![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I changed the infobox on the "Support" side from "Guaidó government" to "Guaidó government's Strategy Committee." B.
ZiaLater
reverted, with this edit summary Simplifying. The committee was tasked by Guaidó to find a strategy to remove Maduro from power. Saying it was specifically the committee words it as possibly being a "rogue" element when it was organized on behalf of Guaidó according to sources.
. R. Now we're discussing. D. I believe specifying that it was the Strategy Committee is more precise because Hernán Alemán, Rendón, and Guaidó say that Guaidó was not directly involved in the specific plan of invading Venezuela by launching motorboats with hungry exiles from a drug lord's safe house in Colombia into Maduro's arms in Caracas (pun intended). Please discuss.--
Orgullomoore (
talk)
01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether this plan and the time dedicated for it is troubling or not is not relevant to the discussion. The Washington Post says that Rendón said Guaidó knew only the rough outlines of an “exploratory plan” but grew suspicious of Goudreau based on the reports of the committee
; the Justice First party asked for the dismissal of the officials that "used his [Guaidó] government's name for individual purposes", and his foreign minister, Julio Borges, joined to ask for these dismissals. There are many conflicting versions regarding the knowledge and involvement of Guaidó or even his inner circle. In the past I have explained the problems with including Guaidó as a belligerent party in the infobox, but changing him for his Strategy Committee could be a good middle ground for those that want to draw the distinction with the withdrawal of this support and those that want to reflect the original support in the infobox. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted 5 edits made by David Tornheim between 23 May 2020 0707 and 0812 UTC [1]. I would have loved to have WP:PRESERVEd some of it, but honestly I found nothing to preserve, so I am outlining why I considered each to require reversal:
renamed "Guaidó government's alleged involvement" to "Guaido's alleged involvement": Guaido doesn't have a government. I didn't see any source that claim he does.reason for revert: Guaido is recognized as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela by lots of countries, as we have discussed already. Maduro is seen as an illegitimate usurper of power in Venezuela by those countries and many inside the country. However, Maduro has de facto control over the government. This is common knowledge for those who possess common knowledge regarding the conflict, and is well-sourced. That you did not see any such source does not mean it is not cited in the article. Did you look?
(→Background: remove. Many of these sources are from *before* the coup attempt, and hence don't mention it. To include this material is WP:ORreason for revert: the presidential crisis in the background is the obvious precursor to this event. The trainees were dissidents who deserted from the Venezuelan armed forces and took refuge in Colombia after 4/2019 Uprising Attempt. Again, common knowledge among those possessing common knowledge on the subject, and the intent of the planners and combatants is also well documented as being grounded in their opposition to Maduro as an illegitimate leader. Just one example: Hernán Alemán claimed the legal grounds for the operation were the Constitutional provisions requiring resistance to anti-democratic persons purporting to exercise power.
Removed material in WP:LEDE that the coup attempt is in the context of a "Venezuelan presidential crisis" per previous editreason for revert: Same as above.
mention Guido's signature// introduced the following paragraph:
After it was revealed that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, with Guaidó's signature,...(see next line, since this edit is subsumed next edit at 8:12.
Gourdreau provided the document per Washington Post 5/6/2020 article titled "Read the attachments to the General Services Agreement between the Venezuelan opposition and Silvercorp"./ added:
After Goudreau produced a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee--including Guaidó's signature--Guaidó claimed he didn't sign it, and Guaidó's allies indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019.See WP:CLAIM, which astutely observes that
[t]o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence..
-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Comment:The two documents together are two pieces of a single document--the General Services Agreement: Our article makes that clear, and so do the documents themselves, and the
WP:RS.
[1]
Jamez42 makes it sound like two separate agreements, but it is one agreement with two parts--the first 8 pages and the attachments. The problem is that neither Gourdeau nor Guaido's team provided copies of the entire agreement. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Jamez42 I do not know why you say that the first and last page of the piece that Goudreau provided were missing. None of the WP:RS I found mentions a missing first page. Hence I am deleting that. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Pages 1 out of 8 and 8 out of 8 are missing from the set that the outlet shared, and so we do not know for certain every piece of information that was included in this document, including exactly what services Silvercorp would provide.As such, I ask you to please restore that the first page is missing as well.
Rendón, however, insists that the document Goudreau produced was never signed by Guaidó, and provided previous and subsequent agreements to The Post that did not bear Guaido’s name.
Crucially, Rendón claims that Guaido did not sign the earlier document that Goudreau presented, and that Guaido only knew “rough outlines of an ‘exploratory plan’” that never materialized. Rendón claims that he does not know how Guaido’s signature appeared on the May 3 document, and suggested that Goudreau procured the document in a desperate attempt to enforce the payment of the contract
After the attack, it became public that a formal document setting out the objective of the operation was signed in October 2019 between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, which Guaidó had formed with the goal of exploring all available options for removing Maduro from power and installing Guaidó as president. Whether or not Guaidó personally signed these documents is the subject of some controversy: a preliminary agreement was produced with his alleged signature, but Guaidó has said that his signature was forged. Guaidó's
alliesStrategy Committee reportedly 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 denied any role in the actual attack that went forward on 3 May 2020.
After the attack, it became public that a formal document setting out the objective of the operation was signed in October 2019 between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, which Guaidó had formed with the goal of exploring all available options for removing Maduro from power and installing Guaidó as president.
Whether or not Guaidó personally signed these documents is the subject of some controversy: a preliminary agreement was produced with his alleged signature, but Guaidó has said that his signature was forged.Guaidó's Strategy Committee reportedly 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 denied any role in the actual attack that went forward on 3 May 2020.
WP:LEADs are not supposed to be paraphrases of leads of news articles, so it is not relevant that the opening descriptions of news articles do not mention it. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. Per
WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to cover the most important points, including any prominent controversies
. This is one, as evidenced by media coverage. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
17:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to make sure we are all on the same page regarding primary sources. I see lots of inline tags, removed some. I think there may be disagreement on this, so feel free to roll back. My position is that if we are saying in the article something like, "This Con el Mazo Dando episode said x" and we link to the episode, there is no better source for the user to confirm than that link. But the placement of the tag would suggest we should cite a secondary source reporting on what was stated in the episode. Let's discuss so we can have consistency throughout the article.@ ZiaLater, Jamez42, ReyHahn, Kingsif, and David Tornheim@-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
Discussion about lede, section above
|
---|
|
Ok, this title is still terrible. As some have stated, the events did not only happen in Macuto Bay and some sources describe this as an "incursion". This can be comparable to the Mongol invasions of Japan in the way that it was a failed invasion or incursion into Venezuela. Possibly 2020 invasions of Venezuela or 2020 incursions of Venezuela? The Wikipedia redirect for "incursion" is the invasion article. I would ping, but do not want to be accused of anything else...---- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting more and more convinced that Operation Gideon is the best title for several reasons:
The article titles conventions should easily solve the issue of the confusion with similar titles ( WP:QUALIFIER). This is the case with the Spanish Wikipedia, where " El Junquito raid" was named Operation Gideon and was moved to "Operation Gideon (2018)", whereas the Macuto events were renamed as "Operation Gideon (2020)". If we want to distinguish the article with the operation in Palestine, the latter can be renamed to "Operation Gideon (1948)".
Last but not least, the title is the "official" name of the events and it lacks any type of qualifiers that might have value attached to them, be them "raid", "attack", "invasion", "incursion", "clashes", "coup", etc. I know that this may not be the preferred option by everyone; it's not an utopic alternative where everyone is completely satisfied with the option, but with such a controversial topic, finding the title with the least opposition might be finding the easiest way to find a consensus. This is the reason why the " 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt" title was adopted: at the end and after the dust settled, it was the less controversial title.
If there is support to adopt the proposed title (or rather, it's the apparent option with "least disagreement"), then we can start a new move proposal formally. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For the 2018 operation, see El Junquito raid."or
""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For other uses, see Operation Gideon (Venezuela)."-- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree that we should start move request to Operation Gideon (2020) (and leave open for discussion and consensus-building, of course). I understand
ReyHahn's concerns completely, but I agree with
ZiaLater that, at least for now, it seems the news sources are done playing with the name. They now call it "the recent foiled raid" or something like that, which is not precise enough for our purposes. When they want to be precise in a headline, they say "Operación Gedeón," usually in scare quotes.--
Orgullomoore (
talk)
16:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
A couple days ago or so, I moved ZiaLater's prove-a-point "COUP" footnote, which contains something like 18 different links to outlets in English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi, Malay, Indonesian, German, French, Dutch, and Italian. The only time this note is cited is to support, in the "Analysis" section, the assertion that the attack was widely referred to as a coup attempt. I think this is disruptive, even as a separate footnote. There are several issues with it, off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with more: (1) presumably most of Wikipedia's readers cannot verify, understand, or don't care what this incident is called in foreign-language news articles in Japan, South Asia, and Western Europe; (2) all of those articles were published within a week of the attack, before many new details emerged about the incident, and are likely based on Maduro's own statements or those of his puppets that this was an attempted coup; and (3) it's not controversial that the thing was a coup attempt--not necessary to cite to 18 articles not otherwise cited in the article to support that single (in my opinion irrelevant or trivial) assertion. Frankly, I still don't understand why the pro-Socialists (no offense, just based on my perception and my prejudices based on user profiles and contributions, etc.) are so adamant about the incident being referred to as a coup? Again, I don't disagree that it's a coup attempt; I just don't understand the forceful advocacy that it be called that. And don't say it's the RS, the RS; not me, the RS. That's BS. I completely respect those users' contributions' importance to the project and this article, but I don't get it. Can someone explain why it's so important to some people that it be called a coup--apparently not just in this article but also quite a few others where leftist governments were pushed out with "Imperialist" (NATO, etc.) support?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ReyHahn: @ Orgullomoore: So the reason it was cited like that is due to previous controversies surrounding the sources of controversial statements. If there are not enough sources using a description, the description would be removed for being POV. If multiple sources used the description, however, it would show widespread usage and could be included in the article. Another thing we need to avoid is the laundry list of attributing to sources ("according to x, x, x, x, x, x, and x") or generalizing sources ("Western and pro-Guaidó sources"). For example in the SEBIN article, we had multiple sources describing the organization as a political police group. For a short time, the description was: "the political police force of the Bolivarian government by organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the Brookings Institution, and scholars such as Clifton Ross, Fermín Lares and Humberto Márquez". That is just a mess to read, so the citation was condensed into a single ref, then the statement was given general wording ("SEBIN has been described as the political police force of the Bolivarian government").---- ZiaLater ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
[t]h event was described by numerous sources internationally as being an attempted "coup"would be removed as POV if there are not enough sources using that word. Would it not be sufficient to reference the following, which are already cited elsewhere in the article?
I'm not aware of a single source that commented about the fact that people called it a coup...The implication seems to be that if there isn't a WP:SECONDARY source mentioning that numerous WP:RS say something, then it is WP:OR or WP:SYN to mention the various sources individually. Yet I see things just like what ZiaLater said: "according to x, x, x, x, x, and x...." I believe editors have at times vigorously objecting to such lists and have been overruled. If either of you can cite policy in this regard, I would like to see it. Here are some examples:
@ ZiaLater: get to the point, there is no consensus yet on if that phrase should be there or not but the point is made, you should reduce the number of references to three at most. If somebody removes it you can add one more.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding upon request of a fellow editor.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:FORUM:failed sock check and broad accusations
|
---|
It's absolutely mind boggling that the cabal of editors who dominate Venezuelan-politics related pages have somehow managed to get this page labelled as a 'raid' rather than as a 'coup attempt'. Same with the '2019 Venezuela Uprising' page. I'm just in awe of the ridiculous bias on display. 181.118.15.105 ( talk) 01:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerns of bias should be addressed and pointed out specifically, instead of just broad accusations. There has already been a move discussion where some of them might have been expressed. Plenty of editors participated in it, not just the ones that edit often in the topic. Otherwise, this section should be collapsed per WP:FORUM. Furthermore, it's concerning that now reliable sources used in the article are labeled as "neoliberal", without specifying which ones or why, and that there's an interest in deprecated sources such as Grayzone. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: The consensus was move. -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Macuto Bay raid → Operation Gideon (2020) – Many users on this talk page agree that we should not use descriptive titles for such a controversial event. The common name used by reliable sources when describing the event is Operation Gideon. The 2020 added on is due to an older operation performed by the Haganah and another event in Venezuela using the same operation name (the El Junquito raid), which forces us away from using "Operation Gideon" or "Operation Gideon (Venezuela)". -- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
operation gideon venezuela
provides double the results of Google search of macuto bay raid venezuela
. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)@ David Tornheim: The move discussion has now been closed and it was determined that there wasn't a consensus to refer to the events as a coup. Because of this, as well as per WP:RCAT, could you please remove the "Military coups in Venezuela" category from the 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirect? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm blind, there appears to be no citations whatsoever in the opening text (before the table of contents). Is this correct? 146.244.165.130 ( talk) 02:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: The following is a continuation of a
prior discussion in a different section on this page. --
Orgullomoore (
talk)
13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed this section as it violates NPOV and the whole first parapgraph is a ungrammatical run-on sentence I cna't even decipher. Some of the material might find a place in the aftermnath section. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @
Zellfire999: @
Jogarz1921:
@
Loesorion:
@
BlindNight:
@
Prinsgezinde:
@
SirEdimon:
@
Iamextremelygayokay:
@
Davey2116:
@
Charles Essie:
@
Cmonghost:
@
Alcibiades979:
@
Derim Hunt:
@
Elelch:
@
Jip Orlando:
@
StjepanHR:
@
Resnjari:
@
JoshuaChen:
@
Miserlou:
@
BobNesh:
@
Bleff:
@
Surachit:
@
Sceptre:
@
Antondimak:
@
Fjsalguero:
@
Bigwigge:
@
Goodposts:
@
Ortizesp:
@
Cyrfaw:
@
Thanoscar21:
@
LaserLegs:
@
Kingsif: Any opinions on this section being included? Really trying to broaden the discussion on this topic since it is so controversial. Sorry if you are bothered by the pings! Also, could you clarify what you prefer @
Orgullomoore:?
Also also, @
ReyHahn: please see
WP:NOTAVOTE. An analysis section is included in a multitude of Wikipedia articles and this one utilizes scholars specialized with Latin America or Venezuela. Definite keep.----
ZiaLater (
talk)
12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been
canvassed to this discussion.
There is no unbiased reporting. I believe that instead of pushing some views into a separate section, significant ones should be incorporated into the body of the article with proper citation. If no way is found to do this without messing with the flow of the article, then I think the section should be kept instead of deleting the information entirely. -- Antondimak ( talk) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the concerns of how other editors were invited to the discussion, I have started a RfC as a final method of consensus building. I kindly ask only uninvolved editors so far to participate to prevent influencing the outcome. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
As that section stands right now, all references discredit US or Venezuelan opposition. I find it hard to believe that with Maduro's legacy this is the only view of the events available. Especially since now even Associated Press refers to the "raid at the coastal town of Macuto" as a "publicity coup for Maduro". AP: 21 May 2020.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ReyHahn: Here there are analyses by Prodavinci and the Atlantic Council: [17] [18] [19]. However, I feel there are still important concerns regarding if the section should be kept or not, and there is content that is arguably more appropriate in other sections. Special care with WP:OPINION should be taken. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Older version of the section
| ||
---|---|---|
The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed that these opposition representatives signed a contract with one firm, SilverCorp USA, which recently carried out a botched incursion", that "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option, the Trump administration bears partial responsibility for these reckless actions by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition" and that "the U.S. government has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government". [1] Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results", that the Guaidó's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies and that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis. [2] An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals. [3] Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó. [3]
|
Insight from uninvolved editors would be appreacited in the Macuto Bay raid article. Should the Analysis section be kept or removed?
The section currently has the "Importance" and "POV" tags. If the section should be kept, which improvements could be done in order to remove the tags? Many thanks beforehand!
Jamez42 (
talk)
01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The section in question is the following:
The event was described by numerous sources internationally as being an attempted " coup", [1] with Vox's Alex Ward writing that the Guaidó and Silvercorp documents "explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup". [2] Ronal Rodríguez, Head of Del Rosario University's Observatory for Venezuela, stated "Operation Gideon is agreeing with Chavismo, which has always accused the opposition of being undemocratic and coup-mongering and of promoting exits outside constitutional frameworks". [3]
Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results" and that the Guaidó government's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies. He also explained that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis. [4]
In a BBC Mundo article, two analysts were interviewed; risk consultant Dimitris Pantoulas, and head of the Datanálisis consultant firm Luis Vicente León. [5] When discussing Guaidó's alleged involvement with Silvercorp, Pantoulas stated that "the opposition has given many different versions" and that the divisions within the opposition pressured Guaidó to choose between supporting negotiations with Maduro or resorting to violence. [5] Pantoulas and León agreed that Guaidó's image was tarnished by the incident and that he had not made progress for political change in Venezuela. [5] León explained that the opposition must decide if it should participate in parliamentary elections moving forward, stating "the opposition seems to have exhausted the routes". [5]
An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals. [6] Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó. [6] The Washington Office on Latin America's Venezuelan expert David Smilde stated that the failed operation "clearly contributes to the deterioration of the opposition's national and international standing". [2] The polling group Meganálisis conducted interviews of a random sampling of 957 Venezuelans between 5 May and 9 May 2020. [7] When asked if they believed Guaidó when he said that he did not sign documents with Silvercorp, 85.0% of respondents replied that they did not believe Guaidó. [8] non-primary source needed
Regarding the head of Silvercorp, Jordan Goudreau, The New York Times wrote that Venezuelans alternatively saw him "as a huckster selling a suicide mission to desperate Venezuelans, as well as a hero committed to liberating the nation". [9] Some sources reported that Goudreau was inspired by the 26 March bounty offered by the United States of capturing Maduro and other " high value targets" (HVT's) and sending them to the United States, if the raid were successful. [10] [11] [12] [13] Fulton Armstrong, former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America who was once among the most senior analysts within the United States Intelligence Community, stated "The United States has put incentives for this type of operation, ... although everything indicates that this operation was not directed by Washington, everything also indicates that it was approved there," concluding that "there is a pretext for direct military action by the United States, by labeling the former US military detainees as 'hostages' along with the six dual-national Citgo executives under house arrest in Venezuela". [14]
The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed" that the Guaidó government signed documents with Silvercorp. [15] The organization also criticized the Trump administration for "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option," explaining that such stances by the United States "has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government." [15]
The Los Angeles Times writes that "For Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, it’s the propaganda gift that keeps on giving, buoying a leader long in Washington’s crosshairs" and that the failed operation "quickly became a Maduro rallying cry, a Bay of Pigs in miniature, complete with a pair of captured U.S. gunmen". [16] Human Rights Watch criticized Maduro for alleging that the human rights NGO PROVEA had connections to the United States Central Intelligence Agency after the organization called for due process of the captured militants. [17] Human Rights Watch wrote: "An international community that’s closely watching what happens in Venezuela needs to send the message loud and clear: subjecting human rights defenders to politically motivated prosecution, detention or other abuses would be crossing a line for which those responsible will have to answer". [17]
References
COUP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vox-Ridiculous
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Espectador-todo-se-vale
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cocuyo-estrategia-insurreccional
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCMundo-Guaido-leadership
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).COHAfailedoperation
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mega-poll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mega-poll-report
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT-Incursion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Connecting-Vets-recruit
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).world-of-reality
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2Tex
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).dumbest-coup
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jornada-claro-aval
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WOLA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I ask the editors to please take a look at previous discussions and the talk page's archives, specfically " On the analysis section", " removed section", " Emmanuel Rincón - WP:FRINGE?" and " WikiVoice - PanAm Post". -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
which improvements could be done in order to remove the tagsare answerable by uninvolved commenters in an RfC. Those are questions for the user(s) who placed the tags. For example, since the POV tag was placed by ReyHahn, ZiaLater has added information to the section about the government's response as requested, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a specific response on the talk page as to whether that's sufficient or what else could be added or removed to make the section WP:NPOV. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: should we allow for involved users to comment? It may help the user that closes the RFC to understand each of the users rationale and to reach a conclusion. We can put them in a different section not mix them up.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
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 ( [20] [21]), 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)
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)
|
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
I changed the infobox on the "Support" side from "Guaidó government" to "Guaidó government's Strategy Committee." B.
ZiaLater
reverted, with this edit summary Simplifying. The committee was tasked by Guaidó to find a strategy to remove Maduro from power. Saying it was specifically the committee words it as possibly being a "rogue" element when it was organized on behalf of Guaidó according to sources.
. R. Now we're discussing. D. I believe specifying that it was the Strategy Committee is more precise because Hernán Alemán, Rendón, and Guaidó say that Guaidó was not directly involved in the specific plan of invading Venezuela by launching motorboats with hungry exiles from a drug lord's safe house in Colombia into Maduro's arms in Caracas (pun intended). Please discuss.--
Orgullomoore (
talk)
01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Whether this plan and the time dedicated for it is troubling or not is not relevant to the discussion. The Washington Post says that Rendón said Guaidó knew only the rough outlines of an “exploratory plan” but grew suspicious of Goudreau based on the reports of the committee
; the Justice First party asked for the dismissal of the officials that "used his [Guaidó] government's name for individual purposes", and his foreign minister, Julio Borges, joined to ask for these dismissals. There are many conflicting versions regarding the knowledge and involvement of Guaidó or even his inner circle. In the past I have explained the problems with including Guaidó as a belligerent party in the infobox, but changing him for his Strategy Committee could be a good middle ground for those that want to draw the distinction with the withdrawal of this support and those that want to reflect the original support in the infobox. --
Jamez42 (
talk)
13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I reverted 5 edits made by David Tornheim between 23 May 2020 0707 and 0812 UTC [1]. I would have loved to have WP:PRESERVEd some of it, but honestly I found nothing to preserve, so I am outlining why I considered each to require reversal:
renamed "Guaidó government's alleged involvement" to "Guaido's alleged involvement": Guaido doesn't have a government. I didn't see any source that claim he does.reason for revert: Guaido is recognized as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela by lots of countries, as we have discussed already. Maduro is seen as an illegitimate usurper of power in Venezuela by those countries and many inside the country. However, Maduro has de facto control over the government. This is common knowledge for those who possess common knowledge regarding the conflict, and is well-sourced. That you did not see any such source does not mean it is not cited in the article. Did you look?
(→Background: remove. Many of these sources are from *before* the coup attempt, and hence don't mention it. To include this material is WP:ORreason for revert: the presidential crisis in the background is the obvious precursor to this event. The trainees were dissidents who deserted from the Venezuelan armed forces and took refuge in Colombia after 4/2019 Uprising Attempt. Again, common knowledge among those possessing common knowledge on the subject, and the intent of the planners and combatants is also well documented as being grounded in their opposition to Maduro as an illegitimate leader. Just one example: Hernán Alemán claimed the legal grounds for the operation were the Constitutional provisions requiring resistance to anti-democratic persons purporting to exercise power.
Removed material in WP:LEDE that the coup attempt is in the context of a "Venezuelan presidential crisis" per previous editreason for revert: Same as above.
mention Guido's signature// introduced the following paragraph:
After it was revealed that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, with Guaidó's signature,...(see next line, since this edit is subsumed next edit at 8:12.
Gourdreau provided the document per Washington Post 5/6/2020 article titled "Read the attachments to the General Services Agreement between the Venezuelan opposition and Silvercorp"./ added:
After Goudreau produced a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee--including Guaidó's signature--Guaidó claimed he didn't sign it, and Guaidó's allies indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019.See WP:CLAIM, which astutely observes that
[t]o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence..
-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
-- David Tornheim ( talk) 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Comment:The two documents together are two pieces of a single document--the General Services Agreement: Our article makes that clear, and so do the documents themselves, and the
WP:RS.
[1]
Jamez42 makes it sound like two separate agreements, but it is one agreement with two parts--the first 8 pages and the attachments. The problem is that neither Gourdeau nor Guaido's team provided copies of the entire agreement. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Jamez42 I do not know why you say that the first and last page of the piece that Goudreau provided were missing. None of the WP:RS I found mentions a missing first page. Hence I am deleting that. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Pages 1 out of 8 and 8 out of 8 are missing from the set that the outlet shared, and so we do not know for certain every piece of information that was included in this document, including exactly what services Silvercorp would provide.As such, I ask you to please restore that the first page is missing as well.
Rendón, however, insists that the document Goudreau produced was never signed by Guaidó, and provided previous and subsequent agreements to The Post that did not bear Guaido’s name.
Crucially, Rendón claims that Guaido did not sign the earlier document that Goudreau presented, and that Guaido only knew “rough outlines of an ‘exploratory plan’” that never materialized. Rendón claims that he does not know how Guaido’s signature appeared on the May 3 document, and suggested that Goudreau procured the document in a desperate attempt to enforce the payment of the contract
After the attack, it became public that a formal document setting out the objective of the operation was signed in October 2019 between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, which Guaidó had formed with the goal of exploring all available options for removing Maduro from power and installing Guaidó as president. Whether or not Guaidó personally signed these documents is the subject of some controversy: a preliminary agreement was produced with his alleged signature, but Guaidó has said that his signature was forged. Guaidó's
alliesStrategy Committee reportedly 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 denied any role in the actual attack that went forward on 3 May 2020.
After the attack, it became public that a formal document setting out the objective of the operation was signed in October 2019 between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, which Guaidó had formed with the goal of exploring all available options for removing Maduro from power and installing Guaidó as president.
Whether or not Guaidó personally signed these documents is the subject of some controversy: a preliminary agreement was produced with his alleged signature, but Guaidó has said that his signature was forged.Guaidó's Strategy Committee reportedly 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 denied any role in the actual attack that went forward on 3 May 2020.
WP:LEADs are not supposed to be paraphrases of leads of news articles, so it is not relevant that the opening descriptions of news articles do not mention it. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. Per
WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to cover the most important points, including any prominent controversies
. This is one, as evidenced by media coverage. —
cmonghost 👻 (
talk)
17:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to make sure we are all on the same page regarding primary sources. I see lots of inline tags, removed some. I think there may be disagreement on this, so feel free to roll back. My position is that if we are saying in the article something like, "This Con el Mazo Dando episode said x" and we link to the episode, there is no better source for the user to confirm than that link. But the placement of the tag would suggest we should cite a secondary source reporting on what was stated in the episode. Let's discuss so we can have consistency throughout the article.@ ZiaLater, Jamez42, ReyHahn, Kingsif, and David Tornheim@-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
Discussion about lede, section above
|
---|
|
Ok, this title is still terrible. As some have stated, the events did not only happen in Macuto Bay and some sources describe this as an "incursion". This can be comparable to the Mongol invasions of Japan in the way that it was a failed invasion or incursion into Venezuela. Possibly 2020 invasions of Venezuela or 2020 incursions of Venezuela? The Wikipedia redirect for "incursion" is the invasion article. I would ping, but do not want to be accused of anything else...---- ZiaLater ( talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm getting more and more convinced that Operation Gideon is the best title for several reasons:
The article titles conventions should easily solve the issue of the confusion with similar titles ( WP:QUALIFIER). This is the case with the Spanish Wikipedia, where " El Junquito raid" was named Operation Gideon and was moved to "Operation Gideon (2018)", whereas the Macuto events were renamed as "Operation Gideon (2020)". If we want to distinguish the article with the operation in Palestine, the latter can be renamed to "Operation Gideon (1948)".
Last but not least, the title is the "official" name of the events and it lacks any type of qualifiers that might have value attached to them, be them "raid", "attack", "invasion", "incursion", "clashes", "coup", etc. I know that this may not be the preferred option by everyone; it's not an utopic alternative where everyone is completely satisfied with the option, but with such a controversial topic, finding the title with the least opposition might be finding the easiest way to find a consensus. This is the reason why the " 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt" title was adopted: at the end and after the dust settled, it was the less controversial title.
If there is support to adopt the proposed title (or rather, it's the apparent option with "least disagreement"), then we can start a new move proposal formally. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For the 2018 operation, see El Junquito raid."or
""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For other uses, see Operation Gideon (Venezuela)."-- Jamez42 ( talk) 23:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Agree that we should start move request to Operation Gideon (2020) (and leave open for discussion and consensus-building, of course). I understand
ReyHahn's concerns completely, but I agree with
ZiaLater that, at least for now, it seems the news sources are done playing with the name. They now call it "the recent foiled raid" or something like that, which is not precise enough for our purposes. When they want to be precise in a headline, they say "Operación Gedeón," usually in scare quotes.--
Orgullomoore (
talk)
16:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
A couple days ago or so, I moved ZiaLater's prove-a-point "COUP" footnote, which contains something like 18 different links to outlets in English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi, Malay, Indonesian, German, French, Dutch, and Italian. The only time this note is cited is to support, in the "Analysis" section, the assertion that the attack was widely referred to as a coup attempt. I think this is disruptive, even as a separate footnote. There are several issues with it, off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with more: (1) presumably most of Wikipedia's readers cannot verify, understand, or don't care what this incident is called in foreign-language news articles in Japan, South Asia, and Western Europe; (2) all of those articles were published within a week of the attack, before many new details emerged about the incident, and are likely based on Maduro's own statements or those of his puppets that this was an attempted coup; and (3) it's not controversial that the thing was a coup attempt--not necessary to cite to 18 articles not otherwise cited in the article to support that single (in my opinion irrelevant or trivial) assertion. Frankly, I still don't understand why the pro-Socialists (no offense, just based on my perception and my prejudices based on user profiles and contributions, etc.) are so adamant about the incident being referred to as a coup? Again, I don't disagree that it's a coup attempt; I just don't understand the forceful advocacy that it be called that. And don't say it's the RS, the RS; not me, the RS. That's BS. I completely respect those users' contributions' importance to the project and this article, but I don't get it. Can someone explain why it's so important to some people that it be called a coup--apparently not just in this article but also quite a few others where leftist governments were pushed out with "Imperialist" (NATO, etc.) support?-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ReyHahn: @ Orgullomoore: So the reason it was cited like that is due to previous controversies surrounding the sources of controversial statements. If there are not enough sources using a description, the description would be removed for being POV. If multiple sources used the description, however, it would show widespread usage and could be included in the article. Another thing we need to avoid is the laundry list of attributing to sources ("according to x, x, x, x, x, x, and x") or generalizing sources ("Western and pro-Guaidó sources"). For example in the SEBIN article, we had multiple sources describing the organization as a political police group. For a short time, the description was: "the political police force of the Bolivarian government by organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the Brookings Institution, and scholars such as Clifton Ross, Fermín Lares and Humberto Márquez". That is just a mess to read, so the citation was condensed into a single ref, then the statement was given general wording ("SEBIN has been described as the political police force of the Bolivarian government").---- ZiaLater ( talk) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
[t]h event was described by numerous sources internationally as being an attempted "coup"would be removed as POV if there are not enough sources using that word. Would it not be sufficient to reference the following, which are already cited elsewhere in the article?
I'm not aware of a single source that commented about the fact that people called it a coup...The implication seems to be that if there isn't a WP:SECONDARY source mentioning that numerous WP:RS say something, then it is WP:OR or WP:SYN to mention the various sources individually. Yet I see things just like what ZiaLater said: "according to x, x, x, x, x, and x...." I believe editors have at times vigorously objecting to such lists and have been overruled. If either of you can cite policy in this regard, I would like to see it. Here are some examples:
@ ZiaLater: get to the point, there is no consensus yet on if that phrase should be there or not but the point is made, you should reduce the number of references to three at most. If somebody removes it you can add one more.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A very long table (about 350 headlines, divided by source and sorted by date) – All users feel free to
update
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I did not include the following sources for one reason or another, or completely arbitrarily: Contrapunto, TalCual, Infobae, Bellingcat, Anadolu Agency, AlJazeera, The Telegraph, New York Post, New York Magazine, Maduradas, Runrunes, Vox, Telesur, Misión Verdad, VTV, Últimas Noticias, PanAm Post, El Universal. I did not (intentionally) include opinion pieces.
|
Adding upon request of a fellow editor.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
WP:FORUM:failed sock check and broad accusations
|
---|
It's absolutely mind boggling that the cabal of editors who dominate Venezuelan-politics related pages have somehow managed to get this page labelled as a 'raid' rather than as a 'coup attempt'. Same with the '2019 Venezuela Uprising' page. I'm just in awe of the ridiculous bias on display. 181.118.15.105 ( talk) 01:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Concerns of bias should be addressed and pointed out specifically, instead of just broad accusations. There has already been a move discussion where some of them might have been expressed. Plenty of editors participated in it, not just the ones that edit often in the topic. Otherwise, this section should be collapsed per WP:FORUM. Furthermore, it's concerning that now reliable sources used in the article are labeled as "neoliberal", without specifying which ones or why, and that there's an interest in deprecated sources such as Grayzone. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC) |
The result of the move request was: The consensus was move. -- Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Macuto Bay raid → Operation Gideon (2020) – Many users on this talk page agree that we should not use descriptive titles for such a controversial event. The common name used by reliable sources when describing the event is Operation Gideon. The 2020 added on is due to an older operation performed by the Haganah and another event in Venezuela using the same operation name (the El Junquito raid), which forces us away from using "Operation Gideon" or "Operation Gideon (Venezuela)". -- ZiaLater ( talk) 00:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
operation gideon venezuela
provides double the results of Google search of macuto bay raid venezuela
. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)@ David Tornheim: The move discussion has now been closed and it was determined that there wasn't a consensus to refer to the events as a coup. Because of this, as well as per WP:RCAT, could you please remove the "Military coups in Venezuela" category from the 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirect? -- Jamez42 ( talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Unless I'm blind, there appears to be no citations whatsoever in the opening text (before the table of contents). Is this correct? 146.244.165.130 ( talk) 02:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: The following is a continuation of a
prior discussion in a different section on this page. --
Orgullomoore (
talk)
13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed this section as it violates NPOV and the whole first parapgraph is a ungrammatical run-on sentence I cna't even decipher. Some of the material might find a place in the aftermnath section. Rmhermen ( talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment: @
Zellfire999: @
Jogarz1921:
@
Loesorion:
@
BlindNight:
@
Prinsgezinde:
@
SirEdimon:
@
Iamextremelygayokay:
@
Davey2116:
@
Charles Essie:
@
Cmonghost:
@
Alcibiades979:
@
Derim Hunt:
@
Elelch:
@
Jip Orlando:
@
StjepanHR:
@
Resnjari:
@
JoshuaChen:
@
Miserlou:
@
BobNesh:
@
Bleff:
@
Surachit:
@
Sceptre:
@
Antondimak:
@
Fjsalguero:
@
Bigwigge:
@
Goodposts:
@
Ortizesp:
@
Cyrfaw:
@
Thanoscar21:
@
LaserLegs:
@
Kingsif: Any opinions on this section being included? Really trying to broaden the discussion on this topic since it is so controversial. Sorry if you are bothered by the pings! Also, could you clarify what you prefer @
Orgullomoore:?
Also also, @
ReyHahn: please see
WP:NOTAVOTE. An analysis section is included in a multitude of Wikipedia articles and this one utilizes scholars specialized with Latin America or Venezuela. Definite keep.----
ZiaLater (
talk)
12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been
canvassed to this discussion.
There is no unbiased reporting. I believe that instead of pushing some views into a separate section, significant ones should be incorporated into the body of the article with proper citation. If no way is found to do this without messing with the flow of the article, then I think the section should be kept instead of deleting the information entirely. -- Antondimak ( talk) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Given the concerns of how other editors were invited to the discussion, I have started a RfC as a final method of consensus building. I kindly ask only uninvolved editors so far to participate to prevent influencing the outcome. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
As that section stands right now, all references discredit US or Venezuelan opposition. I find it hard to believe that with Maduro's legacy this is the only view of the events available. Especially since now even Associated Press refers to the "raid at the coastal town of Macuto" as a "publicity coup for Maduro". AP: 21 May 2020.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@ ReyHahn: Here there are analyses by Prodavinci and the Atlantic Council: [17] [18] [19]. However, I feel there are still important concerns regarding if the section should be kept or not, and there is content that is arguably more appropriate in other sections. Special care with WP:OPINION should be taken. -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Older version of the section
| ||
---|---|---|
The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed that these opposition representatives signed a contract with one firm, SilverCorp USA, which recently carried out a botched incursion", that "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option, the Trump administration bears partial responsibility for these reckless actions by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition" and that "the U.S. government has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government". [1] Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results", that the Guaidó's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies and that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis. [2] An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals. [3] Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó. [3]
|
Insight from uninvolved editors would be appreacited in the Macuto Bay raid article. Should the Analysis section be kept or removed?
The section currently has the "Importance" and "POV" tags. If the section should be kept, which improvements could be done in order to remove the tags? Many thanks beforehand!
Jamez42 (
talk)
01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
The section in question is the following:
The event was described by numerous sources internationally as being an attempted " coup", [1] with Vox's Alex Ward writing that the Guaidó and Silvercorp documents "explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup". [2] Ronal Rodríguez, Head of Del Rosario University's Observatory for Venezuela, stated "Operation Gideon is agreeing with Chavismo, which has always accused the opposition of being undemocratic and coup-mongering and of promoting exits outside constitutional frameworks". [3]
Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results" and that the Guaidó government's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies. He also explained that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis. [4]
In a BBC Mundo article, two analysts were interviewed; risk consultant Dimitris Pantoulas, and head of the Datanálisis consultant firm Luis Vicente León. [5] When discussing Guaidó's alleged involvement with Silvercorp, Pantoulas stated that "the opposition has given many different versions" and that the divisions within the opposition pressured Guaidó to choose between supporting negotiations with Maduro or resorting to violence. [5] Pantoulas and León agreed that Guaidó's image was tarnished by the incident and that he had not made progress for political change in Venezuela. [5] León explained that the opposition must decide if it should participate in parliamentary elections moving forward, stating "the opposition seems to have exhausted the routes". [5]
An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals. [6] Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó. [6] The Washington Office on Latin America's Venezuelan expert David Smilde stated that the failed operation "clearly contributes to the deterioration of the opposition's national and international standing". [2] The polling group Meganálisis conducted interviews of a random sampling of 957 Venezuelans between 5 May and 9 May 2020. [7] When asked if they believed Guaidó when he said that he did not sign documents with Silvercorp, 85.0% of respondents replied that they did not believe Guaidó. [8] non-primary source needed
Regarding the head of Silvercorp, Jordan Goudreau, The New York Times wrote that Venezuelans alternatively saw him "as a huckster selling a suicide mission to desperate Venezuelans, as well as a hero committed to liberating the nation". [9] Some sources reported that Goudreau was inspired by the 26 March bounty offered by the United States of capturing Maduro and other " high value targets" (HVT's) and sending them to the United States, if the raid were successful. [10] [11] [12] [13] Fulton Armstrong, former National Intelligence Officer for Latin America who was once among the most senior analysts within the United States Intelligence Community, stated "The United States has put incentives for this type of operation, ... although everything indicates that this operation was not directed by Washington, everything also indicates that it was approved there," concluding that "there is a pretext for direct military action by the United States, by labeling the former US military detainees as 'hostages' along with the six dual-national Citgo executives under house arrest in Venezuela". [14]
The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed" that the Guaidó government signed documents with Silvercorp. [15] The organization also criticized the Trump administration for "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option," explaining that such stances by the United States "has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government." [15]
The Los Angeles Times writes that "For Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, it’s the propaganda gift that keeps on giving, buoying a leader long in Washington’s crosshairs" and that the failed operation "quickly became a Maduro rallying cry, a Bay of Pigs in miniature, complete with a pair of captured U.S. gunmen". [16] Human Rights Watch criticized Maduro for alleging that the human rights NGO PROVEA had connections to the United States Central Intelligence Agency after the organization called for due process of the captured militants. [17] Human Rights Watch wrote: "An international community that’s closely watching what happens in Venezuela needs to send the message loud and clear: subjecting human rights defenders to politically motivated prosecution, detention or other abuses would be crossing a line for which those responsible will have to answer". [17]
References
COUP
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Vox-Ridiculous
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Espectador-todo-se-vale
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cocuyo-estrategia-insurreccional
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BBCMundo-Guaido-leadership
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).COHAfailedoperation
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mega-poll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mega-poll-report
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).NYT-Incursion
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Connecting-Vets-recruit
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).world-of-reality
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2Tex
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).dumbest-coup
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Jornada-claro-aval
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WOLA
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
I ask the editors to please take a look at previous discussions and the talk page's archives, specfically " On the analysis section", " removed section", " Emmanuel Rincón - WP:FRINGE?" and " WikiVoice - PanAm Post". -- Jamez42 ( talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
which improvements could be done in order to remove the tagsare answerable by uninvolved commenters in an RfC. Those are questions for the user(s) who placed the tags. For example, since the POV tag was placed by ReyHahn, ZiaLater has added information to the section about the government's response as requested, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a specific response on the talk page as to whether that's sufficient or what else could be added or removed to make the section WP:NPOV. — cmonghost 👻 ( talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@ Jamez42: should we allow for involved users to comment? It may help the user that closes the RFC to understand each of the users rationale and to reach a conclusion. We can put them in a different section not mix them up.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
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 ( [20] [21]), 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)
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)
|