This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Gideon (2020) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 120 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If  consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

A fact from Operation Gideon (2020) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 July 2020 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Operation Gideon, an attempt to infiltrate Venezuela by sea and remove Nicolás Maduro from office, was stopped before it got further than the beach? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Macuto Bay raid.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Venezuela Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Colombia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Crime and Criminal Biography: Organized crime Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Organized crime task force (assessed as Low-importance). International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Latin America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latin AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Latin AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Latin AmericaLatin America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: South America / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  South American military history task force Post-Cold War task force South America Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Operation Gideon (2020) was copied or moved into Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement with this edit on 2023-10-08. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Discussions: Moved, 7 May 2020, from La Guaira naval attack to Macuto Bay raid, see discussion. No consensus, 22 May 2020, from Macuto Bay raid to 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, see discussion. Moved, 2 June 2020, from Macuto Bay raid to Operation Gideon (2020), see discussion. No consensus, 24 May 2023, from Operation Gideon (2020) to 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, see discussion. No consensus, 19 July 2023, from Operation Gideon (2020) to Macuto Bay raid, see discussion. Procedural close, 19 July 2023, from Operation Gideon (2020) to 1: Bay of Piglets Invasion (then) 2: 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, see discussion.

See Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Novel article title and Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 5#Aim for RFC rather than RM.

If everyone has had enough time to consult sources identified so far

Sources:

• ReyHahn
• SandyGeorgia
• WMrapids
• Orgullomoore

might we start brainstorming, per #Timeline point 3.2, possible article names so that we can narrow those down to the three or four most likely candidates for a Requested move? Please add alternates along with a brief summary of their pros and cons, don't !vote ... we'll get to that once we draft the neutral RM and launch it. There's a #GENERAL discussion section for overall comments. @ Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon

Operation Gideon arguments in favor

• The status quo, but with a better when-where-what definition than the current Operation Gideon (2020) (what happened is debated, the when and where are clarified. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Used by the large majority of sources in addition to essentially all scholarly or book sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Neutral point of view; avoids partisan labeling of the "murky" event. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Is what sources say when they want to be explicit about which incursion, attempt to spark an uprising, or coup attempt they are talking about; therefore, it conforms most closely to the criteria of the policy laid out at Wikipedia:Article titles. See here for illustrative quotes and a slightly more detailed rationale.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 00:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Used by Maduro's government. Adicionalmente, se investiga la participación y financiamiento en actos conspirativos por parte del supuesto gobierno de Guaidó en contra de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; tales como la denominada “Operación Gedeón”. 2023-10-05 mp.gob.ve-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Operation Gideon arguments against

• The Military History WikiProject guidelines advise against using military codenames. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Covers when and where, but leaves "what" murky (so do sources). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:19, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Multiple uses of Operation Gideon, including another Venezuelan operation.-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:45, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Favors one POV.-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 Venezuelan coup attempt

Coup attempt arguments in favor

• Used by generally reliable sources and various international newspapers of record.-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Common sense name for an attempted overthrow of a government.-- WMrapids ( talk) 02:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Meets naming criteria more than its alternatives (recognizable and natural as it is precise, concise and consistent, per naming conventions on events).-- WMrapids ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Coup attempt arguments against

• Favors one POV SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Used by no scholarly or book sources, and not used by a large number of high-quality sources at all. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

GENERAL discussion

Early on in this process, I favored working some version of Silvercorp into the article name. More familiar with all the sources now, I no longer think that appropriate. What ultimately happened may have been "Goudreau's folly" and naivete over the level to which Cuban intelligence could infiltrate and affect the direction of the operation, but the planning and motivation was Venezuelan military exiles who viewed themselves as "freedom fighters" trying to recover their democracy. It wasn't only Silvercorp/Goudreau.

While I appreciate the earlier expressed desires of others towards some version of incursion, landing, raid, etcetera, sources are divided on those terms, all have some problems (how do you invade your own country? did the landing even happen? etc.), and simply sticking with the neutral term used by most sources (Operation Gideon) avoids that stickiness. It's OK to breach a guideline of one WikiProject if no better alternative can be found.

I am open to persuasion of other alternates, but after a month immersed in sources, I believe the best option is where we already are, and have nothing new to offer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Have to agree with this assessment. Various terms have been debated at length, and nothing is as commonly identifiable as the codename. MILHIST not using codenames is a surprising guideline, but forcing a POV/inaccurate/uncommon name isn't a solution. Kingsif ( talk) 22:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I also agree with SandyGeorgia's assessment. When s/he first came on the scene and I noticed the sudden uptick in activity on this page and yet another heated move request, my thought was, "Oh boy... here we go again." I have had disagreements with SandyGeorgia on certain details regarding sources and style, but I have always seen ample evidence of his/her creativity, skill, and determination to reach the right result for the right reasons. Ultimately, the suggestion is to keep the name we have, but conform it to longstanding styling conventions and specify that it happened in Venezuela. That's perfectly reasonable to me and something I can get behind. Sorry for taking a little while to respond: work schedule is rough!-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 23:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Orgullomoore your post under "OG arguments at favor" at 23:27 is a very persuasive and logical argument, but what we need to do at this stage of formulating the RM is come up with a brief and as-neutral-as-possible list of pros and cons that we can use for launching the RM, where others may then argue their individual preferences in their own response to the RM. Might you extract your (excellent) analysis to a sandbox or subpage, and shorten it to the first sentence here, with a link to the analysis ? (You can call me she/her, although I don't give much thought to pronoun issues :) You can write paragraphs when the RM actually launches, but we have to launch the RM with a statement that neutrally summarizes the options. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 00:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Awesome, thx so much! When we sandbox the Requested move, it will contain a brief neutral question (should this article be named X, Y or Z), followed by one para summarizing pros and cons based on prior discussions for each. If we had WMrapids "pro" list on coup, we'd be close to ready to start sandboxing the proposal ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Sorry for anwsering late, I have been busy with the Nobel Prize articles. I agree with much of what has been said. However I just had a popping idea. Have we considered a title that sees this from the government perspective? "2020 Venezuelan rebels capture" or something along those lines?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 16:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  ReyHahn I've been still hoping you'll come up with a third option ! But I'm not sure we have sources to back a choice like that suggestion ... we don't want to water down the Requested move by adding things that may dilute the main decision. We need a really viable third option if we are to add one ... one that meets all the naming requirements and is widely used by sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Would it be still be advisable to propose a third option along the lines "2020 Venezuelan coast raids"? What are the cons again? Raid defined as a "a surprise attack by a small force" seems to define it well [1]. -- ReyHahn ( talk) 19:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn: Good to hear from you! For what its worth, and I am not at all proposing this as a title, if we were to describe it from the Maduro administration's perspective, I think it would be 2020 Venezuelan failed terrorist sea incursion. They tend to use that kind of language to refer to this event, but when specificity is desired they'll use "Operation Gideon" in scare quotes. See my rationale linked above for details.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 18:24, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Where do I have to look? Sure, I do not meant to write it in Maduro's language if not it will be called "2020 Imperial USA coup d'etat into Venezuela", but want I mean is to change the perspective of the article instead of centering it on the plan, focusing it on the capture of the rebels itself. It would allow to discuss this as it is a "weird" happening that was stopped. However it suffers from the same problem, I cannot get an specific title that fits the sources.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn: See here.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn to propose a new alternate name, it should a) be well represented in sources, and b) meet as many of the requirements for article names as laid out in the analysis linked by Orgullomoore. My conclusion after now reading almost all of the sources, is that we don't have another alternative. If you can make a case for one, as Orgullomoore has, I'm listening :) At one point, I thought "2020 Venezuelan maritime invasion" was a possibility, as so many sources describe it that way, but that, too, is POV, as it leaves out the whole matter of the plot being infiltrated and directed by Maduro's intelligence.

Another factor to consider is that an RFC/RM can quickly go south and end up in no consensus if too many alternates are proposed, so to put forward another possibility, it should be very strongly supported by sources, and meet as many of the article name considerations as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Your fringe description of the event is concerning. Not only have you made previous charges of "Cuban intelligence" interfering with sources, now you are describing the event as being "directed by Maduro's intelligence" despite no sources saying so. WMrapids ( talk) 02:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Already addressed at Source analysis. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Not really... WMrapids ( talk) 03:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

We absolutely have multiple sources saying that Maduro intelligence moles directed the operation to an ambush. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn another idea I've contemplated is 2020 anti-Maduro plot, as the Associated Press uses that description in at least four headlines, and several other sources, including at least one scholarly source, use it as well. But it presents a problem of precision and concision; sources discuss many other anti-Maduro thingies, so it a search doesn't lead to Gideon, and it doesn't say what this "plot" is. So I can't convince myself it's any better than the generic Operation Gideon, and it still leaves out the aspect of the operation being infiltrated by intelligence agents. We should take time to get this right, in case you can find a way to make that possibility workable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:38, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clarifying the issue, I guess this title also suffers from the same problems. I will try to dig the sources and propose a definite title as soon as I can. I think Orgullomoore made a good argument for Operation Gideon. I just was hoping to avoid Yes vs No kind of situation.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 08:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn, 2020 Venezuelan maritime invasion attempt is one for investigation. If I get time, I'll come back with a list from scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 Venezuelan maritime incursion. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids, some information about how the neutral Operation Gideon "favors one POV" would be helpful towards sandboxing the Move request. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Per WP:CODENAME:

"Operational codenames generally make poor titles, as the codename gives no indication of when or where the action took place and only represents one side's planning (potentially leading writers to focus on that side's point of view)." WMrapids ( talk) 02:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, understood. (Wondering if you are aware that Delcy Rodriguez used "Operation Gideon" to describe it just this week?) At any rate, that provides a summary of what you are referring to. Did you want to provide a more specific list to the generally reliable sources that call it a coup? That is, do you want a link to your source page worked in ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not as passionate about Cuban and Venezuelan politics as you seem to be, so no, I was not informed nor does it matter. WMrapids ( talk) 04:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It is clearly not WP:POV. WMrapids you seem to claim that Operation Gideon is WP:POV, Sandy explains that it is used by all parties. Please consider either on dropping that argument or expanding on it, it does not seem fit.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 08:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Use of the term by those with an opposing POV does not change that presenting the article through the operational lens of the attacker is POV. WMrapids ( talk) 19:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn, I'm not (as of now) concerned about being able to work this viewpoint into a neutral summary of arguments pro and con, but we'll have time to work that out once we sandbox the proposal. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

First draft of Requested move in sandbox

Per Step 3.3 of the Timeline, I have started a first draft of the requested move at User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft. I intended to cover every point listed above; please whack me with a wet noodle if I missed anything, misstated or goofed anywhere – it's only a first draft.

To hold the summaries to a limit and keep them equal: the Op Gideon summary is now 110 words, while the Coup summary is 83; are there 27 more words that might be added to the coup summary, or 27 words that might be subtracted from the Op Gideon summary, to keep them equal ?

It will probably take us several drafts to get this close to where we can ask for outside input; I don't want to take others' time until we are a bit further along. Once we get closer to agreement, I'll move it out of sandbox and put the draft here on talk. After we have agreement on the summaries, and external advice on the format, then we can launch. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn if you have time now, might you look at this next? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC) reply

The analyses are very short is that enough for the RfC? I hope users click on the links. Is there a reason to not use bullets as above? Maybe it is also worth it to say that there are while other common names are possible and have been considered, none stand out. My cons against coup also include focus on goal vs what was actually attempted, I do not know if it fits there somwhere. If you need to remove words you can reduce on the Military History guideline and link to it.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 00:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn, an opening that summarizes previous discussions is usually kept very short. Remember that people can expand in their own Support/Oppose entries with their own rationale, highlighting links they believe important. I was more concerned that, for an opening that should be neutral, they may be too long! And I was concerned that bullet points would get so long they wouldn't be read. The aim is just a short, neutral summary. I'll put up the next draft after more people have offered feedback ... probably a day or so more ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

PS, you asked in edit summary if I've "passed this to others"; I pinged you because you earlier asked to always be pinged, but I Really Hate this business of always pinging people to discussions on a page they are following, as it too easily turns into canvassing (and I hate being pinged myself to pages I follow). If others haven't found the time to weigh in within a few days, then I'll Ping the World -- in your case, I saw that you had gotten temporarily unbusy, but others may be busy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks again for all this. It has clearly taken a lot of energy from us all (specially you). I tried to go over previous RMs on pro-points for coup but I could not get more key words for it. I just think that I am pretty much aligned with you for now, so if we have to keep it short then the summary seems ok. I'll try to meditate on it.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 01:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Second draft of Requested move in sandbox

See user:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft

Only ReyHahn responded to the request for feedback on the first draft. I have reworked the second draft to shorten Option A so that both blurbs are now the same length, and to make the links to source lists and commentary more noticeable.

Could others please have a look so we could progress towards getting external feedback per the timeline, so we can launch the Move request? @ Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids:. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm absolutely fine with it and support it. I couldn't have said it better than myself.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 04:35, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Per your draft, there are only a few changes to suggest.

1. The Maduro administration doesn't call the operation. From what you link, the Maduro administration explicitly states "'Operation Gideon', as it was called by the mercenaries and terrorists" and " the so-called 'Operation Gideon'", emphasizing that the opposition utilizes such terms. The Maduro government does say that the event was an attempted coup and assassination in their own voice and definitions, however. Remove this from the proposal as it is inaccurate.
2. The wording "Venezuelan Operation Gideon" also intends that the operation was performed by Venezuela. Please add this as a con or maybe change the proposal to " 2020 Operation Gideon in Venezuela."
3. Please change "It favors the POV that the event was a coup" to "It favors the POV that the event was a coup attempt".
4. Please change "is not used by a number of high-quality sources at all" to "is not used by as many sources" since, yes, it is used by generally reliable sources, though not as many and such wording is more neutral.

That's all I can think of now and will have more to come with sources and such next week.-- WMrapids ( talk) 04:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

How is Venezuelan Operation Gideon suggesting Venezuela did it but not Venezuelan coup attempt?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 08:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

There is already a consistent naming convention that is easily identifiable to readers when it comes to coup attempts, but the wording of "Venezuelan operation" is different as there are little to no use of "*insert nation* operation" in existing Wikipedia titles. WMrapids ( talk) 21:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

To WMrapids' first point, I think it would be fair to say the Maduro administration calls it that, "albeit using MOS:SCAREQUOTES and MOS:QUOTEPOV-like weasel words such as 'so-called' and 'supposedly'"; but the fact of the matter is they do use this operational codename when they want to be explicit about which subversive anti-revolutionary terrorist assassination plot and coup attempt they are talking about. I agree with ReyHahn that "Venezuelan Operation Gideon" does not suggest it was carried out by the Maduro regime, just as "Venezuelan coup attempt" would not. I think WMrapids' point about attempt is fair and should be implemented. I think we will need a creative solution to the "not used by as many sources" issue you raised; I don't agree with WMrapids' proposal above.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I have been waiting to allow time for others to weigh in. My role in presenting the summary was to attempt to faithfully include all points raised by all editors; as enough time has elapsed for opinions to be registered, now I'll add my own opinions. Per WMrapids' four points above:

1. Orgullomoore way back here when I mentioned your post at 23:27 being logical and persuasive, I was referring to you having pointed out that Operation Gideon had become the common name-- the name used for clarification and precision even by those sources that referred to it as a coup, particularly your example of the way the BBC worded it (you noticed that the BBC said "Operation Gideon was a deeply flawed coup attempt". Notice that it does not say: "The 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt was deeply flawed.") This is an argument for common name and precision, but I agree with WMrapids that extending it to say that it is the term used by the Maduro administration is adding something to the RFC that will be easily shot down. In other analyses (eg mine), we identify and separate what sources call it in their own voice from what they attribute to others. So when a source attributes the coup wording to the Maduro administration, but calls it something else in their own voice, we don't say the source calls it a coup. In this example, we can't say the Maduro administration calls it "Operation Gideon", rather that they are acknowledging that others do; that's an argument for common name and precision, but not an indication that it's the term used by them. Perhaps it is the way I built the draft, trying to minimize the words to keep the word counts equal, that got this messed up. I suggest we can fix WMrapids' concern, and still include your point by changing the current:
   • 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon is used by the majority of media outlets[1] and the Maduro administration,[2] and most scholarly[3] or book sources.[4] It is what sources say when they want to be precise[5] ... to ...
   • 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon is used by the majority of media outlets[1] and most scholarly[3] or book sources.[4] It is the common name sources use when they want to be precise[5], including the Maduro administration,[2]

   which I suspect is what you intended anyway ??

2. I agree with ReyHahn and Orgullomoore that there is not a problem with this as phrased.
3. I agree with WMrapids on this point, and will correct that in the next draft.
4. I understand WMrapids concern on this point, but the fact remains that a number of high-quality sources avoid the term coup. In trying to keep the word count equal, things get jumbled; spelling this out takes more words. How about addressing the concern by changing:
   • It favors the POV that the event was a coup, is not used by a number of high-quality sources at all,[8] and no scholarly[9] or book sources[10] uncovered to date. ... to ...
   • It favors the POV that it was a coup attempt, some high-quality sources avoid the word coup completely,[8] and no scholarly[9] or book sources[10] uncovered use it.

Separately, way way back in the beginning of our analysis of possible names, ReyHahn was wanting to work in a third option, for those who may opine that sources don't broadly support coup, but may be uncomfortable with code name. I suggest we might contemplate:

• 2020 failed Venezuelan incursion

From the sources at User:SandyGeorgia/GideonSources, we can see that almost every source does use the word incursion, it's a better description than "attack" since it's unclear if an "attack" ever happened, and multiple sources refer to it as failed regardless of which noun they use. Some say "maritime incursion"; we could also go that way if people think it helpful. I am still concerned that if we don't present a viable third option, the move request could end at no consensus.

WMrapids, you said "will have more to come with sources and such next week"; could you let us know in terms of when we are ready for the next draft and to bring in outside feedback? I don't want to ping those editors in 'til we're close to ready. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

For sure, I'll keep you all updated. For point 1, those are only a few sources from the Maduro administration using the codename, so it would be important to see how widespread that usage amongst his government actually is. And the proposed wording for point 4 is improved and neutral, so thank you. WMrapids ( talk) 17:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia With respect to # 1 above, yes, that works for me.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:37, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia, make the change of "is used by various international newspapers of record and generally reliable sources" to "is used by various international newspapers of record, generally reliable sources and generally reliable Venezuelan sources". Still looking at some more sources, which should wrap up by the end of next week.-- WMrapids ( talk) 23:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids I planned to work on Draft 3 (and hopefully then be ready to ping in the outside group) today, as soon as I catch up from travel around the house. But regarding your 23:54 request, and this version of your source list, there are some wrinkles to be worked out before I can move to the next draft. WP:CRITERIA specifically states that Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. Your source list includes two Brazilian (Portuguese) sources (CNN and Intercept) in your basic list. Your list also includes a section called "International usage" where the Brazilian sources might be a better fit. Although "International usage" is also a bit misnamed, as you have Australian, UK and other sources up in your main list. You might better split them into "English-language sources" and "Non-English language sources"; it's OK that you've listed the non-English-language sources for personal or illustration purposes, but they aren't part of the article naming criteria, and the two Brazilian sources a) should be moved, and b) it should be clarified in your chart that they aren't English-language sources, as that info is now hidden from the reader who doesn't click the link to CNN. For the same reason, we should probably leave out your suggestion that it is used in "generally reliable Venezuelan sources", unless those are in English. If we go that direction, we would then also leave out Orgullomoore's reference to Maduro's government using the term, and leave it to the two of you to work that information into your own declarations ... but I need for all of you to discuss and come to consensus on this so I can work up the third draft, so @ NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: as well. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It's OK with me if some of my argument is left out of the RFC presentation and I make those arguments separately.-- Orgullomoore ( talk) 17:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Eh, WP:RSUEC also says that English-language sources are preferred, though not required. We can pick apart things all day, so it’s just best to let the users decide based on the information provided.

As for the generally reliable sources using different languages, it doesn’t change that they are generally reliable.

For VENRS info, we can just keep that in my sandbox page. WMrapids ( talk) 20:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids, the RFC will link to your source page (as I did in the sample in Draft 2), so could you correct the two Brazilian sources before I work up the third draft? The idea being that we are all comfortable with a general consensus RFC statement that isn't misleading newcomers -- the two Brazilian entries are not English sources, which is what Article naming relies on, and that's not clear in your table/list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC) reply

What is misleading? WMrapids ( talk) 03:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids 1) the current version of your sourcelist has CNN Brasil flagged as United States, and never indicates it is non-English (readers have to click to know that), 2) you have Intercept identified as Brasil, but do not indicate it is non-English, and 3) you have both of those (and possibly more) listed in a way, along with the overall page organization, that doesn't separate non-English sources from English-language sources. WP:CRITERIA is based on English-language sources; we should avoid misleading editors who come to opine in the move request by, for example, leading them to think that CNN Brasil and Intercept are English-language sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

And in fact, you have the same for Voice of America, so I'm concerned that the entire table should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Does not mean that the sources themselves are unreliable, especially per WP:GREL or that it is misleading. WMrapids ( talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids I have not said they're not reliable. Our aim here is to come up with a brief statement for the Move request that we can all agree does not have errors, even as we have differing opinions, so that new readers don't have to check. Your source list has non-English sources listed, not separated from the English sources, making it disingenuous for the rest of us to endorse it as a link on the Requested Move blurb representing WP:CRITERIA. It would not be optimal for others to have to point out, on the RM, that your source list has errors-- that will just muck up the Move request. Could you please address this detail so we can move forward? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Any source list that we attacht to it should be easily verifiable and as transparent as posible.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 22:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, and in this case, the non-English sources are hidden; one has to click on the links to see they are not English, hence not applicable to WP:CRITERIA. At least they should be highlighted as non-English, or separated to a non-English section, as are the Venezuelan sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It's easy to display languages and I will add them to the list, but overall, the sources are still applicable. WP:CRITERIA says "These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious." We wouldn't be discussing and splitting hairs over this article if it were "simple and obvious". The use of the English-language quote you include links to WP:VERIFY, which states "Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones." So there's nothing wrong with other languages being used. The emphasis on English language in WP:CRITERIA is mainly related to common names in English that differ from a native name (for instance, in English we have Cologne and not Köln). Finally, it is important to remember Wikipedia has no firm rules and to recognize that "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". Some of the world's largest media outlets and newspapers of record call this a "coup attempt" in one way or another, so preventing the use of these sources through wikilawyering would be deceitful towards readers and users. WMrapids ( talk) 01:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This is not a difficult thing; I am only asking that you make it obvious which sources are non-English, so that independent editors can make their own decisions, knowing that we've presented the sources clearly. You can argue your case when the RM is up; for now, we need a straightforward, easy to read, not misleading, consensual move request, and presenting non-English sources, without identifying them as such, is misleading. I am not preventing you from doing anything: I'm asking that you present the sources in such a way that editors can either agree or disagree, without having to do the work to realize which sources are English and which aren't. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:56, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done WMrapids ( talk) 02:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I will look in tomorrow; out of steam for today. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids I glanced at your last diff, and appreciate that you identified all languages. But CNN Brazil is not the same as CNN, and is not United States; could you please re-identify the name and the associated country? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

 Done-- WMrapids ( talk) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia, can you update your entry for NYT on your sandbox after this edit?-- WMrapids ( talk) 04:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Mañana ... when on real computer, will catch up on everything here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: After all this time, is only now that I had the chance (and remembered) to take a look at the draft. We're discussing the Second draft for the RM, is that correct? I still think a geographical title should be considered since I think it hasn't been given as much discussion as other alternatives, but that's a can of worms on its own that I simply don't want opening. I think that the descriptions are mostly alright and that any additional arguments can be put in the discussion, and I'll keep an eye out in case a third draft is created. Best wishes, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 12:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Third draft of Requested move in sandbox

User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft

@ Iskandar323, Kingsif, NoonIcarus, Orgullomoore, ReyHahn, and WMrapids: the third draft is at user:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft; I'm unsure whether we have sufficiently nailed down Option C, but hope we are close now to asking for outside input on the format. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Maybe I missed it, but why we decided to add option C?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 20:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn I raised that at 13:58 15 October above; as I didn't get any feedback, I went ahead and worked it in to make it easier for others to visualize, accept or reject. I am concerned that if we don't have a third option (something in between the two bookends), others will start proposing others, derailing the RM and ending in no consensus again. I am not wedded to this; I'm just not getting enough feedback to know whether to add or not. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I dropped my insistence on it, convinced by you that it might distract too much. Anybody else cares to comment on this? We might better add a comment in the RM to say: that in order to avoid noconsensus, if this option is preferred, it is recommended to provide a second option.-- ReyHahn ( talk) 21:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

ReyHahn it is over a decade ago now, so I no longer know where to find it, but I once put up an RFC that was totally derailed when every Tom, Dick and Harry randomly added on their own idea for how to solve a problem. The end result was that there was no consensus, and the problem continues today. If we want a third option, my thought is that it's better for us to propose one, so the RM doesn't go off in a million directions and end with no consensus (that is the same thing I was saying earlier, and then when no one came up with a third option, I agreed we didn't need one, but I'm still concerned we end at no consensus). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I lean for no option C. That way it will be a clear cut decision for all. If an option C arises after the RfC starts we will have to handle it as organically as we can. Maybe we can mention it in the RfC (we considered this but...) but not as an option?-- ReyHahn ( talk) 21:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Got it (hope others will opine, too!!). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I mean, it goes without saying you know how to write an RM, but it looks good. Kingsif ( talk) 21:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia Please update as there are book sources supporting the use of "coup" or "coup attempt". WMrapids ( talk) 22:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids I already have Maher listed (and had it in my summary, but misstated at Draft 3, now fixed).

The ISBN for Baud/Navalny Case is ISBN  9782315011346 and it is not searchable; could you please add at least a paragraph excerpt and the indication of chapter or page or something for finding it?

The ISBN for Rogers/Soldiers of Fortune is ISBN  ‎978-1472848017 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: invalid character and returns an invalid character/parameter error, so same problem. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Better now? WMrapids ( talk) 06:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids halfway: Rogers returns the page on preview now, but the Baud ISBN produces nothing on WorldCat, so the book cannot be found in a local library and is not searchable, so a better/longer excerpt of the content is needed. Also, Maher is a passing mention in a completely unrelated book. And my list doesn't include non-English sources, as WP:CRITERIA is based on English sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

At any rate, because of the dubious publisher, I'm not going to pursue Baud any further, and have updated User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft to account for new books found. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia You can add scholarly journals using the "coup" terminology too. Whether you want to differentiate between "non-English" in the entry or whatever is up to you, but journals use it as well. The statement "use by scholarly and book sources is mixed" is suitable. WMrapids ( talk) 03:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Not sure what the suggestion is here, but I am not adding non-English entries, as article naming policy depends on English usage. I have added so far every scholarly journal I've found; I will catch up with your new finds once I'm finished updating the Sanctions article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Looks good to me. Looking forward to the RfC--should be interesting! | Orgullomoore ( talk) 00:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Orgullomoore ReyHahn is concerned about having an Option C; Kingsif offered no opinion; what do the two of you think about whether we should offer Option C, or drop it (see discussion above) ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I think it's a good idea to prevent the RfC from turning into a "none of the above" marathon. | Orgullomoore ( talk) 01:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I think it is unlikely anyone would vote for it and of course there are style issues, but it gives a sense of what "the next best option" could be if A and B are vetoed, which I think is helpful. Kingsif ( talk) 14:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Request for independent feedback on Requested move draft

We have been working since 7 September at cleaning up the article and reviewing sourcing towards prepping for a Move request.

Draft 3 of the proposed Move request is at User:SandyGeorgia/Op.Gideon.RM.draft. In this discussion, experienced Move requesters offered advice and help, @ Paine Ellsworth, Redrose64, and Amakuru: we are mixed on the benefits of including Option C, but have progressed to an overall state where feedback would be useful. Besides overall impressions and advice, specific questions are:

1. Since I can't test the subst'd request without launching it, might you all comment if I have formatted it correctly (now enclosed in nowiki tags)?
2. Thoughts on the third option (C).
3. Any other wisdom you might offer ...

Thanks for the help ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I usually test substitutions by using the Show changes feature to see what code will be emitted without saving it. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:10, 25 October 2023 (UTC) reply

First, you and the other editors who have worked on this issue deserve thanks for your Herculean effort to resolve the naming of this article! This manner of improving Wikipedia will hopefully catch on. My thoughts on the options are that editors should make a preliminary choice of A, B or C, and then open a move request for that choice. Over time I've noticed that the best way is to request a rename to one certain, specific title, rather than initially offering two or three options, or no options (<current title> → ?). In this case, would also suggest that it be asked in the RM nomination that participating editors refrain from offering their favorite new titles and focus their rationales only on the specific move request at hand (that's new! and might be contentious in and of itself). Again, thanks to all editors who have worked hard on this issue! P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 11:29, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that tip, Redrose64, and please accept my second apology for my technical inabilities; months ago, when I became frustrated that the subst was rejected with an error message when I tried to test it in my sandbox, I missed and forgot the (d'oh) solution to move it over here to test it with preview (it works on this page), so thanks for the help.

We haven't heard from Amakuru, but have helpful info above from Paine Ellsworth (thank you!); I was wondering if you or Amakuru have any additional advice on how to proceed? It sounds like offering the third option is not a good idea.

The dilemma based on what Paine Ellsworth offers is that the clear consensus on this page is for 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon, with one editor disagreeing; 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon corrects the when-where-what deficiencies in the current name (Venezuela isn't mentioned). So if we follow Paine's advice, we would be opening the Move Request for that name. But that doesn't seem entirely useful, as it doesn't resolve the coup dilemma. That leads to my next follow-up question.

Would it be reasonable to proceed as follows ...

1. move the article now from Operation Gideon (2020) to 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon as an uncontroversial move merely to correct the when-where-what, and then,
2. open the Move request with the target of 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt?

Would this help us avoid the multiple choice RM and get to a clearer resolution, and would the interim move to the clearer when-where-what title be accepted as uncontroversial ?? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:46, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, realise you've pinged me a couple of times now, looks like a lot of good discussion and work has been put into getting this right. Personally I'd query a couple of things here... Firstly, I don't think we should do an interim move to 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon... That isn't really a when-where-what title but more of a when-where-propername which just looks rather odd to me. It's either Operation Gideon, or it's the 2020 Venezuelan whatever-it-is. And secondly, on the specific point Paine raises about forcing discussion to be on a single proposed title only, unfortunately in my experience that never works. Editors who participate in RMs don't like to be told they can't vote for something, and if they suggest alternative titles to the one proposed then closers will take those into account. But with luck, you should still be able to work to a solution with that approach. Just see which way the consensus goes and a good closer should find for thr title which matches the consensus and evidence best. Not sure if that answers your question at all, not happy to give other advice if required!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 22:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thx, Amakuru; it certainly does help. I've seen enough RFCs go south that I know there's a risk of no consensus no matter how hard we try to set this thing off on the right foot! So, waiting to hear from others, but it sounds like we may have the format right where it needs to be, and once we finish working in late source finds, we might be ready to roll. Thx to all of you, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Amakuru. Make the proposals and see how users decide. WMrapids ( talk) 03:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Would have to agree with Amakuru as well. Thought that trying to focus editors mainly on the specific proposed title and asking that they refrain from offering their own pet title proposals would be at some level controversial. Amakuru's right about that, of course. The negative vibes would not help. Editors are perfectly capable of coming to consensus eventually. However, I do think that in the nomination of a move request, to propose one specific title has the best chance of leading to consensus. But to coup or not to coup, aye there's the rub. P.I. Ellsworth ,  ed.  ^{put'er there} 14:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree with this as well, though my main concern is having enough participation to determine a clear consensus, but we can cross that bridge when we get there. In order to avoid accusations of canvassing, are there limits we should have for notifying others? Thanks for your help everyone. WMrapids ( talk) 21:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Paine Ellsworth: And thank you for your help bouncing between the articles and providing feedback! WMrapids ( talk) 21:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Timing

WMrapids, when do you plan to finish your source work so I can update my source list and the draft?

A bigger problem now is an issue raised in several other dicussions by others (and with which I don't disagree). After months of prepping to run a proper Move request, so we can get a real and lasting consensus based on informed, broad and independent feedback, at other fora it has been pointed out that we are likely now at a state where the community is saturated with the number of spurious Venezuelan RFCs cropping up everywhere. In that environment, what is the best time to launch this RM and is it better to wait for some of the others to close? After all the work at getting this one right, is the response now going to be, ho hum, another spurious Venezuelan RFC with walls of text? Should this launch as soon as WMrapids let's us know their source list is done, or should it wait for some other RFCs to close? It's getting embarrassing ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Waiting, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: Should be all set. I needed to take a break from this article.-- WMrapids ( talk) 20:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: To recap, since I have lost track of the article's progress: what issues would remain to be solved in order to remove the POV tag? Kind regards, NoonIcarus ( talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Give me a few days to find time to review and revisit; the adversarial editing style has meant I had to step away for an extended period, and now I've lost track of where we stand. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, 22, please ping me; I have multiple medical visits on the horizon in the next week. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: Wish you the best! Please take care. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ NoonIcarus: thanks, appreciated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

1. Forcibly: still no idea from whence comes this word, undue.

   Removed (but now worse, will detail separately) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2. Third para of lead (about Strategy Committee) gives undue weight to one aspect of an abandoned plan that was but one small part of the overall history of an evolving plan that was different things at different times to different players. The article overplays (relative to sources) this aspect, leading the reader to believe the US/CIA/Guiado were involved, while downplaying the role of exiled Venezuelans.

   Problem persists; the lead never mentions the key players in the operation, rather takes an entire paragraph on an agreement that was abandoned, and repetitively does so (repeating info from the first paragraph).

3. Background: "hired a foreigner to install him"-- I remain mystified at why we are including one author's hyperbole.

   removed, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

4. Negotiations with Guaido segment is given UNDUE weight, same as 2 above; it was one (abandoned) part of a plan that changed over time and ended up unrelated to the Strategy Committee planning, and has its own full article. Statements like ... Sucre stated that such discourse, together with phrases used by some in the opposition proclaiming "that there is no electoral exit before a criminal government", could lead to "any possible means to force Maduro's departure". ... (one person's random opinion) belong in the sub-article. Most sources (scholarly, or after-the-fact, that is NOTNEWS) treat this phase as something that was floated, abandoned, and denied ... but we have it as one of the largest single sections of the article, in a section that is trying to lead the reader. The excess detail here has crept back from the sub-article, and needs to be trimmed again to just the facts of a plan that happened and was quickly abandoned, unrelated to what eventually happened. The word count can be trimmed in simple ways by taking out detail on payments, overquoting and the like, which are provided in sub-article.

   Persists, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

5. Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations section gives undue attention to Denman (listing his badges and such); Denman and Berry were not key parts of Operation Gideon (they were more key prizes to Maduro). Most sources discussing the operation don't give this much weight to Denman and Berry, other than stating they were former Green Berets. Overall, the article spends more time talking about them then it does Alcala, who was a key planner, or Sequae, or Colina, for example. We also waste word count on ridiculous detail like what airports they flew from and to. We don't need quotes about Denman's "most meaningful thing he's ever done", for example. The article overplays the role of two Green berets at the expense of the 60 Venezuelans, some of whom died, and the planners. Perhaps some of the Green Beret info can be removed to the article of their employer, Silvercorp. By overplaying their role, the article is trying to lead the reader to believe the U.S. was involved, and is overly US-centric, downplaying the role of Venezuelans.

   Problem persists (eg whether Denman's parents or girlfriends knew what he was doing) ... Denman and Berry were a minor part of what Alacala, Dequae, Nieto Quintero and Colina were up to, and we give no such detail on them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

6. Landing attempt section: We still have "the Maduro administration announced" with Reverol and "their version". We're not making it clear that Reverol and Diosdado and Padrino Lopez gave different accounts. "Their version" is whose version, because the stories changed to fit the narrative of different parts of the administration. We repeat the same problem later with "Venezuelan spokespersons" reporting on the dead ... Reverol said some things, Cabello said others, Padrino Lopez others. We should be clear on who was claiming what.
   The neutrality tag can be removed from that section IMO; these bits are more useful for posterity (as the whole story may emerge someday), but less related to POV.

   Problem persists; by leaving out which admin official said what when, we are obscuring the FAES role, which is meaningful to the outcome (not to mention specifically deleting content about the FAES doing the intervention). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

7. Reactions: Maduro administration -- why are we quoting Luis Parra ?

Overall, the article has been stable for a few weeks, we haven't seen introduction of new UNDUE/POV material, and the issues left above probably mean we can downgrade the POV tag to {{ Unbalanced}}, with inline tags or section tags on those specific sections which are still POV/UNDUE/UNBALANCED. It's no longer blatant POV, rather a matter of UNDUE weight, that leads the reader to conclusions not supported by sources or facts. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, I see that the idea that the POV tag might be removed was overly optimistic, and now we have sources like Democracy Now in the lead. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: What is wrong with Democracy Now!? The source reliability list says additional considerations, yet this is information is attributed to notable Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas, who they interviewed about the event. WMrapids ( talk) 23:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll respond to your list:

1. Seems to be good now. Was going to remove it myself (yeah, I know I put it there) after reading MOS:EDITORIAL. Apologies.
2. Third paragraph is fine as this is something that was widely discussed about the event. Information about US involvement is properly attributed.
3. We could replace this with the multiple sources now saying that one goal was to install Guaidó.
4. This section is required. As said above, this is a very vital part of the article that needs explanation.
5. I'm indifferent to this. While multiple articles do in fact go into detail about the other former Green Berets, I can see how it doesn't necessarily have to be included.
6. Mixed feelings about this. On one hand you want more details about who said what, yet on the other, you want less details on American individuals involved? It is readable as it is now without going too much into detail.
7. Parra is fine as he was the disputed President of the National Assembly of Venezuela at the time, so still pretty notable. There was a commission that was created by him to investigate the incident. Not sure why this hasn't been excluded.

Some other NPOV concerns include that the wording about accusations by the opposition regarding the possible executions is undue in its wording and information about prior knowledge of Colombia and the United States keeps being removed. WMrapids ( talk) 23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: I have tried addressing the concerns of the five first points and removed the POV tag on top, while the sixth point remains and I left the cleanup tag for that section. Per this version, could the tag stay removed? Best wishes, -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I may have time to look tomorrow. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Also the seventh! Just noticed it after the edits, tried addressing that as well: [2]. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Let me know if the article stabilizes to where I can see how much POV remains. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: Is this version acceptable? I feel like it addresses most of our concerns, though I don't want us to remove the NPOV tag if we are still having disputes. Points 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Sandy's wishlist have been dealt with. WMrapids ( talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I will look in once the article has been stable for, say, about five days, as I've found with these articles that I frequently update my opinion only to see the text change hours later. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

These are the total edits since I entered the list above; not only has the POV not improved, it has gotten worse. More detail in a bit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Overly-detailed POV execution accusations

Well, I raised my concerns above about the execution accusations and made the edits, yet they were reverted. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ... reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The information removed was minor aspects of the allegations, which is placed seemingly to sway the user with "evidence" to support the allegations. Per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail..." Well, the "depth of detail" includes numerous claims; that the bodies were hidden, the number of images in the report, detailed descriptions about dead bodies and how they were affected, the number of bullet holes in a boat, whether or not there was gasoline in the boat, the location of weapons, the location of the shooters, the lack of blood, etc.

All of these unnecessary details result with an impartial tone in the article and they must be removed. WMrapids ( talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Odd that the article would leave out discussion of what happened on 3 May, while including so much on unrelated events months before, and minor characters in the operation (Berry and Denman). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The details explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial, and as such have due weight in the article. -- NoonIcarus ( talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The summarized information does this adequately. If we were to place intricately detailed information in an article to "explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial", then we would be attempting to lead the reader to support the opposition's POV. WMrapids ( talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The information is not "intricately detailed": there were no bullet holes in the boats, and all individuals were shot point-blank with evidence the bodies were moved. Not only was this information pushed down from the section where it belongs (the landing attempt), it has not been excised completely; this looks like an attempt to hide information citing the FAES ambush aspect, in which the men (except those with unshaven heads) were killed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Additional POV introduced to the lead

When citation overkill is found in a lead (considering leads don't require citations), it's often a tip-off to POV, as is found in this case. The lead now says:

• to infiltrate Venezuela by sea and remove Nicolás Maduro from power and establish the leadership of Venezuelan opposition head Juan Guaidó.

The (excessive) citations (with their overquoted excerpts) are:

1. Democracy Now: U.S. Mercenaries Captured in Venezuela After Failed Coup Attempt Compared to a “Bad Rambo Movie” (two days after the event, before full information was known): "It all appears to be an attempted coup. ... The reality is that this involved disgruntled Venezuelan military, former police, deserters, political opponents of the Maduro government, and was training in Colombia, and somehow thought that by landing two boats ... that they would somehow manage to get to Caracas and capture Maduro and install a new government.

   This source which does not enjoy consensus as to reliability and should not be used to source a controversial claim) starts displays its POV by highlighting "mercenaries" in the title (there were two hired Americans, and 60 Venezuelans, with the Venezuelans in charge while the Americans didn't know what was going on). Besides being biased, the source nonetheless does "not" state that the goal was to install Guaido, so doesn't even cite what it claims to cite.

2. Miami Herald: "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó, whose name appears on a contract purportedly signed with the coup plotters."

   All parties and reliable sources agree that contract was abandoned; it was not the plan executed, and positioning this in the lead is POV and undue.. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó. The mention of the document Guaidó reportedly signed does not take away from the Miami Herald making their conclusion; Guaidó being placed in power was an objective. WMrapids ( talk) 03:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

1. Defronzo 2021: "Operation Gideon was supposed to capture and remove Maduro and his close associates from power so that Guaidó could take over Venezuela"

   "take over Venezuela" indicates the POV of this source (Guaido was then recognized by the free world as the interim leader, with a clear transition plan in place), but nonetheless, it is one source that does include that POV. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

   Again, this is interpretation of a source's statement and does not suggest a bias whatsoever. Even if a bias were present, it does not suggest unreliability. WMrapids ( talk) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

2. Vox: "plan to send two teams into Maracaibo and Caracas, extract Maduro from his presidential mansion, and install Guaidó as president."

   Vox is the main source to make this claim (that's two).

3. Europa Press (newly introduced to the lead only): "'Operation Gideon', an armed intervention of mercenaries and ex-military soldiers aimed at overthrowing President Nicolás Maduro and installing Juan Guaidó as president.
4. A newly introduced obscure Mediterranean Press: "Operation Gideon ... intended to 'capture, arrest or remove Nicolás Maduro' from power in Venezuela and install Juan Guaidó"

So, months (and months) into developing this article and examining all sources, three new or obscure or non-reliable sources were found, augmented to one POV source, to make this claim in the lead ... in contrast to the scores of other sources we have in the article. This is classic citation overkill: cherry-picking a few sources (including those obscure and POV) that make the claim, and putting UNDUE and POV information in the lead by attaching six citations to it, ignoring the scores of sources used in the article. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: What makes Defronzo, the Miami Herald, Europa Press or Prensa Ibérica "obscure or non-reliable sources"? WMrapids ( talk) 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

That's not what I said; please re-read. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

WMrapids at no point did you gain consensus for re-adding this disputed material here on the talk discussion, and yet ... re-add it you did. We build articles via consensus, not via edit warring. We clearly discussed the problems with this content here on talk (eg, the Miami Herald was talking about an operation that was acknowledged as abandoned by all parties. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

And I replied saying "The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó" since they write "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó". Since there is no other "Gideon", you are making assumptions about what The Miami Herald is trying to say instead of what they actually said. WMrapids ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

POV returned

This edit reintroduced UNDUE content, without gaining talk consensus, about a sub-aspect of the eventual May 3 events which had already been summarized from Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement, and was not part of the actual event, and which attempts to paint Leopoldo Lopez as having a broader role in the May 3 events than sources support. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I put in an edit summary to this edit, but for some reason it was not published: The material is in the article under Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Prior_knowledge_of_operation, which I clarified. The source says:

An AP investigation published prior to the failed raid places Goudreau at the center of a plot hatched with a rebellious former Venezuelan Army Gen., Cliver Alcalá, to secretly train dozens of Venezuelan military deserters in secret camps in Colombia to carry out a swift operation against Maduro.

I wasn't able to find that article that they claimed to have published. I didn't look hard though. It may be in the Wikipedia article somewhere. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: You added the POV tag back in September 2023 with the edit summary: "having now spent a week immersed in this article and having now read almost all the sources, and watching more POV being added during that week, this article is undoubtedly POV, as detail on talk at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#We_need_to_focus..." That section has since been archived on October 16, 2023 to: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_6#We_need_to_focus.... Do you still have concerns? If so, what are they? If not, what needs to be improved?

I have not read over the article and do not know if it is POV or not. I have not read through the voluminous talk page discussion either. But I would be interested in improving the article, if there are specific problems that can be corrected. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes; please read the talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply