Talk:Afghanistan: Ambulance suicide attack kills about 100 people in Kabul
Add topicLatest comment: 6 years ago by SVTCobra in topic The map is not working, nor is it showing Afghanistan
Updating title and casualty count
[edit]@The Nth User: Thank you (?) but what is your source for the update in numbers? Wikipedia is not acceptable as a source, I hope you know. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: Go to the reference list for the Wikipedia page. I included the link for the specific reference.The Nth User (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @The Nth User: Eh, if you are going to change a Wikinews article, it is incumbent on you to list the sources. You can't just demand I need to hunt them down from the long list of references on Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the 3 sources we currently have, do update on the situation. Some as recently as 30 minutes ago. All 3 agree on these numbers. Wikipedia has a single source from India claiming a higher number. That doesn't fly here, sorry Nth. --SVTCobra 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: I figured that the other sources just hadn't been updated recently. The source just below it also said that over 100 people had been killed, but after I looked at it, which I didn't do the first time, I saw that it said that 95 people died.The Nth User (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. Hey, if you want to write news, we can use more contributors. --SVTCobra 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra: I figured that the other sources just hadn't been updated recently. The source just below it also said that over 100 people had been killed, but after I looked at it, which I didn't do the first time, I saw that it said that 95 people died.The Nth User (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but the 3 sources we currently have, do update on the situation. Some as recently as 30 minutes ago. All 3 agree on these numbers. Wikipedia has a single source from India claiming a higher number. That doesn't fly here, sorry Nth. --SVTCobra 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- @The Nth User: Eh, if you are going to change a Wikinews article, it is incumbent on you to list the sources. You can't just demand I need to hunt them down from the long list of references on Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 22:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Casualty count
[edit]We avoid building death tolls into headlines for a breaking story, as it's an invitation to post-publish renaming which we dislike. --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- I know, Pi zero. This morning it was changing constantly, but it stabilized for many hours on 95. --SVTCobra 22:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Our sources are updating and they stay at same number. Wikipedia has one source with a higher number. --SVTCobra 23:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Review of revision 4379072 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4379072 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4379072 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
- No copyedits? --Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- There are no spelling or grammar issues that I can see. The information doesn't seem to be copied, is verified by the sources (I did wonder to question whther so many sources were needed but I don't think its a major issue), and flows fairly well from describing the incident to the response from the NGO, the UNAM rep, the UN Sec-Gen. There isn't any POV-ishness but straightforward reporting. Overall, I'm sure someone will find an error(s) soon, but I was satisfied it met the requirements. Green Giant (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Which Taliban claimed the responsibility?
•–• 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)- Well, we have to assume it was the Afghan Taliban (based on the location) but none of the sources specifies the branch. I would have to look it up but I seem to recall adding something to a Wikipedia article about an arrangement between the two branches that they don’t stray into each other’s area of operations. However, we shouldn’t speculate in the article. Green Giant (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I do not fully understand the meaning of Acagastya's question. Can more details about this be found back anywhere in the given sources, or are other sources still missing here for it? If so, it can just be added to the article here. Otherwise, no speculations about the responsible Taliban division must be made here, of course. Anyway, I think we can in any case assume that it was the Taliban, unless this news turns out to be a big hoax. De Wikischim (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Green Giant: Doesn't the article say, toward the bottom iirc, that it's the Taliban in Afghanistan? --Pi zero (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The lede says "The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack." -- the branch of Taliban must be mentioned here. And as a news org, one should avoid speculations/assumptions.
•–• 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)- @Pi zero, Acagastya: Yes and no. Although CNN names him, the branch can be assumed on the basis of the identity (however shadowy) of the spokesperson i.e. he is known to comment on Afghan Taliban events in eastern Afghanistan. If you read the WP article about him, note that there is uncertainty about his actual identity, and even whether it is one person. That’s why I think it’s better to be cautious about saying it is definitely the Afghan branch. However, it’s not exactly the same as we might assume with Sarah Huckabee Sanders (WH Press Sec), who would definitely be speaking for the US Gov. @De Wikischim: the question was referring to which one of the two main Taliban groups (Afghan and Pakistani) was behind the attack. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it is self-evident that the Taliban in question is the so-called Category:Afghan Taliban. w:Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan is by no means considered to be equal to that in Afghanistan. If fact it is not even a single group, more of a umbrella term of loose affiliations. Furthermore, if this is not immediately clear to the reader, clicking the link will clarify it to them. It is similar to why we don't specify that Paris is not w:Paris, Texas. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Pi zero, Acagastya: Yes and no. Although CNN names him, the branch can be assumed on the basis of the identity (however shadowy) of the spokesperson i.e. he is known to comment on Afghan Taliban events in eastern Afghanistan. If you read the WP article about him, note that there is uncertainty about his actual identity, and even whether it is one person. That’s why I think it’s better to be cautious about saying it is definitely the Afghan branch. However, it’s not exactly the same as we might assume with Sarah Huckabee Sanders (WH Press Sec), who would definitely be speaking for the US Gov. @De Wikischim: the question was referring to which one of the two main Taliban groups (Afghan and Pakistani) was behind the attack. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- The lede says "The Taliban has claimed responsibility for the attack." -- the branch of Taliban must be mentioned here. And as a news org, one should avoid speculations/assumptions.
- @Green Giant: Doesn't the article say, toward the bottom iirc, that it's the Taliban in Afghanistan? --Pi zero (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- To be honest, I do not fully understand the meaning of Acagastya's question. Can more details about this be found back anywhere in the given sources, or are other sources still missing here for it? If so, it can just be added to the article here. Otherwise, no speculations about the responsible Taliban division must be made here, of course. Anyway, I think we can in any case assume that it was the Taliban, unless this news turns out to be a big hoax. De Wikischim (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, we have to assume it was the Afghan Taliban (based on the location) but none of the sources specifies the branch. I would have to look it up but I seem to recall adding something to a Wikipedia article about an arrangement between the two branches that they don’t stray into each other’s area of operations. However, we shouldn’t speculate in the article. Green Giant (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
- Which Taliban claimed the responsibility?
- There are no spelling or grammar issues that I can see. The information doesn't seem to be copied, is verified by the sources (I did wonder to question whther so many sources were needed but I don't think its a major issue), and flows fairly well from describing the incident to the response from the NGO, the UNAM rep, the UN Sec-Gen. There isn't any POV-ishness but straightforward reporting. Overall, I'm sure someone will find an error(s) soon, but I was satisfied it met the requirements. Green Giant (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
We should, because, just like how SC means Supreme Court for a billion people, but some 300 million people know it as South Carolina — content has to be for global audience and these things needs to be explained properly. This is equivalent to WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE in some extent.
223.237.228.204 (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- From my experience in migrating articles out of our deprecated Category:Taliban, "Taliban" in articles about Afghanistan are pretty much always the Afghan Taliban, while "Taliban" in articles about Pakistan might be either the Afghan or Pakistani Taliban though they're most frequently the latter. As noted somewhere above (iirc), sometimes the distinction can be sorted out by a reference to some secondary person in the story, such as a spokesman, whose affiliation is known. --Pi zero (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- Utter nonsense, 223.237.228.204. SC is not universal for Supreme Court, notwithstanding the "billion people" in India. BTW, I don't think English is first language for all of them. Secondly, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan for quite some time. Their little 'sisters' (if we can call them that) in Pakistan operate in the margins.--SVTCobra 21:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The map is not working, nor is it showing Afghanistan
[edit]- The map is working fine. I tried two different browsers. Are you on mobile? --SVTCobra 13:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, browsing via laptop.
•–• 13:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)- Works fine for me in Firefox and Chrome. Maybe some other people can tell us what they see. --SVTCobra 13:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, browsing via laptop.