Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt

Requested move 4 August 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a slim consensus favoring the move. There is also some dispute about the best move target, but that is best left to another discussion. bd2412 T 04:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Venezuelan uprising → 2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt – As a continuous supporter of the current title and as an user that has participated in the three consecutive RM proposals (only to reach "no consensus"), I would like to propose a quick fix hoping to reach a compromise with the users that oppose "uprising". The idea of changing "uprising" to "uprising attempt" was first raised by users that opposed the current title during the first RM, but the idea has been brought back and put aside in all three previous RMs. Indeed, in the last RM some of the arguments to oppose "uprising" were that (1) "uprising" alone is no longer used by current new sources, it is always used with some adjective "attempt, military, attempted, failed, unachieved, call etc." (and that merits a change, see WP:NAMECHANGES) and (2) that "uprising" suggested a successful rebellion, which it is not. Both of these two can be solved by adding "attempt" to the title. I would suggest that we put aside other title options and focus on the addition of the adjective. Please do not oppose just because you do not approve "uprising" altogether. If you think an additional adjective (aside from attempt) should also be added please support and state which other addition should be considered. MaoGo (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging everyone who !voted in the previous RM: @Kingsif, Necrothesp, SirEdimon, Jamez42, ZiaLater, Maranello10, Ansh.666, BeŻet, Cmonghost, Davey2116, EllenCT, and Amakuru:--MaoGo (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you prefer "attempted uprising" instead, state it as so.--MaoGo (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Survey (4 August)

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support--MaoGo (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support per previous comments. I personally think "attempted uprising" reads better but "uprising attempt" seems ok too. ansh.666 01:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support I supported "clashes" above, but between "uprising" and "uprising attempt", clearly the latter is preferable. Davey2116 (talk) 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support as a substantial improvement over the status quo. Though not my initial first choice of "clashes," this is an even better compromise in terms of serving reader understanding and avoids using loaded terms. (Because the amount of clashing was pretty minimal too.) EllenCT (talk) 02:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support - for "attempted uprising", though Kingsif (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Given the binary choice available. I think "attempted uprising" suggested by ansh not only reads better but actually carries a subtly different meaning. An "uprising" is an act of rebellion, the uprising itself doesn't need to be successful for it to have taken place, unlike a "coup", which refers to the actual seizure of power. This is why titles including "coup d'état attempt" make sense, as the coup ultimately never took place. The noun-noun nature of "uprising attempt" doesn't work the same way as an uprising did occur. However, having it adjective-noun as "attempted uprising" seems to qualify the uprising rather than deny its existence, and I believe more accurately reflects the nature of the event. Maranello10 (talk) 05:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC). Update (still Oppose) I have been asked to provide more clarification as to why I prefer "Uprising", so ignoring my previously suggested third option and reading the new entries, I basically have the same argument. An uprising did occur, the act itself ultimately failed, but by definition you can't attempt an act once you are already doing it. Maranello10 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Support - I got myself comfortable that "attempt" can be used as a qualifier. I prefer "attempted uprising" but given this is the fourth RM and we seem to be getting closer, I am content if this is the outcome. Maranello10 (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding "attempt" does not in my opinion address any of the issues raised, the main one being, that it's difficult to describe the event as an uprising. If we clarify in the intro paragraph that Guaido wanted to trigger an uprising but it failed, then I am willing to support this change. BeŻet (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC) After some consideration and due to the updated lead, I now Support the change. BeŻet (talk) 10:20, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. An uprising is an uprising. You don't attempt it; you just do it. It can fail, as many do, but it's still an uprising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I won't go into detail as I've already argued for this title or a similar variant many times above, but this is a clear improvement over the current title, and in line with how more recent sources (which should be prioritized) are now describing the events. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. I came here to close out the discussion, but I've an opinion and will participate rather than administrate. I've not been a party to the three (there have been three?!) previous Move Requests. I believe "failed Venezuelan uprising" would be superior to "attempted Venezuelan uprising" or "Venezuelan uprising attempt". I'm seeing here that there's a general though weak consensus that an uprising did take place, though the nature of that uprising was very muted compared to what was attempted—which in fact led to its failure. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Necrothesp. There was an uprising. It ultimately wasn't successful. "Attempted uprising" just doesn't sound like anything to me. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Wiktionary defines uprising as "A popular revolt that attempts to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or insurrection". Uprisings are implied to be attempts. A successful uprising would be an overthrow (although that term would not be appropriate due to the disputed nature of the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis). — Newslinger talk 03:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC) I understand that reliable sources have described this event as an attempted uprising, but we don't need to include every descriptor in the article title, and WP:CONCISE tells us to use the shortest possible name that clearly identifies the subject. — Newslinger talk 09:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per BDD and Newslinger. The "attempt" part is already implicit in the fact that it was an uprising. Current name works OK  — Amakuru (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (4 August)

Any additional comments:

• @Ansh.666: I am also ok with attempted uprising, it is as widely used. What's the difference anyway? --MaoGo (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I prefer uprising attempt, as "attempted _____" sounds like a kind of crime that you would find listed in a penal code, and there's no need or reason to connote anything like that, as all indications are it was intended as a peaceful appeal to the military (as much as such is possible....) EllenCT (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

The difference is that "attempted uprising" is adjective-noun, while "uprising attempt" is noun-noun. The former reads more naturally, and I think that's why most people would use it over the latter, whether for news reports or penal codes. ansh.666 02:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ansh.666: I just occurred to me that we already have an adjective "Venezuelan", wouldn't it be more natural adjective-noun-noun than adjective-adjective-noun?--MaoGo (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a source to back this up, but multiple adjectives in a row are generally more common and smoother than multiple nouns in a row. ansh.666 06:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

To me it still sounds off, would it be "Attempted Venezuelan uprising" or "Venezuelan attempted uprising"?--MaoGo (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• @BeŻet: I am not sure what you are opposing. The lead already contained how it was considered a failure. Anyhow I just modified the lead to lower the tone on "uprising" and added that Guaidó has acknowledged the lack of support, I was going to modify the lead accordingly anyway if this RM succeeded.--MaoGo (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

  @BeŻet: the discussion may close soon. Do you think that the lead is better now or do you have more suggestions? Would you reconsider your support?--MaoGo (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  @MaoGo: I have now reconsidered. BeŻet (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Necrothesp: the idea of "attempting" to spark an uprising is WP:Verifiable see AP, BBC, NYT, France 24, Al Jazeera (tried). --MaoGo (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but they didn't attempt to spark an uprising. That would mean no physical uprising happened, but was just talked about. In this case it did happen. It just didn't go the way its participants hoped it would. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I get that there are definition discrepancies, that's why it has been so difficult to advance in these RMs, in this case I would side with the sources: "Guaido tried to spark a military uprising to overthrow Maduro" (Al Jazeera).--MaoGo (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Ceyockey: the current proposal has succeeded in gaining support from users with usually opposite views. A new title would need a new discussion. Could you point out another article about an event with "failed" in the title? (it does not seem very encyclopedic) Also please consider that "attempt/attempted" is used in reliable sources.--MaoGo (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
• @Maranello10: "attempted uprising" and "uprising attempt" carry a closer meaning than "attempted uprising" and "uprising". Would you reconsider you vote? or at least provide more motivation on why should we keep "uprising" instead.--MaoGo (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: I read through the new entries for different perspectives, but I maintain my position. I know it seems counter-intuitive, but I believe "attempted uprising" and "uprising" are actually a lot closer than "attempted uprising" and "uprising attempt". I hope my initial argument is able to convey this, and I am willing to clarify further if need be, as well as continue discussing and be part of any evaluation of future proposals. Maranello10 (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Maranello10: I have to disagree with your conclusions about the semantics of "attempted" vs. "attempt". "Uprising attempt" does not deny the existence of the small uprising that did take place. We can see this using the following hypothetical sentence: The uprising attempt was a success and Venezuelans filled the streets. If "uprising attempt" ruled out the possibility of an uprising occurring, the sentence should be nonsensical, but it's clearly not. "Attempt" simply qualifies the nature of the uprising (brief, and ultimately failed) in a similar way as "attempted" would.

Also, with regard to your comparison with "coup d'état attempt": we describe the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt as an "attempt" even though a coup actually did take place and Chávez was removed from office (briefly). This is an analogous situation: a small uprising briefly took place and then quickly dissipated when the military did not support it. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo: @Cmonghost: I did some mental exercises to find other examples where "attempt" can be used as a qualifier, without severely altering the original definition. I managed to find "study attempt" and some others. I got myself comfortable enough with its usage that I can withdraw my objection. Maranello10 (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Amakuru, Ceyockey, and Newslinger: as said to the other users, the use of attempted uprising and uprising attempt is verifiable in reliable sources and used more and more now that a few months have passed. I invite you to provide more arguments based on Wikipedia policies. This RM is the closest that we have gotten to an agreement with opposing sides agreeing. The move request will be closed soon.--MaoGo (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @MaoGo: I have no objection with moving forward with a consensus that sets my opinion as an outlier. I don't generally agree with the "other articles have done it" approach to reaching consensus, but if it is the only feasible way of reaching a consensus, then it is the way to go. Reaching a consensus is the whole point of discussions such as these ... and consensus does not mean unanimity. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I understand that position, I just wish arguments prevail over popularity too. Also I meant to ping @BDD:. The last three users, commented when this RM is in the bottom of the WP:RMTABLE, leaving no much time for discussion.--MaoGo (talk) 07:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not that I think "attempted uprising" or "uprising attempt" are against policy. I just think they're clunkier and more awkward sounding that the title we have now, without adding much. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2020 developments prove it was indeed a coup, rather than an uprising

Following the attempted 'Bay of Pigs'-style invasion of recent days, which was led (and the soldiers trained) by former US military personnel, it seems increasingly obvious that this whole thing is much better described as an attempted coup than any kind of mass uprising. Devgirl (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me how two events led by different people over a year apart prove anything is anything? Kingsif (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Interpretations of facts by editors are not welcome in Wikipedia since it constitutes "original research" which is forbidden here.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 01:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Original research and no sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

US Senator Chris Murphy just tweeted out that the US Government was indeed behind the coup in an attempt to install Guaido as their puppet. What a world we live in where people will just admit over twitter to taking part in crimes against humanity. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

A tweet is an opinion, one in which any official can express their point of view and not necessarily be recognized as truth. Because based on this, we could say that National Security Advisor John Bolton told the truth when he declared that "this is clearly not a coup d'état." DeskOfficer95 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Which makes this just an unconstructive exaggeration for the nature of this Wiki, you are not here to present your personal views and interpretations, but rather, if there is concrete evidence to support the position that "this event was a Coup d'état", then add them to the article and declare it in this section. You simply cannot treat Wikipedia as a project that seeks to be a reliable source of information, because by its nature and as ironic as it may sound, it is not. I recognize the age of this discussion, but my contributions should be a reminder to future editors with the same behavior to refrain from the same, and understand that this is an unbiased encyclopedia (or at least pretends to be) and not a Wiki to "counter stories". "question official versions" or "seek the truth on their own terms". DeskOfficer95 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk did the same with Bolivia, it's just... bizarre. Kingsif (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

While I understand what you're trying to say, this came to nothing. Basically, regardless of what you think happened, it doesn't matter. If he does not cite a reliable source, such as an article or research, this would be nothing more than his "personal research", or what is, in fact, "interpretation of events". If you think you have a strong case, go to the article here and make some changes. That way, we have more sources, and impartiality is not compromised. Otherwise, if you want us to "see the truth", then no, what a politician says on Twitter is not a "reliable source" and the events of 2021 cite him. Thank you. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 15:45, 3 Aug 2023 (UTC)

US Government Sponsored Coup

It seems a handful of accounts continually revert the factual edit that a US Senator with ties to the US Foreign Intelligence community (making him an acceptable WP:SPS) confirmed that the United States had organised the coup attempt to install Guaido. I call on these editors to cease reverting legitimate edits lest they cause an edit war.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A tweet from a senator is an opinion, not an "official acknowledgment by the Federal Government of the United States of involvement in a coup attempt." This is just interpretation of the facts and "personal investigation". The nature of this event does not point to having involved Washington directly (considering that its only strongest evidence is a tweet, and not a declassified document or even a book/diary of memoirs. That plus the "US history in Regime Change", a controversial topic and that depends quite a bit on the researcher's perspectives). Although at Wikipedia "we are not truth seekers, but rather presenters of sources" you must use reliable sources, and not sources that aim to promote your points of view. As is often the case with alternative media. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a nonnotable tweet, has any reliable news source covered it yet? Also it says "tried" and "kind of coup" so the whole thing does not say anything more than what is already in the article, specially in the background.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

So far I've found a story in UrduPoint plus the expected Venezuelan sources. Also, it's worth noting that this was uploaded in tweet form and press release form at the same time since it comes from a conversation Murphy had with Elliott Abrams. Overall, I think it would be a valid addition to some part of the article (maybe the US reaction section) as long as we don't claim that he was referring to himself when saying "we". Connor Behan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Guaidó movement has been backed by the US, US has tried to contact Maduro government officials to make them shift sides. Most of this is already in the article. It is unclear what this tweet is providing, it is vague, not news, and does not explain anything else about US involvement that day.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Macktheknifeau: please do not revert as you did here [1]. Please discuss before removing the tag.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The line succinctly explains that it was not mere "US contact" or "US attempts to make people shift sides" but was in fact a coup sponsored & organised by the United States Government, which is a central reason to why the coup happened in the first place. Your tag is unnecessary and your edits are becoming disruptive. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Organized and sponsored" in the style of the Cold War, and as such recognized events, it has at least classified documents, official statements and etc. Once again, the interpretation of the facts makes this a confirmed coup attempt rather than an alleged Coup attempt. And no, Wikipedia is not about "taking sides in a debate", especially not about such a recent event without any real evidence.. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Please explain why is this tweet relevant and why is it it relevant to the lead? Also it is clear that US was supporting Guaidó and helping him to contact government officials, but is this new tweet adding anything new? Also I still hoping that somebody comes up with a reliable source that found this notable.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Also remember WP:3RR.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There is this possible source which is not from Venezuela, Russia or Pakistan. It establishes that the meeting where Chris Murphy said these words is notable but it doesn't quote him verbatim. Connor Behan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Macktheknifeau: please revert the undue weight template. Templates like these are not to be removed until a consensus has been found or the discussion has stalled.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The line succinctly explains that it was not mere 'US contact' or 'US attempts to make people shift sides' but was in fact a coup sponsored & organised by the United States Government, which is a central reason to why the coup happened in the first place, in order to install Guaido as a puppet leader. It also takes it's source directly from a high level Government official who is deeply involved in a section of the US Government involved in foreign affairs. If you want to start wikilawyering, you started by blanking the paragraph in question multiple times for invalid reasons. (First-10:02 August 6, Second-1:01 August 7) (there were several anonymous IP's that did the same thing). Then you changed to try and smother the paragraph in wiki-lawyering by adding pointless tags to it based on your own further edits rather than using the original line. WP:UNDUE is about giving an insignificant "viewpoint" too much detailed of a description, it not relevant to a single line, factual reference. Looking at your user contributions, I would like to ask if you have any WP:COI to disclose in regards to Venezuela political articles?Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

While I'm in favour of including Chris Murphy's remarks in the article, this comment is out of step with WP:AGF. Also, we should really keep quotation marks around "a kind of coup". When Wikipedia uses weasel words, we remove them. When the original speaker uses weasel words, we let it be the reader's WP:DECISION whether they alter the meaning. There are definitely other examples of people using "coup" in an imprecise / exaggerated way that would still be consistent with mere contact and persuasion. Connor Behan (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

A "kind of coup" that involved armed conflict that killed at least 4 people and involved significant property damage & civil unrest as a result of an opposition leader attempting to overthrow the leader of the country, isn't attempting a "kind of coup", it is a coup (except only perhaps as a "failed coup"). The weasel words don't change the reality of what happened and Wikipedia should reflect that. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, without real evidence of the involvement of a covert action, beyond a Tweet and "consideration of historical background". No, it is interpretation of the facts, personal and unreliable research. As it is impossible to obtain leaks of official documents about this event, you are only left with the much-mentioned interpretation of the facts and insistence on making this "another confirmed coup attempt" when there is no real evidence, which translates to defending a position, and trying to have it recognized as "the truth". When again, Wikipedia is not that. This type of action by a State is called "Covert Action" for a reason, and like Operation Condor, it was not the media of the time that confirmed it, but a combination of declassified documents and essentially the FOIA.. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 04:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

An uprising of rebellion within the armed forces is a delicate matter, of which the State reserves the use of lethal force to prevent it. That there were 4 casualties in a supposed "coup attempt" makes it an exaggeration to call this "a confirmed coup d'état orchestrated by the U.S." DeskOfficer95 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Macktheknifeau: I wanted to discuss the line before removing the paragraph again, you are not allowing for any discussion and you want to bypass discussion templates. I am not questioning Chris Murphy claims, I am questioning its importance in the article and in the lead. Maybe we could leave it somewhere else in the article, especially in the section where we discuss US involvement, but his tweet is not an event on its own and probably does not deserve a placement in the lead. For the record, I have only acted in the reverts with my username indicated in the article history, and I have explained why. Please discuss what information is new in that Twitter thread and why it is important in the lead with respect to other information in the article. Please assume WP:Goodfaith and leave the Wp:COI arguments and personal accusation aside.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing "bad faith" about looking at a users contribution history and asking if they have any undisclosed COI considerations. I've said twice now why that information is important. It specifically confirms that the coup was organised by the United States Government. The rest of the article as it relates to the United States doesn't include that specific information. It includes other elements like - John Bolton's attempting to get the Defense Minister & Presidential Guard to force out Maduro in a non-specific "peaceful transition", that the US Department of State was "caught off guard by Guaido launching the final phase a day earlier", Mike Pompeo complaining about Russia, Trump threatening more sanctions on Cuba, a reference to a pro-Guaido ambassador trying to get an appointment to talk to US Southern Command (that he apparently never did according to the article), un-named US officials calling it a Venezuelan "Bay Of Pigs" and lastly some Pompeo boilerplate propaganda about "freedom and democracy". None of those make a single reference to the now confirmed fact that the United States organised the coup attempt. The coup being organised by the United State's importance to this article about the coup should be as obviously important as the inclusion of the Germany invasion of Poland in the introduction to the World War II article. The US organising the coup is the Proximate cause for it, and that should clearly be in the opening paragraphs. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that the tweet is not providing further evidence of a strong US operation there, it is saying that they tried to organize a "kind of coup". This can be interpreted in many ways, to me it is just confirming that they were supporting Guaidó and doing anything possible in their reach to promote the operation that day. All which was confirmed before. It is not like US army was present on the spot that day or anything else.--ReyHahn (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

To me, when a US Senator confirms the US Government organised a coup (regardless of what "kind" it was), then it confirms that the US Government organised a coup. The US Army, and "how strong" the US operation was is irrelevant to the core fact that it was organised by the US Government. The US Army isn't the only US group that gets involved in sponsoring and organising foreign coups. You are grasping at straws to try and justify the removal of a central reason the coup/uprising attempt took place. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

For you, who like none of us, are researchers, or a kind of magazine with standards to truly, "ensure that the truth is told". It is understood that for you it is a "coup", your problem is that it is not confirmed. You can't make people have their own views and considerations. It does not have enough references, and American foreign policy may be very different (or not) as it was in the Cold War era. One thing is references, sources, it's not validating an unmemorable political statement in a social media, with what according to you is the "history of American imperialism" when considering previous coups, which from other points of view, vary from "justifiable" to "disastrous", from "geopolitical competition" to the "politics of interventionism in favor of capitalism". DeskOfficer95 (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose that we add the tweet later in the article and that we add a phrase about US actually pushing SEBIN chief and Mikel Morenor to support Guaidó (the former did).--ReyHahn (talk) 19:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely oppose removing the paragraph that the tweet is a reference for, from the opening of the page. To repeat yet again, the tweet, and the paragraph that uses it as a reference, is there to explain a central, proximate cause for the coup/uprising and as such is important enough to be in the opening section. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I also note you added another irrelevant tag to the article. There is absolutely nothing about the introductory paragraph that justifies an NPOV tag. Please stop weaponizing tags & Wikilaywering in an attempt to justify your actions.Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

And please avoid seeing Wikipedia cleanup and discussion templates as "weapons". Wikipedia templates are here to motive discussion and attempt a consensus. I just added the NPOV template because you could not agree to add a more specific template to the section under discussion, if you do not oppose I will remove the NPOV template and put a more specific one on the paragraph under discussion. With respect to you refusing my proposal, I am still trying to understand your position. You say that when a US Senator confirms the US Government organised a coup (regardless of what "kind" it was), then it confirms that the US Government organised a coup, but the tweet is not confirming anything more than US supporting Guaidó campaign, call it a "kind of coup", as the Senator says, but when people read the article, the lead should serve as a summary, that paragraph is neither discussing how US did so, it is based in a barely notable tweet, it is using charge language (check WP:COUP), and it is already clear from previous paragraph that the whole operation was to remove Guaidó from power (so nothing new there). Nothing in that tweet seems like news, it does provide extent, actions or reasoning. And if you are proposing that US should be more present on the lead, I fail to see how that tweet that is going to make it more clarifying.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah looking at WP:COUP it doesn't seem that Murphy's tweet is clear enough to warrant the inclusion of the current section in the introduction Chloehoey (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

"The use of "coup" should be avoided in Wikipedia article bodies unless discussing an event has been named a "coup" by reliable sources." Which it was, by the Senator: "we organised a coup" (tweet minus the weasel words) "it blew up in our face when all the generals that were supposed to break with Maduro". It is quite clear and obvious that the "we" and "our" is referring to the United States Government as a whole. Additionally, WP:COUP isn't a policy, it's a random essay written by one person with zero input from anyone else. I've found several new references and added them to the article. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be only focused on wanting to call this a "coup", but please allow me to reframe the discussion once more. We are discussing the matter of the tweet and aside from the senator saying "[a kind of] coup", it is still unclear why is relevant and why is novel. One other user here agrees that "kind of" should be in the text and another agrees it is not lead material, so you do not have the consensus here, Wikipedia is based on that. Also your sources are CounterPunch a politically biased source per WP:RSP, and labourheartlands, a barely known source focus on political opinion article. Please provide 1 reliable source, a motivation for the text (aside from saying that a US sentator is complaining for trying to get Maduro out of Venezuela, not news), and a rationale for having that on the lead.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with either of those sources. Counterpunch is not an "unreliable source" according to the WP:RSP page you linked (I checked it before I added it, knowing that you'd complain about it) and it's supposed "bias" doesn't make it inherently unreliable. As for the other source, last time I checked we don't decide reliability because an individual editor has never heard of a source. I am really tired of explaining this to you but you appear determined to fail so I'll do it again: It is "relevant and novel" because it succinctly explains that the United States organised the coup, from a high ranking member of the Government that organised it, and that fact is clearly important enough to be in the opening section in the same way that the line "Invented in 1891 by Canadian-American gym teacher James Naismith" is in the opening parts of the article on Basketball. Wikipedia doesn't require some special "motivation" to add a line to an article, the one I've already said is more than enough of a reason to include it. You asked for more sources, I've now added three in total. You complained about undue weight, I showed you why that policy isn't applicable. You've repeatedly asked for reasons why this paragraph should remain in the article. I've given them. I suggest it might be time for you to take a look at WP:NOTPERFECT and perhaps considering if you should WP:DISENGAGE rather than continue this negativity. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Please avoid turning this around the sources only, you know it is a least notable subject, if not that would have appeared all over the place. I would like that you please answer to the question, you say "it succinctly explains that the United States organised the coup", please explain what does that mean in this context? that explanation is what should be on the lead not the tweet, but you avoid already existing content and want the tweet just because you like the label he used (but you avoid the "kind of" of course). Please, distance yourself from using WP:DISENGAGE, it is you that does not have the consensus.--ReyHahn (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Not really familiar with wikipedia's policies so I'm offering a non wikilawyer opinion. I read the above discussion and the sourced articles and then tried searching for some context. I don't think the quote should belong in the lead because it doesn't adequately reflect the contents of the article. There should likely be some sort of mention of foreign involvement in the lead and the article body should include the quote... but there was just such little reaction, discussion, or even reporting of the quote outside of Latin America which makes it hard to write about on a wiki article. (The counterpunch article talks about the Latin American reaction. I don't know enough to say if it's in the scope of this article or not.) Murphy's quote does support this article by the Washington Post, but the article does not directly label it a coup. (the logical conclusion is that it was one but editors aren't supposed to interpret right?) TheEyesOfTexas (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This discussion consists of whether to definitively classify this uprising as a "coup d'état". The problem with this is that unlike the other articles that cover these actions of the American government, its main strength will be a Tweet, added to the interpretation of the facts. That is, considering the track record of the United States in regime change, and considering this (as it supposedly was in 2002) "another failed attempt to influence Venezuelan politics". No, that is taking a position, and finally I declare, we don't do that here. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules are simple, only requiring articles from reliable sources, and preventing an article from taking a position within the debate of a controversial event (which happens in this discussion). Fortunately, it came to nothing, and the best thing I could do is leave it at that considering that the supposed role of the American government, as it supposedly was in 2002, is free to interpret, and there is no real concrete evidence. DeskOfficer95 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 24 May 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 19:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

---

2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt → 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt – Per similarities with Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023, it is obvious that this was also a coup attempt. Juan Guaido called on a small number of troops to overthrow Nicolas Maduro in a manner similar to the 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt. So, citing NoonIcarus' own proposal on the 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt talk page, with WP:CONSISTENT (we have February 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, November 1992 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt and 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt) and WP:PRECISION, this article title should follow the example of others before it, especially due to the similarities with other events and the surprising choice to use "uprising" instead when the article is very similar to others. WMrapids (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Give us all a rest will you? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  I hate to be a "not an argument" guy - but this is not an argument and @WMrapids's case is strong. Carlp941 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

•  Comment: Pinging users involved in similar move. @Jaredroach, Braganza, Elelch, Zellfire999, Alcibiades979, Louis Waweru, Kawnhr, LLs, BastianMAT, CaribDigita, Aréat, Yilku1, JasonA34, Kawnhr, Krisgabwoosh, Carlp941, Blindlynx, Icarusatthesun, StellarHalo, and Snarcky1996:--WMrapids (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. --NoonIcarus (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• A call of a coup is not an actual Coup attempt Braganza (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Can you elaborate? There was a plan and call from Guaido to take the airfield and presidential palace in an effort to establish Guaido as president. So, it was more than a statement when there were troops on the streets. WMrapids (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Uprising attempt is actually the title of this page? This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, has no basis in reliable sources, skirts established precedent, and is spitting in the face of Wikipedia's neutrality policies. I strongly support moving the page to 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état. Carlp941 (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  postnote: rereading the reliable sources there is some support for this in reliable sources. I still believe precedent overrides it. Carlp941 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Definitely think this is a strong case with WP:CONSISTENT. WMrapids (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the Peruvian case cannot be compared with this article, since a "coup d'état" is one thing and a "self-coup" is another. In Peru, the second thing happened, since it was the incumbent president (Pedro Castillo), who illegally tried to dissolve the congress and assume full powers. This was not what happened in Venezuela.--Elelch (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The precedent of WP:CONSISTENT and WP:PRECISION still apply though. We are not discussing about the type of coup that happened, but how we should title such articles. So, there obviously should not be difference in naming procedure between this article and the Peruvian article. WMrapids (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and bad move request, per WP:POINT. This move discussion was started just nearly two hours after the move discussion to 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt was closed, , as if it was a response to the result, an article of which the nominator was the creator and a main opponent of the move. I highly recommend participants to read through the 6 June 2019 move discussion, as it was arguably the most thorough regarding the topic, which should prevent repeating the same points again. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just noticed that virtually the same move proposal was made for the Operation Gideon (2020) article, due to the pings I thought it was a single request. I find the WP:POINT issues and the canvassing of editors outside these articles concerning. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• CLOSE until further discussed and OPPOSE per the same reasons of the last three move requests. The move request have been extensively discussed in the past and a new request merit news information and reexamination of the evidence and arguments. See comment.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: I think this conversation should be closed, if necessary a discussion would have been favorable first, specially after all the problems with previous move requests. Also worried by WP:CANVASS.--ReyHahn (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Comment: @NoonIcarus and ReyHahn: Please assume good faith. Wikipedia policy was cited for the proposed move and users involved in a similar discussion were contacted. Nothing more.--WMrapids (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

@WMrapids: I sincerely ask for the same reciprociation. Could you please consider to remove the move request and discuss it further before moving through wit it. The last move request was "moved" because a partial consensus was reached between different parties. We can revisit this together and some points can be reviewed without calling for massive list of votes for a fifth time.--ReyHahn (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It has been about four years since the last move. Please have faith in the process, a consensus will be established. And don't worry, none of this is personal. You seem to have an extensive history editing on Venezuelan topics, so I have nothing but respect for your opinion on this topic. :) WMrapids (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Time is only an issue if new sources reflect some specific revisions. About the canvassing, it would really help if you provide some details on the different perspectives of the users pinged, if they shared a similar views in other discussions then I recommend you to read the policies on why that should be avoided. Again, it seems like a rushed request and with the proper discussion much of the nuances could be revisited without having to re-spark some of the tension points that were already resolved four years ago.--ReyHahn (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There was a difficulty finding consensus on the previous article, so the perspectives on users vary. So, one can be confident that there are no canvassing issues since users had separate views. Regarding the previous discussions, it seems like many users supported moving the article titled to include the "coup" wording, though the process was drawn out by users who used the typical "source table" to deflect away from the issue, and we can now see that the policies of WP:CONSISTENT WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE are of higher value when naming an article. Users in the archived discussion also suggested the more obvious option to call a spade a spade. WMrapids (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The difficulties were drawn from a previous conversation and a partial consensus was reached in the previous move. Please explain how a source table is deflection in such a complex discussion. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Please also WP:Assume good faith on previous discussions. This request seems inadequate due to the lack of any new evidence to reopen the topic in the request statement. Again all that I am asking is that the motives should be discussed and finely studied before starting a new request, if not this move request will continue to pop frequently independently of the results.--ReyHahn (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support As nominator.--WMrapids (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The move has been proposed based on what was decided in Talk:2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt#Requested move 22 April 2023. However, both cases are not comparable. In Peru, the then incumbent president (Pedro Castillo), illegally tried to dissolve the congress and assume full powers, which by definition is a self-coup, since it even fits perfectly with the definition provided by the Dictionary of the Spanish language: "Sef-coup: Violation of the legality in force in a country by whoever is in power, to gain a foothold in it" [2]. In Venezuela, no such thing happened. Rather, the legitimacy of Nicolás Maduro's presidency was in question and Juan Guaidó was instead declared president by the Venezuelan National Assembly (January 2019) and recognized as such by many countries before the uprising occurred (April 2019), so they are definitely not comparable situations. I am not going to discuss which side was right or wrong at the time in the venezuelan crisis, but if the basis of the request here is the mere comparison between the situation of Peru in 2022 and that of Venezuela in 2019, it doesn't seem enough to me.--Elelch (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  A rejected change based on this logic is something I can live with. this is reasonable. Carlp941 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Carlp941: Does that mean you would consider striking your previous support to the move? --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I am open to it. Carlp941 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'm going to give it a few days to see how the arguments play out, then come back and re-read everything and see if i want to chance my vote! Carlp941 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Looking at your argument, the legitimacy of the presidency of Peru is also in question right now, with some nations stating that Pedro Castillo is the president while others say that Dina Boluarte is. The nebulous affairs of politics during constitutional crises is very polarizing, but in the end, we see who who is left holding the reins of power. Elelch, I am sure you would agree that Boluarte is currently president of Peru. Using hindsight (it was also apparent at the time and in the hours after this "attempt"), we can see that Maduro held on to power over Venezuela's institutions. And like you said, the whole "right or wrong" argument is murky, so instead of focusing on that, we should pay attention to what was really happening; Guaido called on the military and supporters to forcibly remove Maduro from office. And if we throw in WP:CONSISTENT and Carlp941's concern of WP:NPOV concerns (this title and article obviously leans in support of the Guaido movement's attempt to remove Maduro), the proposal to move this title to 2019 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt should be obvious. WMrapids (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. In addition to the obvious WP:POINT reason for this proposal, the nominator could not provide any reason or new sources that warrant overturning the consensus of the previous move discussion from a few years ago. WP:COMMONNAME still stands. Wikipedia is based on what most reliable sources say and trying to use a less popular label based on personal interpretations of which events are "similar" is just Wikipedia:Original Research. Also, no reason to think that the current title is less WP:CONCISE. StellarHalo (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. Wikipedia is not the opinion page of a Liberal/Conservative American media. Just because Western medias who happens to support the Venezuelan opposition, and who are of course deemed by like-minded Wikipedia contributors to be the only "reliable sources" that are to be used on Wikipedia, do not wish to put terms on these event that are correct yet not necessarily positive for said Venezuelan opposition, that should not mean that we should refrain from using these terms, these definitions, that simply factually describe the events at hand. Snarcky1996 (talk) 22:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Please be mindful of WP:NOTFORUM. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

If you would like to change the English Wikipedia's core content policies in relation to reliable sources and/or the criteria for determining which sources are "reliable", you are going to have to convince the community to reach the consensus necessary to do so in the main channels. In the meantime, please refrain from WP:SOAP and adhere to the current policies and guidelines. StellarHalo (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@StellarHalo I thank you for the advice, but no, I don't think I will refrain from speaking my mind and continue to criticize the blatantly biased current way of formulating and describing events and political figures and movements by what seems to be a very dedicated core of Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, to not take a partisan or ideological stance, not take a side, but obviously that principle is largely ignored now. Snarcky1996 (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2023 (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.