Jump to content

Talk:2018 Caracas drone attack/Archive 1

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

Coords

[edit]

I've asked at es wikipedia. [1] Let's check for responses from time to time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be Av. Bolivar stage: 10°30'04.9"N 66°54'35.4"W and Residencias Don Eduardo: 10°29'53.2"N 66°54'41.0"W Kingsif (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the stage was on the other side of the Caracas twin towers, making it here: 10°30'10.4"N 66°54'59.2"W
And that makes it this other apartment block called Don Eduardo: 10°29'56.7"N 66°55'21.6"W Kingsif (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsm-Ua8w7ik) from Néstor Reverol places the stage here: 10°30'06.0"N 66°54'40.4"W
and Don Eduardo here: 10°29'52.9"N 66°54'40.9"W Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pertinent info

[edit]

https://sputniknews.com/latam/201808051066963292-maduro-venezuela-assassination-investigation-explosions/

"Meanwhile, Ex-Military Aide to the Venezuelan government, Anthony Daquin said in an interview with NTN24 broadcaster that an alleged explosion of a gas tank occurred, adding that the venue of the presidential event was previously declared a no-fly zone for any aerial vehicles or aircrafts. The drones spotted near the stage with Nicolas Maduro were operated by the Venezuelan authorities, Anthony Daquin stressed."

90.61.82.118 (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More at USA today https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/08/06/venezuela-drone-attack-nicolas-maduro-assassination-attempt-what-happened/913096002/ Kingsif (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

False flag allegations in lead

[edit]

Indeed, the incident has been met with skepticism that it may have been a false flag operation designed by the Maduro government to justify further repression of opposition in Venezuela.

ZiaLater: I think this text should not appear in the lead. At least not in its current form:

  • It uses weasel words that suggest that such skepticism is generalized among reliable sources.
  • It is an exercise of synthesis that does not reflect reliable sources accurately. The statement is referenced with 4 sources:
    • The New York Times uses the Spanish word "presunto" ("alleged"), which indeed shows skepticism, then talks about "some people" (without any kind of attribution, by the way) that thinks it was a staged to increase repression ([2]).
    • La República article is about the anonymous statement published by Associated Press supporting the gas tank theory, which is now debunked or extremely unlikely. It does not talk about a strategy to increase repression. ([3])
    • Sputnik also reported the claims published initially by Associated Press, but the article itself does not seem to treat the attack with any skepticism, and it does not talk about any strategy to increase repression. ([4])
    • The Guardian does express skepticism too, based on the Associated Press gas tank theory. The Guardian itself does not seem to support itself the theory of a strategy to increase repression thing, although it reports about claims by David Smilde from Washington Office on Latin America supporting such thing. ([5])
  • Also note that all these pieces were published before videos of both drones were published.
  • So out of 4 sources used to support the statement, only The New York Times seems to take an editorial stance in favor of the false-flag theory. The Guardian attributes such theory to David Smilde from Washington Office on Latin America, so if we include it, Wikipedia should attribute it to David Smilde too, not to The Guardian. --MarioGom (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the statement needs stronger citations. It may be easy to understand for people reading various sources, but needs multiple WP:RS strong support of skepticism. Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptics posited that the incident was a false flag operation designed by the Maduro government to justify further repression of opposition in Venezuela.

This version of the statement solves the discussed issues. Kingsif (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Videos

[edit]

Is it suitable to attach the publicly available videos of drone explosions to the article? Kingsif (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the answer is no. Even if videos are publicly available it doesn't mean they are suitable for Wikipedia. Only videos under free licenses are totally ok. Of course, you could upload a short video under fair use (WP:FAIRUSE), but I really wouldn't recommend it. Though, you can freely use the template {{External media}} for external videos (see Flynn effect as an example). --Russian Rocky (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
linked:
External videos
video icon Venezuela's President Maduro survives drone 'attack' (English), (1:37), Al Jazeera

Kingsif (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Describing SEBIN as political police

[edit]

@ZiaLater: the fact that some sources describe SEBIN as a political police force is irrelevant here. Using that characterization for a short clarification of what SEBIN is does not confirm to neutral point of view. For example, the the role of the FBI in political policing is very well-documented in reliable sources, particularly during the Red Scare. And still, if in an article where the FBI is not the central subject, you need to add a clarification on what it is, we will not write "US political police", we will write "domestic intelligence and security service" or "federal law enforcement agency". --MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Understood. Have placed info in the correct location.----ZiaLater (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of TeleSur material

[edit]

As we know, TeleSur is a biased resource, being controlled by the Maduro government. Some of their information is available from other sources, and so I think we should employ a version of WP:DAILYMAIL here. If there's another source, use that. If we can't find another source within a day or two, the information can be removed. The first casualty is this:

A video surfaced on 5 August that showed former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe speaking in a private meeting in Rionegro, Antioquia, encouraging that "the United States should help to promote [the idea that] the Venezuelan soldiers need to remove [Maduro's] government". After the video was leaked, Uribe tweeted his view to reinforce it.

As with this case, if the tweet/partial information from another source is found with a solid url, then a potential rephrasing of the information can be re-added. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are biased. Telesur is pro-Maduro American and other foreign news sites are anti-Maduro. Son of Caracas (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most reputable sources (BBC, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, NBC, etc.) are very neutral, actually. Views like yours above promote bias. Kingsif (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Those sources criticise Maduro all the time. Have you ever even read them?Son of Caracas (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is true. They criticise Maduro for actions worth of criticism, as they do all other politicians. What they are not are biased sources twisting any story they can find into making him look bad. TeleSur typically does the opposite, since it is controlled by Maduro it twists any story it can find to make him look good. Compare with Diario Panorama, another Venezuela media source, which is also neutral and sometimes criticises Maduro, sometimes celebrates him. I'm not sure you understand neutrality at all. Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who made you, a frothing-at-the-mouth Maduro hater the judger of these things? Son of Caracas (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More comments like this, and with your editing behaviour, and I will have no choice but to take you to WP:Abuse reporting Kingsif (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use that as an excuse to not address what I said.Son of Caracas (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
an unreasonable question doesn’t need a reasonable answer, not do I need to respond to abusive WP:SPAs, but I’ll still explain it to you. I am not a “frothing-at-the-mouth Maduro hater”, I think he’s not a good leader, but I’m not rabid with hate. Even if I were, though, that has no relation on my ability to judge if a news source is biased or neutral. I believe I have a level head, and so am able to judge this. Other people can, too, and the other comments here typically agree that TeleSur has the potential to be pro-Maduro in its tone and caution should be used. Have I addressed your ridiculous non-question? Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think Daily Mail is comparable. Daily Mail is generally rejected because of its sensationalism and unreliability. Telesur is a public TV network headquartered in Venezuela, yes. Just as Voice of America or BBC. Does it have a well-defined editorial line? Sure it does. A few of the sources used in this article have a well-known anti-Maduro editorial line, too. So I think it wouldn't be very wise to just ignore anything reported by Telesur. I found Telesur to be particularly reliable for some information (such as official info, politicians' declarations, etc). I ignore any pro-Maduro puffery wording, just as I ignore anti-Maduro rethoric on US media. In short: I'm against a blanket ban on Telesur news. Specific issues with specific stories published there could be raised, though. --MarioGom (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TeleSur can be used as a source for facts, yes, but since it is controlled by the Maduro government as far as I know then its editorial stance is, well, obvious. Yes, facts like "here is what a politician said, including video" etc, can be used because there's no opinion. Most of these are available at other sources, which is what I was meaning with saying WP:DAILYMAIL ("anything you can trust from them is usually available elsewhere") Kingsif (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"anything you can trust from them is usually available elsewhere" that is just not the case. Bring up specific issues with specific stories, and I'll gladly discuss them. --MarioGom (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will when I see them. As it stands, I think two references have been replaced, with the other sources providing more information in addition to what TeleSur had (from Bloomberg and Al Jazeera), so there hasn't been much to discuss. The part deleted above was deleted by Zia with the edit reason that the story hadn't been reported elsewhere, and I didn't find Uribe's tweet, so it was on the line. Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the WP:DAILYMAIL analysis to some extent. I believe that TeleSUR should be treated like other state-run media, such as PressTV and RT. In regards to TeleSUR, "[l]ike other state-run media in countries with low press freedom, it may be reliable for uncontroversial statements of fact" and all information can be attributed to the Venezuelan government.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the paragraph removed, it is certainly incomplete, but completely reliable, and actually reported by other sources too. Telesur states the following:[1]

In the video the former president and current Congress member says in English: "I have said this in public, I have said that the Venezuelan soldiers need to remove that government (of Nicolas Maduro), not to establish a military government, but to call for a rapid transition, with democratic and transparent elections.

"When I say that the United States should help promote that decision, it is in private, for us," Uribe tells the small group of U.S. business leaders at his home in the Rio Negro, Antioquia on Saturday, hours before the failed attack on Venezuela’s head of state.

It is accompanied by a video where you can see and listen exactly those words. So the fact that Uribe said this in a meeting is not questionable at all and it does not seem that other media outlets are questioning it. The video is not produced by Telesur, it is a recording of Colombian newscast Noticias Uno ([6]), which also reports the same context. It has been reported in El Ciudadano from Chile ([7]), Voces from Colombia ([8]), etc. Telesur reporting was reliable and notable, so there was no reason at all to remove that paragraph. At least not on the grounds that it was published by Telesur. --MarioGom (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Colombia's Uribe To US Business Leaders: Help Take Out Maduro". Telesur. August 5, 2018. Retrieved August 10, 2018.
Good job, do we want to add other sources? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess adding Noticias Uno would make sense ([9]) since it might provide additional verifiability. I think Telesur is still good since it is in English and includes English transcription of the video, which is the original language of the declarations, while others sources do not include it. --MarioGom (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is TeleSur also the one that said that Uribe had expressed these views consistently when in power? Is that important info? In either case, I think it shows that the report on TeleSur is only a list of verifiable fact. Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the relevance of Telesur's previous reporting on Uribe declarations? --MarioGom (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The report says that this isn't the first time that Uribe said it. If they didn't report that, the article could be trying to implicate him. So, not of massive importance to the article, but it is evidence that the article is only listing facts. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Uribe has consistently called for coup d'état in Venezuela. It's not a Telesur thing ([10]). --MarioGom (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42: I accidentally reverted your edit while solving a conflict. But anyway, I don't think COATRACK: the relation to the article is not made up by a Wikipedia contributor, Telesur reports it in the context of drone attacks and alleged Colombia involvement is discussed in this article. --MarioGom (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not agree with the addition of Uribe. It seems like Wikipedia:OR or Wikipedia:COATRACK at best. What does him making the usual statement have to do with the topic of this article?----ZiaLater (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is stupid as there is no policy or guideline in Wikipedia against "biased sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.178.208 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over quote

[edit]

Added 00:12, 10 August 2018 and reverted 19:57, 10 August 2018, and then edit warring.

This content should stay out until consensus reached per WP:BRD.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history shows 5 users interacting with the quote area. Only one of these is removing it, which they do whenever it appears to the point of it being their main edit. As their brief edit history shows a tendency to delete thing they don’t like, there is good reason to undo such edits. I feel that discussion is not needed, but if so then the quote should stay during the process. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also thank you for stepping up to mediate. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the quote be included? I just see a heavily editorialized quote by a some journalist. What's the relevance? And why should it be used to illustrate the whole section? --MarioGom (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is from a former Venezuelan politician, not a journalist, and it gives perspective as to why there is controversy around the incident (that people find it hard to communicate with the government) Kingsif (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, I do not see 5. I see maybe 2, and interaction is not the same thing as restoring it. Plus, the only edit that was restoring it after a revert was this, and that was restoring a bunch of other content too. So, there is MarioGom above and Son of Caracas who contest the inclusion. Who, apart from you, wants it in? No edit warring is good, but since you added it in the first place, Son of Caracas holds the higher ground here. Please be gentle. Your edits have run roughshod over this article a bit. Please be patient. Please assume good faith with others. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Frodesiak that quote in particular has at least 3 users interacting, but also refer back to previous quotes and quote blocks in this section added by two other users, which were also deleted by the user in question, and then readded by other users (and on). That’s multiple other users and multiple other deletions. So there’s no higher ground to be held. (And sorry about not always using edit reasons, what I assume roughshod refers to) Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’d also like to note that I did assume good faith and gently told the user I had concern over what I thought were unintentional and accidental questionable edits, but then they did not improve and became rude.Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kingsif. Previous quotes, understood. When did he become rude? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in some edit reasons and comments that I don’t have the energy to look for. I understand you probably won’t just take my word for it, but I guess you could see that it’s not unlikely for someone to be rude about edits they don’t like when they’re only focused on one page. That, though, is the more concerning thing, too. Kingsif (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to ask if this is opposition to the practice of quotes in general? Isn’t that a debate for somewhere else? Kingsif (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. This is about quotes in this specific case. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is an important question to ask in this case. My thinking, when the other quotes were first added, is that it was a good idea because it served as a sort of introduction as to why there is a lot of controversy. We could incorporate quotes in a paragraph, but the look of a quote line or quote block is also nice Kingsif (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with quotes themselves. This article uses proper inline quotes in many places. Choosing a blockquote by a non-involved actor to illustrate a whole section is not neutral because the choice is arbitrary. It is also not needed, since the section explains enough detail about the controversy to perfectly understand what is going on. --MarioGom (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Governor

[edit]

User:ZiaLater objects to this edit on the basis that it is not notable. Coincidentally (saracasm) ZiaLater has no problem with the inclusion of far less notable anti-Chavists. If we are going to include the opinion of random anti-Chavists who are less notable then the Chavist governor then we should include the Chavist governor. You can't have it both ways.Son of Caracas (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, I originally added that part, and think it should stay. Lacava is not the only governor to express this, but he is one of the most notable and his statement is interesting. It’s important to indicate there are obviously multiple views, that the Venezuelan population react differently. Kingsif (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: If we place some random rhetoric of a chavista governor, then we can open up the usage of a lot of angry opposition National Assembly deupties. Chatter from both sides is hardly notable. It's safer to only use the opinions of those directly related to domestic issues because Venezuelan politics is very very polarized and we would have a whole list of people saying this or that on both sides.----ZiaLater (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove: I see nothing wrong with including notable statements, whether they are pro or anti government. The problem here is that a tweet is a primary source and it cannot establish notability by itself. --MarioGom (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

El Chigüire Bipolar - context statement

[edit]

Conceding to prevent more edit warring, I added in the reactions section a paragraph about a satirical article published by El Chigüire Bipolar, and included "Václav Havel Prize for Creative Dissent-winning" to describe ECB. I think this is important to include because it establishes the relevance and context of the people who wrote it. User:Son of Caracas thinks that it should not be included, but hasn’t said why. Kingsif (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to explain to the reader why the opinion of a person or people is irrelevant. That just makes for awkward reading. Son of Caracas (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

did you mean ‘relevant’ instead? And, often you do. And even if you don’t, if you can then why not? Perhaps it could be rephrased. Kingsif (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Son of Caracas

[edit]

Just a notification that User:Son of Caracas was blocked indefinitely for being a WP:Sockpuppet.----ZiaLater (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also pages from translation

[edit]

I just translated the Attack on Fort Paramacay page, would it be appropriate to add it to the See also section? Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be appropriate. Thanks for the translation! --MarioGom (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 August 2018

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

The result of the move request was: Comments request alternative name for move location, discussion opened below.(non-admin closure)Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro → 2018 Caracas drone incidents – The current article title is not neutral and is POV, even if using the "alleged" phrasing. There are no clear facts or arguments stating this was an assassination attempt or an inside job to justify the removal of liberties. What is now clear is that drones were involved in two known incidents where they detonated in Caracas. --ZiaLater (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain NPOV use the equivalent name from the Spanish version of this article, "Atentado de Caracas de 2018"= Caracas Attack of 2018. 90.61.82.118 (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and NPOV suggestion 2018 Caracas drone explosions: it seems clear that drones exploded, if nothing else. Kingsif (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents is eufemistic. Reliable sources call this attack (whether in quotes or not). Even if this turned out to be a false flag operation, it would still be an attack. --MarioGom (talk) 07:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a BBC article, a Venezuelan military expert said that the drone on Avenida Bolivar was deliberately detonated by the military when they lost control of it. That’s much more an incident than an attack. This information isn’t necessarily completely accurate, but then little else is certain, and more signs point to an accident in the building and an incident of some sort near Maduro. I’d argue that “incident” isn’t euphemistic, especially being the technical term in police terminology for things not confirmed as deliberate or accidental. Also, you said in the discussion above that “attack” is euphemistic. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The recent days have been busy for me, so I haven't had the chance to read the discussion thoroughly. I think that the neutral point of view would be to avoid calling the incidents both an assassination attempt or a staged attack. Soldados de Franelas claimed responsability of the attack, but there are many details and crossed information: if the drone had C4 or not, if it was shot down by the government snipers or not, about the second explosion, and so on; and from previous experience, this is exactly what happens when something polemic happens in Venezuela and during the Junquito raid. For these reasons I disagree with the current title and lean towards moving the article to the proposed title. However, I suppose a better suggestion could come, specially if compared with the titles of other and similar articles. Peace. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 6 August 2018 #2

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

The result of the move request was: Bold edit by experienced user replacing previous title and lack of concensus. Bold edit resulted with a more desired title. --ZiaLater (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

Alleged attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro → 2018 Caracas drone explosions – Clear and NPOV suggestion, see above Kingsif (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of NPOV with 'drone attack' terminology is that it is primarily being used in between quotation marks meaning sources say. It does not make sense to be legitimizing a terminology with an article title if secondary sources are referring to it via quotes. 90.61.82.118 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. That title is not the best option; It is true that the NPOV is respected, but the title "2018 Caracas drone explosions" indicates the incident rather as an accident. The information of the event so far has not been very clear and reliable, in some cases, but I would like to rename the article, to another title more neutral or at least precise, because it has not been the only 'Alleged attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro 'reported. Greetings, --Carl 14:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
There is video footage of a drone hitting a building, yes. Kingsif (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only seen one video that looks staged where what appears to be a drone explodes in the air. Do you have link to this "drone hitting a building" video? 90.61.82.118 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
here. It was shot by Telemundo cameraman Cesar Saavedra and distributed on Twitter Adriana Núñez Rabascall (a journalist that is very critic of Maduro) ([11]). --MarioGom (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Last stable version and BRD

[edit]

Isn't the last stable version "Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro"? Per WP:BRD, shouldn't it be named that until there is consensus for a new name? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably so. I have asked for page protection against moves at WP:RFPP and mentioned that as the correct name per procedure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there have been multiple attempts to assassinate Nicolás Maduro per the sources I included above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that is a good point. Let an Admin bring a broom and decide. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we have been denied broomage. Let's see if it can be stable where it is. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And there was no consensus and now we are stuck with a title made without consensus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an assassination attempt?

[edit]

We should probably wait until a good source prompts the theory, but reports that the only drones were Maduro’s and that an accidental explosion occurred suggests that it wasn’t actually an assassination attempt, but an accident with bad timing. Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the pertinent info report, above Kingsif (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second this idea and request a rename, this has already been done in the Spanish Wikipedia and it wouldn't be the first time that Maduro denounces an alleged assassination attempt and responsabilizes Álvaro Uribe or his opposition. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed regarding rename (and link from Maduro's own page) since, at present there is precisely zero video footage of said drones, only smoke coming from within a building. Taking such evidence as has been provided thus far as a proven "Attempted assassination" is not NPOV but taking sides in a politically-charged event with opponents being rounded up. Harami2000 (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to Efecto Cocuyo the building used gas pipes, not tanks ([12]) which is what was maintained by those who said this was actually an accidental gas explosion. Note that there is no need for video footage to exist or be published. Reliable sources are required, but those are not required to be video footage. --MarioGom (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish article is named “2018 Caracas attack”, could this page be renamed similarly to focus more on the events? Kingsif (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That rename seems quite pointless: if it is an "attack", then it is clearly not an accident, following the the widely reported version that this was no accident. If it was an attack, and we leave aside the accident theory, who was the target? Is there any reliable source sustaining this was an attack with a target other than Nicolás Maduro? "2018 Caracas attack" sounds quite eufemistic, although including the year seems quite sensible thing to do. I think the current title (or the previous one) is good at the moment: this article is about the alleged attempt of assassination of Nicolás Maduro. As more information arises, we might find a more accurate title. --MarioGom (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not a perfect translation, the word atentado also suggests simply “incident” and “controversy” and “talked about”. Kingsif (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related: I added the following text and it was removed with the reason “undue”, supposedly saying that making a claim is undue though it just said that someone has said it. The user who removed it is called “Son of Caracas” and so probably has bias, so I’m going to put it back, but do you think it could be phrased better? Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A South American political commentator suggested that Maduro staged an assassination attempt and blamed Santos in order to create unrest as retaliation against Colombia offering support to Venezuelan emigrants, referring to Maduro as “paranoid”.[1] Kingsif (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Sources

  1. ^ "Colombia Venezuela Attack Maduro". Tremr. Retrieved August 5, 2018.
Speculation by one random commentator is not a reason to put it in. If these accusations become more widespread then by all means, add it. Son of Caracas (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The commentator appears to specialise in South American politics, and let’s not forget that there’s only one voice saying it was an assassination attempt, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One journalist for one paper is hardly reason to include that speculation. Look at the article itself and the sources, plenty are calling it an assassination attempt.Son of Caracas (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that point, though it seems like useful information contributing to discussion and complete coverage. I shall open a talk section about including such information, as it is written neutrally and is reliable, I think argument can be made for its inclusion. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif: I would suggest not making spurious accusations of bias merely based on country or city of residence. That could be considered a personal attack and could break the civility atmosphere here. --MarioGom (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MarioGom: Thank you for the concern, civility seems to have been maintained, I also thank the other user for that. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC and US Security Advisors now say that Maduro may have staged it, (BBC) Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see, BBC says no such thing. They just report opinion by a US National Security Adviser:

US National Security Adviser John Bolton denied any US involvement in the incident, adding that it could be "a pretext set up by the regime itself".

--MarioGom (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is hosting the view and distributing it. A reliable source is sharing the coverage of this view/opinion/information, undoubtedly worthy of Wikipedia noting that it has been said. Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It is distributing the view just as it is distributing the official version too. That does not imply endorsement. That being said, I think that claims by John Bolton should be added to the article. --MarioGom (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move right now the authorities are calling it an assassination attempt, and no independent analysis is able to say otherwise. You may not like the authorities, but, well, too bad. When WP:RS start calling it a gas explosion, go ahead and propose a move. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The gas explosion theory is no longer credible due to this video: https://twitter.com/JULIOCESARRIVAS/status/1026195875519979520 --Russian Rocky (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support current name Perhaps there is a bit of the fog of war going on here but there are conflicting reports about what has indeed occurred. Even the BBC's articles have in their titles a quote about what happened (i.e.: 'drone attack'). Why allow Wikipedia to lose its neutral point of view by ascribing a factual tone to something that has not been established as fact? 90.61.82.118 (talk) 21:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87: There is an ongoing discussion about a possible move, without any consensus on the name yet. "2018 Caracas bombing" was not even one of the proposed ones. You are welcome to participate. Also, if it is relevant to the article title and you argue that there were numerous assassination attempts against Nicolás Maduro, provide sources for it. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first one. Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: If another title comes up that is better then feel free to change it. As for the assassination attempts, here are your sources: [14], [15]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: No. After 4 moves in less than 24 hours while this discussion was open, I'm not going to just rename to what I want while ignoring everyone else. --MarioGom (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I am ok with the current title. Let's what others think. --MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Knowledgekid87: That was a bad move, if you ask me. You were involved in the discussion. It should not have been moved by you. Furthermore your rationale was dubious. Your edit summary was "I am being WP:BOLD here as Nicolás Maduro has had numerous assassination attempts against him. This title does not hint at a drone but does stay on the bomb fact." Well, then with that thinking it could have been called "2018 assassination attempt on Nicolás Maduro". And keeping the word "bomb" to satisfy the previous renamer should not have been a consideration. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposal

[edit]

Suggest another name of 2018 Caracas drone incident. Stating that it is an assassination attempt may be POV and stating that it was a government-led inside job is also POV. Calling it a "drone incident" is neutral and explains the article's content fairly well.----ZiaLater (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in the business of deciding what it was. We call it what media overwhelmingly call it. Then, in the article body, we add content that says what notable others think happened. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article name and getting it sorted out

[edit]

It seems mostly agreed upon that renaming to "attempted" was made without consensus.

It seems we have not found a suitable title.

It was moved by User:Knowledgekid87, who was involved in the debates, without consensus. [16]

To me, this 2018 Caracas bombing is unacceptable. This is being called a "drone attack" and an "assassination attempt" by media.

So, about using "attempted": When media overwhelmingly say it was an assassination attempt, then titling the article "attempted" contradicts that, and that seems POV, not NPOV. It even makes a commentary on Maduro, who calls it an assassination attempt. That does not sound NPOV to me. Furthermore, in the name of NPOV, dubiously applied here, were are breaching WP:NOR, no original research. We, at Wikipedia, are not in the business of weighing evidence, or lack thereof, to decide what happened. Rather, we look at what reliable sources say. And how many say "attempted" compared to not?

We do not need another RfC to decide on A or B.

We need a precise title that reflects what the media calls it. So, what do they call it? What should this article be called. Let's get some suggestions.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Until there is solid, reliable evidence, the title should probably avoid reference to Maduro and assassination, otherwise, going by the media, it could easily be called “Possible Maduro Assassination Hoax”. Kingsif (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro It is the original title, changed without consensus. As I wrote above, we are not in the business of deciding what it was. We call it what media overwhelmingly call it. Then, in the article body, we add content that says what notable others think happened. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2018 Caracas drone explosions or something similar, though I am not opposed to leaving it at the current name for the time being.
The media seems certain that drones were involved, and refer to it by some combination of “drone ‘attack’” and “explosion”. There is no certainty, especially as time passes, in any reliable media that there was an assassination attempt. The article body can expand on the statements by Maduro, by supporters and detractors, and the initial reporting of an assassination attempt without being non-neutral. What we do know: at least one drone exploded in the rough vicinity (2 blocks) of Maduro, in Caracas. Kingsif (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless the article's topic relates to a quote we don't name it based upon the quote of a source that does not have a neutral point of view relative to the topic of the article. This is a real issue when we start adopting terminologies in article naming that have origins from primary sources. Whenever a secondary source (for example the BBC) puts a line in quotes it is making usage of the direct primary quote itself = not a good source for an article title. The current title, "2018 Caracas bombing", abides by this logic and thereby maintains WP's neutral point of view. 90.61.82.118 (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif, okay, I agree "drone attack" could be in the title. if you want drone attack, then how about "Drone attack on Nicolás Maduro"? Media overwhelmingly says it was an attack on Maduro. Just search news with the keyword "Maduro" only and see.
You wrote "...no certainty...in any reliable media...", but these idiots write anything these days. We report what the idiots write.
You wrote "...what we do know: at least one drone...rough vicinity..." We are not detectives.
Non-neutral is straying from sources whether in title or content. If sources overwhelmingly say Ronald Reagan was generally awesome, we write that, and we do. Is it true? Of course not. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know if this was an assassination attempt or a hoax. Here are other assassination attempts per above: [17], [18]. If we were to go this route then we would have to add a year at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we agreed that the BBC is a well established reliable source? If so then look at the title of their article about this bombing event, "Venezuela 'drone attack': Six arrests made". Note the quotes in that title? That means the BBC, a reliable source, is ascribing the specific words "drone attack" to a primary source. Again, terminology from a non-neutral source does not make for a good title. 90.61.82.118 (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. 2018 GNB parade drone explosions, then? Kingsif (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah except the average reader who doesn't speak Spanish wouldn't know what "GNB" stands for, we need a recognizable title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That one could use some clarity. Helicopters are involved in a lot of things. I suppose it doesn't matter here and now, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I only wanted to note that in the Spanish Wikipedia there are articles of previous attacks in Caracas: the 1993 Caracas attack, the 2003 Caracas attack and a 2008 attack in the seat of Fedecámaras, which is the reason why I moved the article in Spanish to a similar title. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice title in Spanish now translates as “2018 Caracas explosions” Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved again thinking in a way that it was more proper. On second thought I wanted to revert, but another editor disagreed and argued that the current name is also used. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion "Caracas explosions" is too vague, we could be talking about a pipe explosion here or the like... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What?? Obviously, very obviously, "live with" means compromise. Obviously, very obviously, every choice everyone prefers is because of their personal favour, which is because they thought it through and think it is the best choice. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It implies that you disagree with all options but disagree with one slightly less, which is judgement based on favour and not on actual criteria. Of course, if you just meant compromise then ok. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Caracas drone attack. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Kingsif, you said above "...I’d support those..." when a group of titles including "Caracas drone attacks" was suggested. Now you oppose? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Attack still implies malicious intent when that is unknown, explosions is more neutral. Besides this, there isn’t a real difference between using either word. I would still support it, but I disagreed with your reasoning and would oppose a proposal based on such. (multiple comments because of edit conflicts) Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: also see above on the use of “attack” only as quoted - neutral sources dispute its neutrality. Use if no better option. Kingsif (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drones packed with C4 and exploding is "malicious intent". Explosions is general. Petrol stations explode. The Hindenburg exploded. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious sources, and one visually only exploded upon hitting a building. However, with multiple drones it is unlikely to be an accident, whether the attack was legitimate or staged. Of course, this is opinion and research - but then so again is questioning the Venezuelan government outside of media reporting. So, this is really a pointless comment that illustrates how confusing this is. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title should not contain the word "bombing". Media do not use it. Bombing also implies either dropping something from the air or a bomb going off on the ground. A drone flying to a target and exploding is different. That is more like a strike or attack. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree on implication (bombings happen wherever bombs explode), but agree few sources call this thing like that. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "drone attack" is being quoted in articles from non-neutral parties about his event. Remember we're to be writing this article such that it will be understood 10 years from now. We do not have to be in a rush to give this event a name (WP:Recentism). Relying upon non-neutral quotes as a source for the title of this article is not a good idea. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be referred to as an "attack" when even the lead of the article has this line?
"Maduro claimed he was targeted in an assassination attempt, though the cause and intention of the explosions is unknown."?
Deciding to name this article with "attack" is getting ahead of ourselves. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from other users is that since it has been claimed as an attack, no matter how dubious, the name should reflect malicious intent. Even though this is uncertain, with drones exploding being certain. For the record, I agree with you, but will ultimately support a name that’s not actively incorrect to get consensus so that there’s strong reason not to change it for a while. Kingsif (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the name does not need to match the name on Spanish Wikipedia, because a much smaller group of English speakers understand the crisis and politics of Venezuela. For Spanish speakers, at the present, anything with Caracas in the title strongly implies it has something to do with conflict about Maduro. In English, this doesn’t exist. Kingsif (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, many astute Venezuelans understand English. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly, but you know what I mean. (More Americans will read the English and more Venezuelans the Spanish.) Kingsif (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But there are more Spanish speakers in the United States than in any other country on Earth (except Mexico). Por lo que vale. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. On another note, discussion seems to have died. Since there was suitable consensus for "Caracas drone attack" and this is no different to the more neutral "Caracas drone explosions" except in neutrality, which is also close to the Spanish article, I will be bold and make this ("explosion") the name. Kingsif (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why "explosions"? This wasn't an accident. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Explosions" doesn't mean deliberate or accidental, it merely describes. Since there is no complete certainty - claims are all over - it is best to not suggest if there is or isn't blame either way. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Si. Though there's still the small issue of nobody calling it that (at least in English). Good to shoot for neutrality, but can't forgo verifiability. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or I suppose you can. The sky didn't fall when you moved the page. As long as the 2018's gone, that's good enough for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the number of people that speak a language at this or that region, our article haa been edited (at the moment when I write this) by 52 different editors. The one in Wikipedia in Spanish, by 40. Cambalachero (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the year 2018. The current title looks like there's a phenomenon of drones exploding in Caracas, and we're going to use this page to document each time a drone explodes in Caracas. The year establishes that this is a specific event. FallingGravity 06:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the year does need to be added to distinguish this event. 88.142.165.213 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreed Over the last three billion years, the planet has seen a lot of things, but a wave of exploding drones isn't one of them. Not here, not where I live and not where you live. No reasonable person should expect this to be about Caracas' long and rich history of flying suicidal Venezuelan hoverbots. Recurrent explosions launched from drones is a whole other deal, which is why List of drone strikes in Pakistan isn't called Pakistani drone strikes. Conversely, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki isn't called List of atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The presence or absence of "list" is normally a sufficient clue as to whether an article is a list or not. Anyone who can't grasp that also won't get how 2018 Caracas drone explosions isn't just one temporal list of many, like List of terrorist incidents in April 2015. And the handful who can't deduce the limited scope of this article after reading its lead sentence simply can't be helped at English Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to thank you for writing the phrase "Caracas' long and rich history of flying suicidal Venezuelan hoverbots" Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Drone explosions in Venezuela are not a frequent thing, but even if they were, few of them would be notable to be included in Wikipedia. This article is notable because Maduro was there and there were political consequences. If a drone simply exploded at some place in the city, far from any of this, it would hardly justify an article about it, even if of course the media talk about it (all news outlets get a slow news day at one point or another). Cambalachero (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a drone explodes in the forested half of the country, and nobody's around to hear, it arguably doesn't make a sound at all. I'd like to imagine there's a bit of a pop, click or buzz on the operator's end before everything goes quiet, but could she tell from sound alone it wasn't merely flattened by a falling tree? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see what benefit the average reader gets when we remove the year here. The argument I'm seeing here is that the reader should be able to infer from their knowledge of drone explosions in Caracas, the absence of "list" in the title, and then maybe the article's first sentence, to deduce that this is a singular event. Or we could just add 2018 to the title and avoid all these jumping through hoops. FallingGravity 06:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There really have not been thorough, independent investigations yet. From what commentators state in the same media pieces is that it was strange that the government was able to find the culprits within a few hours when 98% of crime in Venezuela is left unsolved. I understand that it is the president, but still... Also, we have to remember that the media has a goal to fluff up pieces to grab attention, so throwing in the word "assassination" and such would certainly be a tactic. Looking strictly at organizations that perform expert analysis, such as Bellingcat, they cannot make many conclusions, only that "it appears that an attack took place" and that "it is not possible to accurately attribute this apparent attack without further information".----ZiaLater (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that is now pretty clear there were commercial drones with explosives were flought to the scene and detonated. Reliable sources are increasingly calling this drone attack (yes, even without quotes in The New York Times, [19] [20] and Reuters [21]). There are doubts about who conducted the attack and who was the target. There is an official version saying it was an attempt to assassinate Maduro. There are other versions suggesting the whole thing was staged. False flag or not, this was a drone attack. So I propose to move it to Caracas drone attack. --MarioGom (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For sure there are doubts about who did it and who was the target, but reliable source converge to acknowledging a drone attack (using those exact words), staged or not. --MarioGom (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support A Google News search for just "drone venezuela" shows that most recently it is increasingly being called a "drone attack". FallingGravity 06:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: Please open a formal request before making a move without concensus.----ZiaLater (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2018

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

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) MarioGom (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caracas drone explosions → Caracas drone attack – Reliable sources are converging to the "drone attack" term, even without quotes, which were previously used to argue against this title when used by BBC. See:

For sure there are doubts about who did it and who was the target, but reliable sources support that this was an drone attack (staged or not). The initial alternative theory of an accidental gas tank explosion is now completely discarded. A few users already supported this title informally in previous discussion, and at least one was strongly opposed. My bold move yesterday was reverted, so I'm opening this formal request. MarioGom (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying users who have previously participated in this discussion. (ZiaLater—Kingsif—Jamez42—Knowledgekid87—Muboshgu— Anna Frodesiak—InedibleHulk—Cambalachero—FallingGravity) --MarioGom (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose I'm going to explain my thoughts, which may be a view not shared by many, if it helps putting my two cents. I think that the "attacks" were not staged; I don't know if the plan was to assassinate, to injure or just to scare Maduro, like many things in Venezuela it'll probably remain uncertain, but I also think that there was, even if by a small extent, complicity among the government, or at the very least that the incident is being taken advantage of, like many others believe.
Something similar happened during the Supreme Tribunal attack. At first there was a lot of speculation and theories that it was a false flag attack and that Óscar Pérez worked for the government, but it was later revealed that he was acting on his own behalf. However, the NGO Control Ciudadano declared that it was unexplainable that after large investments in the last twelve years in the Armed Forces, an alert mechanism to warn about the helicopter unauthorized flight didn't exist, and likewise that it was the Air Force's responsability to intercept such flight. If I may add another example, hoping that it isn't too far fetched, on 13 July 2017 Oscar Pérez appeared in the middle of Caracas during a nocturnal march, with journalists broadcasting his appearance. Why wasn't a security perimeter established or a search operation started, for instance?
Once again during this incident we see explainations that the act was (or should have been) a no-fly zone and doubt about why the drones reached the zone. Of course, it's also possible that I'm overestimating the government's capabilities and that these events were caused by plain imcompetence, or that I'm underestimating the plotters. I want to stress that I don't think that the incident was staged, opposition groups have already claimed responsability and journalists Patricia Poleo and Jaime Baily have voiced their agreement that the attack wasn't staged. Still, I'm explaining all of this to remind of the concern of how Maduro is exaggerating the details, claiming that both Colombia and the United States are involved and persecuting opposition politicians. I think that "explosions" leave less confusion about if the plans were successful or not, unlike "attacks", and outlets have used similar titles:
  • "Maduro speech interrupted by explosions in what Venezuelan government calls a ‘failed attack’", The Washington Post, August 4, [30]
  • "2 Blasts, a Stampede and a ‘Flying Thing’: Witnesses Tell of Attack on Maduro", The New York Times, August 5, [31]
  • "Venezuela's Maduro a no-show at support rally after drone blasts", Reuters, August 6, [32]
Still, if the consensus is to move the title, so be it. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This proposed title is not NPOV given that the facts about what the drones' purpose truly was has not been reported by any reliable sources. If the article is given a title that corresponds to an explanation from a non-neutral party then the article ascribes validity to that non-neutral explanation. Bad idea. 88.142.165.213 (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose Like James, for similar reasons including the conspiracy theory that Maduro knew. I think it was an attack, but like I said on Spanish Wikipedia, most of the solid supporting evidence is basically Reverol making announcements (there are plenty of things pointing to attack, but pure fact and statistics are few) and saying either way is opinion. No title is going to reflect that uncertainty. However, only weak oppose because attack is being used in the media, and whether new information comes to light or not it is being regarded as an attack. So, I have no specific issues with the move, except for the uncertainty which is going to be hard to put in a title. Kingsif (talk) 13:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is still nothing clear about this and it would not be NPOV. We have the government saying that they were targeted but then alleged government informants who were named by rebels almost a year ago are called suspects. Journalists and independent investigators were prevented from examining the scenes. It's been a mess. Let's be safe and not go with a more neutral title for now.----ZiaLater (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A commonly used name always beats a virtually unused name in the COMMONNAME game. Whether it was a red flag attack on Maduro by his enemies, or a false flag attack on his enemies by Maduro, it's an attack by common English definition, and one involving Caracas drones (meaning drones in Caracas, if not from Caracas). Whether or not motives will ever be clear only has bearing on whether to title this with "assassination attempt" or some other specific form of attack. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC just published this article where they put the words in quotes 'drone attack'. They are about as reliable a source as one can get and if they are using quotes relative to the word 'attack' it means that this terminology is not neutral. Again it is not a good idea to use non-neutral terms for titling an article. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To any who might be interested, I started the move proposal in the Spanish discussion too. If anyone wants to translate the articles of the previous attacks in Caracas, a "see also" section could be started. --Jamez42 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I really don't like the current title because it is far from descriptive, and does not seem to comply with WP:COMMONNAME that much. This said, I understand some of the arguments opposing the use of "attack" as the event itself seems far from being clear and straightforward, and the use of such a word seems to be used in a non-neutral and speculative way in some of the sources. Maybe Caracas drone incident could be used, in a similar fashion to Caracas helicopter incident? Impru20talk 15:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Incident' is definitely neutral. No one is going to argue that anything other than an 'incident' occurred in this instance. A retitling to 'Caracas drone incident' seems like a sensible choice. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is an incident occurs in every instance of anything. "Drone incident", in particular, is used in news this week to describe barely missing an airplane in Edmonton, crashing into an infant in Bettendorf and being shot down at Fort de Brégançon. A useful title should somewhat indicate what happened in Caracas. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA it would make more sense to refer to this as "Caracas drone incident". It is consistent with the already existing Caracas helicopter incident. WP:COMMONNAME does not actually encourage usage of titles that are non-neutral. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Caracas helicopter incident is substantially different. In that case, it is questioned that it was an attack. In this case, the attack is out of question. The controversy is around it being a false flag operation or not. --MarioGom (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this were true then of course a very reliable source like the BBC would stop referring to this incident with quotes 'drone attack' as they did today: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45161166 86.212.242.126 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters, The New York Times, The Economist or The Wall Street Journal did not use quotes. Why BBC continues to do so? I have no idea. After the Associated Press gas tank theory, I don't think they reported about any alternative theory. --MarioGom (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters: 'Real assassins!': Venezuela targets opposition after drone blasts, The Economist writes an opinion piece using the word "attack" and so does the The Wall Street Journal. The New York Times' latest coverage of the incident does use the word 'attack' but when we watch the video the word "alleged" is used. So two of those opinion based sources have used 'attack' while one uses the word "blasts" and the last (NYT) includes "alleged" relative to the word "attack". This does not make a strong case for using the non-neutral word "attack" therefore "incident" makes more sense. 86.212.242.126 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing the word "attack" being used in the newer news segments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any opinions @Cambalachero:?----ZiaLater (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support as drones were used in an offensive manner. Oranjelo100 (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nota Yesterday the Spanish Wikipedia moved the page to "attack" (well, "atentado", which is closer to attack, but not a perfect translation) Kingsif (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Yes, I think so. Although, as the requester of the move, I was refraining from closing the request myself. --MarioGom (talk) 19:10, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jamez42, ZiaLater: If you agree that the result of the request is move, I'll go ahead and do it myself. Otherwise, I'll just wait for a non-involved user or admin to decide. Thanks. --MarioGom (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom:@ZiaLater:As mentioned in my arguments, I support that the result of the request in move, not only because the consensus seems to lean towards it and seven days have passed, but also because of the reasons provided. I don't know if ZiaLater prefers another user to close, though. --Jamez42 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom:@Jamez42: The move is ok for me.----ZiaLater (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 15 March 2019

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

The result of the move request was: not moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Caracas drone attack → Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro – New evidence published by CNN [33] emijrp (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has reopened the discussion with new data[34]. I propose to move this page to "Attempted assassination of Nicolás Maduro" or similar, one of the first titles for this page[35]. emijrp (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As explained here, you have added nothing new with these string of duplicate, low-quality and even non-reliable in some cases sources. If anything, this list shows that this is still fringe. MSN is a duplicate of EFE; El Tiempo duplicates El Comercio, correodelorinoco is not a third-party independent source, La Sexta and Telam give no indication of reliability, RT ... well ... 'nuff said. Do you have any high quality source for this topic, and still waiting for you to indicate how this anonymous source making old claims adds anything new to the story. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as explained by SandyGeorgia. --Jamez42 (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: that a drone attack happened is not in question. But it has not been confirmed that this was an assassination attempt – the only people calling it with any supposed certainty that are President Maduro and his party, and an unnamed person who claims that it was an attempt on Maduro. Every other news outlet is speculating that it was an assassination attempt, but none of them are stating it with authority. Without any hard evidence from impartial sources, the current name for the article should stay. Richard3120 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article name

[edit]

Why is this article called "Caracas drone attack", when there is considerable controversy about whether it was an attack at all? How about "Caracas drone incident"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember it was quite a hassle to decide one in the section above. Now that the dust has settled we could reopen the discussion, but I'm personally afraid how long it could take to gain a consensus. --Jamez42 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of text sourced to The Guardian

[edit]

@Emijrp:, you are deleting text reliably sourced to The Guardian.[36] You seem to be mixing up the source with the group they are discussing. Could you please have a look at WP:REDLINK? Whether or not an article exists on Wikipedia has nothing to do with the reliability of The Guardian. Would you please revert your deletions of reliably sourced text? Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This text is sourced to The Guardian
  2. This text was sourced to Caracas Chronicles, which is a blog, not a reliable source. Rather than deleting the text, a citation needed tag or reliable source tag can be added so that editors can look for an alternate source before removing.
  3. This text is sourced to The Guardian and Efecto Cocuyo, both reliable.
It seems that Emijrp thinks the text does not belong simply because the organization discussed by the sources does not have a Wikipedia article-- two unrelated concepts. Also, a misunderstanding of WP:REDLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Emijrp: This is one step too far. Please discuss the next time you're taking away so much content altogether. --Jamez42 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Caracas_drone_attack/Archive_1&oldid=1004424986"