Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV tag[edit]

@SandyGeorgia: To recap, since I have lost track of the article's progress: what issues would remain to be solved in order to remove the POV tag? Kind regards, NoonIcarus (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few days to find time to review and revisit; the adversarial editing style has meant I had to step away for an extended period, and now I've lost track of where we stand. If you don't hear from me by Wednesday, 22, please ping me; I have multiple medical visits on the horizon in the next week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Wish you the best! Please take care. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@NoonIcarus: thanks, appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Forcibly: still no idea from whence comes this word, undue.
    Removed (but now worse, will detail separately) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Third para of lead (about Strategy Committee) gives undue weight to one aspect of an abandoned plan that was but one small part of the overall history of an evolving plan that was different things at different times to different players. The article overplays (relative to sources) this aspect, leading the reader to believe the US/CIA/Guiado were involved, while downplaying the role of exiled Venezuelans.
    Problem persists; the lead never mentions the key players in the operation, rather takes an entire paragraph on an agreement that was abandoned, and repetitively does so (repeating info from the first paragraph).
  3. Background: "hired a foreigner to install him"-- I remain mystified at why we are including one author's hyperbole.
    removed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Negotiations with Guaido segment is given UNDUE weight, same as 2 above; it was one (abandoned) part of a plan that changed over time and ended up unrelated to the Strategy Committee planning, and has its own full article. Statements like ... Sucre stated that such discourse, together with phrases used by some in the opposition proclaiming "that there is no electoral exit before a criminal government", could lead to "any possible means to force Maduro's departure". ... (one person's random opinion) belong in the sub-article. Most sources (scholarly, or after-the-fact, that is NOTNEWS) treat this phase as something that was floated, abandoned, and denied ... but we have it as one of the largest single sections of the article, in a section that is trying to lead the reader. The excess detail here has crept back from the sub-article, and needs to be trimmed again to just the facts of a plan that happened and was quickly abandoned, unrelated to what eventually happened. The word count can be trimmed in simple ways by taking out detail on payments, overquoting and the like, which are provided in sub-article.
    Persists, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alcalá and Goudreau resume preparations section gives undue attention to Denman (listing his badges and such); Denman and Berry were not key parts of Operation Gideon (they were more key prizes to Maduro). Most sources discussing the operation don't give this much weight to Denman and Berry, other than stating they were former Green Berets. Overall, the article spends more time talking about them then it does Alcala, who was a key planner, or Sequae, or Colina, for example. We also waste word count on ridiculous detail like what airports they flew from and to. We don't need quotes about Denman's "most meaningful thing he's ever done", for example. The article overplays the role of two Green berets at the expense of the 60 Venezuelans, some of whom died, and the planners. Perhaps some of the Green Beret info can be removed to the article of their employer, Silvercorp. By overplaying their role, the article is trying to lead the reader to believe the U.S. was involved, and is overly US-centric, downplaying the role of Venezuelans.
    Problem persists (eg whether Denman's parents or girlfriends knew what he was doing) ... Denman and Berry were a minor part of what Alacala, Dequae, Nieto Quintero and Colina were up to, and we give no such detail on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Landing attempt section: We still have "the Maduro administration announced" with Reverol and "their version". We're not making it clear that Reverol and Diosdado and Padrino Lopez gave different accounts. "Their version" is whose version, because the stories changed to fit the narrative of different parts of the administration. We repeat the same problem later with "Venezuelan spokespersons" reporting on the dead ... Reverol said some things, Cabello said others, Padrino Lopez others. We should be clear on who was claiming what.
    The neutrality tag can be removed from that section IMO; these bits are more useful for posterity (as the whole story may emerge someday), but less related to POV.
    Problem persists; by leaving out which admin official said what when, we are obscuring the FAES role, which is meaningful to the outcome (not to mention specifically deleting content about the FAES doing the intervention). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Reactions: Maduro administration -- why are we quoting Luis Parra ?

Overall, the article has been stable for a few weeks, we haven't seen introduction of new UNDUE/POV material, and the issues left above probably mean we can downgrade the POV tag to {{Unbalanced}}, with inline tags or section tags on those specific sections which are still POV/UNDUE/UNBALANCED. It's no longer blatant POV, rather a matter of UNDUE weight, that leads the reader to conclusions not supported by sources or facts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that the idea that the POV tag might be removed was overly optimistic, and now we have sources like Democracy Now in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: What is wrong with Democracy Now!? The source reliability list says additional considerations, yet this is information is attributed to notable Venezuelan historian Miguel Tinker Salas, who they interviewed about the event. WMrapids (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll respond to your list:
  1. Seems to be good now. Was going to remove it myself (yeah, I know I put it there) after reading MOS:EDITORIAL. Apologies.
  2. Third paragraph is fine as this is something that was widely discussed about the event. Information about US involvement is properly attributed.
  3. We could replace this with the multiple sources now saying that one goal was to install Guaidó.
  4. This section is required. As said above, this is a very vital part of the article that needs explanation.
  5. I'm indifferent to this. While multiple articles do in fact go into detail about the other former Green Berets, I can see how it doesn't necessarily have to be included.
  6. Mixed feelings about this. On one hand you want more details about who said what, yet on the other, you want less details on American individuals involved? It is readable as it is now without going too much into detail.
  7. Parra is fine as he was the disputed President of the National Assembly of Venezuela at the time, so still pretty notable. There was a commission that was created by him to investigate the incident. Not sure why this hasn't been excluded.
Some other NPOV concerns include that the wording about accusations by the opposition regarding the possible executions is undue in its wording and information about prior knowledge of Colombia and the United States keeps being removed. WMrapids (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I have tried addressing the concerns of the five first points and removed the POV tag on top, while the sixth point remains and I left the cleanup tag for that section. Per this version, could the tag stay removed? Best wishes, --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may have time to look tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also the seventh! Just noticed it after the edits, tried addressing that as well: [1]. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if the article stabilizes to where I can see how much POV remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and NoonIcarus: Is this version acceptable? I feel like it addresses most of our concerns, though I don't want us to remove the NPOV tag if we are still having disputes. Points 1, 3, 5 and 7 of Sandy's wishlist have been dealt with. WMrapids (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in once the article has been stable for, say, about five days, as I've found with these articles that I frequently update my opinion only to see the text change hours later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are the total edits since I entered the list above; not only has the POV not improved, it has gotten worse. More detail in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overly-detailed POV execution accusations[edit]

Well, I raised my concerns above about the execution accusations and made the edits, yet they were reverted. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ... reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." The information removed was minor aspects of the allegations, which is placed seemingly to sway the user with "evidence" to support the allegations. Per WP:UNDUE: "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail..." Well, the "depth of detail" includes numerous claims; that the bodies were hidden, the number of images in the report, detailed descriptions about dead bodies and how they were affected, the number of bullet holes in a boat, whether or not there was gasoline in the boat, the location of weapons, the location of the shooters, the lack of blood, etc.

All of these unnecessary details result with an impartial tone in the article and they must be removed. WMrapids (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that the article would leave out discussion of what happened on 3 May, while including so much on unrelated events months before, and minor characters in the operation (Berry and Denman). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The details explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial, and as such have due weight in the article. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The summarized information does this adequately. If we were to place intricately detailed information in an article to "explain why some have argued that the killings were extrajudicial", then we would be attempting to lead the reader to support the opposition's POV. WMrapids (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not "intricately detailed": there were no bullet holes in the boats, and all individuals were shot point-blank with evidence the bodies were moved. Not only was this information pushed down from the section where it belongs (the landing attempt), it has not been excised completely; this looks like an attempt to hide information citing the FAES ambush aspect, in which the men (except those with unshaven heads) were killed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional POV introduced to the lead[edit]

When citation overkill is found in a lead (considering leads don't require citations), it's often a tip-off to POV, as is found in this case. The lead now says:

The (excessive) citations (with their overquoted excerpts) are:

  1. Democracy Now: U.S. Mercenaries Captured in Venezuela After Failed Coup Attempt Compared to a “Bad Rambo Movie” (two days after the event, before full information was known): "It all appears to be an attempted coup. ... The reality is that this involved disgruntled Venezuelan military, former police, deserters, political opponents of the Maduro government, and was training in Colombia, and somehow thought that by landing two boats ... that they would somehow manage to get to Caracas and capture Maduro and install a new government.
    This source which does not enjoy consensus as to reliability and should not be used to source a controversial claim) starts displays its POV by highlighting "mercenaries" in the title (there were two hired Americans, and 60 Venezuelans, with the Venezuelans in charge while the Americans didn't know what was going on). Besides being biased, the source nonetheless does "not" state that the goal was to install Guaido, so doesn't even cite what it claims to cite.
  2. Miami Herald: "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó, whose name appears on a contract purportedly signed with the coup plotters."
    All parties and reliable sources agree that contract was abandoned; it was not the plan executed, and positioning this in the lead is POV and undue.. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó. The mention of the document Guaidó reportedly signed does not take away from the Miami Herald making their conclusion; Guaidó being placed in power was an objective. WMrapids (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Defronzo 2021: "Operation Gideon was supposed to capture and remove Maduro and his close associates from power so that Guaidó could take over Venezuela"
    "take over Venezuela" indicates the POV of this source (Guaido was then recognized by the free world as the interim leader, with a clear transition plan in place), but nonetheless, it is one source that does include that POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this is interpretation of a source's statement and does not suggest a bias whatsoever. Even if a bias were present, it does not suggest unreliability. WMrapids (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vox: "plan to send two teams into Maracaibo and Caracas, extract Maduro from his presidential mansion, and install Guaidó as president."
    Vox is the main source to make this claim (that's two).
  3. Europa Press (newly introduced to the lead only): "'Operation Gideon', an armed intervention of mercenaries and ex-military soldiers aimed at overthrowing President Nicolás Maduro and installing Juan Guaidó as president.
  4. A newly introduced obscure Mediterranean Press: "Operation Gideon ... intended to 'capture, arrest or remove Nicolás Maduro' from power in Venezuela and install Juan Guaidó"

So, months (and months) into developing this article and examining all sources, three new or obscure or non-reliable sources were found, augmented to one POV source, to make this claim in the lead ... in contrast to the scores of other sources we have in the article. This is classic citation overkill: cherry-picking a few sources (including those obscure and POV) that make the claim, and putting UNDUE and POV information in the lead by attaching six citations to it, ignoring the scores of sources used in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: What makes Defronzo, the Miami Herald, Europa Press or Prensa Ibérica "obscure or non-reliable sources"? WMrapids (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said; please re-read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WMrapids at no point did you gain consensus for re-adding this disputed material here on the talk discussion, and yet ... re-add it you did. We build articles via consensus, not via edit warring. We clearly discussed the problems with this content here on talk (eg, the Miami Herald was talking about an operation that was acknowledged as abandoned by all parties. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied saying "The Miami Herald explicitly says that Operation Gideon was to install Guaidó" since they write "The goal of Gideon was to replace Maduro by installing Guaidó". Since there is no other "Gideon", you are making assumptions about what The Miami Herald is trying to say instead of what they actually said. WMrapids (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POV returned[edit]

This edit reintroduced UNDUE content, without gaining talk consensus, about a sub-aspect of the eventual May 3 events which had already been summarized from Guaidó administration–Silvercorp agreement, and was not part of the actual event, and which attempts to paint Leopoldo Lopez as having a broader role in the May 3 events than sources support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior Knowledge -- in the LEDE[edit]

I put in an edit summary to this edit, but for some reason it was not published: The material is in the article under Operation_Gideon_(2020)#Prior_knowledge_of_operation, which I clarified. The source says:

An AP investigation published prior to the failed raid places Goudreau at the center of a plot hatched with a rebellious former Venezuelan Army Gen., Cliver Alcalá, to secretly train dozens of Venezuelan military deserters in secret camps in Colombia to carry out a swift operation against Maduro.

I wasn't able to find that article that they claimed to have published. I didn't look hard though. It may be in the Wikipedia article somewhere. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need the POV tag? If so, why?[edit]

@SandyGeorgia: You added the POV tag back in September 2023 with the edit summary: "having now spent a week immersed in this article and having now read almost all the sources, and watching more POV being added during that week, this article is undoubtedly POV, as detail on talk at Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)#We_need_to_focus..." That section has since been archived on October 16, 2023 to: Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)/Archive_6#We_need_to_focus.... Do you still have concerns? If so, what are they? If not, what needs to be improved?

I have not read over the article and do not know if it is POV or not. I have not read through the voluminous talk page discussion either. But I would be interested in improving the article, if there are specific problems that can be corrected. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; please read the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Gideon_(2020)&oldid=1225010527"