doesn't seem to have connected the threads yet. As believable as a false flag would be (the theories of such are given a mention at the Caracas drone attack article, too), I do not want to attract any kind of nonsense until it can be solidly defended. Kingsif ( talk) 01:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Sequea refirió que a mediados de marzo, cuando viajó Guaidó a su gira que terminó en Estados Unidos, Jordan Goudreau se comunicó con él y le dijo que se había reunido con Guaidó en la Casa Blanca, y había sido ratificado como jefe de la operación armada contra Venezuela.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
I think probably anything that the government or the former Maduro regime puts out has a huge component of disinformation to it. Most recently, we’re seeing their campaign about this alleged invasion of the country, which they seem to have had something to do in creating themselves. But it’s it just– anything that they put out is really, really suspect.
— Ambassador Michael Kozak.
I think what’s even more harmful is the Maduro regime’s ability to use official accounts coupled with state-owned or controlled media outlets and its allies’ messaging apparatuses that work together to convince audiences that the disinformation touted by Maduro is true. Secretary Pompeo has said on many occasions that our sanctions do not target the innocent people of Venezuela and they will not prohibit humanitarian assistance, but Maduro’s claims to the contrary continue and we’ve observed accounts linked not just to Maduro, but also to Iran, Russia, and Cuba, that have all tried to suggest that these sanctions impair the ability of them to be able to obtain humanitarian assistance. So they take these claims and then they amplify them by accounts that are engaged and coordinated, inorganic, or inauthentic activity, significantly amplifying the presence of the claims in the information space. So that’s one of the trends that we’ve seen from the GEC’s perspective.
We’ve been focused on diplomatic and economic efforts and political efforts to try to persuade the regime, and it’s very simple what the objective is: to hand over power to a transitional government that can organize free and fair elections and resolve the political crisis in Venezuela. You can’t do it with Maduro. The reason the crisis exists in the first place was Maduro used his power to completely rig and discredit the elections in 2018.
— Ambassador Michael Kozak
– Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
While I agree that there are some problems with "the tone of the article", my experience with POV templates is that they rarely push for a change unless we can pinpoint where the problems are. Sometimes a Template:POV lead or another template in a specific section can help. If you look at the article many templates have been added already. @ NickCT: could you describe in more detail why you added the template [17]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyHahn ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Orgullomoore: In an edit with the reason of making quotation marks consistent, you turned them all into text quotation marks (angled), rather than html ones (straight); and it looks like they were all consistently straight before, so I'm not sure why the change was made at all. Anyway, Wikipedia only uses the straight ones, can you go back and correct this, since conflicting edits won't allow me to undo it? Kingsif ( talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to express again my concern for the length of the "Planning" section, which is longer than not only the "Attack" section, but almost the rest as well. I'm not proposing to split the article, and rather I find a merge with the "Background" section or a little of trimming to be more attractive options. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Mattos said he was surprised by the barren conditions. There was no running water and men were sleeping on the floors, skipping meals and training with sawed-off broomsticks in place of assault rifles. Five Belgian shepherds trained to sniff out explosives were as poorly fed as their handlers and had to be given away.
The detail of the planning section is vital and it will not be suitable on any other article. Where would you put information about the planning of the attack? Oh I know, in the article about the attack! Any removal of the details may be seen as whitewashing information of some of the parties invovled.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ZiaLater: I disagree with having an analysis section. We can find analysis from all sort of "experts" saying all sorts of things, these are opinions but when they are not from people already involve in the affair it becomes unclear why should we given them a spotlight.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this inclusion as well, we have the Reactions section to include notable declarations and Wikipedia is not an essay. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: The discussion continued in another
discussion in a different section on this page.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 13:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
May somebody set up an archive for this talk, there are a lot of discussions that seem closed. I could eventually look up how to do it, but maybe somebody has more experience on this.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Done the archive seems to have worked, if somebody thinks one of the discussions was archived too soon, we can either bring it back or restart the conversation again.--
ReyHahn (
talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
So the section by Emmanuel Rincón describing the events as a false flag operation seems pretty WP:FRINGE, not analytical. The author seems questionable. He is a columnist for PanAm Post, an pro-opposition news site, with columnists usually falling under WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. PanAm Post also cooks up his profile on their site, saying Rincón has " a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard ( see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). Many of Rincón's books are self-published too, which also raises WP:QUESTIONABLE concerns. Overall, I do not know why a self-published author who has a cooked-up "degree" is given the same weight as analysis by NGOs and other professionals.
Overall, we should Remove this opinion piece by Rincón.---- ZiaLater ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@
ZiaLater: Oh, so in that case we are talking about a translation issue, because Rincón wrote about a falso positivo (in Spanish). I think there is overlap between the two definitions, but in any case I removed the ref so we don't have to worry about the issue unless and until it comes back up.--
Orgullomoore (
talk) 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC).
I feel like placing PanAm Post next to articles by BIG generally reliable sources (The Times, The Telegraph, Polygraph.info., Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.) gives it undue weight. It is not the most reliable source, so I do not see where you are seeing a good comparison to actual high-quality sources.That begs the question: is the PanAm Post article as reliable as the rest of the sources in the Analysis section? Or are the sources in the Analysis section as "unreliable" as the PanAm Post article? What about PanAm Post in general?
Rincón is clearly not credible. Inflating your own credentials is a big red flag. Contra the above comments, I don't think the fact that the Rincón article was included is evidence that the whole section should be removed. It's possible to draw a line between professional analysts, such as some of those currently quoted in the section, and a charlatan with a fake degree, such as Rincón. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
draw a line between professional analysts...and a charlatan with a fake degree? And how do we adjudicate what degrees are fake and which are authentic?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
(
edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Orgullomoore. My position is that Rincón should be removed only if it is determined to be
WP:FRINGE, and a distinction should be drawn between this and
WP:QUESTIONABLE. WP:QUESTIONABLE states that Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.
No such claims have been brought up so far, and quoting from
the current RfC on PanAm Post: An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above.
I haven't looked into this specifically in detail, but I think care should be taken between saying that credentials are embellished and outright fabricated. I also have to ask how
WP:SELFPUBLISHED applies specifically in the article.
Regarding the specific content included, my only intention in its moment was to reflect with an important source the theory that the raid was a false flag to use as a scapegoat and to incriminate dissidents (such as with the Caracas drone attack), although fortunately this seems to have been covered in the Reactions section and with the specifications that the attack was infiltrated, that although similar, it still has differences with a "completely" false flag attack. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | @
ZiaLater said: I'm really glad about that too. Good job guys!-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 23:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC) |
There was a UNSC meeting today regarding the failed raid. All sources in Spanish mention that. In addition, the US has blocked a Russian-backed statement condemning the use of force in Venezuela. -- cyrfaw ( talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)