Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:04, 9 May 2020

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Current events This article is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Colombia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Misplaced Pages. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Latin America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Latin America on Misplaced Pages. 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not 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 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Venezuela Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Misplaced Pages. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the Main Page in the "In the news" section. You can visit the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 5 May 2020. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate.

Title

Isn't an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing a government called a coup? Shouldn't this be the 2020 Venezuelan coup attempt? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: None of the sources, not even the Venezuelan government, is using 'coup'. Padrino said it was an assassination attempt related to the Caracas drone attack, but neither he nor Maduro has said coup, yet. Kingsif (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverol has now said coup:

According to Reverol, the group, which departed from neighbouring Colombia, planned to carry out "terrorist attacks", including assassinating officials. He added the plan aimed "to increase the spiral of violence, generate chaos and confusion ... and with that lead to a new attempt at a coup d'etat".

Please discuss. Kingsif (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

After last year's attempted uprising, WP:COUP was created. I still believe that there are a number of characteristics that should be met before describing an event as a coup attempt, including a common use of the term by reliable sources. As such, the "2020s coups d'état and coup attempts" category should be removed. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

While I'm at it, is there a reason why the article was renamed "La Guaira naval attack" instead of the "Macuto naval attack"? Even if they are nearby cities, they are not the same, and I have not seen sources reporting that the invasion landed in La Guaira. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Because of English sources either always mentioning both La Guaira and Macuto, or saying 'a city in/near La Guaira' - I'm impressed they even got more specific than 'coast north of Caracas', really. It's a more recognizable place name than Macuto. The second boat was heading for Aragua, so it could be broader. Kingsif (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand, thanks for the tip. Is there a support by other editors to change the title? --Jamez42 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Start a discussion? Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Here are a list of sources (some from this article) mentioning 'coup'. I support a rename as per WP:COUP.

• https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/05/06/us-not-involved-bizarre-venezuela-coup-attempt-secdef-insists.html
• https://nypost.com/2020/05/06/brother-of-ex-green-beret-caught-in-venezuela-coup-pleads-for-help/
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/venezuela-americans-nabbed-failed-coup-plot-200505025057889.html
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/05/venezuela-failed-coup-plot-200506073924677.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-52543033
• https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/the-times/brazil-holds-us-mercenaries-after-botched-coup/news-story/49091f4e08d0479f487f00bc30994b71
• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/mercenaries-arrested-after-alleged-failed-coup-in-venezuela.html
• https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/05/dumbest-aspects-of-the-mercenary-coup-plot-in-venezuela.html
• https://www.democracynow.org/2020/5/6/venezuela_coup_attempt_miguel_tinker_salas
• https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/south-west/us-mercenaries-claims-trump-government-is-behind-failed-venezuela-coup-ng-b881541160z

Acalycine (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Quick review of those sources: Are military.com and perth now reliable? New York Post is a tabloid per WP:RSP. AL Jazeera is using plot to describe what Maduro said . BBC uses alleged coup. The Australian has a paywall. NY magazine is not directly calling the event coup or at least using it to describe what Maduro is stating. Democracy Now is a partisan source per WP:RSP. Based on these sources, it is not clear that "coup" is a reliable label.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:COUP states that the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. From the sources of the article, the use does not appear to be widespread. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a consensus on whether DemocracyNow is a reliable source, according to the list you have linked. Nor is there a consensus on the list as to whether the New York Post is a reliable source. The NYMAG article's headline is a question using the word coup pretty conclusively: "Why would you tweet about your coup?". Furthermore, I may be mistaken here, but is a paywall really a reason for exclusion as a reliable source, re The Australian? Ultimately I think the question here is the definition of 'widespread'. How many RS (as per the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources.) using the term 'coup' would it take for consensus to be reached? Here are some other sources:

• https://www.npr.org/2020/05/06/851487678/after-failed-coup-plot-maduro-touts-video-of-detained-american-conspirator (WP:RSP says reliable)
• https://www.newsweek.com/us-venezuela-tensions-further-raised-coup-attempt-1502118 (WP:RSP says case-by-case assessment here needed)
• https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/pompeo-denies-us-involvement-botched-venezuela-coup-151646 (WP:RSP has no mention)
• https://www.dailydot.com/debug/silvercorp-tweeted-venezuelan-coup/ (WP:RSP says reliable)
• https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-venezuela-trump-just-inspired-the-dumbest-coup-plot-in-latin-american-history-complete-with-a-qanon-crazy (WP:RSP says reliable)
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/07/former-us-soldier-involved-attempted-venezuela-coup-says-washington/ (WP:RSP says reliable)
• https://www.floridatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/local/2020/05/05/photos-former-green-beret-melbourne-failed-coup-venezuela-leader-maduro/5170660002/ (WP:RSP has no mention, probably a weak source considering it's a gallery)
• https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/v7g4d8/venezuela-mercenaries-silvercorp-gordon-goudreau-trump-rally (WP:RSP has no consensus on reliablity)

Acalycine (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

• The Invasion of Venezuela, Brought To You By Silvercorp USA, Bellingcat --Jamez42 (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Already used :) If there's more details, please add. Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

• Efecto Cocuyo timeline Kingsif (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
• Caracas Chronicles timeline Kingsif (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
• CNN weekly news - the start of human rights concerns over Denman's video
• Guardian - Venezuelan gov't demanding extradition of Goudreau
• Esquire - the team made a dossier on the Bay of Pigs to study, for some reason (do you want your armed beach incursion into Latin America to fail?)
• Guardian - more specifics from Denman's video Kingsif (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

• The Guardian -- 'His head wasn't in the world of reality': how the plot to invade Venezuela fell apart (8 May 2020) -- more specifics about Goudreau's role.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• (2020-05-07) 20-minute interview of J. J. Rendón on CNN en español giving the Opposition side of the narrative.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

Inclusion of RCGS Resolute information

Pinging the IP who added back information on the cruise ship, information that has no RS connecting it to the subject, and LaserLegs, who asked about it at ITNC. I feel it's a simple removal, but feel free to discuss the merits. @83.11.114.66 and LaserLegs: Kingsif (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand how RCGS incident is related with all this.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that the RCGS Resolute incident is connected only in the narrative of Maduro's regime, in which it represents alleged earlier successfully thwarted "invasion attempt". Somehow.

It should be also noted that the basically same section had already been removed earlier as unrelated (or, at least, without support for the connection by a reliable source), only to be reinstated by IP:83.11.114.66 without further explanation and/or RS.--Algernon (p.s.) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Unless the attackers or the government draw an actual connection between the two, it shouldn't be included. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: Government media has made statements that the incident was meant to "plant mercenaries" and other sources are now saying that the Venezuelan Navy was cautious for this reason.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Title of the article

Did we discuss the name? I understand why we change from Operation Gideon to La Guaira naval attack, but why La Guaira and why naval attack? In the news I've seen Macuto being used more. Naval attack makes me think that there was a confrontation between naval ships. Did I miss something? --ReyHahn (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Naval attack = attack by sea. It's accurate and, importantly, concise. Do you have a better suggestion? Kingsif (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Re. Macuto, could @ReyHahn and Jamez42: one of you be able to assess what sources use? Kingsif (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Most sources that I have consulted use "Macuto", mostly local ones. I can provide some later if needed. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I lack an "international" perspective or point of view from abroad, so I can understand if an alternative title is needed. My two cents would be to use the name of the state instead of the city, "Vargas naval attack". I fear that it might be confued with a pirate attack back in the colony or an independence battle, but I don't know about remarkable similar articles. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Caracas Chronicles has called it "Macutazo", should we consider that? Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Venezuelan sources are definitely referring to it as the "Macuto" incident/attack..., Reuters is using La Guaira. I do not know the rest. I will check later.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have seen "raid" instead of attack in AP, Reuters and France24.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it could be called "La Guaira/Macuto beach raid".--ReyHahn (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Raid is more specific and appears to be more accurate. It could also be "Macuto naval raid" or just "Macuto raid". --Jamez42 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Compilation of sources

• AP first article on the incident: Ex-Green Beret claims he led foiled raid into Venezuela others words used: beach landing and attack (no mention of La Guaira or Macuto). AP second article: 2 US ‘mercenaries’ among those nabbed after raid, use of beach raid in text. Location: port city of La Guaira. For other articles it is similar a (beach) "raid" in port city La Guaira.
• Reuters first article Venezuela government says eight killed in foiled mercenary incursion. Location: coast of La Guaira. Other articles are more vague: Caribbean coast, sea incursion. Preferred word "incursion".
• The Guardian Venezuela: anti-Maduro battle isn't over as ex-US soldier says he launched raid uses raid in quotes. But indicates that the raid was in Macuto.
• France24 Venezuela arrests two US ‘mercenaries’ after alleged raid to capture Maduro uses beach raid in text. Location: port city of La Guaira.
• Al Jazeera: says Macuto used "armed incursion from the sea".
• Bellingcat confirms Macuto and incursion/raid .
• Venezuelan sources: Efecto Cocuyo used and still uses Macuto (uses incursión militar). El Pitazo uses incursión armada and Macuto . El Nacional: incursión and Macuto . Caracas Chronicles "El Macutazo" Etc.
• EFE location Macuto uses incursión marítima.

I think it is clear that it is specifically Macuto (Reuters and AP are just being vague), I think we should use either Macuto beach raid or Macuto armed incursion or something similar. Also nobody is using naval.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

'Maritime' is a version of naval, and I think the title should be specific to the kind of attack. 'Beach' or even using 'Macuto Bay' could work? Kingsif (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Naval makes me think of navy "the branch of the armed services of a state which conducts military operations at sea" which this is not.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Move proposal: 'Macuto Bay raid'

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

Based on sources and indicating its "amphibious" nature, I propose we move this to Macuto Bay raid. 'Incursion' could also work. Please discuss below. Kingsif (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support per sources presented above.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support per the sources and arguments. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Support per sources given. (I'd personally prefer "incursion", but it seems to be more represented in Spanish-language sources (incursión) only.)--Algernon (p.s.) 18:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Location

The raid took place in Macuto, not La Guaira. Could someone please fix this in the infobox? --Jamez42 (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: The attacks and arrests (plural) occurred throughout La Guaira (state). The state's name provides the general area of where this operation occurred.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I commented about this before realizing that its use referred to the state. It's another reason why "Vargas" should be used for the state, the name is prone to be confused with its capital city. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Boat Naiguata and Medium

Aside from a Medium (website) blog post from "Mision Verdad" I don't see any article relating the raid with the ship sinking. Why was it reinstated?--ReyHahn (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:SYNTH I support its removal. It's an interesting context, but nonetheless unrelated. It should be stressed that "Misión Verdad" is governemnt related. Also, isn't Medium a blog that should be avoided from being used as a refence? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: Mision Verdad is official state media of the Maduro government. They have faced issues with their servers which resulted in the closure of their website, so they turned to Medium. This is a response from a direct party to the conflict, so it should be seen as significant.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Planning" section

I want to express again my concern for the length of the "Planning" section, which is longer than not only the "Attack" section, but almost the rest as well. I'm not proposing to split the article, and rather I find a merge with the "Background" section or a little of trimming to be more attractive options. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about its length, and this is before adding the claim that they heavily studied the Bay of Pigs Invasion for some reason. The issue is that the planning is probably a good and detailed length for such an ambitious attack, and that in theory the attack and fallout section would be much longer. But they got nowhere. Until the human rights fallout of the captured Americans really starts up, it's probably going to be uneven. Of course, if we can trim unnecessary detail, we should. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

If I may, I'll quote from the AP article:

Mattos said he was surprised by the barren conditions. There was no running water and men were sleeping on the floors, skipping meals and training with sawed-off broomsticks in place of assault rifles. Five Belgian shepherds trained to sniff out explosives were as poorly fed as their handlers and had to be given away.

The seized equipment Chuao included airsoft guns, and from what I gather the people arrested were even wearing bathsuits, just to give some more examples of how the attack seems to have been very poorly planned. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

We just have a lot of details of the lengthy poor planning. But this isn't to discuss what Goudreau was thinking, do you think it's all DUE? Kingsif (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

No. That's the reason why I addded the very long section tag originally. Another option is also to merge with other articles, but I would ask for it to be done carefully and not lose valuable content. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The detail of the planning section is vital and it will not be suitable on any other article. Where would you put information about the planning of the attack? Oh I know, in the article about the attack! Any removal of the details may be seen as whitewashing information of some of the parties invovled.----ZiaLater (talk) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I sense a little bit of hostility, there's no need for it. There are guidelines that allow the trimming of the content, including WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOMUCH. It does not mean that excluding critical content or details crucial to understanding the planning of the attack, even less whitewashing any of the participants. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Guaidó in the infobox

@ZiaLater: I don't understand why are we keeping Guaidó in the infobox. First even if Guaidó had contacts with Goudreau, Guaidó eventually scrapped the deal. Secondly, this article is about the attack which eventually did not have any backup from Guaidó. What am I missing?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Guaidó initially approved of the plans and provided $50,000 and possibly the $1.5 million retainer (which was legally necessary within the five days of the agreement they signed). So Guaidó funded and supported the same plan until they lost confidence in it. So the planning and funding was supported by Guaidó in 2019, there is no doubt of that. As an example, you can see in larger conflicts such as the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), the infobox shows that support changes over time (from 2017, 2015–17, etc). Hope this is an adequate explanation as this is fairly common in armed conflict articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Goudreau has declared that the $1.5 million retainer was not paid, and even the Washington Post article title where this comes from says "From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue". It's original research to affirm that "Guaidó funded and supported the same plan", when months passed after it actually took place and could have gone differently, such as an attack from Colombia.

From other articles, it appears that the convention for the "Belligerents" and support section is for parties during the conflict. In extended conflicts, such as wars, it is easy to see these changes of side, when a party sometimes even supports the opposite one just like it's hown in the main Crisis article, but it is inaccurate to include it in a battle. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jamez42, a lot of planning that was scrapped, carried out six months later and under different conditions. Also this is not a long conflict.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Inviting recent users to help with consensus: @Kingsif: @Orgullomoore: @LaserLegs: @Acalycine: @Thanoscar21: @Jameslightell: @Cyfraw: @Jim Michael: @NickCT: @Ortizesp: @Goodposts: @Patjorgensen92: @Burrobert:

Should Guaidó's support be in the infobox labeled specifically for 2019 only?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

So, this is kind of a clusterfuck and quite honestly, I am shocked that somebody thought the Bay of Pigs 2.0 was a good idea and am trying to drill down to the bottom of this. As far as I understand, Guaido claims to have ceased supporting the plan sometime late last year, and has failed to pay the sum he was supposed to for the job. Now, I'm not exactly sure how contracts for political assassinations and military coups are supposed to be written, but this does show Guaido gave the order for this plan to be created. The editors above are correct that when parties switch sides or otherwise reconsider their involvement, this is usually marked in the infobox. However, why would a group of mercenaries follow trough with an operation, if its initiator and main backer has pulled out? Cui bono? Guaido seems to have approved either this, or a very similar plan. I really don't know here. Do we have RS specifically stating that Guaido's involvement was definitely terminated (rather than him just claiming it was)? If not, then he ought to stay in. Goodposts (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Or refused to pay, according to the sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater:, I'll remind that were the editor that placed Guaidó in the infobox from the stable version, meaning that burden lies on you to find a consensus. It's alright that you invite other editors to discuss, but the focus of the discussion would be to change the infobox, not to keep it, and I advise the change to be removed for the time being. In any case, it appears it should take long until new comments arrive.

Due to the current content, I see as a possible solution to focus the article on the plot itself rather than on the attack. That would solve the problem of a infobox merely focused on the conflict, and could be used to include aspects such as diplomatic stances. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

 Comment. My opinion is that indicating Guaido's support in the Infobox is appropriate so long as it can be confirmed and we make clear that the support was eventually withdrawn. Particularly if the audio recording Maduro's government put out purporting to show Guaido on a VOIP call indicating he would sign and return the agreement in about 30 minutes (Youtube vid id: SfmnF-g2kzQ). If that's authentic, then of course the article should reflect it. If it's propaganda, then obviously not.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

In a rare moment, all sides in this seem to agree that it was 1. a massive failure 2. briefly supported by Guaidó before he withdrew. Perhaps it's indicative of how completely ridiculous this was that both the attack-er and attack-ee have a similar narrative. Seems to be that Guaidó (2019) should be in the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It makes sense to include Guaidó in the info box possibly with a qualifier. He certainly provided support at some stage and there is a signed service contract. Whether he withdrew that support seems unclear at the moment but it is still early and more information should come out. Whatever does come out he bears some responsibility for the operation. Burrobert (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this solution. Would appending "(disputed)" to the end of his mention in the infobox be preferable, for the time being? Acalycine (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

On the analysis section

@ZiaLater: I disagree with having an analysis section. We can find analysis from all sort of "experts" saying all sorts of things, these are opinions but when they are not from people already involve in the affair it becomes unclear why should we given them a spotlight.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: There usually are no issues with the inclusion of professional analyses from reliable sources in Misplaced Pages articles.----ZiaLater (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure but it is either information that goes in-line with the rest of the text or a section that is created for more technical issues like economy/science/etc.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with ReyHahn here. The "analysis" section currently contains the opinion of a Venezuelan professor that the Venezuelan opposition is criminal and bears "dictatorial tendencies," the opinion of a political commentator that Guaido has abundant funding but lacks military support and is willing to use violence, and the opinion of an American reporter that the operation was poorly planned and analogous to the Trump electoral campaign's amateur engagement with Russian operatives. In what way does this contribute? I think it would be best to lay out the facts and let the reader draw his or her own conclusion about whether this or that faction is criminal or dictatorial or unwise or goofy. Accordingly, I agree with removal of the Analysis section as it stands now.-Orgullomoore (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that professor also supported Guaido against Maduro back in 2019. I don't see any issue with there being an analysis section per se, so long as the analyses given are given by authoritative figures and not used to push a POV. Why not instead discuss on how to improve the section, rather than deleting it? Goodposts (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I also prefer improving instead of deleting. But also, we need to improve the section heading and probably incorporate the "analyses" (talking points) in the appropriate place in the article. Or rename it to "reactions of several professors and a columnist."--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

If any of the opinions in these analysis are relevant there should be merged with the text. A section like that just calls for a lot of agenda pushing.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this inclusion as well, we have the Reactions section to include notable declarations and Misplaced Pages is not an essay. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hi, I would consider nominating this article for DYK, as it was not good for ITN. The article should be nominated in a few days. --cyrfaw (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't it be re-nominated for ITN, now that it's been greatly expanded & improved? Jim Michael (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but the incident now is a week old.--cyrfaw (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait until the US tries to get Denman and Berry back. That's not going to be fun to cover, but will probably be international enough for ITN. Nomming at DYK. Kingsif (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Comment or view
• Article history

• ... 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 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 )

• 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).

• 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)

Yes, agreed. We have to find a better one. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Remember it has to be neutral and indisputable. Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted. --cyrfaw (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

Proposed ALT1 to ensure NPOV in the hook. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

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)

I did not edit the article. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@Bri: Yes - they used the same headline - changed it now. Kingsif (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, I marked this as passing the DYK criteria. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks --cyrfaw (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: the page Macuto Bay raid has been moved to Operation Gideon (2020) and I have updated this template, but I don't see your name anywhere in the page history. Please explain. Yoninah (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Since that page history is exactly one entry making a redirect, something has obviously happened (maybe deletion for move?). My contributions history shows all the edits, as does a web archive of the page history from May Kingsif (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Thanks for the page history. Actually, I'm now searching on the Operation Gideon history and I see you in the May 6th edits; I was looking on an earlier page. Restoring tick. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: Back again. Neither footnotes 8 or 49 verify the information that's cited to them, which is the hook fact. There's also a tag on text under Colombia. Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• @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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @Kingsif: it has been a week since your last post. Are you suggesting a new hook or withdrawing this nomination? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Can I phone a friend? @Jamez42 and ReyHahn: do you guys have any hook suggestions? Kingsif (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2:... that Operation Gideon, an attempt to infiltrate Venezuela by sea and remove Nicolás Maduro from office, was stopped before it hit the beach? --evrik  05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Jamez42's suggestions from the talk page here: Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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 )

• Is this in the article? --evrik  19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• It is not. @Jamez42: Has the Alexander the Great mention been removed from the article? Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

• 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 )

Review needed for alt hooks 2-4. Kingsif (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I'm surprised you chose that one, Narutolovehinata5. It's just a cheap shot and the grammar isn't even correct. ALT2 and 3 are much better hooks. Yoninah (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• I guess a promoter can pick, if the review is covering all of them? ALT3 not currently in the article, though. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

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 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Not-ready tick. Yoninah (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• @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)

• Approving ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2020

It has been proposed in this section that Operation Gideon (2020) be renamed and moved to 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Macuto Bay raid → 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – A multitude of reliable sources across multiple languages are now describing the operation as a coup attempt after Silvercorp admitted their objectives. This is the main criteria for including the word "coup" in an article title according to WP:Coup, an essay I created. Surprisingly, CNN, Fox News and Voice of America agreed to describe the event as a coup as well. --ZiaLater (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of over 20 international sources describing the event as a coup:

• Voice of America (Government of the United States) — Un ex boina verde lideró un golpe fallido contra Maduro (A former green beret led a failed coup against Maduro)
• CNN — "Venezuela's Maduro says two Americans captured in failed coup"
• Fox News — "US denies any involvement in failed Venezuela coup attempt"
• NHK (Japan) — ベネズエラ クーデター未遂事件で米元軍人ら17人拘束 (17 including former U.S. military personnel detained in Venezuela coup attempt)
• Dainik Bhaskar (India) — डेनमैन ने सरकारी टीवी चैनल में तख्तापलट की साजिश की बात स्वीकार की है। (The gunman has admitted to the conspiracy for the coup in the state TV channel)
• Sinar Harian (Malaysia) — Rampasan kuasa: Venezuela fail aduan ke badan antarabangsa (Coup: Venezuela files complaint to international body)
• Kompas (Indonesia) — Gagal Kudeta Venezuela, Tentara Bayaran AS Langsung Akui Perbuatan (Failed Venezuelan Coup, US Mercenaries Acknowledge Acts)
• Jawa Pos (Indonesia) — Terlibat Upaya Kudeta, Dua Tentara Bayaran AS Ditahan Venezuela (Involved in Coup attempt, Two US Mercenaries Detained by Venezuela)
• Kronen Zeitung (Austria) — Venezuelas Staatschef Nicolas Maduro ist vor wenigen Tagen offenbar knapp einer Entführung und einem gleichzeitigen Putsch (Venezuela's head of state Nicolas Maduro apparently narrowly avoided a kidnapping and a simultaneous coup)
• France Inter (France) — Venezuela : le coup raté pour renverser Maduro (Venezuela: the failed coup to overthrow Maduro)
• Het Parool (Netherlands) — Venezuela schermt met neerslaan coup (Venezuela fences with a quelled coup)
• de Volkskrant (Netherlands) — Verijdelde coup in Venezuela is cadeau voor Maduro (Foiled coup in Venezuela is a gift for Maduro)
• Aftonbladet (Sweden) — Trump avfärdar anklagelse om kuppförsök (Trump dismisses indictment on coup attempt)
• El Moudjahid (Algeria) — Après le coup d’état déjoué au Venezuela: Caracas procède à huit nouvelles arrestations (Caracas makes eight new arrests after foiled Venezuela coup)
• Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (Italy) — Golpe in Venezuela contro Maduro: "Altri quattro terroristi arrestati" (Venezuela coup against Maduro: "Four more terrorists arrested")
• Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy) — Un gruppo di militari oppositori del regime ha rivendicato il tentato golpe via Twitter (A group of military opponents of the regime have claimed responsibility for the attempted coup via Twitter)
• O Estado de S. Paulo (Brazil) — Americano preso na Venezuela confessa plano de golpe em vídeo (American arrested in Venezuela confesses coup plan in video)
• Brasil de Fato (Brazil) — Operação Gedeón, nova tentativa de golpe de Estado na Venezuela (Operation Gedeón, a new attempted coup in Venezuela)
• Al-Manar (Lebanon) — (Trump and his war minister deny the US relationship with the coup attempt in Venezuela) ترامب ووزير حربه ينفيان علاقة الولايات المتحدة بمحاولة الانقلاب في فنزويلا
• Foreign Policy — "an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro"
• Radio Canada International — Ex boina verde canadiense implicado en intento de golpe en Venezuela (Former Canadian green beret implicated in attempted coup in Venezuela)
• The Telegraph — Former US soldier involved in attempted Venezuela coup says 'Washington was aware' of plans
• NPR — After Failed Coup Plot, Maduro Touts Video Of Detained American Conspirator
• The Daily Beast — Trump Just Inspired the Dumbest Damned Coup Plot in LatAm History, Complete with a QAnon Crazy
• Vice News — Mercenaries Behind Failed Venezuela Coup Claim to Have Done Trump Security
• The New York Post — Brother of ex-Green Beret in failed Venezuela coup pleads for help from US

Please maintain a civil discussion while we analyze this! Thank you --ZiaLater (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not against "coup." Why are we not also considering "Operation Gideon"?--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Orgullomoore: There are multiple Operation Gideon articles on Misplaced Pages, including Operación Gedeón during the El Junquito raid that killed Óscar Alberto Pérez.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION if we have to call it Operation Gideon (Macuto raid) or whatever to make it precise, it should not be a problem.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There is an error in this; the events occurred in Macuto, Carayaca, Chuao, El Junquito, Cepe and Puerto Cruz. Some of these are in totally different regions. How would this be precise ?----ZiaLater (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I am just saying that if "Operation Gideon" decided to be the right way to name this event, a in between parentheses subtitle, no matter how long can be used to make it precise.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

In the Spanish the articles were differentiated with years, Operation Gideon (2018) and Operation Gideon (2020). Since El Junquito raid as not changed its title in English, the difference can be easily Distinguish template, like it was done before with the Palestine operation. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Why make readers fumble through a cumbersome distinguish page when 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt is precise enough?----ZiaLater (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Decisions

• Support: As nominator.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose That you have to support this move so much on foreign language sources instead English or Spanish makes this move look forced. None of the standard English agencies with offices in Venezuela are included or are using "coup" as attributed to what Maduro says. Also the use of some tabloids and partisan sources.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also you focus on CNN and FoxNews which both links you provided are not even proper articles. All this goes against WP:PRECISION and the recent WP:COUP, also it would probably not stand WP:NAMECHANGES.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

There are about ten different, reputable English-language sources in that list. One of those is Fox News, which I assure you is no friend of Maduro. Goodposts (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not about siding with Maduro or not, this is about reliability and popularity of the name. None of those sources is even used in the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Are CNN, VOA and NPR not reliable or popular? Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN and NPR are generally considered reliable sources, as per WP:RSPSOURCES. Acalycine (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN is not a proper article but a video and the title is "Maduro says...".--ReyHahn (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree on 'not a proper article' but you are correct in identifying 'Maduro says'. This CNN link should be excluded as evidence for this discussion. Acalycine (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I purposefully used a broad range of reliable sources from a variety of countries to show that the use of "coup" is the widely used term and that this is not WP:OR. And this goes against the WP:COUP that I wrote? WP:COUP states: Use of the word "coup" in an article title should be avoided unless the term is widely used by reliable sources. With over 20 internationally-sourced publications plainly describing this as a coup (not "alleged coup", or "X claimed a coup"), it is verified that this was in fact a coup attempt. Saying otherwise would be WP:OR in contrast to what reliablie sources state.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

ZiaLater you are purposely avoiding comparison with the current title. Please expand on how the proposed title is better than the actual one based on international news agencies (with offices in Venezuela) AP, Reuters, AFP and EFE, and Venezuelan sources (see Talk:Macuto Bay raid#Title of the rarticle above).--ReyHahn (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The quality of press is abysmal in Venezuela, so sources from there are rarely of quality over the past few years. One of the only quality sources from there, Efecto Cocuyo, describe the events as "intento de golpe de Estado" or "attempted coup". Then there is Globovisión, which has allegedly been in Maduro's pocket for the past few years, that shows "el contrato que firmó Guaidó para intentona golpista en Venezuela" or "the contract that Guaidó signed for a coup attempt in Venezuela". You can also look at the over 40 sources below as well (I purposefully chose international sources to show the widespread usage of the event's classification as a coup). If you are choosing to ignore the conclusions of reliable sources that use the coup wording deliberately, you are ignoring verifiability and promoting original research. I cannot help much more if you are going to ignore reliable sources that verify this information.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: A couple of days ago I'd probably have held off, but by now the majority of RS are explicitly using the term "coup",

so I'd say it fits. Goodposts (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment. I'm undecided for now. I guess I need to conduct a more thorough survey of what reliable sources are calling it and the precise meaning of 'coup.' I have not read Zia's article on coups. My observation right now is that "coup" has several connotations that are not completely accurate here: (1) it exaggerates the size of this attempted incursion and (2) it takes a side on the legitimacy of the Maduro regime. First, what we are talking about is a rag-tag team of 60-or-so Guaido supporters accompanied by two American "advisors"/mercenaries riding in motorboats. Typically "coup" refers to something like what happened to Allende in Chile in 1973 or to Mosaddegh in Iran in 1953 or in Syria in 1966, or in the 1976 Argentine coup d'état, i.e., wide participation by the national military. In the case of Macuto Bay, one of the salient facts is that the national military did not join in the attempted revolution, as the invaders had hoped. Second, the governments of something like 60 nations, including the U.S., consider Maduro's hold on power to be illegitimate. Typically "coup" is not used to refer to the removal or attempted removal of such regimes, e.g., Libyan Civil War (2011).-Orgullomoore (talk) 13:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

On your last point about Libya, is that fact owing to reliable sources not describing it as such? On your point about involvement of the military, I don't believe dictionary definitions specify that a coup must be performed by an existing military. Per Google, a coup is "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." Per Merriam Webster, a coup is "the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group." Are we disputing how long a piece of string is here? 60 qualifies as small to me. Thirdly, on your point about undue weight towards Maduro, I don't understand how this is relevant. Whether Maduro's power is legitimate/legal or not does not matter here - they hold authority in the country, legally or not. A coup overthrows a government. What other government was there to overthrow? Definitions aside, I think we should lean towards WP:COUP's reliance on reliable sources in order to describe this as a coup or not. Acalycine (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Maduro stuff. I was deleting/withdrawing that part of my comment when I edit-conflicted with you. As for my view on what a coup is and whether this was a coup, let me get back to you.--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

...Although, the inclusion of "illegal seizure of power from a government" in one of the definitions does seem to bring the legitimacy of the current regime into play as a relevant issue to be discussed, if we are going to call this a coup, no?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

I would say that it still lines up with the definition - the Maduro government is the one in power, they preside over the laws, and the laws still don't allow coup attempts no matter who is in charge. If I understand it correctly, Maduro's presidency is the subject of the legitimacy controversy, not the body which enacted the law by which these mercenaries would be charged with. Acalycine (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: many reliable sources are describing this as a coup, and as per WP:COUP, that is sufficient for this to be called a coup. This discussion has been ongoing at the top of this page for a couple of days, for context - there may be some additional sources there. Acalycine (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Acalycine: I placed 20 additional sources below, so we now have over 40 sources describing the event as a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - The details surrounding this incident are sketchy. Many of the facts presented in this article are attributed to either the Venezuelan government or Jordan Goudreau. In both cases credibility is quite limited. Reliable reporting on this event are so limited, it's not really clear to me that a "raid" even really took place (much less a coup attempt). Frankly, I think we should rename this article "Macuto Bay Incident" until what actually occurred becomes clearer. NickCT (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The Associated Press and The Washington Post did excellent investigative journalism that makes up much of this article, not the Maduro government or Goudreau.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
    • @ZiaLater: - AP and WaPo are examples of reliable sources. This article uses a whole bunch of less reliable sources. Scanning through it by eye, I'd guess about 50% of the references have problems. NickCT (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--cyrfaw (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE, WP:COUP and lengthy previous discussions on the matter. I will provide a rationale later either here or in the section below. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jamez42: How would the title violate NPOV? A coup "is the forcible removal of an existing government from power through violent means". Check. Multiple dozens of reliable sources describe this as a coup. Check. What is missing?----ZiaLater (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• @ZiaLater: I have given a lengthy response below. Feel free to consult it if you wish. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• This article is littered with secondary sources as source material, needs correction post haste.Jameslightell (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Thanoscar21 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proposed title is less accurate than the current one. I've made up my mind. Based on the reliable sources I've reviewed, the event is referred to variously as a "failed invasion," "naval/sea attack/incursion," "failed operation," etc., but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup. Yes, the goal was to topple the government. "Coup" does not describe what happened here. I believe "incursion attempt" is the most precise description. However, between "raid" and "coup," "raid" is better in my opinion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Orgullomoore: "Yes, the goal was to topple the government". And yes, by force too. This would be the definiton of a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument here. What do you mean by but no one is seriously calling it a coup or attempted coup.? There are a substantial amount doing so, I'm assuming unironically... How many would be enough for you to support? Acalycine (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup. Misplaced Pages's article on Coup d'état actually contains a decent analysis of its usage. If you read it, you'll see that what happened here was more a putsch than a coup ("the politico-military actions of an unsuccessful minority reactionary coup"). But we can avoid all the semantics by simply picking a neutral description that does not imply a value judgment and does not exaggerate the severity of what happened, such as invasion or incursion (or raid, I guess). I'm not exactly sure why there is such a push here to call it a coup. It's not clear to me how that clarifies anything. What does it make better? Saying "this was obviously a coup attempt" and acknowledging that the pie-in-the-sky dream of these guys was to take over the country does not address my point. I'm not disputing their intent. All I'm saying is that when you title the page as a coup you make it sound like something bigger than a band of speedboat Rambo types who thought they could repeat D Day with less than a platoon. We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word "coup", even though the body of the article acknowledges this was the end goal of what became a botched sea incursion very similar (but much larger and better supported) than the one under discussion here. Can anyone tell me the benefit of retitling the page to include the word coup? It's not a number of headlines that would move me; a logical argument might.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

1: "the amateurishness of this event does not rise to the level of a coup". Intention and execution are two different things. They attempted a coup and it was an amateur attempt. 2: "what happened here was more a putsch" Coup and putsch are synonymous. Go ahead and translate "putsch" from German to English. 3: "We don't title the Bay of Pigs Invasion with any form of the word 'coup'" This is because reliable sources at the time kept "Bay of Pigs Invasion" in their headlines/articles. Reliable sources today are describing this event as "Venezuela coup", "coup attempt", etc. That is why coup in the title is warranted. There's some logic.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Do you have any support I can review for the assertion that "reliable sources at the time kept 'Bay of Pigs Invasion' in their headlines/articles"? You don't think Castro was calling this a coup attempt? And the USSR? And Academics? Honestly this headline rule is very foreign to me and does not make sense to me.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: Just Google "Bay of Pigs" and you will see an example of the term's widespread usage. The reason I nominated this in the first place was because while reading stories about this event, the term "coup" was widespread in sources (which I thought was rare), warranting a title change. The Bay of Pigs Invasion was actually codenamed "Operation Zapata", but that is not used because of how popular the term "Bay of Pigs" was with reliable sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Seriously? What makes you think that googling a term in May 2020 is indicative of how "reliable sources" described an event that happened in 1961, before there was anything to google or google with? Just think about it. If you wish, I will refute the argument, but I think it refutes itself.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

You can easily find sources that reported it at that time, as many publications have since published digital archives of their previous work and you can also read modern syntheses of old sources that analyze the position that event was reported on with at the time. Goodposts (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support obviously this is a coup attempt, the second by Guaidó who has now exposed himself as a thug who would use hired mercenaries to attack Venezuela. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• @LaserLegs: While I agree (what?) that Guaidó's image as the mature diplomat and the not cool action of hiring some American hitmen don't add up (in that it's a more dubious version of having his own secret agency), there's no need to name call. Also, I don't know if I've asked, but if you're interested in WikiProject Venezuela, having experienced editors with a range of perspectives is really useful there. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, please mind WP:FORUM. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment I will look into this further. It's still dubious on how much US and Guaidó influence was ultimately involved. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Kingsif: Whether the US, Colombia or Guaidó were involved or not, Silvercorp (or whoever was involved) attempted to overthrow Maduro by force and reliable sources have been describing the events as a "coup attempt".----ZiaLater (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Kingsif: On the topic, I found a letter dated 7 MAY 2020 from U.S. Senators Murphy, Udall, and Kaine to State Sec. Pompeo, AG Bar, and DNI Grenell asking what the U.S. knew, when they knew, to what degree they helped, and why they didn't do anything to stop it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

• Oppose – The current title is descriptive enough. Using the word "coup" makes it seem like an inner-government/military struggle, not a group of sixty contract soldiers arriving via flotilla. Also, isn't there a debate as to what is the current "genuine" Venezuelan government? That may also make the proposed title problematic... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: and everyone else, please stop collapsing the content in the original RM notice. It's causing RMCD bot to collapse RM discussions @WP:RM. Jerm (talk) 03:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

1. Associated Press (US) — Trump denies ties to Venezuela coup attempt that leaves ex-special forces soldiers jailed
2. Bloomberg News (US) — Two Americans Held in Venezuela Are Part of Failed Ragtag Coup
3. The Times (UK) — Venezuela coup debacle: US mercenaries held by Maduro
4. The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) — Venezuela coup attempt: American 'mercenaries' detained says Maduro
5. Australian Associated Press (Australia) — US mercenaries claims Trump government is behind failed Venezuela coup
6. ABC News (US) — "2 Americans accused in failed Venezuela coup attempt"
7. ABC (Spain) — Maduro acusa a la DEA de contratar a «narcos» en el golpe frustrado (Maduro accuses DEA of hiring "narcos" in thwarted coup)
8. The Miami Herald (US) — "The failed coup has been a propaganda coup for Maduro"
9. El Sol de Mexico (Mexico) — Juan José Rendón, de asesor de Peña Nieto a golpista en Venezuela (Juan José Rendón, from Peña Nieto's adviser to coup leader in Venezuela)
10. Diario Co Latino (El Salvador) — El primer golpe fue organizado por Jordan Goudreau (The first coup was organized by Jordan Goudreau)
11. Newsweek (US) — U.S. AND VENEZUELA TRADE ACCUSATIONS OVER FAILED COUP ATTEMPT, RAISING TENSIONS IN LATIN AMERICA
12. The Australian (Australia) — Venezuela holds US mercenaries after botched coup
13. The Week (UK) — Reaction: Donald Trump denies links to failed military coup in Venezuela
14. National Review (US) — ""The U.S. government has denied involvement in a failed coup against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro""
15. The National Interest (US) — Pompeo Denies U.S. Involvement In Botched Venezuela Coup
16. The Globe and Mail (Canada) — A Canadian-American military man, a failed Venezuela coup and a Twitter video
17. Sky News (UK) — Venezuela: Two US citizens held after failed coup attempt are named
18. Argus Media (UK) — Rogue coup attempt thwarts US plan for Venezuela
19. Gizmodo (US) — Bonehead Mercenaries Behind Failed Coup in Venezuela Plagiarized Website
20. Voice of America (Government of the United States) — Un ex boina verde lideró un golpe fallido contra Maduro (A former green beret led a failed coup against Maduro)
21. CNN (US) — "Venezuela's Maduro says two Americans captured in failed coup"
22. Fox News (US) — "US denies any involvement in failed Venezuela coup attempt" and "Guaido has denied any involvement in the bungled coup"
23. NHK (Japan) — ベネズエラ クーデター未遂事件で米元軍人ら17人拘束 (17 including former U.S. military personnel detained in Venezuela coup attempt)
24. Dainik Bhaskar (India) — डेनमैन ने सरकारी टीवी चैनल में तख्तापलट की साजिश की बात स्वीकार की है। (The gunman has admitted to the conspiracy for the coup in the state TV channel)
25. Sinar Harian (Malaysia) — Rampasan kuasa: Venezuela fail aduan ke badan antarabangsa (Coup: Venezuela files complaint to international body)
26. Kompas (Indonesia) — Gagal Kudeta Venezuela, Tentara Bayaran AS Langsung Akui Perbuatan (Failed Venezuelan Coup, US Mercenaries Acknowledge Acts)
27. Jawa Pos (Indonesia) — Terlibat Upaya Kudeta, Dua Tentara Bayaran AS Ditahan Venezuela (Involved in Coup attempt, Two US Mercenaries Detained by Venezuela)
28. Kronen Zeitung (Austria) — Venezuelas Staatschef Nicolas Maduro ist vor wenigen Tagen offenbar knapp einer Entführung und einem gleichzeitigen Putsch (Venezuela's head of state Nicolas Maduro apparently narrowly avoided a kidnapping and a simultaneous coup)
29. France Inter (France) — Venezuela : le coup raté pour renverser Maduro (Venezuela: the failed coup to overthrow Maduro)
30. Het Parool (Netherlands) — Venezuela schermt met neerslaan coup (Venezuela fences with a quelled coup)
31. de Volkskrant (Netherlands) — Verijdelde coup in Venezuela is cadeau voor Maduro (Foiled coup in Venezuela is a gift for Maduro)
32. Aftonbladet (Sweden) — Trump avfärdar anklagelse om kuppförsök (Trump dismisses indictment on coup attempt)
33. El Moudjahid (Algeria) — Après le coup d’état déjoué au Venezuela: Caracas procède à huit nouvelles arrestations (Caracas makes eight new arrests after foiled Venezuela coup)
34. Agenzia Nazionale Stampa Associata (Italy) — Golpe in Venezuela contro Maduro: "Altri quattro terroristi arrestati" (Venezuela coup against Maduro: "Four more terrorists arrested")
35. Il Fatto Quotidiano (Italy) — Un gruppo di militari oppositori del regime ha rivendicato il tentato golpe via Twitter (A group of military opponents of the regime have claimed responsibility for the attempted coup via Twitter)
36. O Estado de S. Paulo (Brazil) — Americano preso na Venezuela confessa plano de golpe em vídeo (American arrested in Venezuela confesses coup plan in video)
37. Brasil de Fato (Brazil) — Operação Gedeón, nova tentativa de golpe de Estado na Venezuela (Operation Gedeón, a new attempted coup in Venezuela)
38. Al-Manar (Lebanon) — (Trump and his war minister deny the US relationship with the coup attempt in Venezuela) ترامب ووزير حربه ينفيان علاقة الولايات المتحدة بمحاولة الانقلاب في فنزويلا
39. Foreign Policy (US) — "an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro"
40. Radio Canada International (Canada) — Ex boina verde canadiense implicado en intento de golpe en Venezuela (Former Canadian green beret implicated in attempted coup in Venezuela)
41. The Telegraph (UK) — Former US soldier involved in attempted Venezuela coup says 'Washington was aware' of plans
42. NPR (US) — After Failed Coup Plot, Maduro Touts Video Of Detained American Conspirator
43. The Daily Beast (US) — Trump Just Inspired the Dumbest Damned Coup Plot in LatAm History, Complete with a QAnon Crazy
44. Vice News (US) — Mercenaries Behind Failed Venezuela Coup Claim to Have Done Trump Security
45. The New York Post (US) — Brother of ex-Green Beret in failed Venezuela coup pleads for help from US

Here are 20 more English and Spanish language sources so this does not look "forced" from "foreign language sources". Will add more and document edits if needed.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit: Uncollapsing and numbering. @User:Jamez42: If you can have a rant with sources below without collapsing, then the wide use of the term "coup" must not be hidden. If you have concerns, please see WP:ITSCRUFT. It seems that you have been notified of these actions above as well.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

But don't we need to dig deeper than the headlines? There are also plenty of headlines that don't call it a coup or golpe. Are we really going to count and tabulate statistics based on headlines of stories covering the event? There has to be a better way. Here are 10 non-coup headlines. I was going to do 20, but got tired. You get the point. You can find whatever you're looking for.

--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: If a reliable source is going to describe it as a coup in their headline, they think it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Not necessarily. Check out, for example, one of the articles you cited above, from Foreign Policy. The sentence you quoted ("an attempted coup against embattled Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro") is part of a paragraph which begins with the bolded section heading: "A botched raid in Venezuela." Headlines have to be catchy. Misplaced Pages article titles should not be flashy and sensational.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

What Misplaced Pages policy states that headlines are not indicative of content in a source? A thing can be described in two ways, in that FP article: a coup attempt and a botched raid coup. Acalycine (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

My point exactly. Therefore, we need a better argument than 20 headlines from around the world contain the same word as the title you want to change the page to. The title was already changed once from whatever to raid. Now some people want to change it to "coup." But why? The only argument I've seen is that it comports with some dictionary definitions and that there are lots of headlines that contain the word (and lots that don't).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

If a reliable source is going to describe anything as a coup, it is a coup. That is not for us to decide as that would be WP:OR. Yes, headlines need to draw some sort of attention, but they would not include the word "coup" without a considerable amount of consideration. Also, a raid could be part of a coup. An incursion as well. Naval attack? Yeah, that can be part of a coup too. But when something is explicitly described as a coup, it is a coup.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: So I guess our disagreement comes down to this: Your position is that if some headlines from reliable sources contain the word "coup," the name of the incident locks in on "coup," even if other reliable sources or other headlines by the same reliable sources use another word. I, on the other hand, would support taking into consideration that certain sources are calling it a coup in certain contexts, but I do not think that is determinative. I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. You admit as much yourself in your essay, though you seem to make an exception if enough headlines can be found with the word "coup." Again, I think this is a flawed argument. Even if headlines were determinative, you are giving more weight to sentences that contain the word "coup" because that's what you're pushing for. If truly the amount of headlines that contain this or that word is determinative, we should take a representative sample and do a sound statistical analysis. But I think that's a waste of time, personally. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles rather than brute statistics, though statistics are important and informative.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Orgullomore makes clear that more than sources statistics are need to understand why somebody want it one way or the other. So please discuss below.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: I think that the title of the article is necessarily nonneutral if you call it a coup. It is necessarily an editorial decision. It is the decision of the reliable source, not our decision. If we were to decide, it would be WP:OR. I think logic, common sense, and consensus should be the guiding principles Logic points us towards reliable sources, which describe this event as a coup. Common sense shows that this is a textbook example of a coup attempt. As for consensus, WP:Verify and WP:NOR override consensus per WP:COPO, that states that core policies "are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus". These reliable sources have verified that this was a coup attempt by describing it as such, and describing it otherwise would be original research.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sure ZiaLater, but look on how all this was started on cherrypicked news. All you can say about your sources and the guidelines, I can make a similar or stronger ground for the current title based on important news agencies and Venezuelan news. Even VTV fails to call it a golpe consistently from time to time . Why should we call it a coup, what is so wrong about the current title?. --ReyHahn (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended comments

Supporters

Could the supporters of this move explain why the proposed title is better than the current title? --ReyHahn (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Detractors

Could the detractors of this move explain why the current title is better than the proposed title? --LaserLegs (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Too flashy and sensational and implies a judgment that to attempt to remove Maduro's government is illegal, even though many countries actively advocate for his removal (and the US has put out a bounty for him).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Attempting to forcefully depose the current government (disputed though it may be) by assassinating its leader is illegal everywhere, from Norway to North Korea. Goodposts (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

But deposing a dictator through popular revolt is not illegal, if successful. It's been said by many that a thing can be lawful while illegal (e.g., Holocaust, US invasion of Iraq), and likewise a thing can be unlawful while legal. See Right of revolution. That's why we call it the American Revolution and not the American Coup of 1776, among many other examples. The victors write history and their history reflects their value judgments. But we are Misplaced Pages, supposedly describing things and not advocating them.---Orgullomoore (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

Actually it is, the act of violently overthrowing a government is usually the worst crime a person can attempt to do. Go look at some criminal codes from around the world, you'll usually see crimes such a treason carrying the heaviest punishment those nation's penal codes provide for. Now - and here's the important bit, something being illegal merely reffers to its legal standing, not wether or not it is morally justified. There are plenty of legal state-sanctioned killings, that are nevertheless horrific, just as there are crimes that are morally justified - and a revolution against a tyrannical regime would certainly be one of them. The term "coup" is usually used to reffer to an overthrow of the state by a well-organized group acting from within the state apparatus itself - in this case, it would be due to the involvement of Guaido himself. The term "revolution" is usually reserved for popular uprisings that are ultimately successful. Both are almost always illegal, but that doesn't necessarily imply a value judgement as to wether or not they were justified. If you were to go back in time and kill Hitler - you'd still be commiting a crime, and you'd be liable for it under the laws in place in Germany at the time. At the same time, you'd be extremely justified in doing so, as that person was personally responsible for the fully intentional and pointless killing of millions of people. You are also correct that regimes will play with words like "coup" and "revolution", using them to suit their own needs, but what I'd reckon is we ought to stick to well-established political science. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts: If you say so, but I did link you to an internal article that directly rebuts your assertion. In fact, the Constitution of Venezuela demands that the populace reject unjust authority. ("Article 350: The people of Venezuela, true to their republican tradition and their struggle for independence, peace and freedom, shall disown any regime, legislation or authority that violates democratic values, principles and guarantees or encroaches upon human rights.")--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: Sure, but constitutions aren't up for individual interpreration. They are interpreted by various organs, usually some form of constitutional court. In Venezuela, this would be the TSJ, and I have a very hard time believing the TSJ would rule this to be lawful. Goodposts (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, yes they are. That's the whole point of a Constitution. It's a pact between the People and the State (comprised of representatives of the People who act for the People and whom the People have the absolute right to remove). See the Declaration of Independence. See the Constitution of Venezuela. See the Constitution of Texas. If the Constitution can only be interpreted by state organs, then there could never be a Constitution in the first place. Democracy means power from the People. It is totally up to interpretation by the People. And when the State rises up against the People and acts against their interest, Revolt is no longer criminal. I do not believe we are allowed, here, to have an in-depth debate about whether Maduro is a representative of the People of Venezuela. But as a general principle of accepted political science, which you reckoned we should stick to, power over the State organs comes from the People, not vice versa.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

I admire your idealism, but do have to note that this simply isn't and cannot be the case. Popular soverignty, or the concept that power emanates from the people - is purely philosophical in nature. You'll find this written in the constitutions of all manner of authoritarian and even totalitarian states troughout history. It's actually linked more to nationalism than to democracy - it is a reaction to the old theory that soverignty emanated from soverigns - kings, emperors, princes and the like. Back in the day nations were but realms to be ruled in perpituity by monarchs and their vassals. With the introduction of the concept of the nation state - i.e. a union of people with some kind of shared characteristic - popular soverignty denoted more the national character of the state, as opposed to a practical rule of the people. This soverignty is expressed by some kind of representative - in modern times usually elected, though it could also be a hereditary position (see Popular monarchy). There's nothing to guarantee that that representative is legitimately elected, that he or she actually represents the "will of the people" (and how do you even quantify that?), or that the nation is "democratic" in any way, shape or form; it's purely a philosophic idea. In any case, I recommend you read up on "soverign citizens" if you wish to see people attempting to apply this philosophy in action. Lastly, consider this - if each person was allowed, in their own way, to interpret what a "tyrannical regime is" and decide when the time has come to oppose it trough armed rebellion - couldn't a hardline libertarian be excused in plotting the assassination of a leftist leader? Couldn't an anarchist be excused in attempting to kill any leader whatsoever? Couldn't a socialist be excused for plotting to overthrow a conservative, whoose plan to privatize healthcare he views as a direct attack on human rights? In fact - who determines what human rights even are and who they apply to? This is why interpretive organs are absolutely necessary. Goodposts (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts: That's why I said "if succesful." Little gang movements don't gain popular support and are crimes; they lack popular legitimacy. People who think they can draw checks on their social security number and are exempt from taxes and traffic tickets (sovereign citizens) are very different than, say, Thomas Paine. You tell me, what is the difference? Or will you contend there is none at all?--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

@Goodposts:...oh, and to answer your question, how do you quantify the will of the people: fair, transparent, and open elections. You will say, yes, but who decides they are fair or unfair? Well, there are times when everyone agrees they are not, except those who directly benefit from claiming they are. That's how you know. When informed people who disagree on everything else agree on it. This is one of those times.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: So how many people do I need the support of before I stop being a criminal? 10? 100? 1000? 100,000? 1,000,000? There are times when most everyone agrees the elections were fair, but oftentimes that simply isn'the case. Again - how many people need to consider the elections fair? Who determines which candidates or parties are allowed to run? Should anti-democratic parties be allowed to run? Should the majority be allowed to violate the rights of the minority? Those are all questions that need interpretation. Those interpretations are done not by you and me, but by courts. In Venezuela's case - the TSJ. So, to bring this around - do you think the TSJ would rule this to be a rightful following of the constitution? Goodposts (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The proposed title makes it look bigger than it seems to be. Sure there was a plot to generate a coup, but it was intercepted and was done in such small level that it barely had any possibility of success. Most sources talk about the coup as the intended plan but for record keeping the only thing that happened was a small raid that made the news. Similar to Machurucuto incident.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@ReyHahn: If someone was planning a murder, went to a gun store, bought a Bushmaster XM-15, went up to the potential victim firing while misssing all their shots, then accidentally shot themself in the foot which led to police finding the suspect from their own trail of blood, that plot would be just about as successful as this one. They would still be charged with attempted murder, though.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The difference being that attempt is a defined crime with specific elements (see Attempt) whereas coup is a word to describe the overthrow of the existing regime by military force. And let us not fall back into the "but this IS an attempted coup" whirlpool. Yes, the rebels were attempting to overthrow the Maduro government. Nobody disagrees. The question is whether the title of the Misplaced Pages article describing this incident should label the event as a coup, which, as I've observed previously, is inherently an editorial decision, especially given how recent this incident is.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

So, by that logic, no wikipedia article should ever have "coup" in its name. Attempted coups exist and we have plenty of articles on them, if you'd like a read. Goodposts (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

If there is something you want me to read and comment on, give me a link. I'm not going on goose chases. You gave a similar remark to my question about the prevalent contemporary terminology used by news sources to refer to the Bay of Pigs Invasion.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC).

I will do my best to keep the rationale brief, but at the same time as thorough as possible:

Sources

If I count correctly, of the 45 references cited in the article that are about the events themselves (after 3 May), the headlines of 36 do not refer to them as a "coup" or as a "coup attempt", an overwhelming 80%:

1. Washington Post (US) — Trump denies ties to Venezuelan attack with 2 US men jailed
2. From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue
3. Venezuelan government says it stopped ‘invasion’ launched from Colombia
4. Venezuela says it foiled attack by boat on main port city
5. Associated Press (US) — Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela’s Maduro
6. The New York Times (US) — Ex-Green Beret Led Failed Attempt to Oust Venezuela's Maduro
7. BBC (UK) — Venezuela detains two US citizens over speedboat incursion
8. Venezuela accuses Colombia of attempting 'terrorist' sea invasion
9. StarTribune — Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid"
10. Financial Times — Mystery surrounds foiled 'plot' to liberate Venezuela"
11. Misión Verdad — Macuto: un nuevo capítulo frustrado de la vía armada contra Venezuela" (Macuto: a new frustrated chapter of the armed way against Venezuela)
12. Bellingcat — The Invasion of Venezuela, Brought To You By Silvercorp USA
13. Efecto Cocuyo — "Lo sabíamos todo", dice Maduro sobre incursión en Macuto". ("We knew everything", says Maduro about the Macuto incursion).
14. Padrino López anuncia captura de tres "mercenarios" en la carretera El Junquito-Carayaca (Padrino López announced the capture of three "mercenaries" in the El Junquito-Carayaca road)
15. El día “D” y la hora “H” no ha llegado, Javier Nieto Quintero sobre “Operación Gedeón” (Day D and Hour H has not come, Javier Nieto Quintero about “Operación Gideon“)
16. La estrategia insurreccional no funciona hoy en Venezuela, advierte Ricardo Sucre (The insurrection strategy does not work nowadays in Venezuela, Ricardo Sucre warns
17. Caracas Chronicles — The Macutazo: Timeline of an Absurd Military Adventure
18. Washington Examiner — Jordan Goudreau must answer for Venezuela debacle
19. The Guardian — Donald Trump denies link to Venezuela armed raid by US citizens
20. Sky News — Venezuela attack: Former US special forces soldier says he led botched plot to overthrow President Maduro
21. CNN Venezuela claims to have captured two Americans involved in failed invasion
22. The Canberra Times (Australia) — Ex-US soldier 'behind' Venezuela attack
23. Reuters Detained American claims he plotted Maduro's capture in Venezuela TV statement
24. Trump denies U.S. role in what Venezuela says was 'mercenary' incursion
25. Venezuelan authorities detain U.S. citizens allegedly involved in incursion
26. U.S. will use 'every tool' to secure release if any Americans held in Venezuela: Pompeo
27. Los Angeles Times — Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro airs video of American detained in alleged plot
28. France24 — Venezuela arrests two US ‘mercenaries’ after alleged raid to capture Maduro
29. Runrunes — Provea exige garantías a la integridad de detenidos en Macuto y Chuao (Provea demands garantees to the Macuto and Chuao wellbeing)
30. Noticiero Digital — Provea responde a Maduro: Nadie nos va a desviar del camino (Provea responds to Maduro: Nobody will divert us from our path)
31. EFE — Cuba expresa "enérgica condena" a una fallida incursión marítima en Venezuela (Cuba express a "enegetic condemnation" to a failed maritime incursion in Venezuela)
32. CGTN — US denial over Venezuela alleged plot 'unconvincing': Moscow
33. SBS News — Russia weighs in on Donald Trump's 'unconvincing' denial of alleged Venezuelan plot
34. Anadolu Agency (Turkey) — Venezuela asks extradition of US citizen in failed raid
35. Washington Office on Latin America — Stated U.S. Support for Negotiated Transition Should Guide the Trump Administration’s Venezuela Policy
36. Council on Hemispheric Affairs — Guaidó and the Failed Military Operation against Venezuela: A Story of Betrayal and Financial Corruption

Such as the Washington Post, The New York Times, If the source that are cited in the article do not refer to the events as a "coup", why should the article be renamed as such?

There are plenty of Spanish and local sources that also do not refer to the attack as a coup. Just to put some examples:

• El Pitazo

• FAN cataloga enfrentamiento en Macuto como un intento de desestabilización
• Primero Justicia exige a Guaidó investigar incursión fallida de Macuto
• Dos de los participantes en la supuesta invasión estaban inscritos en el CNE

• El Estímulo

• Gobierno denuncia "invasión marítima" a Venezuela, mientras en Petare se vive un escenario de guerra (+Video)
• Opositores a Maduro piden por la vida de presos en "Operación Gedeón"
• Operación Gedeón, la trama del intento por sacar a Maduro del poder continúa

• El Nacional

• Delcy Rodríguez: Encontramos evidencias muy importantes sobre la incursión en Macuto
• Esta es una de las lanchas usadas para la supuesta incursión en Macuto
• Pescador de Macuto sobre operativo en Vargas: Funcionarios del FAES llegaron y comenzaron a lanzar tiros como locos

• Agencia Carabobeña de Noticias

• Guaidó tildó de «montaje» la incursión militar en La Guaira
• Desmontaje bélico o montaje político la incursión en La Guaira

For more examples, the sources above and in other sections can be consulted.

The move proposal of the 2019 Venezuela uprising article to "2019 Venezuelan coup attempt" included a table comparing sources. If it comes to that, a similar table can be made here, but the result will probably be similar.

Definition

Right off the bat I want to comment on something, given the divisive nature of the topic: I personally think that a coup does not have an inherent negative connotation, and have argued for or against it based on this. To give an example, the 1958 Venezuelan coup d'état deposed a dictatorship that committed torture, assasinations and persecution against its dissidents, established a strong censorship and tried to rig the last election during its period. The 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, despite the controversy regarding if Chávez resigned or not and if there was a vacuum of power, is widely recognized and referred as such.

In the 2019 uprising move discussion previously mentioned, I explained that my concerns were about the events not meeting the characteristics of a coup or Venezuela's historic precedents. In the 60s, the recently established democracy faced violent turmoil and subversion by leftist guerrillas. During Rómulo Betancourt's presidency, there were notable uprisings know as El Carupanazo, El Porteñazo and El Barcelonazo; even though they were armed conflicts against the established authority in Venezuela, they are historically known as rebellions or uprisings.

The most similar event in Venezuelan history to this raid is possible the 1967 Machurucuto incident, when a dozen of Cuban trained guerrillas landed on the Venezuelan coasts hoping to overthrow president Raúl Leoni in the future. The event is referred to as an invasion, an incursion and could be considered as a raid, but not a coup d'état attempt.

Possibly one of the key aspects boils down to how close these events were to threatening the established authorities. We already know how poorly planned and carried out this plan was.

Conclusions

The term "coup" is not widely accepted and as such should not be used as a title. We should also mind Venezuela's current polarized situation and strive for the most neutral title possible. A possible important question to ask oneself is if this be referred as a coup in 20 years. At least academically, chances are that probably not. This is just another of a list of violent (and regrettable) incidents, including the 2018 Attack on Fort Paramacay, the 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt and minor defections, rebellions and skirmishes (see the long lasting Pemon conflict).

Lastly, if I may, I also want to call upon and remind the closing admin that !votes without rationale or arguments should not be given weight per WP:POLL--Jamez42 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Colombia articles
• Low-importance Colombia articles
• WikiProject Colombia articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Latin America articles
• Unknown-importance Latin America articles
• Latin America articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class South American military history articles
• South American military history task force articles
• C-Class Post-Cold War articles
• Post-Cold War task force articles
• C-Class Venezuela articles
• Mid-importance Venezuela articles
• Venezuela articles
• Requested moves