Talk:1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack

Requested move 9 October 2022

 * 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 discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to 1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack. There is an general agreement to move the article. However, there are multiple target titles proposed. There is a consensus to move to 1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack. If there are better title suited for the content, feel free to open another RM for further discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

1998 Guatemala student rapes → 1998 Guatemala student attack – Requested by 12zoor for reasons of the original name being too sensationalizing, being insensitive to privacy concerns, and too specific. Supported by Dash77, the original creator of the article, primarily on the ground of the current name being overly specific. Dash77 (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

A title change for this article is needed to meet title format and explicit convention guidelines. The new proposed title is "1998 Guatemala student attack." This Wikipedia article itself and the international incident to which it refers are about more than the sexual assaults that took place as part of a larger attack involving armed hijacking and robbery, therefore using the word 'rapes' in the title does not meet the precision criterion, and it is misleading and inaccurate. Additionally, this article is the only Wikipedia article written on on this topic, so "attack" can replace "rapes" in the title to best define the topical scope of the article without being overly precise; there is no need to disambiguate from the larger attack. Additionally, "rapes" plural dos not meet the title format requirement of using singular form.

Finally, there are non-format privacy reasons to correct the title. After the civil law suit was filed, the names of victims began to appear in newspaper articles and newspaper headlines notably steered away from using the word "rape." Three of those newspaper articles published 2001-2002 are referenced in this article (see reference numbers 10, 12, 13). As a privacy consideration in situations involving rape survivors, it would be appropriate to rename this Wikipedia article "1998 Guatemala student attack." 12zoor (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't hugely object to changing the article name; however I'm not sure I agree with your premise(s) for changing the name. Can you give me an example of one of these later references that you say shies away from using the word "rape"? Both the Gowen article from July 3, 2002 and the Gowen article from January 27, 2003, two of the last articles on the case, specifically use the word "rape". Both articles also name one of the rape victims. The later article also includes an interview with, and a photograph of, the same rape victim who specifically said she was trying to raise awareness. Again--I can see changing the article name but I'm not seeing evidence of anyone trying to avoid using the word "rape" in the past. Dash77 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to add: it is true that some of the later articles stopped short of using "rape" in the headlines, relegating it to the body of the article--which perhaps you wish to parallel by removing it from the article name. However virtually all articles about the case do use the word "rape" somewhere. Dash77 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There are grounds to change the article name in order to move away from the current the problem of the overly-precise title. The suggested name change is a simple call to follow Wikipedia's own naming conventions. Beyond the five sexual assault survivors, there were an additional 11 Americans (eight students and three faculty/staff) who were attacked and not raped. A focus on "rapes" in the title is misleading insofar as it brushes past the entirety of the incident and the experiences of the majority of trip participants.
 * The separate argument for renaming the title is related to the above problem of over-precision, but it goes beyond Wikipedia's naming conventions because in this particular case the overly specific term in question-- "rapes"-- also happens to be a uniquely sensitive topic area.
 * Use of "rapes" in the title not only misleads readers about the general nature of the incident, it has the undesired effect of sensationalizing the sexual assaults. Your add-on to your above reply shows that you have accurately appraised the situation with the newspaper headlines cited: 'rape' does not appear in those 2001-2002 headlines cited. This helps avoid the problem of sensationalizing, and in any situation where victims are identified it is also a way to allow for some space and distance from the stigmatization of sexual assault. Especially in today's post-Me Too culture, small shifts in the narrative that can take the focus off rape victims are entirely appropriate.
 * Renaming this article "1998 Guatemala student attack" is a way move away from all these problems. 12zoor (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)


 * As I see it, you've presented three arguments for the article change: avoiding being overly precise, avoiding sensationalizing, and privacy concerns. I strongly disagree with two of your three reasons, but strongly agree with the other one. As I also feel, however, that the point I do agree on is sufficient grounds, in and of itself, to make the change you are proposing, I have no objection to the actual proposed change. I just want it on the record why I disagree with the other two points. Sensationalizing usually implies exaggerating something for shock value. In some contexts, certainly, the use of the word "rape" would be sensationalizing--but it isn't sensationalizing to use the word "rape" when, in fact, people have been raped and all reliable news sources agree on that.
 * Privacy concerns are certainly exceptionally important in cases involving rape and other sexual assaults, but from a privacy perspective I think one would look to the headline and the content together, and not focus so specifically on the title. From a privacy perspective, the content has been carefully edited, both by yourself and myself, to reflect what is in reliable news sources for this topic. In short, I think privacy concerns are valid, but adequately addressed by the changes already made to the article's content.
 * The over precise article title, however, IS a very strong reason to change the article title, and remains a strong reason even if I disagree with the other two points. The change to the headlines appeared to happen when the lawsuit was filed, where only one of the three plaintiffs had been raped, but all three had been victims of the attack. This underscored the need for a change in headlines--which I agree with you we should reflect in the article title--but mainly because the earlier headlines were overly precise, not because they were especially sensationalizing.
 * So now that I've explained my position, please do go ahead and make the proposed change if no one else objects in a reasonable time period. Dash77 (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support primarily on the grounds of the current title being overly precise, but not so much for the other reasons cited. Additionally, per WP:CRITERIA, the precision of the article title--it should be sufficiently precise to define the article scope but not more so--is an important criterion for choosing the article title. The other criteria listed by 12zoor--privacy and avoiding sensationalizing--may be very important in some contexts but aren't listed specifically as criteria for choosing the article title at WP:CRITERIA. Dash77 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Guatemala has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: to generate a more thorough consensus — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 22:10, 16 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but do something: The proposed title sounds like it is describing an attack by one or more students or perhaps an attack on only one student. The current title sounds like it is describing rapes of Guatemalan students or rapes by students in Guatemala. Instead, the article is actually about an robbery-and-rape attack on a group of 13 American (U.S.) students while they were visiting Guatemala. Rename to, , , , or similar. I disagree with the desire to be euphemistic or vague about the subject. Titles should be direct and WP:PRECISE. If there is a concern about the privacy of the victims, then don't include the names of the victims, but don't avoid directly saying what happened. The incident probably would not be notable if it was a simple robbery with no rapes. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything more to say about the proposed change to the title as yet, but just to comment on changing the content to "protect privacy": it may be possible, as you suggest, to not mention victims' names. However the combination of your change to the content and the earlier changes of 12zoor have had an unfortunate combined effect: the fact that the rape victim sued for much more money, and was awarded somewhat more money, than the other two plaintiffs is an important fact about the lawsuit. This fact has now been lost due to the combination of your change and that of 12zoor. Once the question of the article's title has been resolved, I will look for a better way to handle the article content. In the interests of "protecting privacy" we are losing important information that is covered in multiple reliable sources. That concerns me, but I want to solve the title question first, and that will take at least another week since the proposed change has been relisted. Dash77 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the additional suggestions for new titles, we can certainly speculate that there would have been much less press coverage--to the point where the incident would not have been notable--had it been "just" a robbery. However what we actually have is press coverage almost all of which mention both the rapes and the robberies. So I think the title should be as all encompassing as possible. I would Support about as strongly as I would . Dash77 (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to 1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would probably Support this as being the best choice offered so far--or perhaps even January 1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack. The challenge, from my perspective, at this point is that we seem to now have multiple possible new names for the article that I see as all better than the current name, but no clear consensus is forming around any one of them. Dash77 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Move to either 1998 Guatemala student attack or 1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack. Including "rape" in the title is too precise, since the incident involved more than rape. I'm leaning towards "1998 Santa Lucía Cotzumalguapa attack" because "1998 Guatemala student attack" makes it sound like it was either an attack carried out by or against a Guatemalan student. Surachit (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of detailed itinerary
In a recent edit to this article, 2600:4040:29F5:1600:974:6A15:B45B:9D6E (talk) removed an assertion that the students arrived in Guatemala without a clear itinerary or knowledge of the location of their hotel. This assertion is, in fact, supported by the existing reference provided--the Boston Globe article of 27 January 2003 by Annie Gowen. As there is clearly a reliable source backing this claim, I intend to insert it back in after allowing a reasonable time period for comments. I am aware, of course, that there was a lawsuit involving this case and perhaps this is a point on which not all parties to the lawsuit agreed. If a different reference giving a different point of view can be provided, of course we can acknowledge the disagreement. But as it stands right now, there is clearly a reference from a reliable source backing the claim that was removed, so I do plan to re-insert it after allowing time for comments. Dash77 (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no comments in a week, I've reinstated this sentence, but have qualified it with the phrase "according to the Boston Globe". If you do ever want to add additional content from a different source that presents a different point of view, you can do so--but for now this source seems reliable absent conflicting information from another reliable source. Dash77 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)


 * More recently, 2600:4040:2a0a:9600:7180:238:ca66:dc8c (talk) added a quote, disputing the Globe account and asserted to come from Dr. Jorge Rogachevsky, one of the organizers of the trip. Although it seems plausible to me that Dr. Rogachevsky might disagree with the Globe account and might have made such a statement, per WP:BLP we do need a reference from a reliable source backing this up. Absent such a reference being posted in a reasonable time period, perhaps a week, I may end up deleting this quote. Dash77 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Absent a reference or any other follow-up after a week, I've gone ahead and removed the quote attributed to Dr. Jorge Rogachevsky per WP:BLP. It remains plausible that Dr. Rogachevsky might have said this, but we cannot allow direct quotes from people, especially living people, that aren't properly referenced. If a proper reference documenting that Dr. Rogachevsky said this can be found (I looked and didn't find anything) we can of course reinstate this change. Dash77 (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)