 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 16 December 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
How many reliable sources are using that word? Given the extreme nature of that term, and per WP:REDFLAG, I would think we would need multiple RS sources so describing this event in order for us to use that language in wiki-voice. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It was not an assassination, the deaths happened in clashes with the police, especially when vandals tried to take over the airport.
- I say that the title should be changed to "Violence in Ayacucho" as it happens with the Spanish version of this article Paolo Gutarra ( talk) 21:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple reliable sources included in the article have referred to the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 02:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you state which ones? According to almost all reliable news outlets this was a protest. Please stop changing the article to fit your political motivated motives.
2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (
talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1
- Please, can we change the name of the article? 2800:4B0:4035:A59D:1:0:E24A:2083 ( talk) 02:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you state which ones? According to almost all reliable news outlets this was a protest. Please stop changing the article to fit your political motivated motives.
2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (
talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the first citation, there are 12 sources from various countries describing the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes and there are plenty of other citations that doesn't even mention the word "massacre". Alejandro Basombrio ( talk) 19:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the first citation, there are 12 sources from various countries describing the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
looks like a bad google translation 74.37.206.38 ( talk) 07:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If there are further move concerns, please see WP:RMCM. This article only covers 15 December and multiple sources have described the event as a massacre. WMrapids ( talk) 05:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which does not mean that there are no sources that describe the event as "clashes". In addition to the fact that the term "Ayacucho clashes" yields more search results in both English and Spanish Armando AZ ( talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, could you please stop making changes according to your own beliefs? There is no serious source stating that this was a massacre and the Spanish version doesn't mention it neither. I see that you have a motivation to keep as a Massacre to mislead other readers. Please discuss before reverting changes. Habs2023 ( talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The deaths that occurred that day were not caused by a peaceful march, but occurred in a series of clashes between the police and protesters who were mainly trying to take over the airport in the areas. Calling it a massacre is very yellowish and that is why I propose to call the page "Violence in Ayacucho". Paolo Gutarra ( talk) 02:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was not peaceful demonstrators who were shot at by police(massacre). There are hours of video evidence (it was broadcasted live for everyone) the use of explosives, projectiles and melee weapons being used in an attempt to overtake an airport by the use of violence against the police. 66.130.127.117 ( talk) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a massacre. In the Spanish version is being avoided the use of that word. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you please stop changing the title of this article? There is no use of massacre in the Peruvian media nor well know international news outlets. This is being changed by politically motivated persons, please Stop. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 ( talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is fully biased and people are not willing to have an open discussion on the title. Habs2023 ( talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to discuss. The word "massacre" seems to be quite well sourced, given the multitude of reliable sources presented in citation 1. Folks who would like to change the title of the article must first persuade others that the current presentation of the event given in the lead is WP:UNDUE and to do that they would need to present a lot of other sources that present a different perspective. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The whole section of "Background" has a lot of information that have 0 relation with the "massacre". For example: "Following the independence of Peru from the Spanish Empire..." This event happened more than 200 years before the Ayacucho protests. Also information like "This model essentially continued until 1968 when General Juan Velasco Alvarado took power, leading a dictatorship" or "the rise of communist guerilla group Shining Path" are information that happened more than 40 years ago and have nothing to add to the page. The second paragraph proceeds to talk about the terrorism era in Peru and the COVID-19 pandemic, which are also unnecessary since all that info is already covered in tons of other articles. About the third paragraph, it straight-up copies information from the " 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" article and adds no information related to the "Ayacucho massacre". The only information that would fit is the "protests" section, since they explain the protests in general and are directly connected to the incident in Ayacucho.
I will give two articles which give a good example for redacting a "background" page:
- Massacres in Piaśnica: "Background" section sets the reader already in the Polish invasion by the Nazis, without explaining why the Nazis invaded Poland since that information can already be read in the hyperlink. It also sets which organization in specific perpetrated those attacks and reports events that happened days before the massacred started. It doesn't need to explain why the Nazis rose to power such as how this article has no purpose on explaining how the aristocracy rose to power after the fall of the Viceroyalty or talking about a dictatorship that happened more than 50 years ago (Velasco).
- Koniuchy massacre: "Background" explains in few words the geography and the regimes that exercised power in said region. Doesn't explain what caused WW2 and already set the soviet partisan activity in that location. Then proceeds to drop information fundamental to understand what made the soviets act like that, which is in "As per directives from Moscow, they were allowed to confiscate material goods from their opponents, and execute them. (...) these partisans did not enjoy widespread local support and could not depend on voluntary food contributions from local farmers."
The "background" subtitle in this article should either be radically shortened or directly removed, since all this useless information is already covered in other articles were it has more relevancy. Alejandro Basombrio ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @
Ponyo
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I knew nothing about the Ayacucho massacre prior to reading this page and found the "Background" section to be super helpful. It's also quite well written and apparently well sourced. So it's hard for me to grasp the argument for removing it that is being put forth here.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally considered to be a poor argument.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Care to explain how the Shining Path terrorism, the Velasco's regime or the Spanish Empire's haciendas are relevant to the "massacre"? They are helpful to understand Ayacucho's history, but not the specific incident that happened last year. It's "well-sourced" since it is directly extracted from previous articles that have nothing to do with the massacre (copy-paste). Also I'm suggesting to be shortened, not to be removed.
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say it's rather self-explanatory why such background would be helpful to a reader (like me) who knows little about Peruvian history. Especially since everything in the section appears to be directly relevant to setting the stage for the massacre. And it's actually fine for there to be some overlap between articles per WP:SUMMARY. I'd also say that the Background section in its current form is pretty well balanced in terms of both detail and length relative to the rest of the article. Anyway, that's my 2¢. I'll let others weigh in now. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Care to explain how the Shining Path terrorism, the Velasco's regime or the Spanish Empire's haciendas are relevant to the "massacre"? They are helpful to understand Ayacucho's history, but not the specific incident that happened last year. It's "well-sourced" since it is directly extracted from previous articles that have nothing to do with the massacre (copy-paste). Also I'm suggesting to be shortened, not to be removed.
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I knew nothing about the Ayacucho massacre prior to reading this page and found the "Background" section to be super helpful. It's also quite well written and apparently well sourced. So it's hard for me to grasp the argument for removing it that is being put forth here.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally considered to be a poor argument.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I encourage Alejandro Basombrio to discuss their preferred changes here rather than edit warring. In particular, this edit contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article, which would each need to be discussed. Some of these proposed changes may be DUE, and I am open to being convinced. But that discussion needs to take place before the content can be re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps in the meantime the article should be tagged for neutrality.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think that edit in specific is really biased. Most sources describe the event as “protests”. Yeah I don’t think “riots” is the proper name or if “pro-Castillo protestors” is conpletely correct, but the new infobox added is essential to see the number of soldiers and protestors involved, and the Numbers of people damaged in both sides are also essential.
2800:4B0:441E:5FA:B47D:352:FF45:17AE (
talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm open to being persuaded on what is DUE for inclusion in the infobox, but changing how we refer to the incident would require a move request. The lead sentence / short description should accord with the article title. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I've invited comment from the broader community on the NPOV noticeboard. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class Human rights articles
- Unknown-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- Start-Class Peru articles
- Unknown-importance Peru articles
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| An item related to this article has been nominated to appear on the
Main Page in the "
In the news" section. You can visit
the nomination to take part in the discussion. Editors are encouraged to update the article with information obtained from
reliable news sources to include recent events. Notice date: 16 December 2022. Please remove this template when the nomination process has concluded, replacing it with Template:ITN talk if appropriate. |
How many reliable sources are using that word? Given the extreme nature of that term, and per WP:REDFLAG, I would think we would need multiple RS sources so describing this event in order for us to use that language in wiki-voice. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- It was not an assassination, the deaths happened in clashes with the police, especially when vandals tried to take over the airport.
- I say that the title should be changed to "Violence in Ayacucho" as it happens with the Spanish version of this article Paolo Gutarra ( talk) 21:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple reliable sources included in the article have referred to the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 02:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you state which ones? According to almost all reliable news outlets this was a protest. Please stop changing the article to fit your political motivated motives.
2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (
talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1
- Please, can we change the name of the article? 2800:4B0:4035:A59D:1:0:E24A:2083 ( talk) 02:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
- Could you state which ones? According to almost all reliable news outlets this was a protest. Please stop changing the article to fit your political motivated motives.
2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 (
talk) 11:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the first citation, there are 12 sources from various countries describing the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes and there are plenty of other citations that doesn't even mention the word "massacre". Alejandro Basombrio ( talk) 19:08, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
- If you look at the first citation, there are 12 sources from various countries describing the event as a massacre.--
WMrapids (
talk) 15:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
looks like a bad google translation 74.37.206.38 ( talk) 07:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
If there are further move concerns, please see WP:RMCM. This article only covers 15 December and multiple sources have described the event as a massacre. WMrapids ( talk) 05:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Which does not mean that there are no sources that describe the event as "clashes". In addition to the fact that the term "Ayacucho clashes" yields more search results in both English and Spanish Armando AZ ( talk) 21:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, could you please stop making changes according to your own beliefs? There is no serious source stating that this was a massacre and the Spanish version doesn't mention it neither. I see that you have a motivation to keep as a Massacre to mislead other readers. Please discuss before reverting changes. Habs2023 ( talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
The deaths that occurred that day were not caused by a peaceful march, but occurred in a series of clashes between the police and protesters who were mainly trying to take over the airport in the areas. Calling it a massacre is very yellowish and that is why I propose to call the page "Violence in Ayacucho". Paolo Gutarra ( talk) 02:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- It was not peaceful demonstrators who were shot at by police(massacre). There are hours of video evidence (it was broadcasted live for everyone) the use of explosives, projectiles and melee weapons being used in an attempt to overtake an airport by the use of violence against the police. 66.130.127.117 ( talk) 15:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a massacre. In the Spanish version is being avoided the use of that word. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 ( talk) 23:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you please stop changing the title of this article? There is no use of massacre in the Peruvian media nor well know international news outlets. This is being changed by politically motivated persons, please Stop. 2A04:EE41:7:6028:9459:A0A3:1231:87A1 ( talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This article is fully biased and people are not willing to have an open discussion on the title. Habs2023 ( talk) 22:13, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be happy to discuss. The word "massacre" seems to be quite well sourced, given the multitude of reliable sources presented in citation 1. Folks who would like to change the title of the article must first persuade others that the current presentation of the event given in the lead is WP:UNDUE and to do that they would need to present a lot of other sources that present a different perspective. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The whole section of "Background" has a lot of information that have 0 relation with the "massacre". For example: "Following the independence of Peru from the Spanish Empire..." This event happened more than 200 years before the Ayacucho protests. Also information like "This model essentially continued until 1968 when General Juan Velasco Alvarado took power, leading a dictatorship" or "the rise of communist guerilla group Shining Path" are information that happened more than 40 years ago and have nothing to add to the page. The second paragraph proceeds to talk about the terrorism era in Peru and the COVID-19 pandemic, which are also unnecessary since all that info is already covered in tons of other articles. About the third paragraph, it straight-up copies information from the " 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt" article and adds no information related to the "Ayacucho massacre". The only information that would fit is the "protests" section, since they explain the protests in general and are directly connected to the incident in Ayacucho.
I will give two articles which give a good example for redacting a "background" page:
- Massacres in Piaśnica: "Background" section sets the reader already in the Polish invasion by the Nazis, without explaining why the Nazis invaded Poland since that information can already be read in the hyperlink. It also sets which organization in specific perpetrated those attacks and reports events that happened days before the massacred started. It doesn't need to explain why the Nazis rose to power such as how this article has no purpose on explaining how the aristocracy rose to power after the fall of the Viceroyalty or talking about a dictatorship that happened more than 50 years ago (Velasco).
- Koniuchy massacre: "Background" explains in few words the geography and the regimes that exercised power in said region. Doesn't explain what caused WW2 and already set the soviet partisan activity in that location. Then proceeds to drop information fundamental to understand what made the soviets act like that, which is in "As per directives from Moscow, they were allowed to confiscate material goods from their opponents, and execute them. (...) these partisans did not enjoy widespread local support and could not depend on voluntary food contributions from local farmers."
The "background" subtitle in this article should either be radically shortened or directly removed, since all this useless information is already covered in other articles were it has more relevancy. Alejandro Basombrio ( talk) 23:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- @
Ponyo
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I knew nothing about the Ayacucho massacre prior to reading this page and found the "Background" section to be super helpful. It's also quite well written and apparently well sourced. So it's hard for me to grasp the argument for removing it that is being put forth here.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally considered to be a poor argument.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- Care to explain how the Shining Path terrorism, the Velasco's regime or the Spanish Empire's haciendas are relevant to the "massacre"? They are helpful to understand Ayacucho's history, but not the specific incident that happened last year. It's "well-sourced" since it is directly extracted from previous articles that have nothing to do with the massacre (copy-paste). Also I'm suggesting to be shortened, not to be removed.
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say it's rather self-explanatory why such background would be helpful to a reader (like me) who knows little about Peruvian history. Especially since everything in the section appears to be directly relevant to setting the stage for the massacre. And it's actually fine for there to be some overlap between articles per WP:SUMMARY. I'd also say that the Background section in its current form is pretty well balanced in terms of both detail and length relative to the rest of the article. Anyway, that's my 2¢. I'll let others weigh in now. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Care to explain how the Shining Path terrorism, the Velasco's regime or the Spanish Empire's haciendas are relevant to the "massacre"? They are helpful to understand Ayacucho's history, but not the specific incident that happened last year. It's "well-sourced" since it is directly extracted from previous articles that have nothing to do with the massacre (copy-paste). Also I'm suggesting to be shortened, not to be removed.
Alejandro Basombrio (
talk) 23:55, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
- I knew nothing about the Ayacucho massacre prior to reading this page and found the "Background" section to be super helpful. It's also quite well written and apparently well sourced. So it's hard for me to grasp the argument for removing it that is being put forth here.
WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally considered to be a poor argument.
Generalrelative (
talk) 23:47, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
I encourage Alejandro Basombrio to discuss their preferred changes here rather than edit warring. In particular, this edit contains many elements which appear to be geared toward altering the POV of the article, which would each need to be discussed. Some of these proposed changes may be DUE, and I am open to being convinced. But that discussion needs to take place before the content can be re-added. Generalrelative ( talk) 04:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps in the meantime the article should be tagged for neutrality.-- C.J. Griffin ( talk) 04:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don’t think that edit in specific is really biased. Most sources describe the event as “protests”. Yeah I don’t think “riots” is the proper name or if “pro-Castillo protestors” is conpletely correct, but the new infobox added is essential to see the number of soldiers and protestors involved, and the Numbers of people damaged in both sides are also essential.
2800:4B0:441E:5FA:B47D:352:FF45:17AE (
talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm open to being persuaded on what is DUE for inclusion in the infobox, but changing how we refer to the incident would require a move request. The lead sentence / short description should accord with the article title. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
I've invited comment from the broader community on the NPOV noticeboard. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- Start-Class Human rights articles
- Unknown-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class South American military history articles
- South American military history task force articles
- Start-Class Peru articles
- Unknown-importance Peru articles