Talk:Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked/Archive02

Change title and publish

May I change the title to the suggested and republish the article? I dont find it pow. International 02:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I can live with it. I suggest to wait another 10 minutes or so just to make sure that nobody else objects. I would prefer if MrM could also agree on this. --vonbergm 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I agree with you Vonbergm, I wait to give other wikinewsies a chanse to say something about the dispute. Dont like to engage in a possible tagwar. International 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the new title. First of all, "leaked" implies that the document was verified and is authentic - if it's faulty, there obviously cannot be a "leak" of information. Second, there was no bombing - something that can be fixed with "alleged plot" (or similar). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Alleged is teh first word in the title! Its highly POV of you to try to qualify every word in the title once qualification has been added. - 81.97.155.10 09:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it can be assumed that the document that got returned to the British goverenment was indeed classified and not supposed to be released, otherwise they would not have pressed the charges. And making information from such a document available to the press is usually called a "leak". --vonbergm 03:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you cannot assume a document was ever authentic, especially when you don't have facts to back it up. The charges, like I said, are only placed when people have suspicion of a wrongdoing. The trial will provide items with what did happen, this is the time of fact collecting. "Innocent until proven guilty" also means "fake until proven true" in this sense. DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING IS AUTHENTIC. We are here to report the facts, not suspicions (unless they are backed by the person making them). You will not assume anything on this document's authenticity; it hasn't been proven yet, hell it hasn't even been seen yet. You cannot just assume things about it in order to justify the article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A new idea: Bush alledgedly talked of bombing Al-Jazeera headquarters. This is a little ovely careful, more accurate would be Bush alledgedly intended to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters, as this is what the allegation really is, but I am sure that in this case the factually more inaccurate statemet would be preferrable to some. --vonbergm 03:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked was suggested based on the content of the very first paragraph of the article. Leak has already been used (it is currently the seventh word in the article body), approved by you in varied edits before title change by lack of alteration of wording there; that is, unless in an article contested for some time it was still not noticed before – that would be a separate issue to resolve though it would impact the title if the resolution was to remove all use of leaked in the article.

The information relevant to the title is that the transcript is of alleged conversation between Bush and Blair, and that the transcript's content concerns Bush's alleged consideration of bombing Al-Jazeera. The title suggested as objective "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked" includes the described content of the first paragraph and focuses on those aspects. Perhaps the word discussion should be added so that it reads "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing discussion transcript leaked" so that it communicates both "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing discussion" and "Alleged Bush/Blair ... discussion transcript leaked" so that both the occurrence of the discussion and accuracy of the transcript are questioned. How is this not acceptable? What aspect have I not accounted for with even this new suggestion? 68.210.70.211 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

changes again

I made changes trying to interpret MrM's concerns as best as I could. Someone else may play with the title, I simply don't care at this point.

"Quote"

Please explain WHEN AND WHO the quote was made to, as well as WHO said it (IN THE ARTICLE PROVIDE THIS). This is the quote I'm looking for detail on:

Quote

---

The Bush administration has accused Al-Jazeera of " inciting violence against [US] troops" and being "a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda and a vehicle of anti-American propaganda" and has criticized it for airing images of dead soldiers and US military contractors and civilians casulties from behind rebel lines in Fallujah.

--MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• The quotes are verbatim from the sources. You need to give *reasons* why you think it is important to give this additional information in the context of this article if you want your concerns taken seriously. --vonbergm 14:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus

I agree with 68.210.70.211, 81.97.155.10, vonbergm and International. The concerns of MrM have been delt with to the best of the abilities of the people working on the article to understand those concerns and address them. If the article is unpublished again by the same editor, I suggest an uninvolved admin consider a disruption block (as I agree with Vonbergm that this continued article blocking by the same editor is a site disruption). Neutralizer 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I publish it now. Should have done it for long time ago...International 14:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suprised, it was already published. Well thats good. Next time I start to edit I will make sure Im awake.International 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree, there is no proof that anyone of the Bush adminstraton ever said that. --204.38.32.5 14:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Read the sources, its all in the sources! Names, dates, ... --vonbergm 19:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles are not here to point people to other sources. They are only there to cite the information found. That's information - not opinion. The quotes are not documented in the article, instead people are sent away from Wikinews to grab information. That is not how an article should stand. I am sending this back to develop. I highly suggest that vonbergm review the article in its entirety and the questioned material without resorting back to the external sources to verify the quotes were made. Do not publish this article until (a): the material is justified IN THE ARTICLE, or (b): the material is removed, or presented in a fashion that can be documented properly. You haven't done that yet, vonbergm. DOCUMENT EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION AND EVERY QUOTE MADE IN THE ARTICLE. Putting a link in the "sources" section DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE QUOTE. And to Neutralizer - disruption is not tagging an article and justifying the tag on the talk page. 3 - 2 doesn't constitute a consensus - hell, it doesn't constitute anything at all. POLICY WILL NOT BE BENT FOR ANY REASON, even if people think that "it's OK". It's not. Under the content guide, it states the following:

Quote

---

News is factual. Opinions should be sourced from qualified sources

Putting a biased statement in quotes and not even stating who made them is fabricating parts of an article. You ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DOCUMENT WHERE EVERY SINGLE QUOTE CAME FROM IN AN ARTICLE. I am not asking you anymore. I am telling you - your edits of constantly ignoring my concerns, even when based on policy, are considered disruptive. THIS ARTICLE WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED UNTIL THE QUESTIONABLE ITEM IS JUSTIFIED OR REMOVED." Wikinews does not stand for a place for people to make opinions or fabricate parts of an article. And yes, I say fabricated because the user has FAILED TO PROVIDE the source of the quotes IN THE ARTICLE. -MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I found the quotes MrM is complaining about, they are all contained in the paragraph beginning "The authenticity of the documents ..." All other quotes are cited to their original sources quite clearly, although you ocassinally need to read the previous sentence for context. Anyway, please just be clear about the quotes in the authenticity paragraph & MrM's objection will go away. Its actually a very good article, BTW.

MrM, you should really take a more participatory role in the articles which yout going to critisize so vehemently. Even if you were not willing to search through the sources, you could have easily inserted a "___ said that" in front of the sentence which begins "Section 3 concerns ..." (after depublishing the story). It would have created an obvious place where information was lacking, thus creatively preventing republication without the mistake being fixed, and prevented an edit war. You can't expect people to be mind readers. Nyarlathotep 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, the quotes in that paragraph are taken right of Section 3 of the original document, which is linked through Wikipedia. MrM has previously vehemently resisted linking the original document in the case that a wikipedia article about it exists, that also happens to have a link. Attributing it to Section 3 of the document seems like the most appropriate thing to do (although undoubtedly other articles probably also quote this section). --vonbergm 22:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

reading over it again, the last part of that paragraph should also be in quotes as it is verbatim from the document. Will make these changes now. (I guess it is unblocked by now.) --vonbergm 22:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I still cannot edit. :-( So maybe MrM can do it once someone fixed the mess. --vonbergm 22:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

allege vs. suggest/indicate/imply

MrM. Once again, it does not make sense to say that a transcript of a conversation "alleges" something. Since the exact wording of the first sentence seemed important to you I decided that the word "suggest" would be a good compromize. With the word "suggest" or "indicate" in place as I suggested, the sentence makes it clear that it referres to "unverified" information. You seem to have the tendancy to try to overstress that point far beyond the necessary, even if the language gets messed up in the process. If you plan to change this again, please come up with a term that actually fits. I will try a new phrase this time. Let's see if I can fit another modifier into that sentence! --vonbergm 14:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe every sentence containing unverified information should state so. For one thing, this is necesary if we are quoted by others. If they quote a sentence which lacks that disclaimer, it sounds like we are stating it as fact, when we are not. StuRat 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Your asking way too much, the only reasonable approach is for a moderatly logical and moderatly attentive reader to recognize all unverified information. The 2nd word of the article is unverified, and this is reiterated; hence sentences only need to clearly identify that they are based upon the memo, for their content to be clearly understood as unverified. What you want to avoid is people burring the fact that information is unverified, but the authors of this article are not hiding anything. Nyarlathotep 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Daily Mirror a reputable source ?

I'm not a Brit, so will ask the question: Is the Daily Mirror a reputable source or a scandal sheet that reports front page stories about princesses having their toes sucked ? If it's as bad as the National Enquirer in the US, I don't think we should be using it directly, or any quotes from it found in other news reports (like the Yahoo source). StuRat 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Brit who is not a Mirror reader perhaps I can give my (biased) view. Mainstream newspapers are divided into two groups - "quality" broadsheets who are fairly reliable (like the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times, Times) and "tabloids" who focus more on celebrity/soap stories and have clear bias in their stories (e.g. The Sun, The Mirror). The Mirror came out against the war and has published inaccurate stories in the past (e.g. publishing fake pictures showing prisoner abuse). I would be very careful of quoting anything that lends itself to bias - stick to the facts because these are likely to be correct. i.e. A transcript exists, it was leaked to an MPs assistant, he passed it to an MP, he passed it back to the government, the leaker and assistant have been charged under the OSA, the AG has threatened any newspaper editor that publishes it with criminal prosecution. It is clear that the memo is important (otherwise why woudl the AG block publication?) and it is alleged that it involves a conversation between Blair and Bush about bombing Al-Jaz. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror hasn't even seen the memo. Hope this helps. 155.202.254.82 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it's the website, kinda gives away the fact that it is a sensationalist tabloid.

• Ryan Parry. "EXCLUSIVE: I USED TO BE A DESPERATE BULIMIC" — The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

• Oonagh Blackman. "BLAIR IS GIVEN HIS FLU JAB AS MILLIONS GO WITHOUT" — The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

• Geoffrey Lakeman. "BULLIED TO BRINK OF SUICIDE.. BECAUSE I HAD A BIG BUST" — The Daily Mirror, November 23, 2005

No, the last one doesn't come with pictures - unless they're in the print edition (which wouldn't surprise me).

- Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Any chance someone could get hold of the memo and publish it here? That woudl resolve the dispute! :)

Only if we can verify that it is the actual transcript, not something the Mirror or somebody like them made up to sell newspapers. Since they have faked pictures in the past, I wouldn't put it past them to fake the transcript, as well. StuRat 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is clear by now that a top-secret document got leaked. In sharing the concerns about the reputation of the Mirror, the authors have gone to great lengths to illuminate the flow of information and the unverified (unverifyable) nature of its contents, wherever appropriate and necessary. After thegag order, it is unlikely to hear further reporting on the document (which has been returned to Blairs office anyway). --vonbergm 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you don't generally get charged under the OSA unless something was leaked. So its not a question of the mirror lying about the leak, but about the mirror juicing it up. Maybe Bush really was joking, for example. Anywho, we say when we are quoting the mirror, so it should be fine. Nyarlathotep 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That only works for people who already know the Mirror to be an unreliable source. Most Americans, for example, won't know that. I believe if we continue to use this unreliable source, we should at least identify it as such, say by mentioning that they have falsified evidence (photos) in the past. StuRat 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sabotage

Why is this article taged developa nd locked! As I can understand MrM have aganst majority of writers opinion unpublished this article and now Messedrocker locked it. What are you doing Messedrocker. This is going way out of proportions! The combined acting of MrM:s unsensitve way of using tags and an admins interference in MrM:s acting is unacceptable. Do we need to block and deadministrator people here? Hope not but this is going bad !International 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution to the MrM problem is to simply point out something constructive which he could have done whenever he does something anti-constructive. I like to think that people eventually listen to constructive critisism. Nyarlathotep 21:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd given some ways towards why there was a problem with the article, namely that it treats the sensationalism from "gutter" press as fact. I believe MrM's point is that the entire thing gives credence to a story that comes from a source that should be treated with extreme caution. As has been mentioned elsewhere, when the news of the Abu Graib prisoner abuse broke, The Mirror used fabricated pictures to make the same allegation against UK forces as was made against US forces. Credible source? Probably not, but this article treats it as one. Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, why not just say "tabloid" when the Mirror is first mentioned? Alternatively, its completely clear that *some* document was leaked, so we could mention that the Mirror has faked pictures in the guardian paragraph, but use the guardian quote to show that its not all faked here. You know, it would be a very funny tabloid coup to take a memo which Blair would treat as extremely sensitive, but would be boring to the public, and just make up lots of exciting but unverifiable lies about it instead.. allthough its pretty far fetched. Nyarlathotep 21:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good to me, go for it. --vonbergm 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian, we all remember the pictures in the Mirror. That is why the information is presented in this article in a way that makes clear that it relies on information given by the Mirror. Most of the body of the article is concerned with surrounding information that is factual and comes from other sources and relate to the charges of the Mirror. And all information coming only from the Mirror is carefully worded to reflect this. Additionally the article goes at great length to point out the unvrified nature of the information. (e.g "An *unverified* document *claimed to be leaked* from Downing Street was *reported to suggest* that US President George W. Bush wished to bomb the headquarters of Arabic TV station Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar.") If you have any *specific* objection, feel free to discuss them. If you care to check, MrM's objections pertain to information that is *not* from the Mirror but from two other sources, namely FOX News and PBS. If he is referring to the quote from "Section 3", this is linked through the Wikipedia article and adequately addressed. --vonbergm 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If we have adequate reliable sources, why should we continue to use any material from an unreliable source (either directly or as quoted by other sources from the Mirror) ? In my opinion, listing such a disreputable scandal sheet as a source diminishes the stature of WikiNews considerably. StuRat 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, keep the Mirror. If they broke the story, they should not have their involvement sanitized from history, for better or worse. It speak volumes to just clearly identify them as a tabloid. Nyarlathotep 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"Tabloid" technically refers to the paper size and way it is folded. We should explain exactly why this is a suspect source, namely the fake photos they made up. StuRat 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is still locked, BTW. MR, can you post a list of exactly which edits you felt were a "war"? Nyarlathotep 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

And maybe detail which quotes are not "documented". --vonbergm 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, we worked that out above. Nyarlathotep 23:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vonbergm, I refuse to respond to that question - especially after answering that question at least three times on this page already. And Nyarlathotep, let me be like one of the users above for a minute - "it's in the history"! They should be fairly obvious - numerous reverts. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A little edgy today, are we? Being a little more constructive might actually get the article published only one day late. -- Oh wait, maybe we should drag it out for another day! Think of all the fun we could have arguing about it! --vonbergm 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The next user who tells me to be more "constructive" will get a mouthful from me. If that's all you have to say, I will refuse to correspond on the talk page any longer - but that doesn't mean I won't stop the publishing of this article. Wikinews has a reputation to live up to. This article doesn't reflect the quality and neutrality that an article here requires to be. And I will refuse to let others publish items that show any less of Wikinews than it is. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong, as I have not participated in the development of this story, but a quick glance at the history sugegsts that most of your changes survived into the current version, no? As best as I can tell, most of the edits "responding" to your edits were merely adding additional information from the sources. Nyarlathotep 23:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)