Talk:Bloggers cite rumors of US "secret war" with Iran and Syria

Validity of the claims

President cannot declare war, corrections

to my knowledge, the President cannot "declare" War, only the congress can. perhaps what is being meant here is that he is rumoured to have launched covert military operations.

Rice's response to Biden's questions shld be reported in full, rather than be selectively paraphrased ("did not explicitly deny it"), as i think has been done here.

to my knowledge, only one Iranian laison office has been raided in Iraq, not "offices". the 90,000 troop increase does not appear to be relevant to these rumors. if the increase has been linked to these rumoured "war", then we shld attribute that linking and not make it ourselves.

the formally stated white house/state dept./pentagon policy towards engagement with iran shld be stated in the article too.  — Doldrums(talk) 05:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Good questions.

This article is not reporting that there is a secret war. It's reporting rumors of actions that these bloggers have dubbed a "secret war." It may be a fine distintion, but it is distinct.

And I have no problem taking out the 90,000 troop increase. I think that's a good catch.

I would also be happy to add some direct quotes from Biden and Rice. Anybody else is welcome to in the meantime, but I'll mark the story back as "develop" and work on it when I have more time.

Thanks, again!

-- Newspaper 06:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

What'd be nice is reactions from the Congress or the White House. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 06:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs not reliable soruces

Since when did whisperings and rumours become news? Isn't there something that needs to be here - like hard fact? Blast 13,01,07 1651 (UTC -5)

Damn straight. Blogs are just people's diaries, they are unverified tripe often written by people who know very little. This is not really news. --Frontier (preceding unsigned comment by 58.169.138.101 06:41, 16 January 2007)

Blogs and conspiracy theories shouldn't qualify as news. They are welcome in the newsroom, but I think that they should stay off the main page. The mere fact that it came from "apparent Washington insiders" questions it's validity. I am considering giving this an NPOV, but it's not so much neutrality as it is validity. Personally, I think it should be removed from the main page as it is not real news.

Also, there is no real indication of who the bloggers are, as as far as I can see, only one blog is linked.

The fact that this is the top story is pretty disturbing.

Also, why is this protected? It's simply a theory from an unverified source. Shouldn't it remain open to editing in case anything new comes up?208.183.225.11 15:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware if Wikinews has a sub-topic page called 'Gossip', so this story simply went under the Culture and entertainment sub-topic heading of 'Media'. I'm so un-sorry for having had any part of this awful story. For the truly good stuff, see Boud's link after TODO (!) -Edbrown05 00:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It's okay to cite blogs as primary sources if the article is discussing what the blogs are saying. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

just noting some source for possible use in article. — Doldrums(talk) 06:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Daily Star (lebanon) article on Rice testimony
• prepared remarks of Senate hearing
• NYT Bush Authorized raids against Iranian operatives in Iraq.
• Administration: No Plan to Strike Iran

Publish

Please check and mark publish if OK. Newspaper 07:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The title fails to mention who's at war with Iran and Syria, which would count as slightly US-centric POV. 82.181.20.72 14:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was going to change it to Bloggers cite rumors of US "secret war" with Iran and Syria but chickened out. Anyone else voluntering Nil Einne 14:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)