Telesur says, "Supported by Washington, a counterrevolutionary movement staged a coup d'état in 1983 and planned the assassination of [Maurice Bishop]." — Whereas ProleWiki essentially says that the Grenada coup was caused by Maurice Bishop violating democratic centralism by refusing to share power with Bernard Coard, which Bishop (and a large majority of the party) had already agreed to, and which was necessary for relieving the stress and overwork put on the New Jewel Movement cadres. And so basically, the Central Committee took action against a national leader acting out of line: in Bishop's own words, "We don't believe in Grenada in presidents for life, or elected people for life: we believe in service for life, and when you stop serving, you must be recalled and get out of the way for somebody else to serve."

This is to say, where Telesur speaks of "a faction of the New Jewel Movement", ProleWiki speaks of "forces loyal to the Central Committee". And where Telesur decries the coup as a US-backed counter-revolution, ProleWiki seems to view the coup relatively more favorably, only criticizing the coup for shattering the prestige of the New Jewel Movement in the eyes of the masses by taking away their dear Bishop. While both Telesur and Prolewiki are in agreement that the coup was a Bad thing for the revolution, because it created both the conditions and pretext for the US invasion of the island, the difference between these two sources seems to be essentially in who they blame: Telesur blames the USA for supporting the coup faction; while Prolewiki blames Bishop for refusing to share power, and only criticizes the CC forces for mismanaging the situation.

So what I want to know is... Which source has the right take here? Was the coup of '83 maybe something in the middle of what Telesur and ProleWiki describe, where the US maybe actively worked to exacerbate the inner conflicts of the party? And why exactly did Bishop back out of the shared power agreement? Was this a matter of "absolute power corrupting absolutely", or did Bishop perhaps have more valid reasons for his actions?

Ultimately, I guess what it all circles back to is: What are the lessons to be learned here?