Jump to content

Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Burrobert (talk | contribs) at 01:19, 6 August 2023 (→‎Tags??: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know nomination

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

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

(
)
  • ... that an American sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that an American claimed he sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "Goudreau said he never received a penny from the Guaidó team and instead the Venezuelan soldiers he was advising had to scrounge for donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia." (AP [1])
  • Reviewed: WYCB
  • Comment: Note that there's a potentially controversial move discussion ongoing. Move discussion closed -- reviewer Bri

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

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

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

See comments above. One might note that the claimed seized condoms could be considered military purpose, as are sometimes used to prevent water from entering gun barrels. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the move discussion closed, but there is an open RfC on the talkpage of neutrality in the section Analysis especially about the use of the term "coup attempt", and the section is still marked POV. I don't see an intractable problem here, and consensus appears to have formed around "keep and rework". Not a showsotpper for DYK in my opinion, in fact more readers might help to reformulate it as requested. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed ALT1 to ensure NPOV in the hook. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bri, ALT1 is fine (and such a minor change I don't think we need another reviewer). The sources do get mixed up - did you fix it in the article as well, or should I do that? Kingsif (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not edit the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: The article is using the AP article, but at the AP rather than TIME. Is the hook good and everything? Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are the same story. I referenced AP May 4 by Goodman and Smith (via Zeit). Don't see that same AP story in the article. Citation for the sentence Goudreau stated the operation was forced to rely on "donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia" because he was not paid by Guaidó's team is dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Yes - they used the same headline - changed it now. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I marked this as passing the DYK criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: That would be the link the reviewer told me to replace above. I'd have to find the edit to see which ref was removed and check if it was actually correct. The article may have been updated since the start of May, too. Kingsif (talk) 23:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kingsif, it's been a while. If the footnotes don't support the hook fact, then either this needs a new hook dependent on different facts, or new sourcing that support the hook fact. Thanks for taking care of this. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a change of hook is in order, if there's now only one source (sensitive topic). It's not the simplest article to write an appropriate hook for, I just thought the American angle was interesting. I'll see what I can do, but may withdraw if there's nothing both interesting and water-tight. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: Can I phone a friend? @Jamez42 and ReyHahn: do you guys have any hook suggestions? Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42's suggestions from the talk page here: Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 ... that Jordan Goudreau cited Alexander the Great's Battle of Gaugamela as an inspiration to invade Venezuela? Source: "When he was pressed by Poleo to explain why launching an amphibious operation across open waters instead of attempting to infiltrate via the border with Colombia, Goudreau replied: 'Are you familiar with Alexander the Great? The Battle of Gaugamela. Completely outnumbered. He struck to the heart of the enemy, and he won.'" (Source: Bellingcat [2])
@Kingsif: I don't think it has been included in the article, unlike the statement about the condoms, which I'm almost certain that it was removed. I'm not sure if adding it would make the hook eligible, but it's understandable that it also needs more support. Toi other editor, like I said in the talk page, feel free to change the grammar or phrasing if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42: Thanks for the clarification - to be eligible, the information needs to be in the article. It seems to be a real interview, so sourcing for this one (unlike the condoms) is no issue. I can see about adding this. Kingsif (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT4 ... that after Operation Gideon, a failed invasion in Venezuela, there were condoms among the reported seized equipment? Source:Mientras mira algunas fotos más del equipo capturado por los miembros de Operación Gedeón, ¿hay 7 condones entre las capturas? (Alberto News [3])
Review needed for alt hooks 2-4. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4 is probably the most unusual option here and perhaps the most attention grabbing. It's cited inline; assuming good faith on the Alberto News source (although the Google Translate translation seems to check out) since the NY Mag link doesn't mention it. Rest of the review per above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we don't use ALT4, I'd prefer ALT2. ALT3 is a bit more on the obscure side since while Alexander is well-known, the battle is probably not so much outside of people interested in history. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that ALT2 is the best idea. It actually says something about the raid and is well worded. ALT2 hook ref verified and cited inline.
  • @Kingsif: the article has a "failed verification" tag and the Analysis section has a big template on it. Is this ready yet? Do you want to comment out sentences/sections until after the main page appearance? Yoninah (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yoninah: Yes and I have done so - I'm glad it's also returned to stability, hopefully discussions can be concluded on the analysis. The failed verification sentence has been removed. Kingsif (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Throughout this discussion, editors brought forth several arguments but were unable to justify their choice as being better beyond doubt. Vote counts arent a particularly good way to gauge consensus, and the arguments need to be weighed on their merits and not their supporters. While the proposed title may not have reached consensus, it must also be noted that the current title is not without its faults, as raised below. I would encourage editors to discuss and look for a different title where they may reach consensus. (non-admin closure) Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Gideon (2020) → 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – Per similarities with Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023, other users found more than enough sources describing this as a "coup". An armed group contracted by Juan Guaido attempted to overthrow Nicolas Maduro. The current title of "Operation Gideon" requires a disambiguation page and is not broadly used in literature. So, citing NoonIcarus' own proposal on the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt talk page, with WP:CONSISTENT (we have February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt) and WP:PRECISION, this article title should follow the example of others before it. WMrapids (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • support per WP:CODENAME and wp:commonname—blindlynx 21:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that this editor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Oppose and close move request no new arguments or evidence provided. See also comment below. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: this request was made without taking into account WP:CANVASS, only calling for users on the previous conversations that have similar opinions instead of calling for all users that have intervened before. Also an attempt to WP:POINT by similar move request at the same time, with similar statement, by the same user. --ReyHahn (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No canvassing intended. Since we had good participation on the other page, the inclusion of users who participated in a similar move is logical. Also, there is no disruption and if you are implying that my edits are disruption, I would like to remind you to assume good faith. Wikipedia policy was cited for this proposed move. WMrapids (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which other page? Disruption or not, the quickness of the request seems to have been influenced by general comments on another topic without taking into considerations the discussions or details of these pages separately, or at least it is not reflected by the two identical move requests statements.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:PRIOR and WP:CCC. Previous discussions are not standing policy and each situation from a discussion is determined on a case-by-case basis. That is their purpose. Their outcomes do not dictate what goes on elsewhere. Previous consensus is not an argument on its own. Rather than assuming motives on weak evidence, can we discuss the move request at hand? Carlp941 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As nominator. Also, great point by Roman Spinner--WMrapids (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and bad move request, per WP:POINT, as stated by ReyHahn. This move discussion was started less than two hours after the move discussion to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was closed, as if it was a response to the result, an article of which the nominator was the creator and a main opponent of the move. I highly recommend participants to read through the 8 May 2020 move discussion.
I will avoid repeating these points unless needed, but I want to offer an example with related articles to illustrate why the move shouldn't proceed: we don't call the Bay of Pigs Invasion the 1961 Cuban coup d'état attempt, or the Machurucuto incident, where Venezuelan shores where invaded in an eerily similar fashion, the 1967 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Any person familiar with Venezuelan historiography should know how weird the mere proposal would sound. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict × 2)[reply]
Again, assume good faith. Roman Spinner makes a good point. The current title is not concise as there are multiple redirects for "Operation Gideon". So, if we are going to be consistent and concise, we should follow the similarities of other Venezuelan coup articles. WMrapids (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not propose the Macuto Bay raid title instead, which is way more specific and the article's original title? Is odd that the proposal is so similar, to rename it as a coup attempt, specially when you mentioned both requested articles in the discussion: If we are to use your same reasoning, then the 80 undetermined sources seen in your archive link describing Operation Gideon (2020) as a "coup" should be enough to open a move discussion of that article to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", right? Why is that not described as a "coup attempt"?. All of this leads only to conclude that this request is in response to a result contrary to the one expected. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
Because sources describe the incident as an attempted "coup"? And of course, after you presented the information about the Venezuelan articles, it raised questions about the current titling of articles. A consensus was established and I accept it. Is wanting the concise titling of articles a bad thing? WMrapids (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Bay of Pigs Invasion is the common name used in sources. This is not the case with this event that was widely described as a "coup" (check the sources), especially since there are not 3 other articles about "Bay of Pigs" such as the current issue with "Operation Gideon". So, the comparison does not stick. As for the Machurucuto incident, that article is in very poor condition, so it should hardly be used as a comparison when we have several other Venezuelan coup articles that serve as precedent. WMrapids (talk) 22:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I will offer some comments regarding the cited policies, if the move is not prematurely closed due to the cited reasons, now that I have more time and considering that, at least in the case of WP:CONSISTENCY, said policies were not mentioned in the last discussions.
WP:PRECISE was cited in the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move discussion because the previous title, "2022 Peruvian political crisis", could be confused with the existing Peruvian political crisis (2017–present), partly because they happened in the same country, close from one another, and how similar the events were (namely the string of presidents being removed and dissolutions of the assembly). None of this happens in this case: Operation Gideon redirects to its main article per WP:PTOPIC and not the disambiguation (which only has two articles), which is about the 1948 military operation in Palestine. Very difficult to confuse this event with the Venezuelan crisis. The other similar event in 2018 is already named El Junquito raid, meaning there's no ambiguity in that case, but even so the raid was a government operation to neutralize a rebel leader, and it is also easily distinguishable from a maritime invasion by American mercenaries. This is actually related to the following point:
The move as a coup attempt would paradoxically make the title less precise, not more. WP:PRECISION was also quoted in one of the previous last discussions to argue against moving to "coup": Macuto raid is even more precise. We have to make a difference between the plot and what actually happened. 2014 protests in Venezuela were also about overthrowing Maduro, but were are not calling that a coup just because some news mumble about it.. Given the amount of violent attacks and uprisings in Venezuela, they're usually referred to the place they take place in: the Caracas helicopter incident, the attack on Fort Paramacay, the Caracas drone attack, the Cotiza upsing, attack on Fort Santa Elena [es] and the takeover of Fort Escamoto [es], just to mention a few. The two could arguably be considered to be named 2017 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, but they would fail to convey the information that the current titles does and could even lead up to confusion with the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis, who was called by some by a self coup by Maduro. Lest we also mention how common plot and coup accusations by Maduro are: Announcements of foiled coups and plots against the government have long been a part of the Chavista discourse. A study by the Caracas-based newspaper Ultimas Noticias counted 63 alleged assassination plots between when Chavez took office in 1999 and his death in 2013. Since then, such claims have come even more frequently. President Nicolas Maduro's government has denounced more than a dozen purported plots since coming to power 15 months ago, as mentioned by the Associated Press ("Venezuelan conspiracy theories a threat to critics"), and the number of attempted coups claimed by the Venezuelan government outnumbered all attempted and executed coups occurring worldwide in the same period , as stated by Foreign Policy ("Coup Fatigue in Caracas"). "Coup" has essentially lost all of its meaning in Venezuela, and I doubt that it will recover it unless there's a successful one that ousts the government.
WP:CONSISTENCY was cited in the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt move discussion because the dissolution of Congress was compared by analysts to the 1992 Peruvian self-coup, where Alberto Fujimori dissolved the Congress too, a fact that is even mentioned in the article's lead. This begs the question: what are the similarities of this even with the February 1992 and 2002 coup attempts? They are very dissimilar. In 1992, rebels took control of the Zulia and Carabobo states, they arrested governor Oswaldo Álvarez Paz, and fired upon the presidential residence until dawn, where the president's family was. President Carlos Andrés Pérez would have been killed during the coup if it wasn't for bulletproof windows recently installed in the presidential palace. In 2002, rebels even briefly managed to remove President Chávez from power and dissolve all of his institutions. Nothing similar happened 2020, whose operation is called "amateurish, underfunded, poorly-planned" and even a "suicide mission" in the article's introduction. A good interpretation of WP:CONSISTENCY would be the February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, because both took place in the same years, months apart from one another, against the same president, its participants held the same beliefs and their causes were practically the same. It's the reason why I mentioned the Machurucuto incident, which is very similar to the Macuto raid, and the policy would probably apply better to all the attacks and raids that I mentioned earlier. "Operation Gideon" was possibly not the preferred title, but it was chosen as the "less disliked" at the moment, as mentioned by ReyHahn. "Coup attempt" is very unlikely to garner the same status.
Last but not least, it should be mentioned that one of the WP:COMMONNAME was a main reason argued in the Peru move discussion, and as it mentioned then, literally no other language use the term "coup". In all of the discussions regarding Operation Gideon, it has not been demonstrated that "coup" is the most common title, and after all this time it probably won't. All of these reasons show that this is a false balance being done, and not the application of a precedent. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
@NoonIcarus and @ReyHahn seem adamant on assuming bad faith where there is none, and I am asking you to please stop, and continue to base your discussions in policy rather than knee-jerk opposition. Your comments and arguments are pretty contemptuous in tone, and I do not understand why. @WMrapids is applying the principles they believe in to articles about similar events in the region. As for WP:POINT, please keep in mind WP:NOTPOINTY:
"However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point"."
For me to see bad faith in @WMrapids, they would have to be applying principles they disagreed with to make a point, or hope to provoke enough opposition to overturn the decision on the Peruvian self-coup attempt article discussion that did not go their way. Neither is happening. @WMrapids's argument has always been This is what I believe the consensus of reliable sources is, this is what I believe would be neutral, and this is what I believe would be consistent - applying that principle in multiple articles is not WP:POINT. I suggest you re-read the discussion on the move request for Peru self-coup attempt article to have this point illustrated for you. Here are some samples of @WMrapids applying that principle to argue against moving to a title with self-coup:
•"Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue". WP:CONSISTENT was suggested due to the similarities with the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis article.
•Regarding WP:CONSISTENT, this event is pretty similar to the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis as both events involved the dissolution of Congress, both were described by some as a "coup" and both did not involve the military (one of the main components necessary for a coup)
•To add to the WP:CONSISTENT argument, we already have the 2019–2020 Peruvian constitutional crisis, but can also add the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, the 1993 Guatemalan constitutional crisis, the 2011–2012 Papua New Guinean constitutional crisis and the 2022 Pakistani constitutional crisis. All have been described as coups by some, though they have not had it in their article titles
•This still does not take into account WP:NPOV regarding the weight that the word "coup" has a descriptor. Also, there is not much of a precedent with such descriptors in an article title, so it does not help with WP:CONSISTENT in the same way "constitutional crisis" would.
Those arguments did not prevail, and the consensus was that WP:CONSISTENT should be applied differently. @WMrapids is accepting that.
I saw that you cited this bit of the discussion to argue for WP:POINT:
• Is odd that the proposal is so similar, to rename it as a coup attempt, specially when you mentioned both requested articles in the discussion: "If we are to use your same reasoning, then the 80 undetermined sources seen in your archive link describing Operation Gideon (2020) as a "coup" should be enough to open a move discussion of that article to "2020 Venezuelan coup attempt", right? Why is that not described as a "coup attempt"?". All of this leads only to conclude that this request is in response to a result contrary to the one expected.
Rather than reply there and contribute to an already heated argument, I will respond here. In isolation, this is a decent argument. However, I am making a judgement call based in good faith. I believe that @WMrapids is accepting the consensus of previous pages, given the impossibility of changing the self coup article, their extensive productive editing history on similar topics, and their willingness to open discussions rather than make disruptive edits. I am begging you to do the same. If @WMrapids hoped to provoke enough opposition to overturn the decision on the Peruvian self-coup attempt article - that is simply not happening and I would oppose such a move. The peru self-coup article has had multiple move discussions within the last year - it would be unreasonable to expect new changes. Given WMrapids extensive good faith editing and discussion history on similar topics, please do not accuse them of bad faith without extensive evidence.
I am saddened that good faith is being abandoned here without good cause, and editors are entrenching themselves in opposition to a single editor because that editor is editing many articles about contemporary Latin American politics. @NoonIcarus - I appreciate your comments that stick to debating Wikipedia:PRECISION. Can we please keep it that way, not making these discussions personal? @WMrapids, thanks for opening discussions on many topics on recent Latin American politics, a lot of these articles need updating and renewed discussion, and I appreciate it. Carlp941 (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need of going at such lengths, the comments were made yesterday and the last lengthy comment completely avoided bringing the issue back. I think that I speak for ReyHahn saying that we already stated our concerns, and now it's only up for the closing user to evaluate them. They don't deny the contributions that WMrapids might have had regarding the topics at hand, and are only related to how the procedure was started, which I would avoid repeating but will only mention that the exact same thing happened in the 8 May 2020 discussion (with the exact same responses).
In any case, I really appreacite your compliments. Do you have questions regarding the last points I raised? I would be happy to answer them. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The move has been proposed based on what was decided in Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023. However, both cases are not comparable. In Peru, the then incumbent president (Pedro Castillo), illegally tried to dissolve the congress and assume full powers, which by definition is a self-coup, since it even fits perfectly with the definition provided by the Dictionary of the Spanish language: "Sef-coup: Violation of the legality in force in a country by whoever is in power, to gain a foothold in it" [4] (and many reliable sources called it a "coup"). That was not the case with the Operation Gideon. Rather, beyond its ambitious objectives, it was an almost symbolic action by a tiny group with no chance of success, as the article itself points out. If the basis of the request here is the mere comparison between the situation of Peru in 2022 and that of Operation Gideon of 2020, it doesn't seem enough to me. Rather, if I had to make a comparison, Operation Gideon is much more like the so-called Andahuaylazo, a military uprising that took place in Peru in 2005 that was led by a retired Peruvian Army major who and 160 army reservists that demanded the resignation of then-President Alejandro Toledo. This action, although it was an uprising in arms, was never called "a coup attemptp". Things must be taken in their real dimension and impact --Elelch (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We did not decide to move back to the self-coup name based on the dictionary definition of self-coup, but that there were enough reliable sources that called it a self-coup and NPOV concerns were not enough to override the usage of the common name. I do not know why you reference the dictionary definition, it has no relevance on either discussion. I ask that we side step the dictionary definiton, because then we'd get into a pointless debate of which dictionary to use, rather than basing our arguments on policy. Dictionaries are weak sources anyway. I will agree with you, and say that the self-coup of Castillo and these events are not very similar and WP:CONSISTENT doesn't apply between the two articles.
    If you are comparing this to Andahuaylazo, I relunctantly have to ask, did you read about this event in detail? The two could not be any more different. This was not "an almost symbolic action by a tiny group with no chance of success" like Humala's uprising - it was organized effort by military contractors to decapitate a government, seize control of key institutions, and take control of Venezeula by force. They had a government in waiting, a list of opposing groups to supress upon taking power, and a planned suspension of constitutional rights. It allegedly became a bounty hunting mission when it lost support of the Venezuelan opposition, and when its organizers were discovered and denied support by the US government. Just because the attempted overthrow was led by lying incompetents does not mean they were not seriously trying to kidnap or kill Maduro and topple his regime. I think a more apt comparison would be The Bay Of Pigs Invasion, a serious but incompetent attempt by outside actors to overthrow an unfriendly government. Reliable sources even occasionally derisively refer to the Operation as "Bay of Piglets" , here, and here. Perhaps this is a good starting point for looking for an alternative name if we don't want to use the word coup? Carlp941 (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs, which was an invasion planned and directed by none other than the United States Government (with President Kennedy directly involved), with Operation Gideon, carried out by a small group led by a simple private military company and at a time when the legitimacy of the Maduro presidency was in question. You are free to have your opinion. Mine is that this does not qualify to be called a "coup attempt", much less if the basis of the proposal has been to compare it to the attempted coup in Peru of 2022, which as I explained, is a totally different event.--Elelch (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You literally can compare the two. Many reliable sources have, as I linked above. I am repeating myself here, but there is a derisive nickname (Bay of Piglets) because many people feel the comparison is valid. My point isn't necessarily that we should name the article The Bay of Piglets, but that we should be looking at what reliable sources call the event, what they compare it to, and use that reach a consensus.
Are you fully reading my replies? I ask because your reply is unnecessarily hostile - I actually agreed with your point on the attempted coup in Peru being substantially different enough to not apply WP:CONSISTENT. Yet you are writing as if I disagree. Please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. We're not a forum, I am not trying to "win" an argument. Carlp941 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlp941: What do you think about the Machurucuto raid? Not only did it take place at Venezuelan shores by foreign agents, but also had a very few number of participants and fail spectacularly. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus It is also a coup attempt. Read the definition of coup d'état. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an apt comparison, but is there a common name like it for this event? Carlp941 (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlp941: The most common name in Spanish has been the "Desembarco de Machurucuto", meaning Machurucuto Landing or Machurucuto Disembark, but it has also been called the "Invasión de Machurucuto", the Machurucuto Invasion. My main point is that it has almost never been called a coup, despite its similarities with Macuto Bay. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elelch you are grossly dishonest. The stated intent was to remoive Maduro from office. It was absolutely not "a symbolic action", that is an incredibly dishonest argument. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling another editor "dishonest", contrary to WP:CIV, as well as your recent (and longstanding) disruptive editing and your blanking of warnings against it ([5]) is worrisome. If this continues, it will have to be reported in an admins noticeboard. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus Your threats are pathetic. Wikipedia does not belong to you, you should probably be reminded of that. I can contribute by editing as much as any other Wikipedia contributor. And i will call out a dishonest and obviously false argument when I see one. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus Also, stop polluting my talk page, I am speaking with you here. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With all the evidence provided, and given what the very definition of the term "coup d'état" is (if you have voted oppose, go read it urgently), it is baffling that we even need to talk about it. It say volumes about the pervading liberal, USA-centric and more generally Western-centric worldview of the majority of Wikipedia contributors. Alas, Wikipedia get less and less neutral and objective day after day, it read more like an opinion article from CNN or The New York Times nowadays. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that this editor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
This argument is ironic considering that at least three editors that have opposed the move are from Latin America, and that plenty of Spanish sources have been provided for said purpose. WP:NOTFORUM should probably be reminded as well. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus Latin America does have its share of Liberals and pro-USA medias and people as well, you probably are one of them, wich explain a lot. Also, some consider Latin America to belong to the Western World, that's up to interpretation. Also I was not referring only to Wikipedia pages on Latin America politics with that comment, alas, Wikipedia pages on History and politics, no matter the country concerned, display that, sometimes blatantly, bias. Also, go read coup d'état definition and stop dodging the point. Snarcky1996 (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus Speaking of sources, you are ignoring the many sources below and above describing it as a coup. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Support: During my first reading of the request, I leaned against this move, but WP:CODENAME and wp:commonname make a pretty good case, as to why the title should be changed. I think generally, in all cases where there is contention about the proper term in our sources (our sources also always have a political bent), Wikipedia should opt for the most neutral term available, to take a NPOV (considering all terms that have good support among all sources). I am not sure, if coup is the most neutral term, but Operation Gideon is definitely imprecise. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 10:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that this editor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Soft support: I have to agree that Operation Gideon is a poor name, and there is a not a strong reason to stick to it. It's imprecise and WP:CODENAME, imo, applies. Many reliable sources (see discussion below) use the word coup to describe the events in the article, and my plain reading of the events - an operation to replace a government by force (however poorly executed) - meets the definition of a coup. However, it is hard to find reliable sources without using the term "Operation Gideon" in any searches. With both academic searches and popular search engines, I struggled to find any reliable sources on the event without using the term "Operation Gideon." So I think we should have a line like "The 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt, also known as Operation Gideon" at the introduction. If we decide against the move, can we please use the word coup in the article introduction? Many reliable sources do, and it is used in the article body (see the Extradition of Alcalá to the United States subsection) There is no need for it to be excluded from the introduction. Carlp941 (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that this editor (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
Support per nom. This is clearly a more WP:COMMONNAME than "Operation Gideon", and better encompasses the entire event. SilverStar54 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Just addressing some of the concerns above. A big issue with using Operation Gideon as the title is that there are three different "Operation Gideon" articles. The El Junquito raid was also "Operation Gideon", but we are not using "Operation Gideon (2018)" as the title.

However, per WP:CONSISTENT, we have many Venezuelan coup articles, including:

So we obviously have precedent with coup articles that would make WP:CONSISTENT relevant for renaming this article in the same manner.

Now, with WP:PRECISION, it states: "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance, Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic.

With the term "Operation Gideon" being used, it is too precise and is hardly even used by reliable sources. However, plenty of sources describe this event as a coup attempt (I mean, it is pretty obvious with mercenaries and all). I also have to thank blindlynx for bringing up WP:CODENAME as it only further supports moving this title. The article Killing of Osama bin Laden is not titled "Operation Neptune Spear" for a good reason. Neither should an attempted coup be titled by its code name.

Moving on to the "coup fatigue" argument; this is just a deflection by those sympathetic to the Venezuelan opposition. Yes, looking at the history of Maduro's government, it appears that he would cry wolf about "coups". But we are not taking Maduro's word, we have reliable sources openly describing this event as a "coup". And these sources also provide documentation that the Guaido "government" contracted the mercenaries who attempted to remove Maduro. Whether or not Maduro knew that the bunch were heading his way or not does not mean that this group of armed men did not attempt a coup.

Finally, regarding the whole naming convention proposed by NoonIcarus of "Venezuelan uprising attacks happened in X, so it should be named 'attack on X' like other articles". This isn't applicable at all. The Caracas helicopter incident was just a ruckus. The Attack on Fort Paramacay (which is also not titled by its WP:CODENAME) was just a group attacking a fort to steal weapons. The 2018 Caracas drone attack was a whole mess of unknowns. This event was different entirely; a group of mercenaries attempted to forcibly remove Maduro from power and they had a signed contract with Guaido. This wasn't an "attack" or "uprising", this was an attempted coup.--WMrapids (talk) 19:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSISTENT here appears to be confused with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Of course we all probably agree that "coup attempt" is an existing title convention, both widely used and an acceptable one, and that there are articles for Venezuelan history that use the term, just like most countries. The thing is that WP:CONSISTENT states: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. Citing the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt discussion as a precedent, I reminded the similarities between the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt and the 1992 Peruvian self-coup, as well as pointed out the glaring differences between Operation Gideon and both the February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. We don't call the 2020 United States presidential election as the "2020 United States Championship", or the WWE Universal Championship or the WWE United States Championship as the "WWE United States War" only because the title convention exists. The last comment has failed to prove how these articles are similar, save for "violence against the Venezuelan government".
With WP:PRECISION, there appears to be a contradiction in its interpretation: at first the nomination argues that the article may not be precise enough anc can generate confusion with other articles, but later on it seems to say that the title is too specific, to the point of being obscure. Which one is it, then? This seems to be a better argument for moving the article to "Macuto Bay raid", which was the original name. All of the previous articles I mentioned are violent events during the Crisis in Venezuela (which are actually grouped in the Crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela short sidebar template under the "Armed violence" section). They use the convention of using the name of the place and the type of event, be it attack, raid, uprising, takeover, or just incident, the latter of which already distinguishes all of these nuisances nuances. It has not been proven why "coup attempt" would be a better alternative per WP:PRECISION. The use of "coup" by the Maduro government affects the coverage by independent sources, something that cannot be ignored, and the there is already a high standard to be met to proceed with such a move. Quoting from the related Bolivian political crisis 15 November 2019 move discussion: There is a precedent for an incredibly high bar for the term of "coup" to be used; see, for example, 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis for comparison, and also the discussion at Talk:Self-coup. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about the WWE and United States elections is just confusing, so I'm not going to go there... And it is not just Maduro describing this as a "coup attempt"; many sources do this (over 70 sources). Many institutions that had an incentive to remove Castillo described his actions as a "coup" too. So we have the reliable sources saying it was a "coup attempt" (WP:RS), a consistent naming history (WP:CONSISTENT) and we avoid confusing operational names (WP:CODENAME). And with your confusion surrounding WP:PRECISION, why can't it be both if the current title is awful? The proposed move seemed pretty obvious, but here is the more detailed explanation for you. The current title is too precise with a WP:CODENAME, too similar to the other bunch of "Operation Gideons" and it was an attempted coup, not just a "raid" or "attack", so it is more precise having "coup attempt" in the title. Deflecting towards articles that were not coup attempts is not the way. WMrapids (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We will probably have to agree to disagree about the interpretation of the policies. At any rate, over 80 sources don't refer to the event as a coup, which was the reason why there wasn't a consensus to proceed with the move last time. It wasn't proven that it was the most WP:COMMONNAME by reliable sources then, and most likely it won't this time around either. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you fail to differentiate from those sources (some of questionable quality) is that many use separate wording.
Of those 80 sources, here are the descriptions listed by their prominence:
  • Operation Gideon - 15
  • Raid - 12
  • Incursion - 12
  • Invasion - 9
  • Attack - 5
  • Plot - 4
  • Oust - 3
In comparison, there are 70 sources that directly call the event a coup, not 15 calling it "Operation Gideon" (which shouldn't even be used per WP:CODENAME), not 12 calling it a raid; 70 sources using "coup". Now if there were 80 sources calling this specifically something else, ok, then your argument would hold weight, but you don't have 80 sources. WMrapids (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands that said sources don't use coup as a term. I'm sure many other sources of "Operation" or "raid" can be found, but the point being made is that "coup" is not the WP:COMMONNAME, with over half of the sources ignoring its use. The discussion shows that the current one was the less controversial, and it was nominated by the same editor that first proposed the move of the article to "coup", after the request failed. If you can prove that this is an even less controversial term, then perhaps towards the consensus can be made. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding the meta-discussion about a previous discussion all that useful in creating a new consensus. It's been long enough that there is likely an academic common term for these events, and a scan through of news sources has not produced consensus here. I'll go through some databases and try to find a common name there. Carlp941 (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that coup is often used in those sources as referring to Maduro's government perspective ("according to"). There hasn't been enough time or relevance for this topic to be rediscussed in media, so the perspectives of previous discussions are still valid. I could only find a book on recent Latin America history that barely mentions the event [6] (no coup) and even in this case it is referred as assassination attempt only in Maduro's voice.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been enough time to discuss this in media, it has been three years. I am unsure why so many here feel the need to lean so heavily on the previous discussion to reach consensus. Keep in mind WP:STANDING. I think 3 years of time is plenty to move past it. We will find agreement on new ground rather than retreading old ground repeatedly. WP:STICK is a good read for these situations.
Even if academic sources only mention the event in passing, I think they should weigh heavier than news sources. Here's a few I have found:
International Crisis Group. (2022). Tensions in the Neighbourhood. In Ties without Strings?: Rebuilding Relations between Colombia and Venezuela (p. Page 2-Page 6). International Crisis Group. http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep45586.5 - only mentions it as Operation Gideon
Alton, R. A. C., & Struble, J. R. (2020). A Case for the Potential for Destabilization as a Threshold Criterion to the Use of Military Action by States Under the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 52(1), 25–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27089580 - calls it a "failed coup plot called Operation Gideon"
Isaac Christiansen. Linkages Between Economic and Military Imperialism. World Review of Political Economy. 2020. Vol. 11(3):337-356. DOI: 10.13169/worlrevipoliecon.11.3.0337 - only calls it a coup
Here are some more recent news pieces on the events, and all terms are in the source's own voice unless specified otherwise:
Ex Green Beret claims Maduro foe is avoiding Miami lawsuit. (2022). Canadian Press, The. - uses both "Operation Gideon" and "coup"
Despite apparent breakthrough, these Americans held by Maduro regime were not freed. (2022). Miami Herald, The - uses both "Operation Gideon" and "coup"
Woman indicted in Colombia for aiding to form an armed invasion-attempt. (2021, February 27). Legal Monitor Worldwide, NA. - uses "coup" and "invasion"
Inside Operation Gideon, A Coup Gone Wrong. (2021, January 1). Rolling Stone, 1347, 40. - self-evident which terms it uses
Given your source as another one in the tally, I think there is an consensus among reliable sources forming around calling it "Operation Gideon" and mentioning that it was also a coup. I'm gonna wait a few more days to definitively vote, but I am leaning towards opposing the move. As an aside I'm irked by the suspicious lack of the use of the term "coup" in the lede. The lede also cites no sources for multiple contestable claims, and uses every term for the event but coup. That should be fixed. The reliable sources use "coup", so should we. We should also use sources. Carlp941 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, @Carlp941:. I will try to provide additional input, per your recommendation.
Something that wasn't mentioned in the last discussions (because it didn't happen yet) is that deputy Wilmer Azuaje reported that the members of the incursion were subject of extrajudicial killings (instead of casualties during a shootout), as well as torture, reports similar to some related to El Junquito raid. Azuaje said that the pictures proving were taken by the CICPC forensic police (some of which are included in the Cambio16 article) and he submitted the evidence to both the European Parliament and The Hague. As such, there have been reliable sources that have used the title Macuto massacre:
Needless to say, none of this sources refer to the event as a "coup", which the only exception of Cambio16, which quotes Aragua's governor and says "alleged", and many of them repeatedly use "Operation Gideon". Just to be clear, I'm not proposing this should be an alternative for the current title, and I believe it's far from being the most common name, but I'm rather using it as a reminder of how divisive the issue is, and how "coup" is far from the best alternative.
I was originally planning to offer more sources, but for the time being these should be enough to prove the point and to renew the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not the best sources for such a claim by an opposition politician, but may be worth placing in the body with proper attribution. Definitely not appropriate for this article's title, though. WMrapids (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content was already in place. Again, I'm definitely not proposing a change to that title, but only showing how many differently this event has been called. --NoonIcarus (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the term is also used in an editorial voice, so it's not only "an opposition politician", just like how massacre claims of El Junquito turned into investigations even by Bellingcat and reknowned newspapers. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the "editorial voice" is from media opposed to Maduro (El Nacional, La Patilla, El Pitazo), so a potential for bias does exist. It looks like the head of La Patilla was even the communications director for Guaido? Again, these appear to be opposition claims. Guaido and his media have lied before defending anti-Maduro protesters who accidentally set fire to aid convoys destined for Venezuela... Now, if Bellingcat or a WP:GREL were to be using their "editorial voice" about a potential "massacre", then that would hold more weight for inclusion. Until then, it's just another claim by the opposition. WMrapids (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the media? Three out of the ten listed outlets? There's not even an explanation of why El Pitazo is "opposition", and there's no doubt regarding the reliability here, as they are main outlets in the Spanish speaking sphere (there BBC link doesn't explain why this wouldn't be the case in any way). I advice you to consult WP:VENRS before dismissing the sources so easily. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I would much rather rely on WP:GREL sources for such a controversial allegation before using WP:VENRS, a WP:OR essay that you created yourself. WMrapids (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VENRS should not be dismissed so easily it had had feedback for people who opposed and favored the current title. Also it works in accordance to WP:GREL every deprecated source is also properly tagged in there. You are welcome also to participate in its development.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the creator of WP:VENRS, and it is something that can be easily disproved by just looking into the article's history. It sounds like an accusation as poorly argued as calling sources that include those from Spain, Colombia and Argentina as "media opposed to Maduro". If this line of discussion continues, most likely nothing useful will come out of it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlp941: A reminder, WP:CODENAME suggests that we don't use operational names, so "Operation Gideon" is unsuitable no matter the case, so we can forget about its usage by the same sources. The Miami Herald is a newspaper, so not necessarily an academic source. Also, Rolling Stone is not a reliable source, per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS.
Here are some academic sources that describe the event as a coup (some of yours included):
  • Alton, R. A. C., & Struble, J. R. (2020). A Case for the Potential for Destabilization as a Threshold Criterion to the Use of Military Action by States Under the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 52(1), 25–57. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27089580 ("failed coup")
  • Christiansen, Isaac. Linkages Between Economic and Military Imperialism. World Review of Political Economy, 2020. (the recent coup attempt by self-proclaimed Venezuela “president” Juan Guaido is another. Here payment was made to Silvercorp to help achieve the US objective of overthrowing the elected government of Nicolas Maduro.")
  • Stoetman, Adája, and Anna Zeverijn. Sentinel of the Caribbean: US Foreign Policy towards Venezuela. Clingendael Institute, 2020. ("The failed coup that occurred in May 2020 ... The thwarted coup attempt of May 3rd indicates that some type of American involvement in the removal of Maduro from power is not unlikely")
  • Strigunov, K., & Manoilo, A. (2021). "Checkmate maduro" strategy as the basis for operation gideon. International Affairs, 67(3), 109 (On May 3, 2020, Venezuelan troops, security services, and civilians prevented a coup attempt by Venezuelan deserters and American mercenaries)
As you can see, there are plenty of academics (and reliable sources) who do view this as a coup attempt, we need to avoid code names and we have the precedent of other similar articles. The need for a title change is clear. WMrapids (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick review of those sources, as others have suggested it is not enough to count how many times one version appears when others are mentioned:
  • Alton, R. A. C., & Struble, J. R. (2020): quote "called Operation Gideon"
  • Christiansen, Isaac (2020): ok, but barely talks about the subject, discussing the previous contract arrangements of Guaidó to carry out a coup (which were withdrawn later) but not the development of the event itself
  • Strigunov, K., & Manoilo, A. (2021): also calls it Operation Gideon in the abstract.
I am also worried of the use of academic sources in this conversation as in those cases we will need experienced users to assess the reliability of such journals.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:CODENAME makes discussion about keeping the current title of "Operation Gideon" irrelevant. Also, the "Crisis in Venezuela" template has a "Operation Gideon II" link??? The current title is not helpful at all with this. WMrapids (talk) 10:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Already fixed the ambiguity in the template. It might be a good example on how the small and only problems that the current title causes can be fixed with much simpler alternatives, and we still don't know how "coup" would be the best alternative for a move. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses academic sources all the time, and I proposed using them to move away from using news sources for a title, as there was no consensus developing using those sources. Carlp941 (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I never advocated against academic sources. Wikipedia articles are often based academic articles, the issue is that not all academic articles are equal. The quality of the journals is very important when assessing their appropriate use. Nowadays there are thousands of predatory journals and bad articles, if you want to find academics articles on flat earth you can find them. That's why in Wikipedia we should use only thus that are mainstream, notable and with high reputation. Any of the academics sources cited here need to be reliable. --ReyHahn (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think these sources are poor, please post specific evidence of these journals' unreliability, rather than pontificating on hypothetical flat earther journals. We should be careful of any and all sources! AFAIK, these journals are reliable and peer reviewed. Carlp941 (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know who has the WP:BURDEN here but clearly myself or any user should be able to request the reliability on the sources that are brought here before making any decisions. This is what I am seeing in the 4 sources cited above: University of Miami Inter-American Law Review only the journal official website pops up in Google, World Review of Political Economy by Pluto Press I think, a (minor) controversy pops up, Clingendael Institute and International affairs (journal) are handled (or partially handled) by think-tanks. There might no be enough to avoid the use of these sources but also there is no enough information to consider them more reliable than anything cited before. Unreliable academic sources are plenty and not a strong proof of anything unless the readers can assess its reliability. That's why we ask for reviews or textbooks when dealing with academic topics in other articles, but I sincerely think there is no enough time-separation from the event until now for those kind of sources to exist yet.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Break and relist

Alright, I've relisted this discussion, and here's my relisting comment. The current situation we're in is between two names termed as unsuitable – people are arguing WP:CODENAME against the current title of Operation Gideon]], while others do not seem to see enough evidence to support this holding the "coup" title, given the high standards generally surrounding moving an article to a title with "coup" in it. So, here's a couple questions to hopefully focus this discussion and get a consensus:

  • What is the WP:COMMONNAME of this event?
  • Is the current title of Operation Gideon (2020) unsuitable per WP:CODENAME? Several !voters have opposed a move, in practice supporting keeping the status quo of an operation name title.
  • Does the proposed title of 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt satisfy the WP:CRITERIA? (Multiple individual CRITERIA have been brought up in this discussion against said title.)
  • If both titles are inappropriate, what title should we use?

These are the main questions I have left, to hopefully clear up what the consensus is.

(As a note, I'm not that used to trying these key question type relists, but hopefully this is rather helpful. Worth a shot at least.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Supporters of this move have not completely addressed any of the points above suggested. There is no single WP:COMMONAME and the supporters of the move have not been able to show that the proposed title is the most used and unique WP:COMMONAME. The current title (including the date) is specific enough to to distinguish the event from any other. The current title: avoids WP:NPOVTITLE and it is in line with WP:COUP (essay on the reasons why coup should be avoided when unnecessary). Also no enough new information has been brought up to overturn previous move request which ended by WP:CONSENSUS in the current title after the current proposal was not consensually accepted in the first move request. As for a different title, it can be discussed but it would be distracting at this point, I suggest a parallel section to be opened if that is to be discussed.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The move proposal fails to meet the WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION for the reasons stated in the discussion. In short, the move would not make the title more precise, the opposite is actually the case, and the event is quite different from previous coups in Venezuela, effectively comparing apples and oranges.
If the current title is deemed inappropriate, it can always be restored to its previous name: Macuto Bay Raid. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Before I forget, to address WP:COMMONNAME: There was an user in the last move discussion (Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 3#Requested move 28 May 2020) that gave many examples of codenames as common names:Operation Barbarossa, Operation Market Garden, Operation Valkyrie, Operation Paperclip, Operation Condor and Operation Mockingbird. This was actually one of the editors that supported the move to coup before supporting a move to Operation Gideon. Even three years after the event, as shown by the sources I provided, the event is still referred by the media as "Operation Gideon". --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You two seem to be pretty close in step with each other...
For ReyHahn:
For NoonIcarus:
  • "The move proposal fails to meet the WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION for the reasons stated in the discussion."
    • You are overlooking multiple policies. Per WP:CONSISTENT, "We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical." So, we have 1948 Venezuelan coup d'état, 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état, February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. Seems pretty consistent. As for WP:PRECISION, please also see WP:MOVE, which states "There are many reasons why you might wish to move a page: The title does not follow Wikipedia's naming conventions, such as that ... it is overprecise". Per WP:PRECISION, it states "Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that." So, this also raises the concerns of WP:CODENAME, which states "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)". Reviewing these policies leaves us with the conclusion that the proposal obviously meets "WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION for the reasons stated in the discussion".
  • "In short, the move would not make the title more precise, the opposite is actually the case ... If the current title is deemed inappropriate, it can always be restored to its previous name: Macuto Bay Raid
    • Just see the previous point above why "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt" is more precise. The final suggestion is laughable. The irony of the suggestion of "Macuto Bay Raid" when the average reader on English Wikipedia, let alone the average reader in Venezuela, may not be familiar with "Macuto Bay". This suggestion is fairly problematic because 1: There is hardly a use of "Macuto Bay" or "bahía de Macuto" in Spanish is hardly used except for in discussions of this event (not even a "Macuto Bay" article anywhere) and 2: This event occurred in both Macuto and Chuao, so this would further confuse readers.
In summary, the most concise and precise way of naming this article is 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. The arguments opposing the move proposal are ironic at worst and overlooking key policies at best. WMrapids (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quick reply: This still does not address WP:COMMONNAME so the WP:NPOV stands, also what do you mean by wide majority? I would like to remind that this is not a WP:POLL/WP:VOTESTACK. As for the WP:CCC, it reads Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive., what has been raised here that was not previously raised? Just counting sources with the proposed title does not account for the use of the current titles or the other titles used in the same sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime it might also be good to recall WP:SOURCECOUNTING. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Skarmory: There appears to be a clear consensus supporting the move; 9 in support (Braganza, Roman Spinner, blindlynx, Snarcky1996, IcarusTheSun, Carlp941, SilverStar54, Burrobert and myself included) compared to 3 opposed (ReyHahn, NoonIcarus and Elelch). WMrapids (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by my searches in some popular search engines, the WP:COMMONAME appears to be some sort of coup attempt variation. Macuto Bay Raid on the other hand might be more in line with NPOV, but seems to be a rather uncommon name for the events in media and academia. In any case, I agree with Carlp941 that all three variations should occur in the header of the article. ΙℭaℜuΣatthe☼ (talk). 13:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Out of the 9 editors that have expressed support for the move, including the nominator, 5 were pinged from an unrelated discussion by the person that started the request. In contrast, only one of the pings opposed. This is precisely the expected result of canvassing, which was warned against from the very beginning of the request, as the discussion has demonstrably been unduly influenced. Even without taking this into account this, a 4-3 outcome is far from a consensus required for a move. This should be taken into account by the closing user. Pinging @Skarmory:, the editor that relisted the discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • "pinged from an unrelated discussion"
      • If it is an "unrelated discussion", then why make charges of canvassing? There are valid concerns that were raised after you brought up Venezuelan articles (including this one) on Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt. Those who were familiar and had participated in a move discussing a similar topic were contacted. Nothing more.
    Our main concern here should be your WP:ADVOCACY edits on Venezuelan articles, as you immediately dismissed the proposal as a "bad move request" while others seem open to supporting the move. You also continue to WP:HOUND my edits to defend a pro-opposition POV. These concerning edits are bordering a demand for resolutions in a separate discussion, so please stop with the WP:BATTLE behavior. WMrapids (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:CANVASSing issue is tough. I'd call the Peruvian discussion related – it's a similar topic and this specific article was referenced in that RM. However, a few editors from that discussion were not notified, and several editors not involved in that discussion or previous RMs here were notified. I don't think it was done intentionally, which does mean by definition it's not technically canvassing, but that doesn't mean it should be entirely disregarded. Overall, I don't think it's enough to entirely void the move request as "no consensus because of canvassing", but it will be considered if I close the move; I can't outright speak for any other closers, but I'd imagine they'd be along the same lines.

As for the relist – if I had to close the discussion when I relisted it with no option to relist, I would have closed it as no consensus. Since then, discussion has been fairly active, and considering the discussion is active and doesn't seem stalled, I don't think it should be closed yet. When discussion stalls or entirely stops, then I will consider a close, but the questions I raised have started further debate, so it's not time yet.

Also, please remember to stay civil and assume good faith. Things seem to be getting heated; just a friendly reminder. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"a few editors from that discussion were not notified, and several editors not involved in that discussion or previous RMs here were notified". What about sending a notice to the "few editors who were not notified" and putting a notice on the talk pages of articles that are related to the current discussion such as the Peruvian article? Also, the current discussion appears on the general listing for proposed page moves so, in theory, all editors have been notified (although some have received a more direct notice than others). Burrobert (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your input. Besides your points, one of my main concerns is that likewise several editors that participated in previous RMs here were not notified either, whether intentional or not. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invite them into the conversation. The more the merrier. Burrobert (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please bring them in! more discussion cannot hurt. Carlp941 (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone may feel free to notify them. I'm not going to as I relisted the discussion – I would prefer to stay out of directly notifying specific users of the discussion as the relister. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume anyone who should have been invited to participate has now been invited. Burrobert (talk) 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a reminder in the WP:WikiProject Venezuela would be helpful too.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This line of reasoning shifts the responsibility from the person that made the ping to other participants, and ignores that said ping should have been made back then, and not after a relist. I have left a notification in WikiProject Venezuela's about the relist, but I ask that the fact that the discussion has already been influenced in certain way not to be forgotten. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your accusation of canvassing has been noted multiple times on this page. Sincerely, please lower the temperature. Carlp941 (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually quite calm, and I have explained the point in the same manner. That might not be the most suitable policy to link. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If anyone wishes to start a new move request, considering the inconformity with the current title, I would support a move to "Macuto Bay raid", which should solve the WP:CODENAME issues cited before. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:09, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Let's move on from different discussions and find a better title for this article. I'll suggest something here soon. WMrapids (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2023

Operation Gideon (2020) → Macuto Bay raid – Per concerns of WP:CODENAME expressed in the last move request, as well as the article's original title. NoonIcarus (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close: The use of "Macuto Bay" in both Spanish and English is almost non-existent prior to this event. Also, the event did not only occur in the so-called "Macuto Bay" as an attempted raid happened in Chuao as well.--WMrapids (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC) In addition, this was already discussed in the previous move discussion and the article has been moved away from "Macuto Bay raid" twice already. Why do you keep pushing this?--WMrapids (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why should this request be closed, again? --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 July 2023

Requested move/dated
Bay of Piglets Invasion

Operation Gideon (2020) → Bay of Piglets Invasion – Recognizing that the current title is not suitable per WP:CODENAME along with other concerns, a WP:COMMONNAME has been found after reviewing the the sources; "Bay of Piglets" invasion. The use of this common name is used by numerous WP:GREL sources including the Associated Press, BBC News, Al Jazeera, The New Yorker, The Economist and Voice of America. In addition to these sources, the use of this common name has been used by the Business Insider[7], German news channel RTL[8], Chinese media company Sohu[9], the Australian Broadcasting Corporation [10], Argentine newspaper Clarin[11], infobae[12], Uruguayan newspaper El País[13], Venezuelan news site Aporrea[14] and Venezuelan news site El Diario[15], showing the international usage of this common name across different languages. Finally, the term has been used in academic publications studying the topic as well, including U.S. and Latin American Relations (page 5) by Gregory B. Weeks and Michael E. Allison. Overall, the proposed title is a WP:COMMONNAME used by multiple reliable sources, it is WP:NPOV as it moves away from the existing WP:CODENAME title and it is more WP:PRECISE as it is not like the 3 other "Operation Gideon" articles WMrapids (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Pinging users involved in the previous discussion. @NoonIcarus, Braganza, Blindlynx, Aréat, Carlp941, Roman Spinner, ReyHahn, Elelch, Snarcky1996, Icarusatthesun, SilverStar54, and Burrobert:--WMrapids (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE. Besides, if we could not agree that previous proposals were the most WP:COMMONNAME, this title seems even less common and it was barely mentioned in previous discussions, if at all. Last but not least, it really seems counter-productive having two open move requests. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is the proposed title not WP:NPOV? I told you that I would make a suggestion in order to move us away from previous editing conflicts and you quickly forced in an unpopular title that has been shot down multiple times while I was drafting the suggestion. And the suggestion was also made by Carlp941, though we were deciding between two proposed titles at that point. Stop pushing. WMrapids (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Also, see WP:NPOVNAME; "the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue".--WMrapids (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we stop with the bad faith accusations? I'm citing a policy as an argument to oppose. Enough aspersions were casted in the last months, and this really feels like beating a dead horse until pulp. I'm exhausted, and I think that I speak for other participants as well. If this is to continue, let's keep this as amicable as possible, shall we? --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Of the references you provided, I only read the ABC article which states "the Bay of Piglets, as the bloody fiasco came to be known". Assuming the other references are similar, this seems like a good name for the fiasco. The name does have the advantage of recalling another failed coup attempt by reactionaries backed by the US government. Burrobert (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tags??

A number of tags were recently attached to sentences in the lead and the body but no explanation was provided. Burrobert (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Burrobert: Just saw this as well. These edits without explanation seem to be occurring on other articles as well... WMrapids (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The explanations have been provided in edit summaries, which you are free to consult in the edit history. At any rate, I'm planning to explain the issues further in the near future to reach a solution. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries only state the actions you performed, not an explanation for why such tags exist. WMrapids (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the explanation???: "Inline tagging and section tag". Burrobert (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&oldid=1168938449"