Talk:2019 Venezuelan uprising attempt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Rebels

OK, who keeps changing "ran over civilians" to the POV "ran over rebels", and what is that about? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

APC

Someone keeps changing tank to APC: is a ballena an APC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: its blatant OR on my part, but the vehicle seen in the widely-publicized video is an APC, not a tank. Maybe describing it as an armored vehicle is best, as the term describes both tanks and APCs. SamHolt6 (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam ... could you make the adjustment? I don't really know the correct term. Armored vehicle might cover it ... I am struggling to get through sources so I can actually add some content! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Added.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

For the record, water cannons in Venezuela are called colloquially ballenas (whale in Spanish), just like the armoured vehicles are called "rhinos". --Jamez42 (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Check ?

Did I hear this right? If so, can be added under Events: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Defections

United States National Security Adviser John R. Bolton stated in a press conference that Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, Supreme Court justice Maikel Moreno, and the head of Maduro's PresidentialGuard, Iván Hernández Dala, had agreed that Maduro needed to go.

References

This seems to shed some light on that, and there's lots of info in this source that can be added. https://www.dw.com/en/venezuela-coup-or-uprising-it-depends-on-who-you-support/a-48555362 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Saved by an IP

Oh my,[1] that was quite a mistake. Saved by an IP, and no way to thank them![2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing

Should we add the article to the Main Page's Ongoing Section? Emperor Anzong of Song or The Huangdi of Song China (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#2019 Venezuela coup attempt. But have in mind that "being in the news" is not enough for inclusion (there are hundreds of things in the news, all the time). Many users prefer to wait until we have a clear picture of how does this turn out. You can join the discussion, but provide strong reasons. Cambalachero (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Disinformation

A hilariously biased article on Venezuela yet again. I expect no less from Wikipedia. If the opposition were as good at contesting elections as they are at spreading disinformation, there would be no need for a coup. 78.144.216.235 (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source you would like included? Please see WP:V and WP:RS; otherwise, WP:NOTAFORUM may help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

"But I know the truth!" 84percent (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Maduro denial, Washington Post

Folks, please keep in mind that the Washington Post is paywalled, and most cannot access it. (Meaning if you stick an unformatted citation to the Washington Post saying someone died in the infobox, not everyone can clean up the mess.) This source has been added to the article, but I can't read it, and according to the title, we need to add Maduro's denial to Pompeo's statement. Might someone please do that ? If you can add his denial, just use ref name= MaduroDenies/ because it is already in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• ref name=MaduroDenies
  • Zuñiga, Mariana (30 April 2019). "Venezuela's Maduro denies Pompeo's claim that he sought to escape to Cuba after day of clashes that left 1 dead, dozens hurt". The Washington Post. Retrieved 30 April 2019.

Just FYI: If you hit the X button next to the URL as soon as the article text appears (you do need to be quick) you can read the article without giving the site the chance to load the "PLEASE INSERT PAYMENT TO READ DEMOCRACY NOT DYING IN DARKNESS" element that would normally cover it. 199.247.45.42 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

IT works! Thank you, 199; I wasn't even able to get at the titles for looking up articles on ProQuest. (I bet they'll close that loop soon, though.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Background

Need a background section summarizing the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis.----ZiaLater (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Excess images, gynormous infobox, and poor image quality

Five images in the infobox result in poor quality. The infobox is (per usual) too large and taking over the article. Add to that the imposition of too many other images in the article, and we end up with text sandwiching (MOS:IMAGES), along with images/infobox overwhelming the text. We do aim for encyclopedic content that people can read. My suggestion is to reduce the number of images in the infobox from five to three, so that there will be space to add back some images in the body of the article if desired, but please do so in a way that text is not squeezed.

Independently, the usual amount of infobox bloat ... adding a "result" based on what one person "claims" is just silly. The "result" of an uprising is not something that can be summarized in one parameter. How about the result that Lopez is out from under house arrest, for example? How about the result that Maduro's head of intelligence defected? We are to suppose there is a "result" to a complex event because Wikipedia can come out with one word ??SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I slimmed it down some. I guess others can decide which images to include in the infobox. Usually as the sections increase and there is more of a background, infoboxes don't take up as much room. I mean, we could always try to make the infobox like International military intervention against ISIL...----ZiaLater (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes suck :) Sorry for going through so fast, I have an app't later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Moved to talk to be fixed

I don't know what this is, it is unsourced, I can't find a source, and I can't even tell what it means: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• On 30 April, the Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the OPCW, ICC and other International Organisations and Courts based in The Hague, on behalf of the Venezuelan government asked all member states of the United Nations and the international community to condemn "this despicable attack against the democracy and constitutional order and defend the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law as well as rule of law".

Apparently (possibly?) a primary source unpublished by secondary sources; I have asked the OP on user talk to please engage article talk so we can sort this.[3] Unpublished primary source = likely UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

More here: if the sourcing is sorted, the writing should be addressed if it is re-introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Minister of People's Power for the Defense and the military high command of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela reported that the Bolivarian National Armed Force would stand firm "in defense of the Constitution and its legitimate authorities".

Note for the OP, quotes are not italicized on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

References

You just had to be patient. But it is a subtle diplomatic request to other states not to interfere. GentleDjinn (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I really hope this is not considered an ad hominem argument, but I think it's important to note that said representative is Haifa El Aissami, sister of Tareck El Aissami. Is this report available online? --Jamez42 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Said representative is indeed Haifa El Aissami, but I am not aware of her family relationships. A note verbale is a diplomatic letter, in this case to a large number of embassies and a number of international organisations, including the International Criminal Court. But the text is not unintelligible but just diplomatic.

I see there exists a source about the family relationship: http://www.el-nacional.com/noticias/columnista/extrano-caso-cpi-hermana-aissami_187633 GentleDjinn (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course. What I mean is that if this note is available on the Internet or for public access. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, sorry for being in a hurry this morning, as I have an app't and wanted to get through the whole article. But a primary source, unpublished and unreviewed by secondary sources, is UNDUE in this case. If major news outlets cover this, it can be added. Also, GentleDjinn, if it is unpublished publicly, that raises a concern about WP:COI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not understand what means "unpublished publicly" but, except for my contribution to this page, I am completetely uninvolved with the so called Bolivarian State of Venezuela, or any other state in South America for that matter.GentleDjinn (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

1 May

Should this article cover May 1st events? --MaoGo (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it should. A live blog was created to follow the events. --Jamez42 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not convinced, but not yet sure. It depends on what occurs. My suggestion is to develop text at 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis (it is set with a statement about May 1 from which resumption can occur), and should events unfold such that they are better described as a continuation here, we can move that text to here. But I am not firm on this ... yesterday started at the main article, and eventually moved here as events took off, so that is my first inclination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we could mention events such as the resignation of the Supreme Tribunal justice, either as an aftermatch or a consequence of the uprising. The 2019 protests article will need a lot of attention. --Jamez42 (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Section heading problem

The article has two sections with the same name, that creates editing and linking problems. There are two sections named "Clashes"; one needs to change. Why do we need date section headings? Naming the sections without dates works, and breaking up writing by date isn't needed. Is there SO much to report on May 1 that it requires separation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Split sections

@David O. Johnson:, there was an intertwined story here, between Defections and Foreign involvement. By splitting them, the plot is lost. What is your reasoning for splitting them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

In the news

I fear that the events get stale for a INT candidate because of the current discussion, where consensus seems unlikely any time soon. Could we agree to disagree and nominate this article? I suggest the following blurbs, without a definition of coup or uprising:

"In the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, opposition leader Juan Guaidó calls for "military and Venezuelans to mobilize"

"In the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, there have been more than 100 injuries and a death during protests and military defections.

The Spanish general elections, which are the second listed new, were on 28 January, so I think it's still worth nominating the article. Thoughts? --Jamez42 (talk) 11:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

On the prosecution of the 7 deputies

@SandyGeorgia: I saw your complain here [4]. We have to keep an eye on this because news outlets got this wrong first see Naky Soto coverage also WP. An unknown citizen was listed by the TSJ and later removed from the list. 7 became 6, but some sources did not cover Edgar Zambrano, so they now profit to include him in the news. The seven deputies are: Henry Ramos Allup, Luis Florido, Marianela Magallanes, Simon Calzadilla, Amerigo De Grazia and Richard Blanco, AND Edgar Zambrano.--MaoGo (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

ah, ha, I see ! Ok, when we get a good source, then that should be added to the footnote I left set up in hidden content. Saludos! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done --MaoGo (talk) 11:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Venezuelan uprising", not "Venezuela uprising"?

So perhaps this is not a large matter, considering this article has thus far received 665 edits with no mention of this whatsoever (that I could see, at least)... but shouldn't the title be "2019 Venezuelan uprising"? After all, the uprising is occurring in Venezuela (obviously), and other articles (for instance, Venezuelan presidential crisis) have adopted this as well. At the same time, I don't know what all renaming the article would require, and if it requires a massive amount of effort and trouble, it would probably be best to let this be.

References

TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the article has previously been named as "Venezuela coup", but using Venezuelan should be better. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Support this should be fairly uncontroversial. I already wanted to propose this. It does not follow the norm: 2019 Venezuelan protests, 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, 2019 Venezuelan blackouts, 2019 Venezuela uprising...--MaoGo (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Bolding my support, just to leave it clear. If there aren't any objections, which I think it shouldn't, I advise moving in the following hours. --Jamez42 (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Went ahead and renamed the article. TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

To do list

I'm in a good mood :) I want to thank all of the editors that have contributed to the article until now. Shall we start a to do list? I wanted to include a couple of news: --Jamez42 (talk) 15:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Censorship and media attacks

• ABA-Cantv bloqueó acceso a YouTube (expansion)
• Roban y agreden a periodista de Efecto Cocuyo
• Agredido periodista de VPITV con bomba lacrimógena
• Conatel ordenó cese de operaciones de RCR Already  Done
• Sebin retienen a equipo de ONG Provea
• Fuera del aire CNN de la clabera de DirecTV Already  Done
• Agreden a periodista de El InformadorVE en Lara
• Sacan del aire a BBC Mundo de DirecTV Already  Done

• Polimiranda

• Reporter Gregory Jaimes of VPI shot.
• Calls for blood at Clinica El Ávila
• Shootout at Chinquinquirá en La Florida, also en El Paraiso

@Jamez42: do you still need this list or can it be archived? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I'll update this soon, although I think they're still missing. Since this has been "stale", I think it's better to archive it. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

A timeline

Here is an graphic timeline from Efecto Cocuyo [5]. --MaoGo (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, El Pitazo made a summary of yesterday events' and the factchecking site Verifikado has a timeline. However, Efecto Cocuyo's infographic is very complete. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo, Jamez42, and ZiaLater:, is this done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the events have been thoroughly covered. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Should we add injured to infobox?

And if so, the BBC currently lists it as 69 Kingsif (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Should we delete the infobox entirely, so we don't have to have this conversation about infobox bloat :) :) The BBC 69 is in the article already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Dumbass ridiculous stupid infoboxes just make work. Especially when people drive by and stick stuff in there that needs to be fixed, and don't update the article. Why exactly do we need to create double work with infobox bloat? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox. Again.

@José A. VEN:, regarding this edit, first, we do not name something by its Spanish name on English Wikipedia. Second, there is consensus on this article to call it "uprising" not Operation Liberty. Please discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Greek statement repeatedly removed as "party politics"

@ZiaLater: The statement from the Greek government (specifically, the ruling party Syriza) is being repeatedly removed as "party politics". The only justification given thus far is that "The same information about Syriza has been removed numerous times on other Venezuelan articles". This doesn't seem to be a strong argument and I think a discussion on the merits would be more productive. Why remove this but leave in e.g. the statement from Canada, given that Chrystia Freeland is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party (the ruling party in Canada)? Note that this is not the same information as was deleted earlier (which included information about conflicts between the different parties)—it's just the straightforward statement from the ruling party. Cmonghost (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: We avoided including the responses of political parties because then the list would be endless. Official responses from national governments are fine. Ruling party ≠ national government. Chrystia Freeland was speaking on behalf of the Government of Canada, not on behalf of the Liberal Party (unless this isn't clarified).----ZiaLater (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: Sorry, but that's a slippery-slope argument that doesn't really hold up. As I've already stated, I'm not proposing to include statements from all the Greek political parties (or all political parties from other countries)—only from the ruling party(/ies). How would that lead to the list becoming "endless"? I note also that there's plenty of redundancy on the list, if we're now concerned about the length—for example, all the Lima Group nations are listed separately (with the same text) despite being listed in the Intergovernmental Bodies section. As for the Chrystia Freeland tweet, she never specified that she was speaking on behalf of the gov't of Canada: [6]. Are we now going to include all tweets from all government ministers? Cmonghost (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost: Providing statements from one party allows the inclusion of other parties to provide balance, thus creating multiple responses instead of a single response from a national government. Also, it is really really obvious that a Minister of Foreign Affairs speaks on behalf of a government. Thinking otherwise is grasping at straws at best...----ZiaLater (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: As I said, the proposal is to include the ruling party's statement only. I never said anything about allowing the inclusion of other parties. If they were included, surely they could be removed just as you are now currently removing the ruling party statement. It would be more productive if you read and responded to the proposal at hand without making one up that's easier to argue against. As for the Freeland issue, I would argue that it is also "really really obvious" that the ruling party of a government speaks on behalf of the government, and that thinking otherwise is also "grasping at straws at best"—which was exactly my point in bringing it up. Cmonghost (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing???

Really? I don't think so. This was a single day event, call it a coup or uprising. Protests are sure ongoing, the crisis is also ongoing. But protests and crisis started long time ago, not on April 30th. And they already have their own pages. Just look at the May 1st section. Not a single word about uprising. BobNesh (talk) 00:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that you are following the news; when we start writing about 1 May, it will probably be longer than 30 April, considering all this is happening today as part of an ongoing uprising that started on 30 April. Do you follow Venezuela news? To get it, because press is blocked, you have to be somewhere like Instagram until the media can catch up. When there is not free press, there is a timelag. If you'd like to see how much there will be write about once the media reports it, please do see Instagram hashtag #1May, or #2May tomorrow, and so on. There is a delay with the press, unless you speak Spanish, and I prefer to wait for English-language sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I do follow the news about Venezuela and I did follow the news about Syria. In the beginning, Syrian rebels were also enthusiastic like you, even more. Anyway, if this is an uprising, then it's pretty lame and idle. Protests don't equalize uprising. BobNesh (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Venezuelan protests (2014–present) is where most of this content belongs, along with the failed coup attempt as a subsection in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. There is no "uprising", no "final push", it's just more of the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This couldn't be further from "uprising". BobNesh (talk) 01:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears the uprising was confined to April 30. The events on May 1 should go in the protests article &/or the crisis article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be ongoing. I fact, I would say it was a failed attempt at a government overthrow. Perhaps that is significant in itself.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, there are plenty of national and neutral sources, although Spanish, that can be used despite of censorship. If there is a lack of details, I strongly recommend them:

• Efecto Cocuyo
• El Estímulo
• Tal Cual Digital
• El Pitazo
• Runrun.es
• Vivoplay (mostly videos and YouTube)
• VPITv (they make a lot of livestreams, mostly videos and YouTube)

El Nacional and El Universal can also be used as followups or complementary sources. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It could potentially say "coup failed, protests ongoing" or something. But there's definitely acknowledgement it failed at this point- see today's NYT article (which also refers to it as a coup).Zellfire999 (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Zellfire999: I have also seen the same statements in the Washington Post that the "plot" had "failed". Will add this to the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

"Many later revised their coverage"

(Medialite source)

Text sourced: "though many later revised their coverage"

• BeŻet, thank you for noticing this. My first inclination was to pull the entire clause as original research, but the source does support some level of verification for outlets that revised their coverage. Would the problem there be solved by changing the language? I am not familiar with this source, so do not know if we should be using it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

In the source it seems that only FOX News has "revised" their wording. Given this, I'm not sure if that's worth mentioning at all. BeŻet (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, if that is the case, then I say pull the whole thing. I am not sure who added the text, so I won't pull it yet, in case anyone else wants to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would remove the whole "Some news outlets", if not, I would indicate that is CBC the one using the word, if not, I would maybe leave the text between parentheses with the failed verification so other users get to see the controversies in this talk page. (I won't oppose if you take the text in parentheses but it seems undue weight to use the plural with only one citation)--MaoGo (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the plural shouldn't be used with only the CBC citation, but rather than removing "Some news outlets" altogether, my preference would be to just add further examples. They do exist: EllenCT provided several examples above in the titling discussion, and the Mediaite article also describes CNN as using "coup" in their chyron (and Fox who switched). There are also some examples in SandyGeorgia's table above. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We may add some sources and avoid the note but again this problem is linked to the "coup" vs "uprising" naming. Most sources above are using uprising, and the sources using coup are few. Adding that some sources call this 'coup' seems undue weight. --MaoGo (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

But removing the statement entirely would give the reader the false impression that only "Maduro allies and officials loyal to Maduro" referred to the events of 30 April as a(n attempted) coup, when in fact there are several reliable news sources that did so as well. This is not the same problem as the title, where we need to select one word/phrase to use: in the text of the article, we don't have to choose one name; we can instead inform the reader who is calling it what, with proper attribution. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We can remove the whole text altogether the reactions are there and the quotes are all over the article. That paragraph is just calling for a bipartisan view on the matter. --MaoGo (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I just removed it. The inclusion of this would go back and forth just as if we included political parties in the responses. We have the responses from governments and intergovernmental bodies, we should keep it that way.----ZiaLater (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Naming: Freedom or Liberty

Someone is changing them (back and forth). Operación Libertad can translate literally to either Operation Freedom or Operation Liberty, and reliable sources are using the two interchangeably. A few more use "Freedom" on a google search, and looking at bilingual sources (like Univision and Miami Herald) we find both. We need to pick one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Operation Freedom for me, for now; I can be convinced to change my mind, but it rolls off the tongue easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ballers1: You may want to comment here. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• I also go with Operation Freedom, though I'm not too attached to it. Libertad means either liberty or freedom, (which in turn are basically the same thing). David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't care, if I had to choose I would use Freedom because it is the term we started to use before all this, see 2019 protests and blackout. B --MaoGo (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Context matters. Is Guaidó using it in terms of freedom vs confinement, or in terms of liberty vs oppression? Oxford has a few things to say about it and they don't pick definitions based on how well it "rolls off the tongue". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It sounds like he means it in the sense of freedom/liberty vs. oppression. Btw, the link you provided translates it as freedom (even though liberty seems like a reasonable translation). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Oxford translates it to both freedom and liberty, and provides context for when to use which. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
• My suggestion would be to use the Spanish term (Operación Libertad) throughout, with a note in the lede and wherever else appropriate that it's been translated as both. Not ideal and probably against MOS somewhere, but perhaps better than the current inconsistency within the article. ansh666 03:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the suggestion. Until (and if) it gets an "official" name in English, there is no way to choose, so it is better to just mention both translations and mostly use the native name throughout the article, or use something or use something like "Operation Liberty/Freedom" (which, honestly, looks even worse), or just try to avoid the name as much as possible and descriptively refer to it. Feon {^t/_c} 08:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

If it helps, Freedom and Liberty are essentially the same word in Spanish, Libertad. I can't think of another word. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Jamez42, the idea is that we just need to settle on one or the other, to be consistent within the articles. Do you have a preference? I can go with either, don't want to have to keep changing. Reliable sources use them both, pretty much equally, so we can't really get any guidance there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I feel that Operation Freedom sticks more to the original feeling or meaning of it; I don't know if there's an intrinsic different meaning between freedom and liberty, but from I gather they are essentially the same. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Let the oxford dictionary help you decide instead of choosing based on whatever gits your POV agenda. They're actually not essentially the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There is just one problem with this - both freedom and liberty translate to libertad. --193.198.162.14 (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: That's a personal attack, I just gave my opinion as a native Spanish speaker. I read the Oxford definition and I considered the problem was the same, that both words translate as the same, and I understand that Freedom is the closest meaning of context. I don't have the natural intuition of a first language to say which one is better in English. --Jamez42 (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with LL, Liberty and Freedom carry different meanings. Does any one have a good way to select one over the other without falling into personal philosophies and opinions? There does not seem to be an evident majority in the sources but I may be wrong. --MaoGo (talk) 12:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Right. There is no evident majority in the sources, to anyone who speaks fluent Spanish, there is simply no difference, so it's personal preference. We have now consistently used "Freedom" across articles, so I guess we stick with it unless someone presents a good reason to change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support using Operación Libertad per the comments of Ansh666, Feon, MaoGo, et al. Libertad can be translated to either Freedom or Liberty, which actually do have different use cases; let's not decide based on our own personal preferences or what "rolls off the tongue" better. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  I recommend that you not believe everything you read, Wizard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  Do you have anything more substantive than "don't believe them" to explain why so many editors are apparently wrong? LL cited the Oxford to show that there exists a difference between the two words, whereas you're simply telling us that such a difference does not exist. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  No, LL didn't do that, although I can see why you might think so. LL's link to Oxford gave us nothing to go on. And if it had, still, everyone who had an opinion chose Freedom. I don't care which you all choose: I just want the articles to use one or the other consistently. It really is our choice, since they mean the same thing, and sources use both, equally. Would you be happier if I switched to Liberty. Fine. I'll support Liberty. Because I Don't Care. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Libertad or Operación Libertad?--MaoGo (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why we are discussing using a foreign term when English is available: guideline MOS:FOREIGN, and WP:V policy that we base our text on sources. These are not anglicized terms. We have not one, but two words that are perfect translations in English. We don't need to confuse WikiReaders; we just needed to choose one. And we have no reason to ignore reliable sources that do use the two translations.

Why are there so many responses on this page that ignore Wikipedia guideline and policy for routine matters? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines and the reader go first. Until further notice (a new argument or will to change everything to Liberty), we use Freedom.--MaoGo (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, as was already explained, the reliable sources are torn on whether to use Freedom or Liberty; not a single citation uses "Operation Freedom" in its title (though some use "Operation Liberty") and we went with freedom anyways because you like how it sounds? How is acting based on how something rolls off the tongue not ignoring guidelines when it's a clear example of an argument to avoid? Please exhibit more introspection before you vent your disappointment with the other editors here. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 18:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Operation Freedom has been used as a translation by the media since mid March. Example The Guardian about Operation Freedom. Maybe they will write an article about the difference at some moment, but I doubt it.--MaoGo (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)--MaoGo (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not "torn": they each picked their own, which is not at all surprising, since the two words mean the same thing.

Please review the discussion before falling for "We went with freedoem anyways because you like how it sounds"; the chance for anyone to say they prefer Liberty over Freedom is right here in the discussion, and I was as free as anyone else to express a preference. So far, no one has preferred Liberty. (Curious: what gave you the idea that sources are torn?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It's odd that the answers to the questions asked in that comment can be found within the same comment; you said it yourself: the sources each picked their own. A simple ctrl+f of "Operation Freedom" in the article yields not a single result under the "References" section, and within the bodies of these articles, sources tend to pick one or the other. In other words, sources don't have a consensus on it. This brings us to the question of how to decide whether to use freedom or liberty. !Voting based on how it sounds is, as was already described, an argument to avoid in discussions. It's great that editors have the opportunity to say which one sounds nicer, but that's obviously ignoring the guidelines (ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT). Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨

I don't think you are following the discussion; maybe we should try again after a break, or maybe someone else can explain in a different way what happens on Wikipedia when two things are exactly the same and sources do not distinguish. We choose. This was really supposed to be easy: just pick one. Accusing someone else of having a choice when there are supposed to make a choice is creative :) Let's do this. You pick one, and I'll support whichever is your choice: Freedom or Liberty. I'd be willing to bet any Spanish-speaking editor will agree to do the same (let you choose). Why? Because It Makes No Difference: they are the same thing. You choose, I'll support, and I'll put beer and pizza on the house that everyone else who speaks Spanish will also. I picked Freedom because it's one syllable less to have to pronounce: if you want to call that POV, maybe you know something about linguistics POV that I am missing, but I submit it just means I'm lazy. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Absolute synonyms are very rare in natural language, so any claims that two words are "exactly the same" should be taken with a heap of salt. Just because a word in Spanish can be translated into two different English words does not mean that the English words are the same. For example, the single English word "free" can be translated into French as libre (free as in freedom) or gratuit (free as in beer); that doesn't mean that libre and gratuit have the same meaning—far from it. Returning to freedom and liberty, they likely differ in terms of register (liberty having a more formal/legalistic connotation as is common with these Germanic/Romance-derived pairs in English). Simply using libertad (and noting the ambiguity upon the first use in the article) frees us from having to deal with these issues. Cmonghost (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As a side note, it doesn't really make sense to appeal to the intuitions of fluent Spanish speakers when distinguishing two English words, just as it wouldn't make sense to appeal to the intuitions of an English speaker who told you the French words libre and gratuit are the same because they both can be translated as free. Cmonghost (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You are omitting that we follow reliable sources, and reliable sources use them both, in about equal measure. That ends the argument that there's a difference: for our purposes, there is not. Wikipedia bases these decisions on reliable sources, and those are split. No one who speaks Spanish here (like me) is saying there is some nuance that should be considered or a distinction between the two words (if someone does, I'll go with their choice, but it may cost me beer and pizza). A problem with going with Libertad, is that then we have to mix English and Spanish or go all Spanish, and either of those options are awful for our readers (requiring italics and diacritics per MOS, Operación Libertad' or Operation Libertad, as opposed to simpler Operation Freedom or Operation Liberty).

Seriously, people, the term is used ONLY FOUR times on the page. This was not an IQ test and we don't need to fail :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Again though, Spanish speakers don't have special authority in determining whether English words have different nuances. Yes, libertad can be translated as freedom or liberty, but that doesn't mean freedom and liberty are the same! It could just as easily mean that English draws a distinction where Spanish does not. This is a common problem in translation. Anyway, if we are taking intuitions into account, then as an English speaker mine is that the two words have different connotations. Cmonghost (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

And by not making a choice, you are not solving that problem for our reader, rather leaving them with an unnecessarily convoluted construct. If you truly believe this, then you should simply choose Liberty because it's closer to Libertad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Liberty is closer to libertad orthographically and etymologically, but not necessarily semantically. Cmonghost (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support Operación Libertad for reasoning detailed in my reply to SandyGeorgia above [7]. Cmonghost (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  And, it's not that simple. If you choose to use a foreign term, we have diacritics and italics every time we type it. And we have a whole phrase, not just one word. Are you choosing ''Operación Libertad or Operation Libertad ? So, we have to define a term on the page, every page that uses it, and type diacritics and italics everytime we use it as well. I shall ping you to clean up every instance that is used wrong :) :)

  Not that we don't already, but Wikipedia is going to look well and good ridiculous using either of those convoluted constructs, when every reliable source already picked one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

  And by the way, read our guidelines and policies. Whichever choice you make, we still have to define it. So we STILL have to choose whether to define libertad as "liberty" or "freedom". By choosing a Spanish construct, you do not avoid the problem. You just make the page more convoluted for our reader. When we first use this foreign term you've chosen on the page, we still have to define it. So, we can type out Operación Libertad (trans. Operation Liberty or Operation Freedom). Is that your intent? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone reading or editing an article about events in Venezuela would be too shocked to see some Spanish words. Apostrophes (for italics) and diacritics are fairly simple to insert on a modern computer, and if your keyboard can't do diacritics, the Wikipedia editor makes it pretty easy with the dropdown menu below the text entry box. I updated above to indicate that my preference is for the whole phrase to be in Spanish. I'm aware that a definition would still be necessary, and the solution you indicated (providing both options) looks fine to me. Cmonghost (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I actually have quite a hard time with the dropdown each time I have to insert an accent. Don't worry, I will just ping you in edit summary and let you clean up if we end up with this :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This shouldn't cause any issues with the dropdown, considering that this discussion (at least to my understanding) isn't a proposal to rename the article. Clarifying what to refer to the operation as would only affect a term that's used a grand total of four times in the article, and most of those instances could likely be replaced with the words "the operation" Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 21:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that the "event" (whatever we call it) is ongoing, and I may have the pleasure of continuing to type the convoluted construct. And the term is used in at least four articles that I can think of. So, easy for you to say; this convolution is leaving the people who actually write the articles with a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Most reliable sources actually now seem to acknowledge that the "uprising" has either ended, or never got off the ground in the first place (see the section discussing this below), so this may not be as big a problem as you're suggesting. At any rate, I hope you agree that minor inconveniences like these are a small price to pay to ensure accuracy. Cmonghost (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support using "Operación Libertad" It is the simplest, consistent solution, per above. Davey2116 (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support using "Operación Libertad" or "Operation Liberty" - even though I believe this was a coup attempt, I think this is a good compromise. BeŻet (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support for Operation Freedom (as it was taken as default, Liberty is good as second option). Spanish wording is confusing for the reader and messy for us the editors and writers. --MaoGo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: for those supporting the Spanish wording, you have to decide also if you want that we write the name in italics or not. --MaoGo (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  That would be a given, foreign language should always be in italics. I didn't do it when I first suggested it because I was on mobile. ansh666 19:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose using any variant of "Operación Libertad": This is very POV. Only Guaido and his supporters call it that and it implies that he is fighting for freedom, which is debatable.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  Not any? This discussion is not about the name of the article, it is about how to refer to Guaidó's operation when needed (like in a quote).Options are Operation Freedom, Operation Liberty, Operación Libertad, Operación Libertad, Operation Libertad or any combination of those. --MaoGo (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

  I think that's ambiguous. I would support using Operación Libertad to refer to the operation because that's what it's called, with "Operation Freedom" in brackets.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support for Operation Freedom Preferred for non Spanish readers, editors and writers. AbDaryaee (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Former mayor Ramón Muchacho, a native Spanish speaker, translates Operación Libertad as "Operation Freedom". --Jamez42 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support using "Operación Libertad" or "Operation Libertad", until (and if) an "official" English translation appears (e.g. a key figure involved in "Operación Libertad" talks about it in English). Currently, there seems to be no way to decide between "Freedom" and "Liberty". Feon {^t/_c} 10:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chinese article

The Chinese article is titled roughly as "Political disputes in Venezuela in April 2019"; its lead includes all of the terms used by the media in the lead (Venezuelan uprising, Venezuela's attempted uprising, Venezuelan military uprising, Venezuela's attempted coup, Venezuelan military coup). It seems like the same issue had to be dealt with. I think the title is a little odd, but nevertheless interesting. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

[8] Google translate version of the Chinese article. --MaoGo (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

If you take a look at the talk page of the Chinese article, (if I understand correctly) they updated the name of their article based on the discussions on this talk page. --MaoGo (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's my understanding too. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe so too. There is enough evidence! AbDaryaee (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: Looks like China supports Maduro according to the zh.wiki article, it says "The Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Caracas issued a statement on Sina Weibo's official account, saying that "China reiterates its support for Venezuela's independent development." Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang said that "the Venezuelan issue can only be resolved by the Venezuelan people, and Venezuela's stability is beneficial to the national interest and regional interests.". Do you think should we update that? --cyrfaw (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That was an old link that was in the article but was removed because is from 30 March. --MaoGo (talk) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That is a dreadfully unencyclopedic way to start an article. I am glad we don't have to be like other Wikipedias, because that is a low standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Flights suspended

LLcentury I am moving this to talk because I am not sure how to fix it, as you requested in edit summary:

• On 2 May, the Argentine and Brazilian governments suspended flights to Caracas due to the diplomatic uproar between the two nations.

References

The text you originally added was about one company (not the countries), so adding that gives undue weight to possibly a minor player. Also the source does not verify that the government of Brazil suspends flights, as far as I could tell. Did I miss it? We need a source stating that the Argentine and Brazilian governments suspended flights-- not an individual travel agency or company. Also, unless the suspension is at the international level, the individual companies should not really be included in the scope of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Sandy, as always thank you for your help with my difficulties on here, Mauricio Macri retained Venezuelans who wanted to return to Venezuela, so basically it was a government order to suspend flights to Caracas. As for Brazil, it was my fault and mistake. My apologies. --LLcentury (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

  Adding to the conversation AirFrance made a flight in direction to Caracas return to France due to the conflicts Venezuela Crisis: What We Know So Far (NYT) and there was also a FAA ban AA bans low flights over Venezuela's airspace, citing political instability (Reuters).

Please do not worry, LLcentury; I put this here mostly hoping that someone else could help you sort it out and readd to the article as determined. Saludos cordiales, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and where is that information "puttable" (I translated it as wearable) (sorry if that's gross). I can link several websites where Argentina forbids Venezueland to return because of the relationships at edge (though not severed very complicated). Thanks!--LLcentury (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Iranian and Cuban meddling

Dear Friends, Venezuela has been invaded by Iran, Cuba, China and Russia now, and still we are analyzing the 30th April, is coop or uprising. for god sick that is enough. AbDaryaee (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Read this please, Remarks by Vice President Pence:" And while the Maduro regime has stood aside as millions of its own people have fled in desperation, it’s been more than eager to accept the aid and comfort of regimes in Iran, and Russia, and Cuba.

The Iranian regime has been working with Venezuela’s corrupt dictatorship to establish a safe haven for its terrorist proxies, and continues to do so as we gather here. Last month, a high-level delegation from Iran’s Foreign Ministry celebrated a very public launch of direct air service between Caracas and Tehran by Mahan Air, a blacklisted airline controlled by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which President Trump recently designated as a terrorist organization.

And one of Maduro’s top aides — a former Vice President and currently the Interior Minister, Tareck El Aissami — is a drug runner and a money launderer who partners with terrorist networks to bring Iran-backed terrorists into the country. And today, Hezbollah is working to extend its dangerous network throughout Venezuela, and from there, throughout our hemisphere.

And while Iranian terrorists build safe havens, despite their denials, it’s clear that Russia also seeks a foothold in this hemisphere in Venezuela. Moscow is the Maduro regime’s biggest weapons supplier. In exchange for bartered Venezuelan oil, Russia provides military jet fighters and acts as a lender of last resort. Last month, Russia sent two military transport planes to Caracas in a show of support for the embattled regime.

But no one has done more to support the corrupt Maduro regime than the Communist leaders of Cuba. For nearly two decades, the Havana regime has sent thousands of Cuban teachers, engineers to Venezuela to prop up a failing regime. Cuban agents control the levers of power in many government agencies, especially the military and intelligence services. And as we saw last week, key decisions about Venezuela’s future are as much made in Havana as they are in Caracas. Venezuela isn’t merely a Cuban client, the people of Venezuela are essentially Cuba’s hostage.

And Cuba has robbed Venezuela of more than her freedom; she stripped her of wealth. Some estimates claim Cuba has extracted more than $35 billion in Venezuelan oil since 2005. In short, the struggling people of Venezuela aren’t just the victims of one dictatorship; the people of Venezuela are the victims of two dictatorships.

So this is the company that Nicolás Maduro keeps. " AbDaryaee (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@AbDaryaee: I just moved your comment to a new section. This is not the article to discuss this. There is an article dedicated to Foreign involvement during the Venezuelan presidential crisis and a section in 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. If you have any relevant sources add them in their respective talk pages. --MaoGo (talk) 13:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@MaoGo:I'll do it and I hope this long issue will come to a good conclusion.AbDaryaee (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Media analysis section

Putting this here if anyone wants to craft this section; none of these are hard news, they are all analyses or opinion pieces that state an editorial position about reporting the event:

• Washington Post, Editorial Board Don’t call it a coup. Venezuelans have a right to replace an oppressive, toxic regime. Therefore, whatever its ultimate outcome or, indeed, its strategic wisdom, Tuesday's uprising is not a "coup attempt," as the Maduro regime, echoed by too many people abroad, calls it. Rather, it is the latest in a series of legitimate and, for the most part, nonviolent efforts by Venezuelans, both civilian and military, to throw off an oppressive, toxic regime so that they can freely elect a legitimate government. Supporters of freedom and democracy should stand in solidarity with Mr. Guaidó and the many thousands of Venezuelans now bravely asserting their rights.
• Bloomberg:
• Bloomberg
• DW Venezuela: Coup or uprising? It depends on who you support
• FAIR [9].
• New York Times, What Makes a Coup Succeed? Confidence, Consensus and a Sense of Inevitability
• VOX Venezuela’s uprising shows the potential dangers of a civilian-military alliance
• The Nation, [10]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Result

Someone deleted the fact that the confrontation ended in Maduro's Victory, that Guaido failed to size the capital and instead it was added that Lopez was freed from house arrest (as if that was the result from the uprising/coup and not it's prelude). I am going to rewrite it but I hope it isn't altered again. If you think it's somehow biased inform me. Here is the old revision Red Greek Revolution (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Infoboxes are dumb enough with adding a "results" parameter to a conflict. Nonsensical to try to summarize convoluted events in simple parameters. But then, I would delete everything from Location down, and reduce the overwhelming five images in the infobox to three ... these bloated overcharged infoboxes are good for nothing, and often convey misinformation by trying to cram nuance into isolated parameters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say that it was never stated that the objective was to "seize the capital", making this unsourced content. Using these military terms will likely cause confusion. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The military insurrection had the clear aim of capturing the capital ie capturing the Presidential Palace, army bases, government buildings etc. And it was attempted too. I don't understand how this can be claimed to be unsourceed. Also the fact that the confrontation ended in Guaido's defeat is obvious. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you give a source that says that Guaido tried to seize the capital? I have never seen that, it is a very vague statement. Also Leopoldo being freed is a key moment of that day why remove it? --MaoGo (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

New title with "oust"

I propose 2019 plot to oust Nicolás Maduro or 2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro. Feedback on which is preferable would be appreciated, if people have opinions on that. Some WP:RS using "oust", "plot", "plot to oust", etc. (there are many more): [11] [12] [13][14] This is a neutral description of the events; unlike "uprising" it does not imply success or completion, and it's used in reliable sources (not that "coup" isn't neutral but let's not get into that). While "Venezuelan" is in the title of several related articles, I don't think it's necessary here; in fact, adding "Venezuelan" would make it sound as though Venezuela (the country itself) was behind the plot, which wouldn't make sense. Comments? — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

May be a little too vague. How is this different from most of the events in the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis ?--MaoGo (talk) 23:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that problem is shared by most or all titles proposed so far (including "uprising", "coup", "clashes", etc.). I think that has to do with the fact that the attempted [whatever it was] flopped; the events of 30 April really weren't that different than what's been happening throughout 2019. This could be remedied by adding "30 April" to the beginning of the title: 30 April 2019 attempt to oust Nicolás Maduro for example. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment Although I appreciate the spirit of compromise and the good-faith proposal to find a name other than "coup" or "uprising", I worry that this proposal could get into hairy territory as one could reasonably argue that "attempt to oust" is more or less the same as "coup" therefore per WP:CONCISE it would be better to just use the word coup, but then we'd be back at square one; for that reason I think the best solution would be a concise, reliably sourced term which accurately describes the event without trying to comment on the end-goal or the motivations (in order to prevent another discussion about whether to call it a coup or an uprising). I have my own proposal that I'll be presenting shortly (I'll make sure to ping you and others as soon as it's ready, I just have a few more sources to double-check) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 00:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't really think "attempt to oust" is any less concise than "coup d'état attempt"—correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "coup" alone was ever under discussion. I can see the appeal of clashes and would be willing to support it if it gains momentum but I think it's substantially less precise, I'll reply in more detail below. — cmonghost 👻 (talk) 02:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: Be careful, you erased my comment there [15]. --MaoGo (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't intend to Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 01:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I support both this suggestion and the one by BrendonTheWizard below ("2019 Venezuelan clashes"). Davey2116 (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Cmonghost; I responded below in BrendonTheWizard's proposal, hoping that combining responses will be easier to follow for determining consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

POV reordering of sections

This revision by Jamez42 reorders a couple sections for no apparent reason other than to put pro-Guaido voices ahead of pro-Maduro voices. The change to the first sentence under "Response" in particular makes the paragraph harder to understand (it begins simply with "Nations" with no other descriptors; previously it was "other nations", i.e., contrasting with Maduro allies). Is there any non-POV motivation for this change? If not, I think it should be reverted. Cmonghost (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I can see two justifications (although I might not have gone to the trouble). One, alphabetical. Two, who has most support. Is there a case to be made for why they should switch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's common practice for these things to be listed alphabetically, or by who has most support, then I think the list change is fine, though unnecessary (and I'm sceptical it's not motivated by POV given the other change). However I do think the initial paragraph reads badly now (as I mentioned) and should be reverted. Initially it drew a contrast between Maduro allies and "other nations", now it just says "Nations" with no context as to who those nations are. (eta I don't have semi-protected edit access so I can't reword it myself [n.b. apparently I actually do have edit access but I'll wait for further discussion]) Cmonghost (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I saw the addition of "some"---it still reads a little strangely though. The "not a coup" is strange because it comes before describing the allegations that it's a coup. Maybe that could be removed or rephrased as well (or again just reverted to how it was before, which was fine)? Cmonghost (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are correct; the sentences as now constructed are awkward, and that seems to be a result of the reversal. @Jamez42: ?? How about putting that sentence back to what it was, even if the section order is different ? (That is, the two sentences at the beginning of the response section-- reverse back to what they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I am going to go ahead and make the change given that there's been no response. Happy to discuss further if my revisions are objectionable for whatever reason. Cmonghost (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I was meaning to answer this, but I feel asleep yesterday. I was meaning to say that it should be alright. Thanks! --Jamez42 (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cmonghost:, the talk page had reached 300KB; is it OK with you if this section is archived now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

CAVIM president arrest

Something that bothers me is that during the uprising the arrest of CAVIM's president by forces loyal to Guaidó was reported, even by reliable sources, but I haven't seen a follow up on this or know what happened afterwards. His name is General Carlos Armas López, in case anyone learns more about the situation. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

As a follow up, I'll say some sources state that Leopoldo's release was not planned in the negotiations and it upset some participants, reason why they didn't partake. I can't find the exact source, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Así fracasó el golpe contra Maduro - over inability to agree on Interim President

• Así fracasó el golpe contra Maduro, El Economista, 13 de mayo de 2019
• Inside the secret plot to turn senior Venezuelan officials against Maduro, Washington Post, 13 May 2019

Fresh details were revealed by the Washington Post, which claimed to have spoken with a source who attended the meeting at Moreno's mansion. The plot was cooked up by four men including Chief Justice Maikel Moreno over cigars and bottles of Fiji water on his terrace:

• - Cesar Omaña, a 39-year-old Venezuelan "businessman" based in Miami, "a chemicals trader and medical doctor who was working to defuse the crisis by liaising with contacts in loyalist circles, the U$ government and the opposition", "el ‘doctorcito’ de las importaciones agrícolas"
• - Manuel Ricardo Cristopher Figuera, el ex-jefe del SEBIN
• - Maikel Moreno, ex-intelligence officer-turned-lawyer, presidente de la Corte Suprema
• - the "Source"

Omaña & Figuera promised Moreno, that senior government officials and the military would turn their backs on Maduro, but they needed him to help provide legitimacy to the coup. Plotters wanted Moreno to issue a decree calling Maduro's government illegal and reinstating power in the National Assembly, led by Guaidó.

The Supreme Court would withdraw legal recognition of the pro-Maduro Constituent Assembly and reinstate the opposition-led National Assembly that was deprived of its powers by the court in 2017 and that all other government branches have been refusing to recognise since 2016. Moreno had agreed to pull the plug on Maduro's rule by issuing a decree declaring his government illegal, giving the military a legitimate reason to join with Guaidó.

After the failed U$ backed coup Maduro lashed out at Figuera, calling him "a CIA mole", and accused him of helping plan the coup attempt. The president also stressed that he had full confidence in Padrino and Moreno.--93.211.222.32 (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The text is in the article; unclear what point you are trying to make. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

POV title

The title of the article (2019 Venezuela coup attempt) is POV and fails to account for the Constitution of Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I am not sure if it is a rebellion, revolt or coup d'état. Would really benefit us if we had some other eyes looking at this. The correct terminology, especially in regards to NPOV, is difficult to find.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Uprising would have been a starting place, but yes, it is hard to find the right term. But Coup isn't it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: It fits the textbook definition of a coup attempt (a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group). Almost every coup has some democratic pretense, they should still be called what they are.Zellfire999 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

References

The problems are in the definition of "existing government", half of the world says that is Maduro's, half says Guiado's. Neither is this "sudden"; it is part of a process that has been called for according to the Constitution of Venezuela for months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

For example: Look at the sources in the article now: while a few predictable English-language sources call it a "coup", many do not (calling it instead an "uprising"). A google search reveals that, predictably, Cuban, Russian and Venezuelan-state owned media (like Telesur) and chavistas like Eva Golinger are calling it a coup. But, looking at Spanish-language sources (where there is perhaps a better understanding of the political dynamic), El Pais (Spain), Tiempo (Colombia), and La Nacion (Argentina), along with many English-language sources, refer to it as an "uprising". This may be a WP:GLOBAL issue, where Wikipedia might want to respect some local sources and avoid gringification. Arab Spring is referred to as an uprising, not a coup; there is kind of a predisposition that exists about Latin American politics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

"Coup"? When Guairó is recognized by most nations and international organizations as the legitimate president of Venezuela.--SirEdimon (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Recognition of a coup leader by some external powers (US government and its allies (i.e. "most nations and international organizations" from US-centric/West-centric POV) in this case) has no relevance in determining whether the event is a coup. It only matters whether there is an active ongoing attempt to overthrow a government, regardless of the perceived legitimacy of that government and this is clearly the case here. Therefore, not calling it a coup would be extremely POV (although it would be a mainstream and a popular POV in The West, but still a POV). 109.60.38.128 (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — 109.60.38.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First, Guaidó is recognized by almost all the important and democratic countries in the world and for important international organizations like the European Parliament and the Organization of American States. The only two important countries that recognize Maduro are Russia and China (non-democratic countries known for support dictators around the world). Second, there is not "ongoing attempt to overthrow a government" because the Venezuelan internationality recognized government is formed by Guaidó and the National Assembly.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A government is a government if it governs the country, regardless of its international recognition. An attempt to overthrow it, even if supported by the entire rest of the world, is still a coup attempt. 109.60.38.128 (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — 109.60.38.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Arab Spring uses the word coup only twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sources like Bloomberg are avoiding calling this a coup: [16][17]. --MaoGo (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• CNN backtracked using "coup" in their coverage as well. Title was changed in the article.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Given that Guaido’s recognized as Acting President by 50+ countries, something like “(April) 2019 Venezuelan clashes” seems to be the most neutral title to me. However, the title should depend on what reliable sources are calling it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Most Spanish sources (and many English sources) are calling it an uprising. April 2019 Venezuela uprising works for me, as there may be others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

BobNesh, that was a very disruptive thing to do, particularly when you did not engage the discussion, and did not apparently even read it. Moving a move over a redirect leaves a mess, and there was consensus. I hope you don't always edit that way; discussion on talk is always nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BobNesh: There were nationwide protests, in every state. The defector soldiers didn't attempt to take over any government or power institutions, unlike previous coup attempts in Venezuela, were the presidential palace, the National Assembly or the state television channel. During the first classes the soldiers stayed in Altamira, and Guaidó made an enphasis to summon protests and to engage in non violent means. In Portuguese Wikipedia has called this an uprising, and the Spanish Wikipedia calls the article Operación Libertad. Calling the events a coup is for political means. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I support reverting BobNesh move. They cannot move article as they want. This is disruptive and pure vandalism. BobNesh is pushing their POV.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

We can't just revert it; we need an admin. That's why it is a very disruptive thing to do. Now we have to round up someone who will correct the move, and probably request semi-protection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I have read the discussion. Consensus on moving the page hasn't been reached. Sorry. BobNesh (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So you just moved it again, without discussing on talk. How collegial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

How was a move revert by BobNesh disruptive, while initial move, which was (also) without consensus, wasn't disruptive? Double standards much? 109.60.38.128 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — 109.60.38.128 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

(edit conflict) I cannot for the life of me understand how this is not a coup. A military plot took place and elements of the army rose up rationally in order to overthrow the established government, it's a classic coup d'etat. Even if you accept the illogical position that Guaido is the president(he is clearly not in power) then at least he is conducting an auto-coup. That news agencies stopped calling this coup a coup was clearly because of political pressure. As it stands now the title and the article in general are extremely biased. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Most sources aren't calling it a coup, whether US or international (Maduro allies like Russia and Cuba do call it a coup). And saying that there was "an overthrow of an established government" implies that Maduro's is the legitimate established government; the alternate and widely held view is that he has illegitimately usurped power, and Guaido is restoring constitutional order. Most sources seem to be going with that. Do you really think Trump can exert political pressure on the US media <smile>? They don't much care for him you know :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whether Maduro is the "legitimate" president bears no weight in whether this is a coup. He is the president for all practical purposes as far as the Venezuelan state machinery goes the attempt of military cliques to overthrow him is a coup. And yes the USA definitely cares about Venezuela otherwise they wouldn't try to form a coalition to invade it. News media did initially call it a coup but after political pressure they changed it to "uprising" so pretty much the same as it happened on here. Red Greek Revolution (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I understand that the operation is called "Operation Liberty". We may use that as an article name. Cambalachero (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I saw the name mentioned in a few sources. However, it seems to be Guaido's name for the event, and I am in favor of the current article title. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a military operation whose name is the name given by those who carried it out. Isn't that a standard? Operation Overlord was named so by the Allies, and nobody has a problem with that. Cambalachero (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I would contend that it’s best to hold off on assigning a particular name to this event. It will likely become clearer as events proceed; I seem to recall 2018 Armenian revolution going through different names before a final one was decided upon. For now, let’s stick to the most neutral and frankly nondescript wording, because it is eminently unclear what is actually going on. Cwilson97 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Any title is POV. "Coup" favours Madura; "uprising" (implying a popular movement) favours Guaido. "Operation Liberty" is even more pro-Guaido.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There were nationwide protests, and I would dare to say that most of the clashes happened during protests. I would agree that Operation Liberty could be problematic, although it could be a redirect. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem with Operation Liberty is that it reaches back in time to the blackouts like here Operation Freedom, but that can be added. By the way, how did we decide between "Freedom" and "Liberty"? --MaoGo (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a coup

The arguments utilized to say it's not a coup is very weak, coup is not defined properly by your legitimacy, but for the circumstances that it's happen. For example, in Brazil November 11 1955, the congress don't want pass the power to the elected president Juscelino Kubitschek with the excuses they are fulfilling a constitutional right, to ensure that elections should be accomplished, Henrique Teixeira Lott make a preventive coup to assures the democracy. The meaning of coup is the overthrow of an existing government by a group of bureaucrats, military or others political groups of a external faction without or little participation of a population. This uprising of part of military has these characteristics, they started with a Guaidó and Leopoldo López making a periscope video in carlota air base, starting from military and a politician and not from the people.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.54.122.55 (talk) 09:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Our own article says the term "typically...refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power." Words are meant to communicate ideas. A reasonable reader could interpret this as the uprising being illegal and unconstitutional, when a strong case could be made this is a response to Maduro's "illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power." We should not use WP's voice to take sides. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Calling this an "uprising" is taking sides. Maduro won that sham election, the POV warriors are out in force. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I think the main issue with naming the event as a coup is the nature of the events. While legitimacy of the movement has been argued, it has also been explained on how no attempt of a violent and sudden seizure of power was attempted. --Jamez42 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, also known as a coup. Who renamed this article? How did it not go through a vote? --LaserLegs (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

As explained by IP 109.60.38.128 and 177.54.122.55 this is a coup. Maduro has so far remained in control of most of all key areas of the state aparatus, so he still have control of the largest share of the state and has thus a government. Guaidó tried to oust Maduro from his position of power, so its a coup. Appartently somebody changed the name of the page to "uprising" wihtout any consensus. Dentren | ^Talk 16:38, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's unquestionably a coup. Maduro de facto controls the country, who the US and its allies recognize is not relevant (if Mao had been deposed in a coup in the 50s would it have not been a coup just because the West recognized the ROC?) It's a call by an authority figure with foreign backing for an armed rebellion against a sitting head of state. That's a coup, period. The title needs to be changed back. Zellfire999 (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• Financial Times calls it a coup attempt https://www.ft.com/content/757eafca-6b9f-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d Right, you may call the media that describe this as a coup as unreliable, Russophile, communist, chavist, Maduro loving or else, but I wonder if FT is in your blacklist too 92.56.37.129 (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that it seems like a coup attempt.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

- Well, I think the presidential crisis could much better be describe as an uprising, because if you check out the Wikipedia description, "In political terms, rebellion and revolt are often distinguished by their different aims. If rebellion generally seeks to evade and/or gain concessions from an oppressive power, a revolt seeks to overthrow and destroy that power, as well as its accompanying laws. The goal of rebellion is resistance while a revolt seeks a revolution.". While the event contained in this article reflects a coup d'état, meaning "the overthrow of an existing government; typically, this refers to an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction", meaning the political faction, namely Juan Guaido, tried to oust the the government of Nicholas Maduro. While I would argue this Coup is part of a bigger 'uprising' provoked by the presidential crisis, which itself is part of a longer period of polarisation. Mattfolk (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a coup, call it clashes

@Blaylockjam10: This suggestion is the best, calling it clashes is the most NPOV solution to this. All the arguments for calling it a coup (or uprising for that matter) don't even work for the so-called, academic-wannabe definitions of "coup" given and at any rate is just shitty, mediocre dog whistling. Syopsis (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

POV title duplicates

Uprising vs Coup

Calling it an Uprising is POV, we must go by dictionary definition and not by legitimacy claims or mainstream media.

Calling it a Coup isn't POV, it is only used by Maduro as that's what the 2019 Venezuelan coup is.

If people cannot accept this, this isn't an issue that requires a name change. I'm sorry. 2.28.247.221 (talk)

Duplicate section: This discussion is up there. (IP 2.28, it is good to read the talk page before you WP:EDITWAR-- also, please review WP:BRD, as you have reinstated your edit against consensus.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining how you've determined consensus in this case? From looking at the discussion you linked, it doesn't seem clear that any was reached. Cmonghost (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind summarizing in the relevant section why you believe there is not consensus, including a look at actual reliable sources? Please don't split an ongoing conversation: that will only confuse future readers. If you disagree, please provide a discussion of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Every reporter has biases and just because some reporters call this an uprising does not make it an uprising.

Just because some reporters call this an uprising does not make it an uprising. Those who insist on calling this an uprising are acting as if robots report the news and therefore they do not have any biases. Every reporter has biases and their biases are manifested in their wordings and their analysis of events. 207.233.45.12 (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Please continue the discussion up there. --MaoGo (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)