Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

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)

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)

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)

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

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'

Moved. Unanimous consensus from majority of editors to the page. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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)
Excellent!, thanks for the suggestion. I will try to expand the article further if possible. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:50, 10 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 Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

(
)
  • ... that an American sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
    • ALT1:... that an American claimed he sought donations from Venezuelan migrants to fund his attempted invasion into the country? Source: "Goudreau said he never received a penny from the Guaidó team and instead the Venezuelan soldiers he was advising had to scrounge for donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia." (AP [8])
  • 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)
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Reviewer's notes – Newness OK, created May 5 and nominated May 8 · Length OK, 51 kB >1,500 · Sourcing: 141 sources nearly one per sentence, no controversial statements or quotes unsourced · Passes Earwig's copyvio detector · QPQ good, WYCB promoted by Yoninah 12 January · Hook cited to 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)
I don't think they are the same story. I referenced AP May 4 by Goodman and Smith (via Time). Don't see that same AP story in the article. Citation for the sentence Goudreau stated the operation was forced to rely on "donations from Venezuelan migrants driving for car share service Uber in Colombia" because he was not paid by Guaidó's team is dated May 6 and doesn't mention migrants. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@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: 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)
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 [9])
  • Is this in the article? --evrik (talk) 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 [10])
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 tccsdnew 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 tccsdnew 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)

International responses POV

All the governments that have 'responded' are either those concerned (Colombia/US) or Maduro's buddies; it is clear there is not going to be an international government response, and to therefore only include the few that automatically give unfaltering support to whatever Maduro says is a form of bias. The section adds nothing, the UN statement is empty, I suggest removing the entire section. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should take out all the governments that were not implicated?--ReyHahn (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree , at least until governments start reacting instead of responding, i.e., when we learn of tangible movements. Those actions can be their own headings as they blossom into elements of the story; for now it's just posturing. I think it's appropriate to include that Russia provided troops to help track down stragglers and I suppose information about Cuban intel support will come out at some point. The fact that Maduro is accusing Trump and Duque directly of prior notice and backing, and their respective denials, are relevant IMO. But I agree with respect to, for example, Iran, who simply announced that they haven't changed their mind about hating USA and loving Maduro, and the UN, who say that guerrilla attacks distract from peaceful transition efforts.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

Arrests table

As we are listing living persons accused of crime we should be careful with the new table of arrests and casualties, if it is not properly referenced it should go.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also we should seriously consider the will of those that want to update it, as Maduro will continue arresting people an saying it is related to Macuto raid that table could grow fast and be quickly out of date or incomplete (due to lack of transparency).--ReyHahn (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ReyHahn: There is no doubt that Maduro will continue arresting people. Wouldn't want to let a good tragedy go to waste. Off the top of my head I think I heard his propagandists this morning announcing an additional 8 arrests related to the "failed terrorist incursion." My suggestion would be that we keep the list to people who were killed or captured or killed or injured from one of the two invading boats or on the Maduro side (if any - I haven't seen any reliable info on this) by the people in one of those two boats.--Orgullomoore (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: thanks for adding the references, I hope I did not screw too much your edits by changing the order of the list to alphabetical by name.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ReyHahn: Thank you. Last name makes more sense. I think it turned out just fine.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCRIME, I oppose that the all the names of the suspects should be included. As a chronology, I think it would be better for the article to differentiate arrests and indictments, as it can differentiate events and indictments. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears that WP:BLPNAME seems as important. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jamez42 and ReyHahn: I'm honestly not familiar with how important, if at all, the names of the individuals identified by Maduro by such labels as "fisherman" or "civilian." I would be fine with their removal. Likewise with the subsequent captures in the forests and mountains and bush supposedly related to the incident. I believe some of those accused do have relevance outside of this incident, e.g., the son of Raul Baduel, the Sequea guy supposedly leading the incursion force, etc. And of course, the three Americans, Goudreau, Denman, and Berry have already "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies" and are subject to open nondefamatory discussion in the public domain, and you better believe they will be extensively discussed for some time to come.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
@Jamez42: thanks for bringing up those guidelines. In that case, I would argue too that we should remove the table.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment: Based on the above discussion I made edits to clarify the list is non-exhaustive and exclusive of nonpublic figures, in accordance with the cited guidelines. There are others in that list (the Venezuelans) who I don't know whether or not they are public figures and will leave it to someone more qualified to find out. But I would firmly assert that the following persons already did, or now they do, qualify as public figures: Baduel, Berry, Colina (deceased anyway), Denman, Goudreau, Rendón, Sequea, and Vergara. The ones that I have not already removed and about whom I know nothing and have seen no public reporting on are: Alvarado Flores, Díaz Vázquez, Manzanilla, Pimenta Salazar, and Rodríguez Orellana. Hopefully that helps.--Orgullomoore (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

The "Result" in the Infobox

I think the result should be "plot foiled," or some other concise description of the fact that both motorboats were stopped before they reached land, i.e., the plan was dead on arrival. Currently it also contains (1) the fact that the Maduro regime launched the Escudo Bolivariano defensive campaign, which consists of nothing more or less than deploying 25k soldiers to look for other people who might be trying to topple his government (not a rare occurrence); and (2) the fact that the Maduro regime issued 20+ arrest warrants for those implicated in the plot. Neither is false, I'm just not convinced they deserve to be in the infobox. The Escudo Bolivariano is the part I find particularly disproportionately emphasized if kept in the infobox because what head of state would not launch a defensive campaign in response to the uncovering of a military attack? I previously removed the Escudo part from the infobox based on my understanding of Maduro claiming in his TeleSur interview that the Escudo already existed. Now it's back; not really sure who put it back or if it was intentional and haven't tried to find out. Whether the campaign preexisted or not, I would suggest it doesn't go in the infobox. Because I don't want an edit war, I'm trying to build consensus among recent concerned editors: grp (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What) --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am usually against this type of labels, mainly when what is written is "Objective succeeded/failed". These are not games or binary situations. That's why I had written before "operation intersected" because it is more clear what happened. About the Escudo Bolivariano, I think it should be there only if we expand on it in the text (if not we should probably remove it too).--ReyHahn (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, the Result could be similar to that in the Attack on Fort Paramacay article: Rebel attack repelled by government forces; some weapons captured by the opposition. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, regarding the casualties, I foresee a difficulty which has already come up several times on this page, namely, what this article is and is not. So, the infobox currently says there were 16 arrests related to the Macuto Bay raid. That is based on a Tweet made by Padrino Lopez as reported by the Efecto Cocuyo. One of the main concerns surrounding this incident is that Maduro is (or will) use it as a pretext to take action against innocent political adversaries. If that is true, we can count on more and more announcements coming out every day for a time to come saying that "so-and-so thug was arrested in the Amazon based on connections with the attempted Macuto coup." We cannot trust the tweets of Padrino any more than we can those of Trump. Where are we going to draw the line? What do you guys understand to be the number of anti-Maduro belligerents arrested, killed, and wanted based on verifiable reliable sources you have read? @ (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What)--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Plot was foiled, no doubt. Let's have the infobox reflect that. I suggest finding three or so reliable sources that state that the plan completely failed or otherwise other editors may see it as a POV issue. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 02:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • In answer to both: Efecto Cocuyo saying "wow, they botched that" (and the first Jack Ryan mention I've seen, I thought there would be more) while acknowledging that nobody really knows the truth (and asking do we want to). Kingsif (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Kingsif: Thanks for the link! (from the linked article): "no hay campaña mediática que pueda convertir un disparate peorro en una gigantesca invasión." A very astute observation!--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Having a broader title, such as one that deals only with "plot", could help including events both before and after the raid itself, including the total number of casualties. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jamez42: I think it's WP:TOOSOON at the moment, but eventually this is going to morph into "Macuto Bay incident" or "Silvercorp affair." I'm sure the sources will fall into a pattern in their naming conventions referring to the fiasco. Right now, there's too much of a variety. Some sources put it in scare quotes ("failed coup" or "terrorist incursion operation"), apparently making fun of Maduro's exaggeration, and other are calling it some form of "stupid coup" (or "chapuza") making fun of the amateurishness; more serious reporters attempting to be descriptive are saying things like "Venezuela raid," "failed Venezuela plot" (intentona), "foiled boat attack," etc. So I think we just have to wait. This is still a very recent event.--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Orgullomoore: Of course, just a proposal. I personally still think that "Operation Gideon", with the established due differences, could help with the issues of all the multiple definitions. If needed, all other commons uses can be bolded in the lead of the article. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think a split to "Silvercorps affair/Operation Gideon" would only be a good thing if the article becomes too large. But by the frequency of Venezuelan news, probably something else would come out before that.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    You're probably right.--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:06, 11 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)

J.J. Rendón, Guaidó's official that admitted signing an agreement with Jordan Goudreau, declared that there wasn't a military operation and that the raid was a false flag attack. Iván Simonovis and PanAm Post have argued similar positions.

A retainer agreement means that the work in question will be specified later. Hiring (or planning to hire) Silvercorp USA is not the same as sponsoring a specific plan, including this one, and the signed agreement does not seem to include any of the details of the 3 May operation. Even if this was the case, it is misleading to include that Guaidó supported the plan broadly "until November 2019" because the agreement was signed on 16 October and this support would have been, at best, for a few weeks and not an unspecified amount of time that could be months.

This, on top of the fact that the stable version did not include Guaidó on the infobox and that there wasn't support during the conflict, should be reasons to remove Guaidó from the infobox. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Narcotics Rewards Program in Background section

The Narcotics Rewards Program info does not fit in with the background section when it is mentioned a second time with Alcalá later in the article. Maybe it can be mentioned in the lede, but the detailed info should be in the Alcalá section.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a critical piece of background information because it explains why Goudreau would move forward with the plan even after Rendón et al. backed out, because there were $40M+ on the table. If it's repeated twice, we can consolidate, but I think we need to mention it early.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: Is there a source directly stating that this is the reason Silvercorp went forward with the operation? If not, it's not suitable in the background section.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: There are multiple sources reporting on the fact that Goudreau was desperate for money and that between the time that Guaido folks backed out and the time of the operation, the Trump administration put out the bounties. It's an obvious connection. Rendón says Goudreau was hounding him for money. An anonymous former Special Ops soldier interviewed by Connecting Vets said Goudreau tried to recruit him as a bounty hunter in Venezuela, there are reports of Goudreau showing around the contract in Jamaica, Denman's family reported that he recently indicated to them that he got a job in Florida he is not allowed to talk about, but that it was the most important mission of his life, and that he was under the impression there was US gov't support for it.... Feel free to help with citations instead of deleting information others work hard to develop.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: Take a look at the recent edit. It should be a good compromise while maintaining chronological order for the reader.----ZiaLater (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Thanks for showing some flexibility. We can work with it. I'll try to touch it up a bit, in a bit.--Orgullomoore (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

I have to add and remind that one of the apparent leaders of the operation, Clíver Alcalá, was indicted and arrested after the program's announcement, and as a response was one of the first ones to allege that an agreement was signed between the opposition and rebels. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jamez42: I have to agree that it is interesting that the group would be inspired by the US bounty when that bounty targeted one of the group's leaders.---ZiaLater (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Alcalá turned himself shortly after the announcement. I guess one could argue that Maduro's bounty was larger: $10 million versus $15 million. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater and Jamez42: There's really no point in speculating, but if we were to speculate, and Goudreau calculates that he needs one guy who has a bounty on his head in order to get 5 other guys with bigger bounties on their heads, it's an easy transaction.--Orgullomoore (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC).

WikiVoice - PanAm Post

Versions of this sentence keeps showing up:

"According to the PanAm Post, it was postulated that what became the actual invasion was planned and financed by Diosdado Cabello as a false flag operation to victimize the government international community and neutralize their enemies; the article compared the operation with the 1929 plot to overthrow dictator Juan Vicente Gómez planned by Román Delgado Chalbaud (which was financed by Vicente Gómez himself), and alleging that Cabello was aware of the conspiracy beforehand and that Maduro's administration had infiltrated the operation, even scheduling some of their meetings. Rincón also highlighted the fact that the operation continued despite having been infiltrated, that Goudreau released information to media outlets about the number and movements of fighters despite it being a supposedly secret mission, and that the invaders were able to enter Venezuelan waters, cross several checkpoints and landed without being seen or captured."

I previously added the author's name and date of publication, but somebody took it out and put it back in PanAm's voice. This is the article cited to support the sentence: [11]. It is written by Emmanuel Rincón, not on behalf of the journal as a whole. This is the biographical blurb on the writer: "Emmanuel Rincón es abogado y escritor venezolano, autor de cinco novelas, ganador de diversos premios literarios internacionales, con un grado en Modern Masterpieces of World Literature de Harvard University. Su último libro publicado es el ensayo 'La reinvención ideológica de América Latina'." The article was published 2020-05-09. This is the lines purportedly supporting the assertion:

La historia en efecto es cíclica y repetitiva, el que lo niegue, es por falta de conocimiento. Una de las novelas más fascinantes de la literatura venezolana pertenece a uno de los escritores que más respeto en el país, se trata de «Falke» de Federico Vegas. En ella, Federico relata la historia de Rafael Vegas, su pariente, quien participó en una conspiración para derrocar al entonces dictador, Juan Vicente Gómez, en 1929. Comandada por Román Delgado Chalbaud, la operación fue en completo fracaso, esto se debe a que, tal como la historia sugiere, el financista de la operación fue el propio Juan Vicente Gómez, quien lo hizo con el propósito de agrupar a todos sus enemigos en el exterior en una misión infiltrada, conducirlos al país y así capturarlos a todos en un solo esfuerzo. Venezuela vuelve a ser víctima de los caudillos autoritarios maquiavélicos. El 28 de marzo del presente año, 37 días antes de ser capturados los miembros de la Operación Gedeón, Diosdado Cabello, el número 2 del chavismo, anunció una conspiración que estaría siendo orquestada por un norteamericano al cual presentaba en un esquema con el nombre de «Yordan» —y en efecto, había un «Yordan», pero con J, y se apellidaba Goudreau—. Allí menciona que se topó con el exgeneral chavista Cliver Alcalá en el concierto de Cúcuta, y que desde entonces todo empezó a formarse. Pero allí no termina todo, ese mismo día Diosdado también aseveró que «algunas reuniones las hicieron porque nosotros dimos la logística, ven cómo estaban de infiltrados», el chavista asegura que la «oposición» se «robó los reales» de la operación, y por ende la misma se detuvo: la infiltración y financiamiento de ellos es lo que la saca a flote. Esto coincide con la versión emitida por JJ Rendón, el estratega de Juan Guaidó, quién le declaró y compartió evidencias a Orlando Avendaño para el PanAm Post, que indican que la relación con Silvercorp, la empresa de seguridad del norteamericano había sido finiquitada en octubre del 2019, y que la misión exploratoria no siguió adelante. Esto deja en evidencia que la tiranía de Maduro orquestó el movimiento para luego victimizarse ante la comunidad internacional y a su vez dar de baja a sus enemigos. En la operación que ellos mismos orquestaron asesinaron al menos a 8 soldados venezolanos, y otra docena ha sido capturada en supuestos distintos operativos.

If you take a look at the article, you'll see this is a persuasive piece. The author ends with a call to the international community to stop turning a blind eye. You can also see that he is drawing conclusions based on statements of politicians. Accordingly, if we are going to relay these assertions, the correct attribution is "[author], in an analysis of public statements made by [politician name], the operation was...." I'm going to go ahead and put it back in the author's voice like it was, but I would suggest reporting the facts, not exiles' emotions based on their reading of public statements--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

I attributed the article to PanAm Post since it wasn't an opinion article. However, many of these conclusions are accurate, and as such the attribution could also go to the author. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I would not say Rincón is accurate as much as he is speculative. The whole event is strange, but more reliable sources have revealed all of the details surrounding the planning. Rincón, who does not seem very notable, could be placed in the Analysis section, though his opinion does not seem factual without aditional reporting from more reliable sources.----ZiaLater (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @ZiaLater and Jamez42: While I do not agree with having an Analysis section to begin with (see prior discussion regarding it being a POV cesspool), I do agree with Zia that if Rincon's observations belong anywhere, it is in the Analysis section. This is because he is simply giving his reaction to public statements made by Maduro officials. If Diosdado had foreknowledge of "Yordan," and there is reliable reporting for that, it could be relevant background. But just Mr. Rincon's analysis of the situation, I don't think should be presented as factual reporting.--Orgullomoore (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I used Rincón's article as an example of the reports believing this was a false flag operation, although this is also already expressed by others' reactions. --Jamez42 (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources do not even mention a false flag operation, so this borders WP:FRINGE. Some have said that this theory is a way of the opposition distancing themselves from their original agreement with such plans.----ZiaLater (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I worry that the Analysis section is still used for opinions and as an essay. If the community decides that PanamPost is not deemed for the article, then it should be removed, but it should not be used as a justification to keep similar content with a similar tone. I don't recall any other article of the Crisis of Venezuela where we have an Analysis section, and all similar content has been included either in the Reactions section or in the events sections of the article itelf. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jamez42: I feel like placing PanAm Post next to articles by BIG generally reliable sources (The Times, The Telegraph, Polygraph.info., Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.) gives it undue weight. It is not the most reliable source, so I do not see where you are seeing a good comparison to actual high-quality sources. Also, see other related articles with "Analysis" sections (Reception, media reaction, controversy or similar), such as Chavismo, Bay of Pigs Invasion, 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempts, Venezuela Aid Live, 2017 Venezuelan Constituent Assembly election, 2018 Caracas drone attack and others. It is false that other Venezuelan articles do not have such sections.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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".[12]

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.
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 [13]. 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:
Acalycine (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Some sources, including Maduro gov't sources, now referring to it as a "desembarco en Macuto" (Macuto beach landing, compare with Desembarco de Normandía - Landing at Normandy, "landings on the beaches of Normandy.")--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Guaido signature

The most recent controversial change is the assertion that Guaido himself signed the services agreement with Silvercorp. It was added recently on the basis of a Vox report. I'm looking into the report, but I don't think we should state it as a matter of fact given (1) Maduro's history (and the history of dictatorial regimes generally) of falsifying "evidence" to discredit political opponents; and (2) the flat denial by Guaido that he signed. The only "evidence" of a signature by Guaido I've seen is the copy that the Maduro regime is flailing around which, again, I don't trust. On the other hand, the copy Goudreau released to Factores del Poder contains only Rendon and Vergara, and they both admit to signing it; in fact they've stepped down so as not to be a distraction to Guaido's cause. So–@ (ZiaLater—ReyHahn—Jamez42—Kingsif—Acalycine—Cyfraw—Nice4What)–please discuss whether and why we should present the allegation as a fact. Thanks.--Orgullomoore (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC).

@Orgullomoore: I debated this as well until I read the Vox report (Vox is a WP:RSP - WP:GREL, meaning they are very reliable). From what Vox reported, the document Guaido signed was the overall "General Services Agreement" while the other officials signed the "attachments". Given the polarization and falsehoods pushed out by both parties, I would trust Vox over Guaido or Maduro, especially since Vox writes "Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning". There was a source somewhere that said there was a clause that Guaido had to deny any involvement even if he were involved, but I have not found that again.----ZiaLater (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@@ZiaLater: Thanks. I agree that Vox is generally reliable. The author is Alex Ward, who describes himself on Twitter (profile linked from Vox article) as a "national security reporter," so this would fall within his area of expertise. I still want to look at the specific grounds, claims, and conclusions and be very careful about tone and accuracy given how sensitive every single aspect of this situation is.--Orgullomoore (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @@ZiaLater: OK. I looked at the article. If I may quote at length, for context, this is the purported support:

Goudreau made his pitch to Rendón and his group in a Miami condo last September. He dubbed his plan “Operation Resolution,” which was basically a beefed-up version of the Alcalá plan featuring 800 men instead of 300. The real selling point, though, was almost surely the price he was asking. Instead of charging in the billions, Goudreau requested $213 million from Venezuela’s future oil earnings, along with a $1.5 million retainer. After a few more meetings, Silvercorp USA and the committee signed a deal in October. Rendón told the Washington Post that the deal was a trial balloon, basically, to see if Goudreau could deliver on his promises. But the full general services agreement and attachments, which can be found online, explicitly outline what was agreed to: a coup.
“An operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolás Maduro...remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaidó,” section 4a of the attachment reads.
Stunningly, the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”
Maduro’s government on Friday, however, released audio of an alleged phone conversation between Goudreau and Guaidó. The Venezuelan opposition leader notes his unease with the plan, but states its the right move for his cause.
Rendón acknowledged to CNN en Español on Wednesday that his signature is on the contract, though he maintained the deal was preliminary. “It was an exploration to see the possibility of capture and bringing to justice members of the regime,” he said, adding that the committee also looked at other methods to achieve their anti-Maduro goals.

  • You can see the reporter is not indicating where he got the contract containing Guaidó's signature. The reporter appears to be mainly synthesizing from other reports (WSJ, AP, WaPo, Military Times, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, Factores de Poder). It does appear the reporter talked to former US Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos directly, as well as "David Smilde, a Venezuela expert at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). But otherwise, this looks like reporting on reporting to me. For example, you can find this quote in the article: "It’s possible that one source of potential funding was Roen Kraft, a member of the famous cheese-empire family, who reportedly tried to fundraise for the effort partly by promising his contacts inside access when bidding for government contracts in Venezuela once Guaidó was installed. Kraft has denied this, telling the AP, “I never gave [Goudreau] any money.” It's an excellent article, but since this is a word-vs-word dispute, we shouldn't present one side's word as fact and the other's as misrepresentation. Or if we are going to assert Guaido is lying, we should at least back it up with more than one vague sentence in one tertiary source. Do we have any other sources asserting not only that the agreement "features" the signature of Guaido, but explicitly reporting that Juan Guaido in fact signed the agreement on behalf of his administration with the intent to bind the administration to its terms, or at least distinguishing which pages of which copies in whose possession contains what signatures?--Orgullomoore (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: If you look at my recent edits, Guaidó and the opposition have never denied that he signed the documents, they only deny being invovled in the recent plot. And in the Vox piece, I will add emphasis for better understanding: "Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning. As for what was actually said by Guaidó, he said he had "no relationship nor responsibility for any actions" by Silvercorp. No one denied that he signed the papers according to sources. If you can find a source stating otherwise, we can see about changes. Also, the wording in the article currently says "repotedly", so it is still portrayed as an allegation in respect to them.----ZiaLater (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It's fine to say there is an article that contains this sentence. Not fine to assert it as fact.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: No one is saying it is fact. The wording states "reportedly" as it was reported by sources. There is also a mention about Guaidó denying this. Though this is a disputed issue, it is one of the main issues surrouding this event and must be included. This is why I asked you for a source and have been attempting compromises.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Here is what you are selling: Guaidó and his officials reportedly signed the General Services Agreement in Washington, D.C. with Goudreau on 16 October 2019; Guaidó would later deny signing the agreement. Please wait to see if others are buying that as NPOV, because I'm not. Therefore, please keep it out for now. Accusing a living person of lying without a factual basis is defamatory, and you need only consult the relevant policies to perceive its seriousness and applicability to this situation (i.e., one involving potential criminal activity where the person accused is unequivocally denying the allegation and accusing the profferers of the document upon which the report you cite relies of forging his signature and falsifying his voice, subjecting him to potential torture, violence, and prosecution in a Kangaroo court, on a publication viewed by approx. 900 people per day according to the Special page). Like I said, you need to either seriously hedge and come out boldly with something like: Guaido ardently denies he signed the document. There are articles which contain suggestions that a document exists where.... Or something like that. We are skating on very thin ice and I'm very worried about your willingness to just slap it in there as if it were some well-established fact. So please at least wait for others' comments before you go re-inserting that. Please, seriously; it's not acceptable.--Orgullomoore (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
@Orgullomoore: This is not stated as fact in its current wording and no one is accusing Guaidó of lying. If reliable news organizations are reporting this, it is still "reportedly". No one is directly making accusations without a reliable source. Since Guaidó is a public official, he is subjected to criticism by the media and his opponents. But this report's inclusion is vital for this encyclopedic article due to its notability. And again, no one is in any attempt trying to defame anyone, so calm down.----ZiaLater (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think we should write it, but attribute it. Information could rapidly change, and it may take a full future investigation, in a time distant from the current social situation in Venezuela, to get the full truth on the last few years. Kingsif (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • What about something like this (below proposed draft) as a proposed sub-sub-section of the Services Agreement section?--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
(proposed draft of section by Orgullomoore (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)) Controversy over provisions and execution of services agreement

In the immediate aftermath of the foiled plot, the existence of a formal General Services Agreement between the Strategic Committee was disclosed to the public through several outlets. On the one hand, Jordan Goudreau made an appearance by video call on a political commentary show called Factores de Poder, and during the call Goudreau showed the camera a copy of the General Services Agreement bearing the signatures of Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta, a Cuban-born attorney based in Washington. Soon after, the Maduro government, through State-owned media, published an alleged copy of the agreement purporting to bear the signatures just mentioned, plus the signature of Juan Guaidó himself. Guaidó vigorously denied this, stating he never signed any document. In addition, a recording of a conversation allegedly showing Guaidó discussing the contract with Jordan Goudreau was also aired on state media and commented on by the Maduro government's General Prosecutor. Guaidó vehemently asserted that the supposed recording was falsified and did not depict him.

Despite Guaidó's unequivocal denials, at least one generally reliable source, online news website Vox, published an article by Alex Ward featuring original reporting based on conversations with former Navy SEAL Ephraim Mattos, who reportedly witnessed the training camps in Riohacha. In the article published 11 May 2020, the author placed his interviews with Mattos in the context by synthesizing reporting from other sources, including the Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Washington Post, Military Times, The Guardian, Globe and Mail, New York Post, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, CNN en Español, and the previously-mentioned Factores de Poder. The author also republished information originally posted on social media platforms, such as Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram. In the piece in Vox, a purported copy of the first 8 pages of the actual General Services Agreement (not the 42 pages of attachments which Rendon admitted to signing) is republished. The republished images bear a watermark reading "Scanned with CamScanner." The Vox piece does not indicate the source of the purported copy. That copy shows what appears to be the signature of Juan Guaidó, and the Vox piece itself contains the following remark: "the agreement features the signatures not only of Rendón and Goudreau but also of Guaidó, whose name appears just to the left of the former soldier’s. Despite his signature, Guaidó denies any involvement in the planning, telling Venezuela’s legislature he has “no relationship [with Goudreau] nor responsibility for any actions.”

It is undisputed that a 41-page document containing various "Attachments" was signed in Washington, D.C., on 16 October 2019, between Rendón, Vergara, Goudreau, and Manuel J. Retureta. According to Goudreau and the Maduro government, Juan Guaidó also signed the agreement or some part of it. For example, a report in the Washington Post described the dispute as follows:

Goudreau counters that the agreement — supplied in part to The Post by Goudreau, with a more complete version provided by Rendón — bound the opposition to his services and initial fee. A seven-page document provided by Goudreau carries Guaido’s signature, along with those of Rendón and fellow opposition official Sergio Vergara.

I think this is generally a fair depiction of both sides, however the statement at least one generally reliable source to describe Vox should be removed - it is effectively OR and is based on Wikipedia's editorial guidelines rather than an independent RS describing it thus. Perhaps the tone could be more formalized, but it seems to fit purpose. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources Needed

This article needs better sources such as in this excerpt After it came to light that there existed a formal written contract between Silvercorp and Guaidó's Strategy Committee, J.J. Rendón–a signatory to the agreement on behalf of Guaido–indicated that his team withdrew from the agreement and cut off ties with Silvercorp and Goudreau in November 2019. Juan Guaidó, his Strategy Committee, and officials of the Colombian and United States governments have all emphatically denied any role whatsoever in the incident, and some opposition officials have described it as a "false flag operation". from the intro in which all these statements are made but no sources are provided.Elishop (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD - it's all cited in the article, and that excerpt is probably one of the most neutral in the whole crisis. Kingsif (talk) 01:38, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

False flag operation

I anticipate my recent edits asserting unequivocally that the operation is a false flag set-up will be seen as nonneutral. However, if you take a look at the sources I provided, I think you will find that this is an accurate description of what occurred. This was not an attempt to invade Venezuela so much as an intel plot to lure dissidents led by delusional Johnny Bravo types into their arms to kill and arrest them. I'm ready to stand by the facts, so please discuss.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not so much they're "nonneutral" as entirely lacking in reliable sources. Every bit of information on Wikipedia needs a reliable source, and reliable sources do not describe this as a "false flag" operation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
All sides agree the Maduro government knew they were coming and paid for part of it. Instead of being arrested, they were shot and sensationalized. How can this be described as an invasion attempt?--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC).
Where is it stated in the article that Maduro's government "paid for part of it," and based upon what sources? The bottom line is that if we don't have a clear consensus of reliable sources unequivocally stating that this event was a "false flag operation," we cannot factually state in WikiVoice that it was. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is just one of many sources cited in the article: [14]--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC).
That appears to be an opinion column published in an overtly-libertarian publication. Might be useful for the writer's opinion, but not for claims of fact. This would support, for example, "Venezuelan writer Emmanuel Rincon accused the Maduro government of financing the raid," but not a statement that "Maduro's government financed the raid." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Without getting involved in this, I suggest dropping the idea of having it included until a nice solid western RS picks it up. Panampost is reliable, but doesn't seem to have connected the threads yet. As believable as a false flag would be (the theories of such are given a mention at the Caracas drone attack article, too), I do not want to attract any kind of nonsense until it can be solidly defended. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

All right. The thing I've liked about this process so far is I put in what I think should go there, you guys change it, then I change what you guys changed...and it ends up working out. So as long as we are making clear that there was never any risk whatsoever of Maduro or Venezuela being invaded because Maduro had men embedded from the get-go, then I'm fine.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I think that is entirely defensible from what the sources say - Maduro's government appears to have known about this tragicomedy from the get-go, well before it was even a blip on the radar in the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Add anything that doesn't break WP:SYNTH, and it should be fine. I'm still trying to carve out time to give the whole thing a copyedit, and may call on the very active Orgullo to help, if you're willing. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy to help with what I can. It definitely needs copyediting. And also I assume @ZiaLater: will have serious objections, so we'll have to go back and forth. But like I said, that's actually worked out to be a good thing from my perspective.--Orgullomoore (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussions from different sides (etc.) can be a real benefit, especially with polemic topics, as long as it is real discussion. It does seem to be working out here, which is great. We might even attract more people to the Venezuela WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sources

  • Already used :) If there's more details, please add. Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Orgullomoore:, thank you kindly for the help providing sources. However, I have to ask you to be careful with primary sources, such as Twitter, YouTube and interviews. Both Telesur and The Grayzone are deprecated in WP:RS/P. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jamez42: You're welcome. I don't disagree with you about the pitfalls of Twitter and YouTube and don't dispute the nonreliability of TeleSur and The Grayzone. However, I took the liberty to add those links here because they contain the narratives of multiple parties directly involved in this incident "straight from the horse's mouth," so to speak. They are good starting points for finding supporting RS, but shouldn't be used directly until reported on by a trustworthy outlet. A particular problem we are facing with this article is that pretty much everyone involved suffers from major credibility deficits: Jordon Goudreau, the militiamen involved in the attempted incursion, Maduro, Trump, and Ivan Duque. So the best I think we are going to achieve is a grouping of facts all sides agree on and teasing out the disputed high-level (relevant) allegations.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC).
I have to agree on that. The incident is so bizarre and messy that it's important to gather all the pieces. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Maduro exploits the Macutazo - Caracas Chronicles and how nobody's stories match Kingsif (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Connecting Vets - Ex-Green Berets tried to recruit this vet for a failed coup, now he's speaking out, by Jack Murphy (5 May 2020). Based on interview with confidential source reportedly also former Special Forces who was approached by Goudreau as a potential recruit for part of the mercenary mission; Jordan Goudreau and Airan Berry and Luke Denman are all three ex-Green Berets who served together in the 10th Special Forces Group Crisis Response Force (CRF) known as C-1-10; the three were standing by ramp side in Croatia the night that the U.S. temporary mission facility and CIA annex were attacked in Benghazi in 2012; a copy of the services agreement was being shown to people at a camp in Jamaica run by Gourdreau; Silvercorp had acquired several boats (without VHF radios, electronic beacons and other necessities); the camp members openly planned an armed incursion into Venezuela to capture or kill high-value targets (HVTs), which would cause a domino-effect crumbling of the Venezuelan government owing to the fact the population is already so disenfrancised and demoralized.--Orgullomoore (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • AP Caracas Venezuela pretende acusar a presidente colombiano ante CPI reporting Venezuela intends to bring Ivan Duque before International Criminal Court.--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC).
  • AlJazeera | Inside Story | 8 May 2020 - 25 min. Interviewer: Peter Dobbie; Guests: JJ Rendon, Ramon Muchacho (Former mayor of Chacao District), Isaias Medina (member, Council of Rumbo Libertad), and Pedro Burelli (Latin America political analyst and managing director of B+V Advisors).--Orgullomoore (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Castillo, Julian (2020-05-04). "Las revelaciones de Juvenal Sequea sobre la Operación Gedeón". eldiario. Retrieved 2020-05-10. -- Interview with brother of supposed ringleader. Seems to have been published just before or as the operation was happening, or before eldiario realized it was related. In the interview, Sequea's brother says his brother recently successfully entered Venezuela and has a group of men, including Adolfo Baduel (who was detained), inside Venezuela for the purpose of supporting countries involved in a regional Caribbean anti-narcotics cooperative effort to "speed up the process of Venezuela's freedom," which included capturing Maduro as well as others sought by justice.--Orgullomoore (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Smith, Scott; Lee, Matthew; Herschaft, Randy (6 May 2020). Sources: US investigating ex-Green Beret for Venezuela raid" Associated Press (Caracas, Washington, New York). Retrieved 11 May 2020.-Orgullomoore (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Venezuela raid: How an ex-Green Beret and a defecting general planned to capture Maduro, 2020-05-11, By Anthony Faiola (Miami), Shawn Boburg (Washington) and Ana Vanessa Herrero (Caracas), Washington Post.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • La versión de Guaidó - EVTV Contigo Carla Angola - 05/11/20 S1 - 1 hour interview w/ Miami TV station Guaido says he didn't sign, that the supposed recording of his voice (video of ceiling) is not him, etc.—Orgullomoore (talk) 04:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • 11 May resignations, details (Al Jazeera) Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Now Maduro regime claiming Guaido met Goudreau at White House (per Goudreau per Saquea under interrogation). Just gets better and better. Sequea refirió que a mediados de marzo, cuando viajó Guaidó a su gira que terminó en Estados Unidos, Jordan Goudreau se comunicó con él y le dijo que se había reunido con Guaidó en la Casa Blanca, y había sido ratificado como jefe de la operación armada contra Venezuela.--Orgullomoore (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC).
  • Telephonic Press Briefing (5/14/2020) with Ambassador Michael Kozak & U.S. Special Envoy Lea Gabrielle (special envoy and coordinator of the Global Engagement Center, the mission of which is "countering the adverse effects of state-sponsored propaganda and disinformation.").

    I think probably anything that the government or the former Maduro regime puts out has a huge component of disinformation to it. Most recently, we’re seeing their campaign about this alleged invasion of the country, which they seem to have had something to do in creating themselves. But it’s it just– anything that they put out is really, really suspect.

    — Ambassador Michael Kozak.

I think what’s even more harmful is the Maduro regime’s ability to use official accounts coupled with state-owned or controlled media outlets and its allies’ messaging apparatuses that work together to convince audiences that the disinformation touted by Maduro is true. Secretary Pompeo has said on many occasions that our sanctions do not target the innocent people of Venezuela and they will not prohibit humanitarian assistance, but Maduro’s claims to the contrary continue and we’ve observed accounts linked not just to Maduro, but also to Iran, Russia, and Cuba, that have all tried to suggest that these sanctions impair the ability of them to be able to obtain humanitarian assistance. So they take these claims and then they amplify them by accounts that are engaged and coordinated, inorganic, or inauthentic activity, significantly amplifying the presence of the claims in the information space. So that’s one of the trends that we’ve seen from the GEC’s perspective.

— Lea Gabrielle

We’ve been focused on diplomatic and economic efforts and political efforts to try to persuade the regime, and it’s very simple what the objective is: to hand over power to a transitional government that can organize free and fair elections and resolve the political crisis in Venezuela. You can’t do it with Maduro. The reason the crisis exists in the first place was Maduro used his power to completely rig and discredit the elections in 2018.

— Ambassador Michael Kozak

–Orgullomoore (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

POV template

While I agree that there are some problems with "the tone of the article", my experience with POV templates is that they rarely push for a change unless we can pinpoint where the problems are. Sometimes a Template:POV lead or another template in a specific section can help. If you look at the article many templates have been added already. @NickCT: could you describe in more detail why you added the template [17]?— Preceding unsigned comment added by ReyHahn (talk • contribs) 13:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  • I second the request that @NickCT: specify what exactly he contends is POV, so we can fix it. Saying that there are "serious issues with the tone of this article" doesn't tell me anything. Thanks in advance. --Orgullomoore (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I removed the tag for now until we get some tangible complaint.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Orgullomoore and ReyHahn: - Hi guys. I apologize. I actually meant to take that tag off myself and forgot. I think a couple of the things that I thought were serious issues have been removed.
This article still has problems..... but I'm not sure POV is one of them. NickCT (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@NickCT: No problem. Please feel free to continue tagging the article in specific spots, or leave a message here, to identify issues and I will try to fix them.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Quotation marks

@Orgullomoore: In an edit with the reason of making quotation marks consistent, you turned them all into text quotation marks (angled), rather than html ones (straight); and it looks like they were all consistently straight before, so I'm not sure why the change was made at all. Anyway, Wikipedia only uses the straight ones, can you go back and correct this, since conflicting edits won't allow me to undo it? Kingsif (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Some of the quotations used curly quotes before I got to them, and I was going on Unicode specs for which to prefer. But yes, I can easily change it back and will.--Orgullomoore (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC).
Thanks :) Didn't know if you knew, that explains it Kingsif (talk) 16:39, 16 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)
  • The reason there is nothing to put in the "Attack" section is that (a) Maduro has not released many details, and even if he did, they would be difficult to verify, and (b) there really was not much of an attack. I did see a piece by Telesur where they interviewed locals about how the first town (where Pantera was killed) notified the second (where the Americans were captured), so that they were ready to capture them. I'm sure it made it's way to YouTube. Problem is, Telesur has the same verifiability problem. They also went into some detail about how some of the fighters ran into the forest and were caught.--Orgullomoore (talk) 01:15, 17 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not an essay. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

information Note: The discussion continued in another discussion in a different section on this page.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Set up an archive

May somebody set up an archive for this talk, there are a lot of discussions that seem closed. I could eventually look up how to do it, but maybe somebody has more experience on this.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It could help us to navigate the talk and get to the hot topics more easily.--ReyHahn (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I did this [18] based on this [19] so a bot will supposedly come around within 24 hours (probably about 2359 UTC, or 9 hours from now [20]) and clean up any thread w/ no replies in the last 3 days (may be a short interval, but this page is currently very crowded and recent -- we can always adjust). I've never done it before, so we shall see.--Orgullomoore (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    That's great! --ReyHahn (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done the archive seems to have worked, if somebody thinks one of the discussions was archived too soon, we can either bring it back or restart the conversation again.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel Rincón - WP:FRINGE?

So the section by Emmanuel Rincón describing the events as a false flag operation seems pretty WP:FRINGE, not analytical. The author seems questionable. He is a columnist for PanAm Post, an pro-opposition news site, with columnists usually falling under WP:QUESTIONABLE sources. PanAm Post also cooks up his profile on their site, saying Rincón has "a degree in Modern Masterpieces of World Literature from Harvard University". That "degree" is a free edX course provided by Harvard (see here, where 40,000 people are already enrolled!). Many of Rincón's books are self-published too, which also raises WP:QUESTIONABLE concerns. Overall, I do not know why a self-published author who has a cooked-up "degree" is given the same weight as analysis by NGOs and other professionals.

Overall, we should Remove this opinion piece by Rincón.----ZiaLater (talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's an interesting assessment. When I noticed earlier his opinions being attributed to the Venezuelan government in the leading section, I corrected the attribution without thinking about his notability. The opinion has since been removed completely from the lead. Your assessment seems reasonable. Has anyone of note made similar comments to Rincón? I haven't seen anything like that from the US government or Juan Guaidó, who, you would think, would be most likely to put forward that position if there was any evidence. I have not previously heard of Emmanuel Rincón so I'll wait to see what other editors think. Burrobert (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Burrobert: Simply searching for "false flag" and "Venezuela" on Google News with a timeframe of the last month shows only two pages, mainly from blogs or unreliable sources. The same with "bandera falsa" shows even less results.----ZiaLater (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Right-o. That seems significant.Burrobert (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater and Burrobert: It would not be "bandera falsa" but "falso positivo," and there are plenty of people who have commented on the fact that Maduro's regime had a hand in bringing the plot to fruition through the use of moles, by their own admission and confirmed by their adversaries. The only controversial part is whether to call it a false flag/falso positivo.--Orgullomoore (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Orgullomoore: So "falso positivo" is the arrest of innocent individuals based on untrue allegations? I do not see how that is relevent to the operation overall, though I see it being possible during the aftermath. We agree that describing this as false flag seems fringy?----ZiaLater (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Falso positivo, as I understand it, is taking adverse action (killing, arresting, deporting, etc.) against persons in the context of a supposed military operation which the aggressive party provoked or caused. It's called a "positivo" because supposedly that's military lingo for a successful operation, and it's called falso because there was no need for an operation or combat or confrontation in the first place. Rincón's opinion seems to be (or was at the time) that Maduro egged on the operation, or financed it, or otherwise caused it to happen, as a pretext to kill Colina ("pantera"), who was operating training camps in Colombia, and go after others allegedly involved in plotting Maduro's overthrow, or opposition folks in general. This is the position adopted by Guaidó ("they knew they were coming and waited for them to massacre them", or something like that, he said in the immediate aftermath). So, no, I don't think it's fringy; I think it's pro-opposition. Definitely not NPOV, however, and that's why I continue to insist that the "Analysis" section is antithetical to Wikipedia's goal. That's why I'm not spending a lot of time on it. My hope is that we can develop the rest of the article and let time pass until there are enough facts to analyze. As for whether Rincón's credentials are exaggerated, frankly, it's not our call to make based on googling the name of his degree. Just to recap, I'm indifferent as to whether we remove the Rincón ref, but continue to urge that the "Analysis" section is a wound to the article.----Orgullomoore (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Orgullomoore: I meant describing it as a false flag operation is fringy. Falso positivo is more understandable, however I think there are different definitions for it. The definition that seems to apply in this case is the potential arrests of innocent people not involved.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Oh, so in that case we are talking about a translation issue, because Rincón wrote about a falso positivo (in Spanish). I think there is overlap between the two definitions, but in any case I removed the ref so we don't have to worry about the issue unless and until it comes back up.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC).

  •  Comment. The above demonstrates exactly why we should not have an "Analysis" section.--Orgullomoore (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    Agreed, as long as the analysis section goal is still loose I don't get why this piece should be a problem.--ReyHahn (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment Orgullomoore, you said my response before I could say it. When PanAm Post was previously discussed, it was stated that I feel like placing PanAm Post next to articles by BIG generally reliable sources (The Times, The Telegraph, Polygraph.info., Al Jazeera, Bloomberg, etc.) gives it undue weight. It is not the most reliable source, so I do not see where you are seeing a good comparison to actual high-quality sources. That begs the question: is the PanAm Post article as reliable as the rest of the sources in the Analysis section? Or are the sources in the Analysis section as "unreliable" as the PanAm Post article? What about PanAm Post in general?
I have expressed my fear that the section turns into an eassay/opinion section (WP:NOTESSAY), and now there appears to be danger of keeping the section only for moving less reliable positions or opinions.
I want to leave clear that if the PanAm Post is deemed unreliable (specifically WP:FRINGE), then I agree that it should be removed. However, I think it's important to answer my first question: if the rest of the content in the section is determined to be analysis and other opinion articles, like Emmanuel Rincón's, then it's a proof that the Analysis section should not be kept. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Rincón is clearly not credible. Inflating your own credentials is a big red flag. Contra the above comments, I don't think the fact that the Rincón article was included is evidence that the whole section should be removed. It's possible to draw a line between professional analysts, such as some of those currently quoted in the section, and a charlatan with a fake degree, such as Rincón. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: What criteria do you propose we use to draw a line between professional analysts...and a charlatan with a fake degree? And how do we adjudicate what degrees are fake and which are authentic?--Orgullomoore (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The process currently underway in this talk section, where we are deciding whether the article and its author are credible or not, seems like a good model. In this case, it is easy to tell that Rincón's degree is not a real degree, because Harvard does not offer a degree in "Modern Masterpieces of World Literature", only a short online course. Perhaps a criterion that can be used is as follows: If someone claims to have a degree which does not exist, they are lying or mistaken about having that degree. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, then I think there is a consensus between the people who have participated in this section either that Rincón should be removed or we don't care if Rincón is removed. So I would say go for it (just me). Pinging @Cmonghost, Jamez42, ReyHahn, and Burrobert, all participants in this specific section, in case my reading is wrong and they'd like to object.--Orgullomoore (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Remove Rincón:It is an interesting viewpoint, though it is a fringe viewpoint promoted by a self-published author who has exagerrated about their qualifications.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Orgullomoore: that sounds about it. I don't know how reliable is Rincón but more importance is given to this source than to what "analysis" represents here. @ZiaLater: avoid making a decision request ("vote") for every discussion. --ReyHahn (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@ReyHahn: Well, I was being safe because you were using consensus "votes" earlier regarding the section as a whole. Glad we are all using common sense and mostly on the same page now.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the ping, Orgullomoore. My position is that Rincón should be removed only if it is determined to be WP:FRINGE, and a distinction should be drawn between this and WP:QUESTIONABLE. WP:QUESTIONABLE states that Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. No such claims have been brought up so far, and quoting from the current RfC on PanAm Post: An embellished author profile is concerning, but these profiles are often embellished though normally not as above. I haven't looked into this specifically in detail, but I think care should be taken between saying that credentials are embellished and outright fabricated. I also have to ask how WP:SELFPUBLISHED applies specifically in the article.

Regarding the specific content included, my only intention in its moment was to reflect with an important source the theory that the raid was a false flag to use as a scapegoat and to incriminate dissidents (such as with the Caracas drone attack), although fortunately this seems to have been covered in the Reactions section and with the specifications that the attack was infiltrated, that although similar, it still has differences with a "completely" false flag attack. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

UN Security Council meeting

There was a UNSC meeting today regarding the failed raid. All sources in Spanish mention that. In addition, the US has blocked a Russian-backed statement condemning the use of force in Venezuela. --cyrfaw (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cyfraw: Thanks for the info.----ZiaLater (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@ZiaLater: Welcome. Please let me know once the UNSC discussion session is completed. --cyrfaw (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_1&oldid=960421187"