Talk:Caracas helicopter incident

Adapting civilian attack infobox to military infobox

This incident seems to be a sort of rebellion against the Venezuelan government by a group of soldiers. Is it an idea to change the infobox to a military infobox as this incident is quite similar to the 2016 Turkish coup d'état attempt?JBergsma1 (talk) 16:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@JBergsma1: I think a civilian infobox is more appropiate since the CICPC it's a police investigation agency, it's more or less the equivalent of the FBI in Venezuela. There weren't soldiers involved in the incident, no military or government point were taken and, although less important, there weren't casualties. I'll translate the article into Spanish and I'll try to provide more content, there has been a lot of speculation around yesterday. --Jamez42 (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Jamez42 I understand. I came up with the suggestion when the incident just occured. At first it gave me the impression that it was a coup attempt since they used a police helicopter to attack government buidings, but it seems to be indeed an incident of smaller scale than a coup.JBergsma1 (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Reactions section

I was disappointed in this edit as we really do not need or want one of these sections with little flags and the anodyne quotes of random government spokespersons. I have tagged the article accordingly. The first step will be to summarise the quotes, the next will be to put the sections into prose rather than bullet points. --John (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@John:I saw this type of section in other articles so that is why I made the edit. I thought you made the original edit removing the points since there were not many responses at the time.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I never doubted that it was well-intentioned and you're right, there are plenty of articles with this sort of material. Nevertheless, there's a consensus that this sort of thing is not helpful. Many countries make bland statements deploring acts like this and it isn't adding anything to the story to quote them or to bullet point them. If there is anything beyond bland regrets; if a country enacts sanctions, withdraws its ambassador, or declares war, that is definitely worth recording. But not these. Does that make sense? --John (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now trimmed these and put them into a more appropriate format.--John (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Attack or incident?

Saw that the title was recently changed to "attack". Would it be more appropriate to list it as an "incident" due to the circumstances surrounding it? I have seen that the 2017 Bishop International Airport incident is listed as an incident, while this event, which resulted in no injuries and some argue was staged, is listed as an attack.--ZiaLater (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZiaLater: That's just because it hasn't been changed yet. Calicodragon (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Calicodragon:Ok. I figured it would just be more suitable for this article. I also saw that there isn't a "List of attacks" but a List of terrorist incidents.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A staged attack is still a kind of attack. The old title narrowed it down to a real or fake, at least. "Incident' is 100% vague, and I personally guessed it was some sort of crash. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The usage of incident here was really surprising to me. Most sources are calling it an attack. --MarioGom (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2017

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: moved DrStrauss talk 18:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

2017 Caracas helicopter attack → Caracas helicopter incident – It is questionable whether this was really an attack or not. The 2017 also seems unnecessary, or at least should be moved to the end, since no one is likely to search for this topic by typing "2017 ..." (on that issue, please see Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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.