Talk:Al Qaeda bomb maker reportedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan

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

Much better[edit]

I like it...thank you. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute or publish[edit]

I think this article should be published International 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This does not beling: "However, the Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao has stated that the government does not know the identities of the foreigners believed killed in the missile attack." It needs to say HE did not know the names or it needs to be taken out,...because Pakistani Offilcials say...and last time I checked, Pakistani Officials worked for the government. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see it different officials say different things. It is importent that this artcle dont claim anything like 'confirmed' killings of anybody before it is confirmed. Thats why this article use a careful language. When good sources tell about confermed killings then we can report it. International 13:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence I mentioned does not fit in. As long as the article states reports say...or ABC news is reporting...then its news...and CAN be published. However, that statement I mentioned needs to be removed or it needs to be changed to HE said... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 13:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS source states that this comment was directed to the Associated Press. So how about properly attributing it and saying "Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told the AP that his government does not know....." --Deprifry|+T+ 13:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because Pakistani intelligence officials work for the gov. And if they were not believed or suspected to be dead, then why would 2 OFFICIALS say that?? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 13:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that nobody, exept first hand eyewitnes, know for sure if killed terrorists and their identity for now. There is a lot of speculation and vague sources. International 13:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Interior minister is the government so I think his words have some merits too. Look, IMHO there a two possibilties. 1.: The anonymous officials wanted to make themself important and thus made things up. The Interior minister is telling the truth. OR 2.: The Interior minister e.g. the government for some reason tries to cover things up and thus lies to the press. The officials couldn't stand that and went to the press themselfs.
These are the alternatives I'm able to see. Wikinews can't decide who's right which is why I think it is important that we present both sides. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stated my side. In my opinion if that comment is left in there in its current form...then the whol article needs a major edit. It should say HE says...not the government. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 13:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will publish if no better argumentation is presented International 13:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have done this before. I will not allow it. Deprifry has stated we need an agreement. You cannot remove tags when under dispute. I have made my suggestions which are actionable. We need to agree on this. You are not collaberating as we should DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 13:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprifry suggested that wikinews cant take stand so we present both sides. Thats what the article do now.International 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's examine the quote that is the source of all this dispute. From the CBS artice cited as source:
Quote
However, Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told AP the government does not know the identities of the foreigners believed killed in the missile strike Friday [...]

The problem is that they are paraphrasing him (same on other websites which syndicate AP content [1] [2]) so we aren't exactly sure what the precise wording of his comments are. However to me, it seems apparent that Sherpao is talking for the Pakistani government (of which he is a very high-ranking part) and is not merely expressing a personal assessment. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except, sourses in the article and sources not in it state that at leeast 3 reported killed and cited that to be by pakistani officials...which is what is stated in the article whioch is also staing that ABC reports...Until we can see that that guy said what he said, then I think the sentence should be removed...we need to report on the facts...not speculate on what he MIGHT have said or put it into context. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
facts are not drowning this article, It is no need for one pakistani official voice. But Sherapo is interior minisrer still. Thath talk for publishing in current state International 14:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and if you whant fakts wait for the bodys examined or something.International 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deprifry does not agree and neither do I...the statement is in context and is not accurate as Dep. said. I agree. We do not know what he really said and we cannot scramble arounf quottes or statements. That is MISLEADING. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then de-publish and continue to fuch things up ~(exuse my bad frenc)International 14:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we have the same problems with the statements by the anonymous officials, we don't have exact quote there aswell. We have to rely on ABC there. So I don't see why we couldn't say "The AP is reporting that the Pakistani Interior minister said this..." along with "ABC reports Pakistani officials said that..." --Deprifry|+T+ 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will publish once this is settled. If you want me to i will remove the statement and until we can get more from that guy then the statement (which is in context and misleading) should not exist...unless modified to NON context. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My dispute is actionable...but I cannot go abouve an administrator. That statement added IS misleading. I still dispute but will not add the tag...because I will likely get blocked DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all covered in the article, nothing really needs to be "added". We have ABC taking the responsibility (although it should be shared with other news outlets as well), the quotes are sourced, this article is now published and therefore should not be continued to be updated (except for spelling/grammatical errors). This is factual as of the date of its publish. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 14:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote[edit]

this: However, the Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao has stated that the government does not know the identities of the foreigners believed killed in the missile attack. DOES NOT BELONG...its contridictory to the fact that the names are stated...if they did not believe they were dead, the article would not be started. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote
5. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia.
DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 09:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The story was still breaking news and Dolrums edit is ok to me International 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it is published and previous days news. I do not mkae the rules. I will contact admins if you continue to edit. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 09:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the article has undergone substantial revsion since its (early!) publication. the information added is taken from sources already present in the articles, and the new information does not date from after "publication". if u're particularly concerned about the publish tag, i'll replace it with a develop flag, add the content and then re-publish. Doldrums 10:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article was in dispute for hours and a comclusion was reached and the article was published. The edits made my someone with NO ACCOUNT was made AFTER the agreement was reached. As this article WAS published and considered YESTERDAYS news it can no longfer be edited. As you have failed to follow this policy, Administrators have been alerted. Tags are advised NOT to be removed!! DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 10:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This does not beling: "However, the Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao has stated that the government does not know the identities of the foreigners believed killed in the missile attack." It needs to say HE did not know the names or it needs to be taken out,...because Pakistani Offilcials say...and last time I checked, Pakistani Officials worked for the government. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

women and children[edit]

There is no proof that innocent women and children were killed. I propose to add "allegedly" to that statement. Also, I wonder if the next time our enemies strike us, you liberal idiots will mention that women and children were killed??? gee. I wonder.

factual errors[edit]

None of the sources listed state the information that Midhat Mursi has been killed as a fact. Moreover, the sources seem not to agree on whether he was "believed to be among the vitcims" or "believed to hgave been at the dinner", which are two different things. Given the lack of information who the sources are, the speculative nature of the information given in the articles and the disagreement between the news sources, this article is a gross overstatement of what is known. Please correct. (Title and first two paragraphs!) --vonbergm 00:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, the strike would be the leading COD. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikinews is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit This Page link at the top. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. :-)--Eloquence 00:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, forget it. Witty comebacks make no progress. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a sources saying they CONFIRM MORE terrorists dead...and state names. Vote to add more to article or I can do a new one??? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same day news (more or less) that fit, I would say you can still expand this article. Especially Breaking News articles usually develop quite a bit even after they are published. As a general reminder, please read the sources carefully to make sure that your formulations turn out to reflect the facts accurately. --vonbergm 01:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higly POW, no sources talk about confirmation[edit]

this is POW and not good journalism. se som cuts from the source below:

ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan.

Among the senior al Qaeda operators believed to have been in the village near the Afghanistan border where an airstrike hit last week is notorious Egyptian scientist Abu Khabab

WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) - ABC News reported on Wednesday that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan. The network did not say in the report on its Web site why it believed he had been killed but it reported that Midhat Mursi,

International 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International, it looks like Amgine just fixed the first paragraphs. I think that if the title is changed, the article should be ok. What do you think? --vonbergm 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)[reply]
Sources say he is dead...you guys need to read them. And add more...READ SOURCES!!! PAKISTANI OFFICIALS CONFIRM DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. One source says he is dead, quoting unnamed Pakastani officials. You have a quote I cannot find in the sources which are public. I have removed the paid subscription source as it is not public. If this is the only source for some of the factual statements in the article you will need to locate a publically available source to support those statements, or remove them. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? there is no paid subscription source on there. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stratfor site requires a subscription. I have not found a free subscription method on that site. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I did not need one for it...I used google news. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This does not help the Wikinews readers; you should check your links to make sure they work. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please direct me to that source that confirm the death Amgine International 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this story states the death, with unnamed Pakastani officials as the source for the information; not an official confirmation which is why I used the phrase "ABC News is reporting..." - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
International, if you read the comments carefully you see that Amgine is not the one claiming that his death is confirmed. Quite the contrary is true. --vonbergm 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That info has been changed. Vonbergm, going to dispute any more articles? any article I did or started on this subject has been disputed by you who I believe has other agendas other than reporting news. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

articles can be edited...why do you have to constantly dispute them? why don't you just fix the errors? I am ashamed that you vonbergm dispute the articles that are big news only to have them pushed to dispute and then published when the news is old. Why do I bother? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dragonfire, the last couple of times that I tried that you just edited out whatever I wrote right away. I thought that hoping that other people will do the editing might save both of us some headaches. But I will gladly take your offer and again become more active in the editing of articles that you also participate in. So any preference on titles before I make the changes? --vonbergm 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


ABC sourse is not clear. Look at theese two statemente in the same article:

" ABC News has learned that Pakistani officials now believe that al Qaeda's master bomb maker and chemical weapons expert was one of the men killed in last week's U.S. missile attack in eastern Pakistan."

"akistani officials also said that Khalid Habib, the al Qaeda operations chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan, and Abdul Rehman al Magrabi, a senior operations commander for al Qaeda, were killed in the Damadola attack. Authorities tell ABC News that the terror summit was called to funnel new money into attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan." International 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is your confirmation...what is the problem here? Cannot find somewhere where I am wrong? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please! International 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title suggestion[edit]

Looks like the only thing that still needs fixing is the title. Here are two suggestions:

"Al Qaeda bomb maker reportedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan"
"Al Qaeda bomb maker allegedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan"

I am not sure if "reportedly" is a word and I am not a big fan of MrM's "allegedly". Either one should settle any NPOV concerns, but maybe someone has a better idea? --vonbergm 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at least not confirmed! International 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I will go with that the first title suggestion. and there is NO npov concernes. you guys are the ones who tagged the article...like you did all the others on this subject...take your political agendas somewhere else. I may call for an admin or someone to look into your actions if necessary. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you are accusing wikinewsies for political agenda? You are a little joker my wikifellow ! Start to be critical to sorces then we can start to talk. International 01:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reportedly is the usual term in news coverage of news coverage, which is what this story is. On the other hand, this is a highly breaking story; it might be better to state the facts we have: "ABC News reports al Qaeda bomb maker killed in airstrike" - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"ABC News reports Al Qaeda bomb maker killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan" ?? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I was a little fast... Any of these work for me too, although I vote for the shorter version. --vonbergm 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning ABC is more factual...that way if he is alive, ABC can take the blame DragonFire1024 is

"earlier"[edit]

The article is (deliberately) formulated in a way to suggest that claims that named terrorists have been killed take precedence over claims that there is not enough information to make such claims. This has been done by formatting and formulations, like inserting words like "earlier" suggesting that there is a teporal sequence. These assertions are not backed by the sources, on the contrary, the sorces (e.g. the BBC sources) suggest that the temporal sequence of the reports is the other way around. While these NPOV concerns don't seem big enough to tag, I am quite alarmed at the persistence with which editors have repeatedly changed the language from more accurate accounts to versions that try to cater to a certain POV. Editing the article to make appropraite changes seems silly as one could just revert to previous versions to fix. --vonbergm 19:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has resolved disputes. It is a previous days news. I will copntact admin if further edits are made. An Admin had made the last edits that removed the tags. Jason Safoutin 19:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Last edit having been by an Admin doesn't "lock" the content of the article, their opinion on the appropriate state for an article carries no more weight than anyone else, but they might have more experience of judging when to go with what we have. I think vonbergm's point might be that, to a Pakistani audience our article might appear insulting, whereas the BBC one would not be. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All I would like to point out here is that the only difference between the current version and the version that was previously published, and then got flaged with NPOV concerns and underwent a serious of edits, is that the paragraph citing the interior minister has been moved to the bottom of the article, away from the statement of "unnamed sources" that it contradicted. Moreover, the text was changed to suggest that the interior ministers statement had been made "earlier" than the one by the unnamed sources. This temporal qualification is not backed by any of the sources (some sources actually imply the opposite order). This inaccuracy, combined with the choice to move the interior ministers quote to the bottom can only be interpreted as POV pushing. The earlier published version was factually more correct and in its conception more coherent and balanced as it had the two conflicting statements side by side. Another example of editors putting POV over news. --vonbergm 22:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
can u please point to the source which states or implies the opposite order. Doldrums 07:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC News article, as mentioned in my fist post in this section. Here is the quote (emphasis added):
The Pakistan Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, would only repeat that a number of militants had been killed in Friday's US attack on a village in the Bajaur Agency region on the border with Afghanistan.
He said the authorities were still investigating their identities.
Earlier, some intelligence officials were reported as saying that Egyptian bomb expert Midhat Mursi - information on whose whereabouts carries a $5m US bounty - was among those killed.
--vonbergm 17:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted[edit]

Image has been deleted from WikiCommons. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Midhat Mursi al-Sayid Umar.jpg

Edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Ali Rana (talk) 10:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Juliancolton | Talk 02:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Qaeda_bomb_maker_reportedly_killed_in_U.S._airstrike_in_Pakistan&oldid=869738"