Talk:San Miguel del Ene attack

Location
Previously the coordinates pointed to San Miguel, but the attack happened in San Miguel del Ene, which is about 91 km to the north. Abductive (reasoning) 06:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Number killed
the article cites 16, but in the 'Investigation' section states 'ten men, six women and two minors', 10+6+2=18 Potholehotline (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article cites multiple sources that support 18 not 16 people were killed (see https://www.tvperu.gob.pe/noticias/nacionales/vraem-pnp-confirma-que-18-personas-fueron-asesinadas-en-el-centro-poblado-san-miguel-del-ene). I updated the lead to reflect the accurate number. Jurisdicta (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

MPCP claiming credit
My edit was reversed removing the line that says the MPCP has said they are responsible for the attack. My reason for this dispute is that this article already states that the group's name was on the leaflets. This is not in dispute. However, later stating that the MPCP said it was responsible implies that there has been some sort of statement issued by the group in addition to the leaflets left at the scene. As far as I have been able to find out, there has been no such statement. RelevantAnecdote (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. The BBC source says "The far-left Shining Path guerrilla group says it was behind the attack.". BBC News is very reliable source. It's also a secondary source, which we prefer to primary sources. In other words, we trust what reports summarize over direct quotes. So the fact that the BBC says that the MPCP is behind the attacks, is a very high quality source to say that in the article. Please revert your change until a consensus has been reached here on the talk page. Laplorfill (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm not trying to say that the BBC is not reliable. I think the sentence is poorly worded, leading to it being misinterpreted. I'd point out the quote's lack of detail coupled with it being located directly before the article talks about the name being on the leaflets. This doesn't lead me to believe that it refers to anything other than the leaflets themselves. Also, no other news outlets have reported on any additional statements made by the MPCP. I don't think this line should be included until some corroborating source can be found or the BBC provides some clarity. RelevantAnecdote (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * "This doesn't lead me to believe that it refers to anything other..." is the problem. We go by what the source says, not your interpretation of it, or mine (see WP:OR. The BBC article is clear. If there is a superseding source, that can be discussed, but until then, removing a well-sourced part of the article isn't a good idea. Laplorfill (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2021 (UTC)