Talk:Bangladesh elects new Prime Minister

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

I CREATED this landmark election since 7 years. Please help me in publishing it. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Names and Wikipedia links[edit]

I opted to include the Bangladesh character-names, since even if this is English Wikinews, there are those Bangladesh who might read this and this will benefit them. Also, I had to borrow facts from Wikipedia English, using its link instead of putting the original tons of sources, to simplify. Anyway, the blue links will show the sources. I do not want to put more sources, the reader will take it difficult. The title can also be changed or renamed, but I chose this for simplicity. Everybody knows now who the winner is since it is damn landslide. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Re-edit, confirmation, VOA, US Cong. note[edit]

I had removed the copy vio failures. I added the links on her bio, plus the confirmation by Elec. Commission and US congratulations note from VOA link. Cheers. Please review. Happy New Year.--Florentino Floro (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the Wikipedia copy paste[edit]

I really notice that many of Wikipedia English articles do not have sources. But I thought that since this is sister projects, I can use them. My other problem, is, if I do not use them, I would put tons of sources to back up my sentences or facts. Thanks a lot. I will try not to use them next time. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the main issue with using wikipedia like this is not that its from wikipedia, but that its copied from wikipedia. We use a different copyright scheme than wikipedia, and thus they should be used in the same way as any other source if they are used as a source. (as in not copy and pasted) Bawolff 09:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, what Bawolff said. Copy/Paste from Wikipedia isn't ok because of different licenses. I know, it's stupid. It's the free encyclopedia, and we're the free news site... but different kinds of free. Hopefully that will be fixed soon. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 19:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliability, accuracy, neutrality and source: published news vs developing encyclopedia[edit]

First of all, I do admire both of your painstaking reviews to make Wikinews more reliable (than stupid Class-a journalists who are envelope-mental. I had underscored the fact that the Philippines and other killings are due to journalists' extortion). I had read many silly news even by top reporters worldwide. They just copy paste the reports without even getting the side of the other party, and/or checking the facts. They will just end up the news with the usual sentence: party cannot be reached for comment. I myself had been a victim of all these. Imagine, these reporters never read my 75 pages decision, and they reported the fact as fact, that I am consulting dwarfs to write decisions. What happened to my Second Honors and bar topnotcher ratings, my academic excellence? Here, I don't think anyone of you will believe that I consult dwarfs in writing news.(Vide: Florentino Floro and more about me.[1]). Oh, my God!
Second, unlike Wiki English encyclopedia which has a disclaimer and puts it as developing, with start-class to featured articles, Wikinews, when published is OPEN to libel suits. I myself made a terrible mistake on the legal figure who was caught porn. For this reason, each sentence or paragraph, at the very least, must have sources. When I started here, I was not citing Wikipedia English, since I know this is not a reliable source as far as most news like legal ones are concerned. But I was forced since, if there are many unknown to readers - persona - then, I would be obliged to put TONS of sources. Thus, I tried to user Wiki English, and I know very good reviewers like both of you will not just let this go, I know. My dilemma therefore, is: too many sources for just a news vs. shortening persona descriptions, leaving to the reader, the assignment. Take for example Gaza and Bangladesh. This is the first time in my life that I knew about these 2 stuffs. It took me hours to learn about these. How much more the ordinary reader? Blue linking might be very burdensome for the ordinary reader, like us Filipinos who do not know about Gaza, Israel and Bangladesh.
Third. Since July 2007 to Nov. 22, 2008 (when I lost the blocking PERSONA battle to 2 co-Filipino editors - who just contribute in Wiki English to revert almost all of my edits, 6,700 of them - [2] and [3]), all my created articles especially legal ones, are fully supported, PER SENTENCE, and religiously, by reliable sources. Why? Since, I want my works to be authorities, or so-called LEARNED TREATISES, under the Federal Rules of Procedure of California from which rule, we borrowed our Philippines Rules of Court. My Wikipedia English articles-works can be cited and presented in Court without further proof.[4] *Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data (Philippines)*Philippine Extrajudicial Killings and Desaparecidos*Judicial Executive Legislative Advisory and Consultative Council*Sema v. Comelec*GSIS-Meralco bribery case*Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Fourth: When I opened Wiki English articles on Bangladesh and Sheikh Hasina, I could not find sources which support some or many facts (unlike my above-written articles). Therefore, you, reviewers really will have to fail my work. IF ONLY, the authors had put the sources, then, there would be no problem. IN FINE, I believe that sources to support Wikinews must also be of equal weight or have same reliability as sources for Wikinews. While libel can be filed against authors of news, libel cannot be filed against Wiki Encyclopedia for developing reasons. Happy New Year, and thanks for your scholarly penned reviews to make Wikinews better than most W Encyclopedia articles. Cheers.--Florentino Floro (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Review 2[edit]