Talk:'Large-scale attack' against ex-Prime Minister Bhutto leaves more than 100 dead in Pakistan

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Maybe someone should fix so that "Bhutto" isn't the start of every sentence.


Link to the alleged AQ connection, and support the "kill" quotation marks, or they'll be nixed. Also, not sure it's worth noting that "police cordoned off the scene", was that really in doubt following a massive bombing? Sherurcij 22:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

try reading the sources that are already there, i would suggest the BBC one maybe or should that be "nixed"?? --MarkTalk to me 22:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little less smart-ass and a little more attention to detail would be helpful, the BBC site says "militant" and "pro-Taleban", it does not say al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, I found a website which did use the AQ moniker, so inserted it into the sources myself. Sherurcij 22:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I've pretty much had enough of this. Wikinews is not a place for political statements which the large, indiscreet, notice at the bottom of this article is. I've yet to hear a remotely reasonable argument why our current default license is inappropriate, or however you want to categorise it as "evil".

Wikinews is a source of CC-BY news articles, not your public soapbox. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's...really not relevant to this story. However, ignoring your chosen venue, it is "allowed but not encouraged" as I am told by WN administrators. So, leave it be for now, maybe it will die off, maybe it will catch on - either way, there is nothing "soap box-ish" about the wording of the template. Would it help matters if the box were put beneath the sources? Sherurcij 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of what I said is relevant to this story - other than the fact that you've put a huge big template on it that says "you can't edit and ask credit". That means a lot to many of the Wikinewsies. They don't care if their name appears in print, but if someone copies the site's material they want it correctly attributed.
At the moment I find the signature that I've seen about changing the license offensive, it ain't happening - people are getting reputations like, "David Shankbone, Wikinews Reporter". Dropping any requirement to credit or recognise changes that to "David Shankbone, ... who the fuck are you?". And gee.. we don't get the story/interview. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You can edit and ask credit, if you add a paragraph which you want CC-BY, remove the template and the whole article is now magically CC-BY. (If, however, that paragraph is rewritten in PD format, then the article would remain PD). A better solution for things like David Shankbone's reputation, would be to allow an {{authorcredit}} for his OR stories. That way the introduction of "This interview was obtained by David Shankbone..." could be minimised to a still-valid, yet less-intrusive, credit at the beginning of the story, like all professional media outlets use. Sherurcij 22:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against PD...and this is a good article for cannot claim PD on an article unless all editors agree to make their edits PD. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Sherurcij 22:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if its agreed, then take a vote on who wants it PD and who doesn't. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A vote is unnecessary, the template only appears if the entire visible story has been written by authors who agree for it to be PD - which at this time, it has been. (Although the change from double-quotes to single-quotes in the headline text may be a copyrightable change, and thus allow yourself to announce the article as being CC-BY again - other than that though, you'll notice there are no contributions that are not made as PD edits. Sherurcij 22:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still saying... "All material published on Wikinews is licensed the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License"... Wasn't Wikinews:Copyright a policy? Or was that flag added magically? - Jurock (reply here) 23:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the use of the PD template. The WikiMedia Foundation, like it or not, set forth the CC-BY standard for whatever reason. Without the WMF there would be no Wikinews and one should not be able to undermine the attribution that they seek by simply placing a tag on an article. If you wish your article to be PD then publish it in a PD domain elsewhere first, then copy it to Wikinews. --SVTCobra 23:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Get Jimbo to make a clear statement about not wanting PD articles, and I'll stop. Otherwise, your personal opinions don't carry a lot of wait. WMF did not set for the CC-BY standard, you'll notice Wikisource is public domain, and WIkipedia is GFDL. CC-BY is a specific torch carried by certain WN admins...which is fine, but cannot be forced to overrule PD. Sherurcij 23:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the adoption of CC-BY did not come from within Wikinews. In fact when it came down from above (WMF) it caused a lot of headaches about what to do with previously published material. Some feared that it was retroactive. It is not a "torch" and it is not my "personal opinion". --SVTCobra 23:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically 87% of the voters identified themselves primarily as Wikinewsies. So you're right, it's not 100%, but a slightly "glib" summary would say that it was decided by WN members, not by WMF ;) Sherurcij 23:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. (I must be remembering the change in image policy.) Anyway, it pre-dates both of us. I guess what I am (now) saying is that you should have known the conditions under which you were contributing. --SVTCobra 00:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whatsoever, it comes from WMF ruling... BTW, "CC-BY is a specific torch carried by certain WN admins..." reminds me of malvados vivlios (ebil vivliotecarios [evil bibliotecarios spelt wrongly] --> evil WP:ES sysops)... May I remind (1) I'm not admin here and yet I'm in favor of CC-BY (2) why only admins? (3) admins are not owners of WN... and nothing else... but (4) be careful with argumentum ad hominem... And BTW, Wikipedia is under the GFDL and almost all Wikisource under the PD. That's because it's what's more convenient... and voters believe CC-BY is more convenient (better, even) for WN - Jurock (reply here) 23:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm disputing any of that. Voters chose CC-BY, right - just like commons encourages GFDL, WP encourages GFDL and WS (only) allows PD...but writers are free to license their own work in their own way under their choosing, so long as it is "at least" freely-licensed. That said, I'll note your advice on AH. Sherurcij 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Your edits to the article have been this and this - please note that none of your words still exist in the article, having been rewritten as PD, and thus you cannot remove the license. Sherurcij 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above...if the contributers do not agree as a whole, you cannot claim PD on an article unless all editors of the article agree...and in this case they do not. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Except you will note that he has no contributions to the version of the article being claimed as PD. What exactly is CC-BY, the deleted edits? Sherurcij 23:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on! Wikinews:Don't disrupt Wikinews to illustrate a point! - Jurock (reply here) 23:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing's being disrupted, for the most part his additions have been poorly-worded and overly wordy - thus cleaned up and the information re-inserted. I don't think there's any disruption. Sherurcij 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
using common sense... I don't quite agree - Jurock (reply here) 00:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More or less dispruptive than users stating they'll purposely edit articles just to remove the PD tag, who are now on this talk page? Cooler heads should prevail, yes - but let's not pretend that either Markie or Brian "just happens" to be wanting to edit this page, both of them are vehement opponents to WN "not getting credit" for any stories. Sherurcij 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sherurcij, by doing this is it not creating two tiers of articles on Wikinews, PD and CC-BY? Some users may not want their contributions place in PD. They may be discouraged from adding to an article if the result is that their effort will be edited into PD. Especially if it is edited, not because of the quality, but simply to change it so that it is just different enough. Jcart1534 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter point makes sense, indeed I could theoretically go rewrite every article on the main page to "be PD", but I think the process requires maturity on both sides. I don't edit articles others have started to be PD, and they in turn shouldn't go mark up PD articles just to try and remove their PD status. Sherurcij 00:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You accused others of carrying a torch, but you are the one that is unrelenting. Each time you edit, do you not see the Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to "Wikinews". disclousure? Rights can only be downgraded. You cannot make what is less "free" more "free". Further, I don't even understand your motivation. What are you trying to accomplish?--SVTCobra 00:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're confused, as the author of material, you can only make things less restrictive, you cannot make them more-restrictive. Sherurcij 00:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when you are the sole author. However, when using the material of others, you cannot relinquish their rights, you can only impose your own restrictions on the new "product". For example, you cannot take a copyrighted song, change the lyrics, and then say it is now PD. However, you can take a PD song, then write your own lyrics and claim rights to the lyrics. The product cannot be freer than the source. --SVTCobra 01:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. However, there is no copyrighted source for any of these words - ideas and facts cannot be licensed in any format... Sherurcij 01:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you seem to feel that you can rewrite stuff by other Wikinewsies, that they wrote as CC-BY-2.5, and make it PD again. Yes, these are "facts" that cannot be copyrighted (though "ideas" can), but what is your motivation? I think you hinted at CC-BY-2.5 stopping other news organizations from using the material, but, really, is that it? Often news-orgs would love to attribute someone else, that way they are clear of slander. --SVTCobra 01:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they want to credit us, they are welcome to do so. The template even encourages your point is moot. Sherurcij 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, this is the third time you have refused to answer a direct question. Why do you insist on PD? --SVTCobra 02:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because I personally believe that a story shouldn't not be told, simply because a media outlet doesn't have the time/desire to rewrite the exact same story in new words with a thesaurus, and doesn't want to appear unprofessional and credit the fact they're taking the story from elsewhere. The point of the media is to spread news, not to hog glory upon oneself. Sherurcij 05:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think this article should be the lead at the moment, but I am too technologically challenged to work with the new large template. Could someone have a crack at it? Jcart1534 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, using just the image of Bhutto at the dinner, you're thinking? A map of Pakistan? We can't use fair-use images of the actual explosion in the lead templates, as I understand it. Sherurcij 00:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the one of Bhutto might work. Jcart1534 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to work, just a question though "in Pakistan" or "in Kashmir"? Kashmir is a major city in Pakistan which everybody 'should' know - and we'd say "in Seattle", not "in America" if it were a US-based article. I'm not gung-ho either way, just curious which you think would work better? Sherurcij 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Karachi? And yes, you are probably right. It could say something like "Karachi, Pakistan" I suppose, to be more specific. I'll adjust the lead template. Cheers, Jcart1534 01:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I am a moron who seeks for "What's that K-city?" in his brain while typing :) Sherurcij 01:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

death toll?[edit]

was it 100 (in title) or 20 (in article)? could this be clarified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 00:47, 19 October 2007

I think it is okay. The 20 refers to police officers. The 100 refers to the total deaths, as mentioned in first sentence. Jcart1534 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rv to remove info added with a source dated after the published date of this article[edit]

Is this actually WN policy? I've reverted it at this point, but if there is an actual policy, I can respect that. It seems ludicrous to me that something that happens Thursday night isn't allowed to include sources from Friday...aren't we presumably trying to give as complete a report on the bombing as we can? It's still our top story on the main page, for [editForCensor]'s sake. Sherurcij 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is less than 24 hrs old. No reason not to allow some updates. Jcart1534 19:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article is about 24 hours off, but I took breaking off it about 12 hours ago. It really - not as a hard and fast rule - is bad practice to have sources dated after our date of publication. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you Brian, but this one was started at 22:09 last night, not two hours before the date change. Jcart1534 19:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the article and didn't actually see anything used from the source of the 19th. That's why I took it off, yes the future issue influenced me.
There is a issue of a lot of people being keen to get stuff up as published, a "push" or "drive" so to speak. I know, you can be sat there thinking "I need to go to bed in half an hour, is someone gonna help expand this a bit?". Perhaps in this case started so late in the day the story should have been published on the 19th at midnight - then we can be sneaky about updates from fresh sources and it isn't so odd looking. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the only "new" update from the 19th is that two men had been detained at the scene. Sherurcij 20:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


{{editprotected}} Category:Sindh, Category:Karachi. Ali Rana (talk) 09:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DoneJuliancolton | Talk 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]