Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 3

Committee Support vs. Guaido Support (BRD)
I changed the infobox on the "Support" side from "Guaidó government" to "Guaidó government Strategy Committee." B. reverted, with this edit summary Simplifying. The committee was tasked by Guaidó to find a strategy to remove Maduro from power. Saying it was specifically the committee words it as possibly being a "rogue" element when it was organized on behalf of Guaidó according to sources.. R. Now we're discussing. D. I believe specifying that it was the Strategy Committee is more precise because Hernán Alemán, Rendón, and Guaidó say that Guaidó was not directly involved in the specific plan of invading Venezuela by launching motorboats with hungry exiles from a drug lord's safe house in Colombia into Maduro's arms in Caracas (pun intended). Please discuss.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for laying out that BRD layout. Wording it specifically to the committee seems like it passes the blame directly onto them, when sources say it was the Guaidó government itself supporting the initial plans (not just a committee).ZiaLater ( talk ) 02:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All right. I just thought it was reflective of Guaido firing ("accepting the resignations") of the committee members and attempting to distance himself from them and Operation Gideon generally. Whether or not that's all politics is for others to judge. I think it's widely agreed that Guaido OK'ed the "exploration" (i.e., something like a wargame) as one of many contingencies to remove Maduro. They met this special forces guy who claimed he could get big players involved, if only they would sign a contract to show their commitment. Then, Goudreau apparently oversold and underperformed, resulting in the Committee backing out, apparently at Guaido's direction based on Rendon et al.'s reports back to him. So, if he has the authority to "back out," he would have to be "in" in the first place, i.e., he would have to have previously expressed support for the exploration of the possibility of invading Venezuela from Colombia. And as for your concern that putting "committee" implies there is a rogue element, well, it seems to me like that's the narrative the Guaido camp is putting out. As you know (reflected by your recent edits), Rendon is attempting to fall on the sword for Guaido by resigning and "showing up for him" . So to me, it just seems more "neutral" to say the committee supported it, which is what everyone agrees on, as opposed to saying Guaido supported it, which everyone I think would admit to themselves but some cannot bring themselves to say it out loud. It avoids taking a side. But I can understand how some would see that as crossing the line from neutrality to deference. I am not ashamed to admit that I have an anti-Maduro bias which I do my best to keep out of the article. I'd love to see what the other editors think. It may be that it's not a big deal one way or the other seeing as no one else has chimed in.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Guaidó even taking the time to explore operations of violently overthrowing Maduro and pushing Venezuela further down the path of violence is troubling. The way sources put it is that Guaidó pursued such plans with Silvercorp because they were the cheapest option (this is very common in government work). If they were willing to pay millions of dollars as a retainer for planning and then agree to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for the operation itself, this is not just for "exploration".ZiaLater ( talk ) 02:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Whether this plan and the time dedicated for it is troubling or not is not relevant to the discussion. The Washington Post says that Rendón said Guaidó knew only the rough outlines of an “exploratory plan” but grew suspicious of Goudreau based on the reports of the committee; the Justice First party asked for the dismissal of the officials that "used his [Guaidó] government's name for individual purposes", and his foreign minister, Julio Borges, joined to ask for these dismissals. There are many conflicting versions regarding the knowledge and involvement of Guaidó or even his inner circle. In the past I have explained the problems with including Guaidó as a belligerent party in the infobox, but changing him for his Strategy Committee could be a good middle ground for those that want to draw the distinction with the withdrawal of this support and those that want to reflect the original support in the infobox. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Guaidó isn't listed as a belligerent party though, the "Guaidó government" is, which presmuably would include the strategy committee. The "Guaidó government" was indisputably involved — not sure what the big issue with this is; the current version is simpler. (As a side note, regardless of whether we make the change under discussion here, I would propose changing the term "government" to another term that more accurately reflects their status, perhaps "opposition" — they aren't actually governing anything at the moment.) — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Or probably simply "Strategy Committee". --Jamez42 (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The thing is, this is why Guaidó created this "Strategy Committee". They were acting on behalf of the Guaidó government when they went over planning and paid Silvercorp.ZiaLater ( talk ) 22:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * But Cmonghost brought up another point whose solution could be replacing the "government" with the committee, it could be a substitution of the former and objectionable term. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits by David Tornheim
I reverted 5 edits made by between 23 May 2020 0707 and 0812 UTC. I would have loved to have WP:PRESERVEd some of it, but honestly I found nothing to preserve, so I am outlining why I considered each to require reversal: --Orgullomoore (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) 7:07: edit summary: renamed "Guaidó government's alleged involvement" to "Guaido's alleged involvement": Guaido doesn't have a government. I didn't see any source that claim he does. reason for revert: Guaido is recognized as the legitimate head of state of Venezuela by lots of countries, as we have discussed already. Maduro is seen as an illegitimate usurper of power in Venezuela by those countries and many inside the country. However, Maduro has de facto control over the government. This is common knowledge for those who possess common knowledge regarding the conflict, and is well-sourced. That you did not see any such source does not mean it is not cited in the article. Did you look?
 * 2) 7:23: edit summary (→‎Background: remove. Many of these sources are from *before* the coup attempt, and hence don't mention it. To include this material is WP:OR 'reason for revert: the presidential crisis in the background is the obvious precursor to this event. The trainees were dissidents who deserted from the Venezuelan armed forces and took refuge in Colombia after 4/2019 Uprising Attempt. Again, common knowledge among those possessing common knowledge on the subject, and the intent of the planners and combatants is also well documented as being grounded in their opposition to Maduro as an illegitimate leader. Just one example: Hernán Alemán claimed the legal grounds for the operation were the Constitutional provisions requiring resistance to anti-democratic persons purporting to exercise power.
 * 3) 7:34: edit summary: Removed material in WP:LEDE that the coup attempt is in the context of a "Venezuelan presidential crisis" per previous edit reason for revert: Same as above.
 * 4) 7:58: edit summary: mention Guido's signature // introduced the following paragraph: After it was revealed that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, with Guaidó's signature,... (see next line, since this edit is subsumed next edit at 8:12.
 * 5) 8:12: edit summary: Gourdreau provided the document per Washington Post 5/6/2020 article titled "Read the attachments to the General Services Agreement between the Venezuelan opposition and Silvercorp". / added: After Goudreau produced a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee--including Guaidó's signature--Guaidó claimed he didn't sign it, and Guaidó's allies indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019. See WP:CLAIM, which astutely observes that [t]o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence..
 * , please beware of the three reverts rule .--Jamez42 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I just noticed that all of these changes took place in one edit. I agree with the rationale of the revert. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I address the last edit in the section below Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid (permalink). I intend to dispute some of the other reverts. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Mention of Guiado's signature in LEDE

 * I added material that discusses Guiado's signature on the contract. Per WP:LEDE, we summarize key points in the article.  There is a lengthy section Macuto_Bay_raid and lengthy subsection Macuto_Bay_raid.  Hence it must be discussed in the LEDE.
 * reverted saying my recent edits were "POV or arbitrary". Regarding Guiado's signature, Orgullomoore said above:
 * "See WP:CLAIM, which astutely observes that '[t]o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence.'"
 * Although I think it is fair to say claim given the contradiction between the signature on the document and his words, I followed 's change:
 * To address the concern, and I have changed "claimed" to "stated".

--David Tornheim (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * reverted stating: "There are two versions, one of which is disputed. Changing to "document", since its nature it's also disputed (whether it was a contract or only a "exploratory" document)". It's not clear why he removed mention of the signature which is prominently covered in the article and in the press.
 * I restored mention of Guaido's signature and mentioned both documents:(1) agreement and (2) attachment.  I called it an agreement (which is in the title of the document) rather than contract to address, Jamez42's concern about use of the word.  However, I have not checked the WP:RS to see which words the WP:RS uses.
 * I personally don't have an issue with "contract" or "agreement." In the law they are the same. In common parlance people tend to think of a contract as a formal written agreement enforceable in court, whereas an agreement they think of as a "gentleman's agreement"--a meeting of minds without a meeting of pen and paper. Document of course encompasses any paper or information medium reducing ideas to words--a category much larger than but certainly inclusive of agreement/contract. I also don't have a problem noting that there is a document out there purporting to have Guaido's signature on it. Guaido claims he never signed it. Rendon claims Guaido never signed it (and has good incentive to lie about it), Goudreau said Guaido had signed it (but has since fallen off the map and has not given any interviews, that I'm aware of, since 3 days after the attack, and is now under investigation for arms trafficking), the opposition people in Colombia say they don't know whether Guaido signed it, the former Special Forces almost-recruits report that Goudreau was flashing around a signed contract, and so on. Guaido accused the Maduro regime unequivocally of forging his signature and faking an audio. A recent (pretty small) poll cited in the article found 85% people don't believe him. I also don't believe him. But who cares? It's certainly within the realm of possibility that Maduro is using fake evidence (again) to try to get at Guaido. On the other hand it's quite possible Guaido took out a hit on Maduro. Therefore we remain neutral and the lead should make clear that the document is out there, is unauthenticated and produced into the public record by someone who has since fallen off the map, and is directly controverted.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And as for whether the document was "exploratory" or a "retainer" as opposed to a "contract"-- this is all semantics. If it was exploratory, it means the parties agreed/contracted to explore options and upon the meeting of certain conditions re-explore whether to move forward with the transaction. A retainer, similarly, is an agreement by the principal to retain an agent and an agreement by the agent to be retained for performing services for the principal. All of these are types of contracts. And the fact that Rendon paid $50k in recognition of the contract would seem to take out all doubt as to the consequence of the document, whether a contract or some other thing. The only objective dispute is who signed it.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * David, there are two documents: one provided by Gordeau and is eight pages long, which is missing its first and last pages, and one published by The Washington Post, which is 41-pages long and does not include Guaidó's signature. Guaidó not only has state that he has not signed the former document, but that said signature is fake. It's important for the WP:NPOV to not mix up both documents. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can consult the Washington Post's article for more information. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The lead does not summarize that well without going into much detail, better keep that out of the lead as it was before.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you see a problem with what is in the summary, please propose an alternative that addresses your concerns. The original version does not mention Guaido's signature which is a significant part of the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see how significant it is. Sure there is a section about that but adding that Guaido's team was initially involved and backed down seems summarized enough. There is a disagreement on if there is a signature from Guaidó or not, but anyhow Guaido's team did not follow through according to them and Goudreau himself. The lead is large enough without all the details of the signatures in the documents presented (let us remember that there is more than just paper signing in this article).--ReyHahn (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The content of the short document has been disputed, including if it discussed a specific plan, which is not the case with the longer one. This, along with the fact that Guaidó's signature has been disputed, makes the mention of his signature in the lede undue, specially if the article is only about the Macuto attack. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you that an agreement and contract are often synonymous, which I originally wrote almost like you did. However, looking back at contract, I am reminded of my Business Law class, that a contract has a few other elements that must be met that go beyond a written agreement: (1) Offer and acceptance (2) consideration (3) Legal Purpose (4) Capacity (law). --David Tornheim (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You're right. There are some subtle differences. But we are getting way into the weeds. What the average reader needs to know is that Guaido allegedly signed a preliminary agreement (according to Goudreau and Maduro - but Guaido disputes this vigorously - all 3 with strong incentives to misrepresent the facts and with the public completely unequipped to validate any of their claims), which was then followed on by a series of attachments--which all apparent signatories admit to having signed--which further defined the scope of the services to be performed. I don't think the foregoing is disputed by anyone. We just need to put it in plain, neutral, concise English; that's the challenge.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I basically agree with the basic facts you have outlined. It seems to me that much of their stories jive:   They came to an agreement in October; there was conflict between the parties and allegations of broken promises; Goudreau didn't receive all the money he expected; they are upset with each other at the failure and are pointing fingers at each other for the PR nightmare.  They disagree about Guiado's signature and when they stopped collaborating.   I'm not suggesting this for the summary--I'm mostly pointing out that the basic story is not complicated.  It's a bit like Roshomon with "various characters providing subjective, alternative, self-serving, and contradictory versions of the same incident."  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The two documents together are two pieces of a single document--the General Services Agreement: Our article makes that clear, and so do the documents themselves, and the WP:RS. makes it sound like two separate agreements, but it is one agreement with two parts--the first 8 pages and the attachments. The problem is that neither Gourdeau nor Guaido's team provided copies of the entire agreement. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not know why you say that the first and last page of the piece that Goudreau provided were missing. None of the WP:RS I found mentions a missing first page. Hence I am deleting that. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "I" did not say this, the Bellingcat reference that I provided (which is a reliable source under WP:RS/P), states: Pages 1 out of 8 and 8 out of 8 are missing from the set that the outlet shared, and so we do not know for certain every piece of information that was included in this document, including exactly what services Silvercorp would provide. As such, I ask you to please restore that the first page is missing as well.


 * As for the assumption that the two documents are the same, could you please point out where in the Vox reference is this stated? The Washington Post article "From a Miami condo to the Venezuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue" says:




 * Furthermore, the second Bellingcat article states:




 * As far as I can see, the WP:RS treat both documents as different; not only that, but the veracity of the first one is questioned, which proves further the point. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at Jamez42 I decided to revert the lead back for simplicity until a good wording comes forward. The lead is large enough and adding more all those details to it (source names, who signed who, etc) just makes it cumbersome.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Per David asking below, I'll weigh in: I oppose inclusion, as it gives undue weight to a relatively small matter in the whole saga, with the main focus needing to be the attack (the tangible thing) and not political pissing over how much Guaidó was involved. Yes, it's got a subsection in the article, but is that because of importance or because it's the best way to attempt to cover it. Importance and word count are different measurements. Also note that David below suggests there is consensus to keep it of 3 editors, while acknowledging 2 (at the time) disagree. 3:2 is not consensus, and this is now 3:3 - the net may need to be slung wider to get more views. Kingsif (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * In this case it is not difficult to provide appropriate context, and the matter of whether Guaidó signed the documents or not is significant and has received a good deal of coverage, both in the sources and in our article (and has even been asked about in opinion polling). To provide context, we can simply state that Guaidó gave the strategy committee the go-ahead to pursue all available methods of removing Maduro and installing Guaidó (which is not disputed), and that there is some controversy over whether or not Guaidó personally signed preliminary documents. Something like this:




 * The bold text is what I added/changed. I don't think these facts are in dispute, but feel free to propose changes if you're unhappy with the wording. I also changed "allies" to "Strategy Committee" — calling them his "allies" when he personally struck the committee implies a degree of distance which does not actually exist. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because something is discussed here does not mean it is important. Most things discussed here are about form and wording. Why not write:
 * Guaidó is involved either way. I am maybe looking too much into this, but adding focus on the existence of his specific signature could be seem like intentional promotion of a minor controversy inside a controversy. Per WP:BLP we should be careful on how accusations are thrown out, a large section with all details is ok, a lead just to point blames on "who" published "what" seems cumbersome.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please retract your baseless accusation that I am "intentionally" promoting a controversy, per WP:AGF. As I stated, and you haven't addressed, the issue has received significant media coverage and merits inclusion in the lead. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So should we should add anything that received major coverage in the lead? That will mean including Alcalá involvement, the Caribbean incidents and the preliminary AP article. If we do the lead will be an article by itself.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking the word "intentional". I don't see a problem with mentioning those things in the lead either, but let's work on a case-by-case basis rather than invoking slippery slope arguments. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Which "slippery slope" arguments? I am addressing your argument that "just because sources discuss it at some point we should add it". You have not answered to any of my concerns. We are putting emphasis on Guaidó on a minor contradictory and delicate detail that should be explained fully in the appropriate section and not on the lead where it adds nothing and where specific details to make it more clear render it cumbersome. Guaidó signature does not make part of the 3 May attack, does not affect the fact that his team was involved at some point and it does not change anything with respect of the objectives of the plot.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The slippery slope argument that you made is as follows: "If we add content about Guaidó's signature, we have to add content about all these other things and the lead will be ruined." (paraphrased). I am countering this argument by saying that we can and should deal with adding information on a case-by-case basis. The presence (or not) of the signature is relevant because it is a major controversy related to the subject of the article. Here are just a few examples of coverage that places emphasis on the matter: If you think Alcalá's involvement, etc., have received similar levels of coverage, then we can also address and potentially add those. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from the Miami Herald article that is specifically about the signature the other two articles do no start adding details about Guaido's signature in their opening descriptions. It is just not lead material.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Aside from the Miami Herald article that is specifically about the signature the other two articles do no start adding details about Guaido's signature in their opening descriptions. It is just not lead material.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEADs are not supposed to be paraphrases of leads of news articles, so it is not relevant that the opening descriptions of news articles do not mention it. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. Per WP:LEAD, the lead is supposed to cover the most important points, including any prominent controversies. This is one, as evidenced by media coverage. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEAD also argues for a clear, concise lead with only most important contents. We are just not agreeing on how important this is for the introduction and how to write it to be concise.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of WP:DUE. And it's not due. Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Usually assertions like that should be backed up by some kind of argument, right? This paragraph of the lead is about Guaidó's team's involvement and the relevant documents. Many WP:RS discussing Guaidó's team's involvement discuss the alleged signature, including sources like WaPo and Vox which are highly regarded on Wikipedia (WP:RSP). How is it not due? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the reasons outlined above: one detail of one part of the fallout of the attack is not within scope to be covered by the lead, unless you want a sentence on every topic from the article. What are the need-to-knows? That there's some fighting over a side note to the whole affair? I don't think so. Perhaps with clearer coverage it would show more prominence, but we don't have that. Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Non-primary source tag - TVT / TeleSur / ETV / Maduradas
I want to make sure we are all on the same page regarding primary sources. I see lots of inline tags, removed some. I think there may be disagreement on this, so feel free to roll back. My position is that if we are saying in the article something like, "This Con el Mazo Dando episode said x" and we link to the episode, there is no better source for the user to confirm than that link. But the placement of the tag would suggest we should cite a secondary source reporting on what was stated in the episode. Let's discuss so we can have consistency throughout the article.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC).
 * I think that if we have to write something like "x person in El Mazo dando said birds flew over Macuto that day" and we can only cite the episode, we are giving notability to a negligible/fringe fact and we should not present it in Wikipedia. If there is a news article or a secondary or tertiary source, then it is ok. We should avoid Telesur always per WP:DEPS. Maduradas should be dealt carefully per WP:VENRS. VTV is usually Maduro admnistration primary source so a secondary source is needed. --ReyHahn (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the quick reply. I'll work on replacing these with secondary sources. Shouldn't be too hard.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping! (as well as the primary source fixes you have made). I have added the inline tags mostly in YouTube videos and interviews. This means it also applies for non-state references, such as EVTV's Guaidó interview. This is also the case with The Washington Post's article providing the extended agreement, which was apparently fixed.
 * While we're at it, could someone please restore or fix Meganálisis' primary source tag? It has been removed by an IP without explanation. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I noticed you only pinged some of the people who have shown significant interest in the article. I am pinging others who have shown significant interest on both the article page and the talk page:.
 * Also, I would also like to ask everyone who has not commented in the above section Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid to weigh in on the question of whether Guaido's signature should be included in the WP:LEDE.  I believe the consensus is YES (me,  and ), but two editors  keep deleting mention of it.  --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Using the word "keep" this early is a little inflammatory, don't you think?
 * The main purpose of my change was to distinguish the two documents that there are. I'm still waiting for you to point out where in the Vox source that you mentioned it is specified that The two documents together are two pieces of a single document, when you may. If there isn't a support on sources for this claim, we risk engaging in original research and WP:SYNTH, as well as adding unsourced content to the article, specifically none other than in the lede of the article.
 * also appeared to show disagreement with the inclusion of such proposal. Even on the contrary, 60% of the editors does not seem to mean consensus. If I may, I'll ask to confirm if this is their positon.
 * I also have to note that Cmonghost was among the users that were originally pinged from Bolivia's move discussion, where there were concerns of canvassing. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how we got to talking about the lead in this section about the non-primary source tag, but my position, to answer 's question, is that the lead looks good right now.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! I'll collapse this part for the same reason. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New title thoughts
Ok, this title is still terrible. As some have stated, the events did not only happen in Macuto Bay and some sources describe this as an "incursion". This can be comparable to the Mongol invasions of Japan in the way that it was a failed invasion or incursion into Venezuela. Possibly 2020 invasions of Venezuela or 2020 incursions of Venezuela? The Wikipedia redirect for "incursion" is the invasion article. I would ping, but do not want to be accused of anything else...ZiaLater ( talk ) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why plural?--ReyHahn (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would propose that we discuss a few titles before starting a move request, this would allow us to avoid a controversial or long request.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is eactly what this section is for. It is plural because there were multiple attempts over a two day period. It could be singular as well if more appropriate.ZiaLater ( talk ) 21:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be plural. Incursion is more like 'war' - lots of battles, one war. Lots of landings still makes one incursion. I still think the descriptive titles are the last resort and to stay away unless there's nothing else. Options:


 * 1) Macutazo gaining popularity, lots of Venezuelan sources (both opposition and not) are using it, and it's being acknowledged internationally. I initially raised the concern that in Spain (not LatAm), it is an outdated word for 'rumor' (and similar) and so to use with only one or two sources could have issues: now that there's European sources, that issue has gone.
 * 2) Operation Gideon the name as assigned by the Goudreau camp. Issues here are that it is the same name as other attacks, gives credence to whatever Goudreau was doing when he thought it was a good idea, and may preclude discussing the wider ramifications that are the real focus/important parts.
 * 3) Bay of Piglets invasion not many sources using it, mostly certain partisan English sources. Similar to the above, this is also the name of other attacks, most prominently being the longstanding (over 50 years) common name of the British invasion of Anguilla. And as I think I noted above, it was used by at least one RS (The Guardian) as a nickname for the 2002 Venezuelan coup, a whole other thing. IMO, this one should really not be used as it would be confusing if not misleading.
 * 4) Silvercorp Venezuela incursion this is a little more creative than [date] [place] [generic noun]. When looking at all the sources above, whether using 'coup' or not, you'll notice that they all emphasize that it was a foreign (and really misguided) attempt. And those that don't want to implicate Trump also explain how it was more of a lone wolf thing. In lieu of a more suitable collective noun for the attacking force, the affiliation with Silvercorp is well-sourced enough to attach their name to it.
 * Feedback welcome below (remember names have to be NPOV, RS, V, etc.) Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more convinced that Operation Gideon is the best title for several reasons:
 * The events took place both in Macuto and in Chuao, in the Vargas and Aragua states respectively. Furthermore, there have been arrests in other locations such as the Colonia Tovar. The title "Operation Gideon" would solve the problem of thinking about a specific place for the title.
 * The article currently focuses on the planning of the operation, the landing in Chuao and the indictments, arrests and confessions afterwards; the attack in Macuto is only a small part of the article. The details of both before and after the attack are likely to continue accumulating, and if the mercenaries are to be believed, there are rebels still plotting against the government. All these events, both before and after the attack, as well as the attack itself, are under the scope of "Operation Gideon".
 * Despite the disagreement on how to specifically call all of the events, "Operation Gideon" appears to be accepted by both the opposition and the government.

The article titles conventions should easily solve the issue of the confusion with similar titles (WP:QUALIFIER). This is the case with the Spanish Wikipedia, where "El Junquito raid" was named Operation Gideon and was moved to "Operation Gideon (2018)", whereas the Macuto events were renamed as "Operation Gideon (2020)". If we want to distinguish the article with the operation in Palestine, the latter can be renamed to "Operation Gideon (1948)".

Last but not least, the title is the "official" name of the events and it lacks any type of qualifiers that might have value attached to them, be them "raid", "attack", "invasion", "incursion", "clashes", "coup", etc. I know that this may not be the preferred option by everyone; it's not an utopic alternative where everyone is completely satisfied with the option, but with such a controversial topic, finding the title with the least opposition might be finding the easiest way to find a consensus. This is the reason why the "2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt" title was adopted: at the end and after the dust settled, it was the less controversial title.

If there is support to adopt the proposed title (or rather, it's the apparent option with "least disagreement"), then we can start a new move proposal formally. --Jamez42 (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I could get behind Operation Gideon. It's the name used by Nieto Quintero and Goudreau when they announced their "daring amphibious raid." It's the name Russia used during the UNSC meeting yesterday. It's the name TeleSur uses (they like to say: "Operation Gideon--which means destruction--...") (it actually means "destroyer"). It's the name Venezuelan newspapers use when they quote Hernán Alemán, who admits to helping with the operation up until Alcalá's extradition, although strangely he claims "that name never originated from us". Well who did it originate from then? Anyway, it seems neutral and better than the alternatives.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not so fan of Operation Gideon, it expands the focus of the article to whatever Maduro wants to say it is part of Operation Gideon. Silvercorps incursion in Venezuela sounds about right a simple and supportable. 2020 incursion of Venezuela seems supported too, I am do not agree on the plural. Bay of Piglets and Macutazo are around the corner but I am unconvinced, I would like to see a list of articles using these names to compare.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Let us not forget that El Junquito raid is also code-named Operation Gideon.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely correct. Since the 2018 operation keeps that name, and if this article is moved, I propose adding a Redirect template: ""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For the 2018 operation, see El Junquito raid." or ""Operation Gideon" redirects here. For other uses, see Operation Gideon (Venezuela)." --Jamez42 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Operation Gideon seems to be alright. If we want to differentiate it from the other article, we could use the Spanish language name Operación Gedeón. The operation name is used by almost all sources compared to the few partisan sources that describe it as "Macutazo" or "Bay of Piglets". If we are going to have a specific title and not a descriptive title, then the operation title is the way to go.ZiaLater ( talk ) 07:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My biggest concern with Operation Gideon (2020) aside from naming issues, it is the change of focus. We pass from describing an attack/raid to describe the planning of an operation and its consequences. If Maduro decides to blame any new attack on Operation Gideon it would continue to expand the article.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another possibility is to wait about a month before starting a move request and see what the sources are using at that time. Per WP:NAMECHANGES we should favor most recent sources in English.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Any new possiblity for a name from sources is not going to happen as the news cycle has already went past this event and has began to focus on Iran-Venezuela relations. Operación Gedeón seems like the best option at this point.ZiaLater ( talk ) 11:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are all for it, we could request a move to decide between Operation Gideon (2020) and 2020 incursion in Venezuela. Operación Gedeón is not a good idea, first it is in Spanish, secondly it is indeed called Operation Gideon in English because it was mainly organized by a US citizen.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

✅ that we should start move request to Operation Gideon (2020) (and leave open for discussion and consensus-building, of course). I understand concerns completely, but I agree with  that, at least for now, it seems the news sources are done playing with the name. They now call it "the recent foiled raid" or something like that, which is not precise enough for our purposes. When they want to be precise in a headline, they say "Operación Gedeón," usually in scare quotes.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we proceed, may we leave open the possibility of incursion? I won't strongly oppose Operation Gideon but also it seems unusual to call it by the operation name while many other articles (El Junquito raid, Machurucuto incident, 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt,etc.) have not, plus the other things I have said before. So if I can cast my vote I would prefer (almost) anything else aside from "operation".--ReyHahn (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How about Operation Gideon attack, so that it does not allow for discussion of other related things? I'd also recommend waiting for the dust to settle on the other move request before opening another. Kingsif (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer invasion as that is the word frequently used on Wikipedia articles. Again, the words were are using ("raid", "incursion", "invasion", "attack") are descriptions. Operación Gedeón in any format would be more appropriate if we are going to pick apart descriptions again.ZiaLater ( talk ) 00:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The big "COUP" footnote
A couple days ago or so, I moved prove-a-point "COUP" footnote, which contains something like 18 different links to outlets in English, Spanish, Japanese, Hindi, Malay, Indonesian, German, French, Dutch, and Italian. The only time this note is cited is to support, in the "Analysis" section, the assertion that the attack was widely referred to as a coup attempt. I think this is disruptive, even as a separate footnote. There are several issues with it, off the top of my head, but I could probably come up with more: (1) presumably most of Wikipedia's readers cannot verify, understand, or don't care what this incident is called in foreign-language news articles in Japan, South Asia, and Western Europe; (2) all of those articles were published within a week of the attack, before many new details emerged about the incident, and are likely based on Maduro's own statements or those of his puppets that this was an attempted coup; and (3) it's not controversial that the thing was a coup attempt--not necessary to cite to 18 articles not otherwise cited in the article to support that single (in my opinion irrelevant or trivial) assertion. Frankly, I still don't understand why the pro-Socialists (no offense, just based on my perception and my prejudices based on user profiles and contributions, etc.) are so adamant about the incident being referred to as a coup? Again, I don't disagree that it's a coup attempt; I just don't understand the forceful advocacy that it be called that. And don't say it's the RS, the RS; not me, the RS. That's BS. I completely respect those users' contributions' importance to the project and this article, but I don't get it. Can someone explain why it's so important to some people that it be called a coup--apparently not just in this article but also quite a few others where leftist governments were pushed out with "Imperialist" (NATO, etc.) support?--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems like WP:OVERCITE. Reduce to two or three English reliable sources if possible.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It would also be preferable to use a single for all of them and not a footnote.--ReyHahn (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link to Overcite. I updated the tag. I agree about it being a single ref. That's how it was before, but the one ref took up half the page, which is why I moved it to the bottom. I think Zia can easily cite to the news sources which are already cited in the rest of the article to easily support his point, even though I don't think it's a point worth making. There are plenty that call it a coup attempt; no need to import a refbomb.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC).
 * In the currently cited articles (excluding the refbomb), there are currently 11 instances of the substring "coup," 1 instance of "golpe," 5 for "overthrow," 16 for "plot," 11 for "raid," 10 for "incursion" (incl. incursiones), 6 for "incursión," 4 for "attack," 1 for "landing/desembarco," 2 for "Macutazo".... In other words, there's no reason why we cannot stick to the 12 already existing cites to prove Zia's point, if it must be proved.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

So the reason it was cited like that is due to previous controversies surrounding the sources of controversial statements. If there are not enough sources using a description, the description would be removed for being POV. If multiple sources used the description, however, it would show widespread usage and could be included in the article. Another thing we need to avoid is the laundry list of attributing to sources ("according to x, x, x, x, x, x, and x") or generalizing sources ("Western and pro-Guaidó sources"). For example in the SEBIN article, we had multiple sources describing the organization as a political police group. For a short time, the description was: "the political police force of the Bolivarian government by organizations, such as the Organization of American States and the Brookings Institution, and scholars such as Clifton Ross, Fermín Lares and Humberto Márquez". That is just a mess to read, so the citation was condensed into a single ref, then the statement was given general wording ("SEBIN has been described as the political police force of the Bolivarian government").<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 23:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'm confident we can work this out if we listen to each other. OK, so you say that the statement that [t]h event was described by numerous sources internationally as being an attempted "coup" would be removed as POV if there are not enough sources using that word. Would it not be sufficient to reference the following, which are already cited elsewhere in the article?
 * • # "Venezuela 'failed coup plot': What we know so far". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 6 May 2020.

• # Freeze, Colin; Dickson, Janice (5 May 2020). "A Canadian-American military man, a failed Venezuela coup and a Twitter video". The Globe and Mail. Toronto and Ottawa. Retrieved 6 May 2020.

• # Ensor, Josie (6 May 2020). "Venezuela 'coup plot leader' provided security at Trump rallies - reports". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 7 May 2020.

• # Stieb, Matt (5 May 2020). "The Dumbest Aspects of the Apparent Coup Attempt in Venezuela". New York (magazine). Retrieved 17 May 2020.

• # Ward, Alex (11 May 2020). "The "ridiculous" failed coup attempt in Venezuela, explained". Vox. Retrieved 12 May 2020.

• # Murphy, Jack (5 May 2020). "Ex-Green Berets tried to recruit this vet for a failed coup. Now he's speaking out". Connecting Vets. Retrieved 10 May 2020.

• # Vincent, Isabel (9 May 2020). "Ex-Green Beret behind failed coup was desperate for multimillion-dollar bounty". New York Post. Retrieved 17 May 2020.

• # "Venezuela: Two US citizens held after failed coup attempt are named". Sky News. Retrieved 5 May 2020.

• # "Señalado por Maduro de apoyar golpe busca acelerar su envío a EE. UU" [Individual identified by Maduro as supporting the coup seeks to speed up being sent to the United States]. El Tiempo (in Spanish). 8 May 2020.

• # Riley-Smith, Ben (8 May 2020). "Donald Trump denies being behind bungled Venezuelan coup plot". The Telegraph.

• # Sisk, Richard (6 May 2020). "US Not Involved in Bizarre Venezuela Coup Attempt, SecDef Insists". Military. Retrieved 7 May 2020.
 * –Orgullomoore (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I would avoid singular citations stacked up as this is the one of main reasons that WP:OVERKILL exists (for example "according to..."[x][x][x][x][x]). That is why I placed them together in a single citation. We could slim down the number of sources in the citation, but then it leaves the potential for future users to change the wording to "according to x, x, x, x, x, and x". We could go by WP:CITETRIM and choose the most generally reliable sources to keep in the single citation.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 00:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All right... and, call me thick, but why do we need to remark that numerous headlines called the event a "coup"? You mention the risk that future users come and "change the wording," again showing that you consider it important that the word remain. I'm not aware of a single source that commented about the fact that people called it a coup, or asked people to call it a coup, or not to call it a coup. The only place I'm aware of that being an issue (with respect to this specific event) is Wikipedia. That's why I asked, honestly and humbly, for an explanation about the relevance.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You said above I'm not aware of a single source that commented about the fact that people called it a coup... The implication seems to be that if there isn't a WP:SECONDARY source mentioning that numerous WP:RS say something, then it is WP:OR or WP:SYN to mention the various sources individually.  Yet I see things just like what  said:  "according to x, x, x, x, x, and x...."  I believe editors have at times vigorously objecting to such lists and have been overruled.  If either of you can cite policy in this regard, I would like to see it.  Here are some examples:
 * In UN Watch:
 * Commentary from the group has appeared in BBC,[21] Al Jazeera,[22] Reuters,[23] Washington Post,[24] Agence France-Presse,[25] Voice of America,[26] The Jerusalem Post,[27] Fox News,[28] JTA,[29] and others.
 * In Murder of Seth Rich
 * Fact-checking websites like PolitiFact,[6][9] Snopes,[10] and FactCheck.org stated that the theories were false and unfounded.[5] The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post wrote that the promotion of these conspiracy theories was an example of fake news.[11][12][13]
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was then, and still am, trying to understand why certain of our esteemed editors are so focused on that particular, apparently-here-controversial term. I mentioned my unawareness of other sources talking about it as a way to say that I've attempted means other than directly asking the users demonstrating their sensibility surrounding the word to explain. In other words, "I checked, but I didn't find anyone talking about it, so what gives, why do you care so much whether we mention it and cite 18 sources in support?" I'm not aware of any specific policy, but I'm no wikipolicy wonk. I might be able to name 5 or so big policies. Generally, I find the best policies to be common sense, being nice, patience, logic, utility, legality, standards and conventions, course and custom, and so forth. But I did not learn those on Wikipedia, and in any case for every rule (policy) there is an exception, or 20, or more exceptions. TL;DR: I did not intend to imply what you're implying I implied and no, I don't know a particularly pertinent policy.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

get to the point, there is no consensus yet on if that phrase should be there or not but the point is made, you should reduce the number of references to three at most. If somebody removes it you can add one more.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that you slimmed down the refs to half: just 9 instead of 18, and took out most (all?) of the remote languages. It looks so much better. I still don't understand the importance of the sentence, but I can definitely live with the size of that footnote. Thank you.--Orgullomoore (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Orgullomoore's Long Nonselective List of Headlines Regarding Operation Gideon Between 7-23 May 2020
Adding upon request of a fellow editor.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely mind boggling bias in page title (raid vs. coup attempt)
It's absolutely mind boggling that the cabal of editors who dominate Venezuelan-politics related pages have somehow managed to get this page labelled as a 'raid' rather than as a 'coup attempt'. Same with the '2019 Venezuela Uprising' page. I'm just in awe of the ridiculous bias on display. 181.118.15.105 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Does someone want to do a sock check on this IP? It's evidently from an editor familiar with Wikipedia and specifically this area, either hiding behind an IP or unable to use an account because of a block. Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to accuse editors. Please take any accusations to the editor(s) talk page, WP:AN/I, WP:SPI, or some other noticeboard that handles behavioral concerns.  This is a new editor and one needs to WP:AGF.  New editors are allowed to allege bias aren't they? --David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * New editors can allege bias, but the comment above it not doing that, it's making personal attacks about a non-specific but clear group of editors that the IP is accusing of some sort of bad practice (somehow managed to get this page labelled as). Further, the evident familiarity shown in the comment (the cabal of editors who dominate Venezuelan-politics related pages) makes it clear this isn't a new editor. The issue with this is that if the user who made the comment has a bad history of such accusations, they may be hiding this by making an IP comment, which is sockpuppetry. Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with 181.118.15.105 about their being bias problem with Venezuela articles, and I have expressed it before. If you see something specific that is biased and can show WP:RS that backs up your claim, please point it out and provide the WP:RS.
 * @181.118.15.105 Please note these relevant discussions to your concerns:
 * -- closed discussion above with a failed proposal by to rename the page to 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt
 * 
 * Talk:2019_Venezuelan_uprising_attempt/Archive_2 -- similar closed discussion to rename 2019 Venezuela uprising → 2019 Venezuelan coup attempt
 * Please feel free to contribute to any open discussion, or open a new discussion on this or any other talk page.
 * --David Tornheim (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello, Mr. IP address. I wrote a big part of the article and participated in opposition to the move discussion proposing the page be renamed to "coup." Most opponents to the move opined that "coup" was too sensational a title for this little adventure. Before this article, I did not have any interest whatsoever in Venezuelan politics. There is currently another open discussion proposing to rename the page to "Operation Gideon (2020)." Do you think that is less biased?--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, it's worth noting that the articles regarding this subject on the sister Wikipedia projects also do not call this a coup attempt. Here is what they call it: be:Уварванне ў Венесуэлу ("Invasion of Venezuela" -- according to Google Translate); ru:Вторжение в Венесуэлу (Invasion of Venezuela); de:Landung in der Macuto-Bucht	 (Landing at Macuto Bay); es:Operación Gedeón (2020); and fr:Opération Gideon.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi I opened a WP:SPI. It is my first time doing that, I hope I did not start it too soon and it was just somebody that forgot to sign. I don't expect much because we only have one comment by IP and we do not have possible suspects. thanks for inviting the user to join, just be careful not to hook IPs up for your own concerns .--ReyHahn (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. : I know we've briefly discussed sources before, but I find it disgusting that you allege directly that a vast number of editors have been systematically 'eliminating' sources to drive a bias on Wikipedia, just because you agree with the narrative in said sources. There's assuming bad faith and then there's thinking you're the sole honorable light in the sky; a.k.a inferring that everyone else is WP:NOTHERE without any evidence at all. Are you so enamored with certain perspectives that you can't see when a source is unreliable (by easily-observable metrics like editorial stringency and censorship rating, no less)? If you think there is some systemic problem, since it's far from just Venezuela-article editors who voted in any of those RfCs, then take it up at perennial sources. But don't go making baseless accusations all over the shop. Kingsif (talk) 16:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth.  I told both you and the new editor "This is not the place to accuse editors." The elimination of sources that aren't neoliberal is easy to prove.  It biases our articles to be neoliberal by eliminating other equally valid perspectives.
 * As for being factually correct, the neoliberal sources make plenty of mistakes. When it came to the burning of "aid" last year, the American sources all said it was Maduro, but TeleSUR got it right--it was the opposition throwing the Molitov cocktails that likely caused the fire.  The NYT  and Bloomberg admitted to it, but I didn't see any other "generally reliable" American and other neoliberal sources like CNN admit to their error. Max Blumenthal reported on it and got it right, but of course his work at Grayzone which has the 'wrong' bias is deprecated.
 * One one of the early arguments for deprecating TeleSUR was for reporting that it was the opposition who was responsible for the fire. Certain facts and perspectives that challenge the biased neoliberal perspective apparently need to be nipped in the bud.  --David Tornheim (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * you are the one that every time you intervene you throw away general accusations. Please, as you said to if you have any concerns with the sources or with any user please talk with the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or start some WP:AN/I. Don't invite anonymous IPs to join your causes.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * David’s post on the editor’s talk page was in response to an enquire here. He was pointing out a pattern that was obvious to me and is concerning. It limits the range of views that can be included within this encyclopaedia. He didn’t say he “agree[d] with the narrative in said sources” and he didn’t mention “a vast number of editors” as being responsible for the removal. He left it for the user to make up their own mind about what has happened and is still happening. I wouldn’t have mentioned this here but other editors have already transferred the discussion from the user’s talk page. Burrobert (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerns of bias should be addressed and pointed out specifically, instead of just broad accusations. There has already been a move discussion where some of them might have been expressed. Plenty of editors participated in it, not just the ones that edit often in the topic. Otherwise, this section should be collapsed per WP:FORUM.

Furthermore, it's concerning that now reliable sources used in the article are labeled as "neoliberal", without specifying which ones or why, and that there's an interest in deprecated sources such as Grayzone. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2020
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: The consensus was move. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Macuto Bay raid → Operation Gideon (2020) – Many users on this talk page agree that we should not use descriptive titles for such a controversial event. The common name used by reliable sources when describing the event is Operation Gideon. The 2020 added on is due to an older operation performed by the Haganah and another event in Venezuela using the same operation name (the El Junquito raid), which forces us away from using "Operation Gideon" or "Operation Gideon (Venezuela)". --<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 00:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mild oppose, per my concerns in . The title is a shift of perspective in the article, from a clunky attack to a codenamed plot. Whatever can be blamed to be part of the plot can now go in this article (even if it is an unrelated event in the years to come). There are other alternatives that could have been explored. are we allowed to support 2020 incursion into Venezuela or Silvercorps incursion in Venezuela instead? These descriptive titles are more appropriate than calling the event by the codename, which is unusual (see El Junquito raid [also codenamed Operation Gideon], Machurucuto incident, Bay of pigs invasion, 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt). Additionally, Macuto Bay raid is still a good descriptive title AP:The raid at the coastal town of Macuto.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree that code names are "unusual". Consider:
 * Operation Barbarossa -- rather than Hitler's boondoggle of invading Russia
 * Operation Market Garden -- rather than A Bridge Too Far
 * Operation Valkyrie -- rather the most famous attempt to assassinate Hitler
 * Operation Paperclip -- rather than the CIA saves Nazi war criminals from hanging, so they can make nuclear bombs, chemical and biological WMDs for U.S.
 * Operation Condor -- "was a United States-backed campaign of political repression and state terror involving intelligence operations and assassination of opponents, officially and formally implemented in November 1975 by the right-wing dictatorships of the Southern Cone of South America."
 * Operation Mockingbird -- "is an alleged large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early years of the Cold War and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations."
 * These are not simply titles that are used by Wikipedia, they are consistently used in the media and documentaries as well. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there are some famous operations, most of those are either from major wars (where there are too many different attacks, incursion, and so on) and a specific name is required to distinguish it from the rest, or from some large scale plot, with significant planning and preparation, sometimes without any specific "attack day".--ReyHahn (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Comment This would certainly be an improvement over the current title, but why not just Operation Gideon, with a hatnote at the top of the page pointing to El Junquito raid? (never mind, didn't notice the non-Venezuela Operation Gideon in the RM description, sorry) I'm not so sure that "Operation Gideon" is the WP:COMMONNAME. I'm not sure there is a WP:COMMONNAME actually (but if there is, it sure isn't "Macuto Bay raid"). In any case, I'm willing to support it for now; if a different common name develops we can always move it again. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're interested, you might check out a very large list (about 350 headlines) I developed in my Sandbox over the weekend (or something, I cannot remember when--I think starting on 5/24). I intended for the list to be "neutral" in that I was not at all selective regarding which titles to include. I included every single article related to the Operation between 5/7/2020 and 5/23/2020 that I could find from these reliable and relevant (i.e., close to the issue) sources: AFP, AP, BBC, CNN en Español, Diario las Américas, EFE, Efecto Cocuyo, El Espectador, El Nacional, El Nuevo Herald, El País, El Tiempo, Guardian, Miami Herald, NBC News, New York Times, Noticiero Digital, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. The substring Gedeón appears some 70 times in that list (some are duplicates).
 * In particular, I think you will note that the following sources seem have settled on Operación Gedeón: Efecto Cocuyo, Noticiero Digital, BBC, CNN en Español (when naming this operation specifically in a headline -- if not a generic name like "recent mercenary raid), El Espectador, and El Nacional.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assembling that list. Could you please copy that to this talk page in a new section titled "Orgullomoore's RS" or something like that?
 * We already have some lists above, and it would be better to be here than just your sandbox. I understand if you are not done with it yet.  I have been reviewing these lists myself for questions of WP:DUE, and plan to use yours as well.  At some point, I might make a sortable table that includes all of them including every source used in the article, with initials for who identified each as WP:RS.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)'

Sure, ✅--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support -- An improvement over the current obscure title. I have seen that name repeatedly in the RS. I have never seen "Macuto Bay raid" in the WP:RS. Google search of   provides double the results of Google search of   .  --David Tornheim (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support because Operation Gideon (Operación Gedeón) is the only term consistently used to refer to this specific failed raid. We don't have another workable choice, as far as I can tell.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Agreed - Should be Operation Gideon 2.0, the first one happened in 2018. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 20:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per the rationale in the "New title thoughts" section. I was planning on starting this proposal on the 29st, thank you for doing it before . --Jamez42 (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Redirect
The move discussion has now been closed and it was determined that there wasn't a consensus to refer to the events as a coup. Because of this, as well as per WP:RCAT, could you please remove the "Military coups in Venezuela" category from the 2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt redirect? --Jamez42 (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You misrepresent the RfC. Please don't do that.  The question for which there was no consensus was whether to rename the article to "2020 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt".  It is without question that plenty of WP:RS did describe it as an attempted coup, as is mentioned in the article:  Operation_Gideon_(2020).   provided 76 sources here:  ,.  The alternative name is compatible with the WP:RS, RfC, the article, and with WP:RCAT which says, "Alternative names should not look out of place on a category page.  This is often a way to satisfy disagreements over renaming an article when more than one name seems equally valid."  --David Tornheim (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're telling me to "not misrepresent the RfC" like if I was supposedly doing it on purpose, I ask you to please assume good faith. The reliability of Zia's sources would remain to be evaluated, and let's not forget that I provided over 84 sources, all of them included in the article, demonstrating the contrary, that the term "coup" is not used, the majority of which are in English, unlike Zia's sources. I also fail to see how WP:RCAT justifies having the category, specially considering WP:NPOV. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Lack of citations in the opening text?
Unless I'm blind, there appears to be no citations whatsoever in the opening text (before the table of contents). Is this correct? 146.244.165.130 (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is exactly how it is supposed to be. Please read WP:MOSLEAD. Kingsif (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

removed section
The following is a continuation of a prior discussion in a different section on this page. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this section as it violates NPOV and the whole first parapgraph is a ungrammatical run-on sentence I cna't even decipher. Some of the material might find a place in the aftermnath section. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Several changes could be applied before if it wishes to be included again. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Placed back "Analysis" section. Please see Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion for precedent. If necessary, let us discuss what should be included in the section and what should be excluded.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 15:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The comparison with Bay of Pigs is not that obvious, most sources there are written years later after the incident. At least 20 years (and much more), when everything is much clear. Per Talk:Macuto_Bay_raid you have to admit that there are less users trying to put this section in place, removing your undo. --ReyHahn (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Three compared to two is consensus? I improved the wording and the sources. Give an idea on how to improve the section.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 15:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Four to two** I proposed to include the text in the article and eliminate the section, would you agree to that? I did not receive a response.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that they agreed with keeping the section, but wanted improvements, which I have attempted. Including it in the article body would not be a bad idea, but where? The section seems like the suitable location, but I would like to hear your proposal.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 15:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Orgullomoore comment makes me think that whatever is there should also be relocated. We can add each comment in relation to whatever the opinion is about. My concern once again is that by creating an "analysis" section we are creating an opinion dump, each opinion article written from now on can be added there pushing whatever political bias one desires. If these opinion pieces are somewhat important, they can be added to the text in a relevant way and if they end not being relevant they would be erased.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , . Yes, my position is that it's OK to include the analysis of relevant commentators where it fits within the text. I was being sarcastic about retitling the heading to "the opinions of a couple talking heads" (or whatever I said).--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC).

Any opinions on this section being included? Really trying to broaden the discussion on this topic since it is so controversial. Sorry if you are bothered by the pings! Also, could you clarify what you prefer ? Also also, please see WP:NOTAVOTE. An analysis section is included in a multitude of Wikipedia articles and this one utilizes scholars specialized with Latin America or Venezuela. Definite keep.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no unbiased reporting. I believe that instead of pushing some views into a separate section, significant ones should be incorporated into the body of the article with proper citation. If no way is found to do this without messing with the flow of the article, then I think the section should be kept instead of deleting the information entirely. --Antondimak (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to place analysis within the body as it can portray certain events within an article differently. Instead, an article surrounding an event like this should present the event as accurately as possible in an organized manner (usually as it happened in a chronlogical order). The analysis properly attributed to reliable sources can come afterwards, which can be interpreted by the reader.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Two out of three is not WP:CONSENSUS, as per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY - articles are to be written primarily on the basis of agreement with all (or at the very minumum - all but the fringe) editors involved and be motivated trough thorough discussion, not via a simple majority vote. I don't see anything wrong with having an "analysis" section, for as long as the views represented in that section are published by RS and don't lend undue weight to specific opinions or wordviews. Goodposts (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, either merge or scrap, thanks for the pings I welcome more conversation on this subject. I think that a section like that should either be merged or scrapped. It is a dumpster for all kind of opinions and politically oriented commentary, possibly from different POV, but a section like that can be used to push any political bias if the sources are not counterbalanced correctly. If merged, the text would stand as additional commentary when needed. "Analysis" sections are better for more objective and technical issues like particular economic/health measures or infrastructure issues like the 2019 Venezuelan blackouts. For an unprecedented raid, with an investigation on-going, most of these commentaries are just political guesswork.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You can easily include reliable sources that are relevent to the topic at hand. I understand that the section has the potential to become a dumpster fire, but a whole article can become a dumpster fire without reliable sources. The quality sources that are now included in the "Analysis" section are much better than the initial section.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 13:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My position is exactly the same as that eloquently stated by two messages up: merge with body if possible; deal with it for now if not. Frankly I skip past that section anytime it shows up in a Wikipedia article I'm reading anyway. It's really not relevant whose analysis we like the best, and by picking and choosing whose to include, and in what order, we necessarily express a point of view. On a side note, I don't find it helpful to call in for backup since it brings trolls. Just look at the long and unproductive "discussion" we had about the right of rebellion on this page, myself and others I'll refrain from naming. From my perspective, my debate opponent was in it for the kicks, and made no contribution to the article itself. That being said, it seems like the best way to resolve this dispute is for someone to go in there and try to match up what we have in the body of the article with what's currently present in the"Analysis" section. I personally would not like to sign up for that task. --Orgullomoore (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Goodposts (talk) Thanoscar21 (talk) 13:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: the analysis has been attributed appropriately. I am not clear on what arguments are being made against the section. Merging the various views with the rest of the article is fine too if it can be done. In the meantime, the section should remain. Burrobert (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I also don't see what the exact arguments against keeping it are. You could simply add more to it if you believe it to not currently be neutral, and if something appears to be blatant nonsense you could single that out for further discussion. There is nothing with with there being an "Analysis" section per se, and its content appears both notable and properly sourced. Besides, the section is a mere six paragraphs long. I could understand if every opinion under the sun was thrown in there, but as it stands it's a perfectly fine addition to the article and I don't see that suddenly changing overnight. Prinsgezinde (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, merge if feasible: per WP:NOTESSAY and previous discussions. I fear that this discussion has effectively been turned into a poll. All of the users from Bolivia's move proposal were pinged again, and of the 31 editors notified only 6 were originally involved in the talk page, before the ping, less than 20%. I have to ask again, how is this section related to Bolivia's move proposal? Once again this brings the concerns of WP:CANVASSING and WP:VOTESTACK expressed above. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the concerns of how other editors were invited to the discussion, I have started a RfC as a final method of consensus building. I kindly ask only uninvolved editors so far to participate to prevent influencing the outcome. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

POV
As that section stands right now, all references discredit US or Venezuelan opposition. I find it hard to believe that with Maduro's legacy this is the only view of the events available. Especially since now even Associated Press refers to the "raid at the coastal town of Macuto" as a "publicity coup for Maduro". AP: 21 May 2020.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing is stopping you from adding in the content that you think is lacking. I haven't seen any analysis that describes this as a win for anyone involved, though, except possibly the government. The word "coup" in "publicity coup" just means "victory" and doesn't have a negative connotation there, so I'm not sure what you mean by pointing it out. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have not been fully involved in the writing of this article. I may take a few days to check some sources. I am not claiming win for anybody here, but no critics on how Maduro has handled the situation seems fishy. Especially since some of those concerns have been raised by the opposition in the section below.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Another problem I have by adding more information into this section is that I don't see the point of this section. I would need to look for contrasting opinion sources without a consensus on what should go there.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for removing the tag. There are plenty of sources that say Maduro is using this for propagnada. That would be fine for inclusion.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 21:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok. Information about Maduro government's response is now included.<i style="text-shadow:#C0C0C0 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em; color: ForestGreen">ZiaLater</i> ( talk ) 22:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Here there are analyses by Prodavinci and the Atlantic Council:. However, I feel there are still important concerns regarding if the section should be kept or not, and there is content that is arguably more appropriate in other sections. Special care with WP:OPINION should be taken. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * , could you please comment about which comment are you referring to or restore the tag? --Jamez42 (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The placer said here that the tag could be removed. If you disagree with them and have additional POV concerns, could you specify them explicitly? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the diff. My main concern is that the section is used for opinion pieces (or just plain opinions) that would normally not be accepted in the article. Like I mentioned, for instance, if the PanAm Post article was considered an opinion piece, then it should be scrapped altogether, as well as other ones. This is the case with specific faculty from universities, such as Ricardo Sucre Heredia and Ronal Rodríguez, as well as articles whose main content is not even the analysis, which is the case with El Espectador and Jornada. The neutrality of the sources should also be analyzed: The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, for example, has been described has "left-leaning".


 * Fortunately, I see that a "Maduro government response" section has been added that appears to be more balanced and some of these concerns are addressed with the "Relevance" template, but it's important to keep these things and mind and that there's still a possible problem of false balance. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Analysis
The Washington Office on Latin America wrote that documents revealed in the media "confirmed that these opposition representatives signed a contract with one firm, SilverCorp USA, which recently carried out a botched incursion", that "maintaining that 'all options are on the table,' including a military option, the Trump administration bears partial responsibility for these reckless actions by sectors of the Venezuelan opposition" and that "the U.S. government has tacitly discouraged the Venezuelan opposition from prioritizing negotiations in favor of a theory of change that relies on creating an improbable rupture between the armed forces and the Maduro government".

Ricardo Sucre Heredia, a political analyst of the Central University of Venezuela, stated that the opposition's strategy of promoting insurrection within the Venezuelan armed forces "is a strategy that has not yielded results", that the Guaidó's approach of "all options are on the table and under the table" suggests an opposition with criminal and dictatorial tendencies and that despite Guaidó's statements distancing himself from the operation, the fact that the opposition leader considered the option shows that he had abandoned an electoral solution to the Venezuelan political crisis.

An analysis by Patricio Zamorano of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs wrote that the event showed that Guaidó controlled large amounts of funding despite his inexperience, that the opposition does not have support from the Venezuelan armed forces and that the Guaidó government was willing to use violence to fulfill political goals. Zamorano states that the failed operation would possibly result with the end of the opposition's support for Guaidó.

RfC: Analysis section
Insight from uninvolved editors would be appreacited in the Macuto Bay raid article. Should the Analysis section be kept or removed? The section currently has the "Importance" and "POV" tags. If the section should be kept, which improvements could be done in order to remove the tags? Many thanks beforehand! Jamez42 (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The section in question is the following:

I ask the editors to please take a look at previous discussions and the talk page's archives, specfically "On the analysis section", "removed section", "Emmanuel Rincón - WP:FRINGE?" and "WikiVoice - PanAm Post". --Jamez42 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but rework I don't think I have been involved with the analysis question yet. Anyway, an analysis is fine to have on articles that cover a subject that gets analyzed. There is evidently some analysis on this event, but the issue with the section is that it also covers a bunch of other analysis: analysis of the history, of whether it's a coup or should be called one, of the general idea of invading Venezuela like this. The only analysis that belongs in the article is that of the event in itself (its planning, its execution) and its effects (e.g. if new policies are made based on it; a lot of the 'effects' may be yet to come). Kingsif (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep but rework This section is kind of a mess. It's a list of sources quoted directly, when it ought to be a list of allegations with the sources supporting each. Say "several analysts suggested there may have been a connection between the raid and Guaido", not "X person said 'there may have been a connection between the raid and Guaido' and Y person said 'Guaido may have financially supported the raid'." Loki (talk) 03:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As a note to this: I also don't think speculation qualifies as analysis, and depending on what's there, it can also be important to look at who is saying what rather than summing up. Kingsif (talk) 04:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not involved in this Wikipage and I think it's okay. From my experience reading similar articles, this isn't usually included but it works just fine here. My only recommendation is to consider maybe shortening/simplifying it since some of the info is a repeat. Otherwise, it's good! Hope my take on this helps. With best regards, Dantheanimator (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Involved users

 * Oppose, either merge with text or erase as the analysis section currently stands it is a list of sources that discredit US and Venezuelan opposition, even if their involvement was minimal. That none of the commentaries criticize how Maduro has handled the invasion seems WP:NPOV. Also a section like that is a dumpster of opinion and analysis. In technical subjects analyses would be welcome, but for an unprecedented incursion where the details are still under investigation, the comments of think-thanks and academics are there just to push their worldview. We can eventually balance it out with more analysis, but the section is already longer than the reactions section, a section that should be more important than this one as it is about players involved or accused of involvement.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw that you wrote "uninvolved editors". Should I remove my comment?--ReyHahn (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration, . I can't "enforce" this condition, but I established it hoping to have a clear guide for those that have been involved once it is closed. Perhaps a note can be added next to your comment or strike it down, whichever one you see as the best option. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I stroke my comment .--ReyHahn (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

should we allow for involved users to comment? It may help the user that closes the RFC to understand each of the users rationale and to reach a conclusion. We can put them in a different section not mix them up.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It doesn't seem like questions like which improvements could be done in order to remove the tags are answerable by uninvolved commenters in an RfC. Those are questions for the user(s) who placed the tags. For example, since the POV tag was placed by, has added information to the section about the government's response as requested, but as far as I can tell there hasn't been a specific response on the talk page as to whether that's sufficient or what else could be added or removed to make the section WP:NPOV. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * be free to take out the POV flag for the time being. The relevance of the section is what this RfC is about.--ReyHahn (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, the POV tag has been removed. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking long to respond. The reason why I asked involved users not to comment was because of the mass pings and the possibility that the discussion was distorted. A different section would solve this issue; you could unstrike and move your comment if you want. --Jamez42 (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I moved the involved users conversations to a separate section.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jordan Goudreau.png

Foreign involvement
The two sources sources used as references for the inclusion of Russian involvement in the operation ("Agentes rusos rastrean a implicados en “Operación Gedeón” en Carayaca" and "Russian troops to help Venezuela search for members of failed incursion: report") mention, based on official information that was originally published from a state military command center, how at least eight Russian special forces members were operating drones over Venezuela as part of a search operation after participants of the raid. On the other hand, the first two references for American involvement don't mention any relation at all, besides speculation and accusations by the Venezuelan government, and its third source only includes an accusation by one of its participants that said that plotters met at the Trump Hotel (which it should be mentioned that is not a government building), and at most, that US officials were aware of the plan. The information is extraofficial, contrary to the Russian involvement sources, and there is no mention of direction participation by American officials in the operation ("Venezuela coup plotters met at Trump Doral. Central figure says U.S. officials knew of plan"). Cuba was removed from the infobox for the same reason and Silvercorp USA is already included to reflect the participation of Americans in the operation.

Saying that the same standard is being held for both sides is wrong, as they are very different situations. The inclusion of alleged US involvement would be misleading at best and outright false in the worst case scenario. I am removing it from the infobox for this reason. --NoonIcarus (talk) 11:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * this seems like an incredibly well-explained double standard. Yet the USA should be listed in the info box as a supporter of the coup attempt, due to information found in this article itself. Guaido, who has never received a single vote for the office of president, is recognized by the USA and was one of the original backers of the operation. Former US military, employed by a US mercenary outfit, disclosed to their family and friends (as credibly reported) that they believed that the US government was involved.
 * Mandy Rice-Davies Applies, in case you didnt know 2601:5C4:200:5C40:A9F6:590C:8B7E:5DAC (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * An American private mercenary company (already included in the infobox) is not the same as the United States government. Could you provide sources regarding this, just as I did? --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No CIA mention?
So, a coup attempt at venezuela and it's not orchestrated by CIA? Seriously? 141.255.4.231 (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * do you have WP:RELIABLE sources that say they were involved?—blindlynx 15:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So until then wikipedia will be the voice of USA foreign policy? 141.255.4.231 (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources to support your claim means propaganda? How the hell does that logic work? Please read WP:NOTFORUM—blindlynx 16:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that certain documents from CIA or State department are trusted as reliable sources is what makes the whole "reliable sources needed" scheme just a pretext to justify the fact that wikipedia amplifies the official USA narative when it comes to foreign relations issues, which up to a certain degree is understandable, after all, wikipedia is a USA company. 5.55.107.90 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)