Talk:Ahmadinejad to free British navy personnel

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

"pardons" is inappropriate in this context as it implies the Brits were in the wrong. This should be moved to "Ahmadinejad to free British navy personnel" like every major newscaster. 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think using "free" in the title and mentioning that he has announced a pardon covers the facts well and is neutrally worded. –Doldrums(talk) 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon is incorrect as stated above it implies that they had committed a crime. DragonFire1024 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon is what he has announced. we are not in the business of quoting selectively from people's words, keeping what we like and discarding what we don't. if u think the "pardon" is disputed, find notable sources who have said so and quote them. –Doldrums(talk) 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Britain has siad that they did nothing wrong...thats the dispute...if they did nothing wrong then there is nothing to be pardoned from. DragonFire1024 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so quote Britain. we don't decide who's right between the two and present only their view. –Doldrums(talk) 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Pardon" does NOT imply guilt. In the US, presidential pardon's have been given to people who were never charged with a crime. It is usually because it was expected that they would be charged soon. Iran has in fact made statements to the effect that they were going to charge the Brits with espionage. So, Ahmadinejad has pardoned them, so they won't have to face charges. Can we please end this? --SVTCobra 10:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thanks SVTCobra, for pointing that out. see for eg., "He [Nixon] was immediately succeeded by Gerald Ford, who on September 8, 1974, issued a pardon for Nixon, immunizing him from prosecution for any crimes he may have committed as President." - Watergate scandal. –Doldrums(talk) 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think its time to take the weasly use of qoutationsmark up in watercooler. Either stop it or use it consistent. Weasly use is bad for wikinews. As is overuse imo international 06:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quote is a quote...if its quoted its quoted. DragonFire1024 06:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alos there was never legal proceedings or a trial. he is saying Pardon but thats just words...not a fact. DragonFire1024 06:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you say that quotationsmark should be used consistently on all 'words' said by someone that is not a fact? I dont agrea. Or do you speculate that actually Ahmadinejad dont pardon them but free them of other resons, dragonfire? international 06:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the sentence already makes it clear pardon are his words, by beginning, "A. announced...". further use of quote marks make it seem like these are scare quotes. –Doldrums(talk) 07:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree inter. I'm tagging this article, as I feel that unless quotes are used on that word, remove that word. Also if your logic is followed "gift to the British people" should not be in quotes Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i don't have a big problem with removing those quotes too. but those words are at the other end of a sentence, and i think refreshing the context wil help.–Doldrums(talk) 08:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. You shouldnt edit as you broke 3RR, shame on you as a admin

2. Tag article POV for this is continuing of the 3RR and very serious for a admin, not to say wrong. sorry Brian. I was wrong. international 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. "gift to the British people" perhaps, but the sentence is a quotation and dont seems to be suffer weasly use of quotationmarks.

international 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...whether the Iranian presiedent saidf it or not does not matter. The fact is that a pardon is NOT factual as there never was ANY trial or criminal proceedings, in court that said they were guilty of a crime. A pardon, whether quoted or not, is NOT factual. DragonFire1024 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This report is Ahmadinejad's show. Is Wikinews going to report that, or the British POV? -Edbrown05 08:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC) And I think Brian is stepping past the bounds of the 3-revert-rule and will remove the tag as my 2nd edit warring conflict on the page. -Edbrown05 08:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding a pov tag does not count as a revert. –Doldrums(talk) 08:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take the word pardon out from the sentence completely. Yes, it's a quote, Ahmadinejad said that he "pardoned these 15 sailors", but there's a quote box that has the entire quote in it. Besides, we're talking about the first sentence in the article. It should describe the event itself, not what he said. —Zachary talk 08:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

couple of problems with that idea is, 1. the event we're reporting is what he said. 2. some editors have suggested that this is not a 'proper' pardon, and so we shld put it in quotes. it is not clear this is the case at all. Ahmedinejad specifically says that Iran could've charged them but decided not to. They've previously released "confessions" from the captives. so they have a case but they chose not to pursue. who're we to say, "no, this is not a pardon so we won't report it as one". my suggestion would be to c/e the sentence to make it clear this is his statement. also, until the detainees reach home, wo won't see strong rebuttals of A.'s statement from the Brits, so we won't be able to balance A.'s views with theirs. if editors can source notable criticism of the "pardon", they're free to include it (shld've done while news was breaking, though). 09:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
You siad it Iran could've charged them but decided not to. There is no charge no trial and no conviction therefore no pardon. DragonFire1024 09:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By "proper pardon", do you mean in a legal pardon vs. forgiveness sense? —Zachary talk 09:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In legal terms...if they committed a crime they would have gone to trial and be convicted...that is the only way, legally to recieve a pardon. Otherwise its a POV of someone...President or not. DragonFire1024 09:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says that in the US, a pardon can be applied regardless of whether there's been a trial. Maybe the same is true in Iran! "A presidential pardon may be granted at any time after commission of the offense; the pardoned person need not have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime". 10:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what Iranian law regarding foreign military personnel captured in its territory says? do you have a source for this? –Doldrums(talk) 10:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not...and there is not one in the article. So who are we to assume? Just because he said it does not make it a fact. Prove there was a trial and a conviction...last I heard that human rights. DragonFire1024 10:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are not reporting the pardon as a fact, we are reporting it very clearly as Ahmedinejad's statement. those who don't like the statement insist that we shld have alarm bells jangling all over the statement to let readers know that some of us don't agree with what A.'s saying. i see absolutely no reason we shld do any such thing. i have repeatedly asked that if there are notable statements that dispute A.'s comments, find them and include them. i don't see anybody doing that. all i see is a published article reporting a sn important sent back to develop indefinitely. i've made my views of such "editing" known before. –Doldrums(talk) 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be putting words into somebody's mouth, it is what it is. -Edbrown05 09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove tags during a dispute. DragonFire1024 10:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Whether the Iranian president said it or not" in DraginFire1024's words, does matter. That is what the news item is about. What is being reported here? News or law?

  • If we had genuine quotes they'd be in Persian (or Farsi, I'm not up on the languages of the region). Please refer to Doldrums' comment above about "scare quotes", quoting single words is usually POV as you are passing an opinion on the meaning. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And likewise, you are passing an opinion on meaning.
No I am not I am stating a FACT. To our knowledge and to the sources there is NOTHING that states that any of them committed a crime. You CANNOT be pardoned unless that happens and there is a conviction. We are not here to assume what one person's POV is right or wrong. SOURCE it as being a fact...not a simple "word". DragonFire1024 10:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
link to my comment above. –Doldrums(talk) 10:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] says this in the article: ...has announced that he would pardon and free the fifteen British captured navy personnel detained by Iran...
How does that sound like anything you state? He is not a judge, HE did not try them therefore there is no pardon...make it sound like its NOT a it it is it reads that they were convicted of a crime. DragonFire1024 10:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"How does that sound like anything you state?", what do you think "announced" means? –Doldrums(talk) 10:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Announced has nothing to do with i said it implies a committed crime. DragonFire1024 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We report what he said. if u think he's a big dope and what he says makes no sense, fine, get ur opinion published in a reliable source, and we'll report what u say too. or, find someone notable who agrees with ur views, and we'll quote them and Ahmedinejad. –Doldrums(talk) 10:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have...the several who debate it here...but if you want to ignore those concernes, and report unfactual info...fine. DragonFire1024 10:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BrianNZ is a great guy, but he's not a notable source of opinion on Iranian military procedure and jurisdiction (unless he's hiding something). find a notable source ad we'll report their view in the article. find more Wiki-contributors, we'll talk about this until the articles gets a DR tag. –Doldrums(talk) 10:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply] lets just ignore his say on the situation? Great...then I will shut up too. DragonFire1024 10:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, u think it is "unfactual" to say, "A. announced pardons and release for the Brits"? –Doldrums(talk) 10:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of QuoteLeft[edit]

This quote template should only be used with text that is present in the article, not to contain content that isn't also in the article text. At least, that was my intent when I set it up. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication is not desirable, expansion is. -Edbrown05 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the quote is too long and doesn't look good on the article, but I also think this insistence on using scary quotes is bad. --Brian McNeil / talk 10
16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


I cannot re-add the tag anymore due to 3RR. It has been removed several times despite a dispute. DragonFire1024 10:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]