Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Primicia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cambalachero (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Operation Primicia[edit]

(
)

Created/expanded by Cambalachero (talk). Self nom at 02:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Hook properly formatted. QPQ done. Image has an acceptable copyright tag.
  • This article is COMPLETELY sourced to a single source. Can we have at least 4 sources for this article so an article that describes thing as a terrorist attack can have sources to make clear there is no POV in the selection of a single sources? Because I don't know that terrorists is neutral in the article or hook. --LauraHale (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Add more sources. --LauraHale (talk) 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion required. I am absolutely not comfortable with running a DYK with terrorist in the hook unless some one else approves it as the word is generally not neutral. That the article appears to be framed that way to support this also makes me uncomfortable. (I know very little of the politics involved so I don't see myself as pushing any agenda here.) --LauraHale (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Can you clarify what this means for the nominator in terms of hook passage? --LauraHale (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:Terrorist applies to individuals, this article is about an attack. An individual may be "labeled" if described as terrorist, but terrorism is a method, and an attack that is carried out with a terrorist method is a terrorist attack. Cambalachero (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the "terrorist attack" descriptor should be removed. Although one intention of Montoneros was to create an atmosphere of fear, the fact that violence was aimed solely at state agents, that Montoneros hoped to gain ammunition and conscripts, and that none of the 200 hostages were killed (a fact you omit) seems to indicate that this falls outside the typical area defined as "terrorism". The fact that Montoneros killed during battle are now defined as "victims of state terrorism" makes things even less clear. I think it would be better defined as a guerrilla attack or operation. I'm happy to promote if this issue is resolved. SFB 17:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • ALT1 ... that Operation Primicia, a guerrilla attack on an infantry regiment in Formosa, led to the 1976 Argentine coup d'état? Cambalachero (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Approve but I think the article should be changed accordingly. The sources used don't seem to support the "terrorist" tag very strongly; an extremist attack (as it is described in two of the stated sources) is not necessarily a terrorist one. SFB 19:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I still see "terrorist" in the article's intro, with a footnote saying the word was in the newspaper headlines. If the word is so problematic or inappropriate (as argued above) that it's been removed here, then it should be replaced in the article as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:TERRORIST is where it suggests this word should not be used. hence article and hook are both problematic. If article had numerous sources referring to people involved as terrorists, then probably not as bad. --LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Operation_Primicia&oldid=829242226"