Talk:CNN banned from Iran after misquoting president
- Most definitely. If not, use "Cable News Network" in its place. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
present title = CNN gets banned from Iran
- It's only a temporary ban (so far), so gets banned alone is too strong IMHO
- Shouldn't we include an NPOV summary of the reason for the ban? The only problem is how to say this succintly, correctly and NPOV-edly. In other words, how can we summarise what seem to be the NPOV facts that
- CNN claims this was accidental (and apologised)
- the Cultural etc Ministry fellow does not claim that the error was necessarily deliberate, but considers both the deliberate and the accidental hypotheses to be credible.
A few ideas:
- CNN temporarily banned from Iran due to provocative mistranslation
- CNN temporarily banned from Iran due to mistranslation
- CNN temporarily banned from Iran due to "nuclear energy" mistranslation.
1 - Is it NPOV to say that the mistranslation was provocative? If nobody had noticed it, it could have had effects in making people in the US (and elsewhere) increase their beliefs in the claims that Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons and thereby increase the political/diplomatic tension, based on an error (i'm not saying that the claim is necessarily wrong, just that what we know of this particular speech by Ahmadinejad provides no evidence for the claim). Does provocative imply intent to be provocative? My guess is yes. So is there a word with the same literal meaning as provocative but with the connotation that it is totally unknown whether it was deliberate or accidental?
2 - the problem with this is that it sounds like an assertion that the mistranslation was not deliberate, whereas at the moment, we don't know (and might never know)
3 - a bit clumsy, because it has quotes, but IMHO probably best unless someone can think of a neutral version of the word provocative. Boud 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- In this instance I think it would be really difficult to come up with a title that in some way puts the ban in context ("until further notice") and gives a hint of what the ban is for. What we have is factual, albeit rather generic. Offhand the only suggestion I can come up with is "CNN mistranslation results in open-ended ban on activities in Iran". A bit wordy, but if you like it do the move. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a merge candidate with CNN banned from Iran after misquoting president. I just spotted that in RC and checked the creation dates. The other one may be shorter, but it is older. Title isn't too bad either. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- For those who have been involved in the discussion on this page, after a brief chat with the guy that started the other article I overwrote the content of it, effectively moving the article that was CNN gets banned from Iran to a new headline. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- i agree that this new title is OK - my intuition about misquoting is that it could either be intentional or accidental - the reader has to apply his/her own prejudices or actually read the article to decide. Boud 00:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- THe ban has now been Lifted anyway, as per: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4617754.stm
Ahmadinejad asks for ban to be removed?
Yuk a CNN logo
This is a personal issue, but (despite the obvious fact that it's ostensibly a story about CNN) I really wish wikinews would refrain from using corporate logos on the front page. I really offends me.--elliot_k 10:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Things to Note
Just for a bit of perspective, we should note two things:
- The ban lasted about a day.
- w:IRIB, an Iranian news organization, was upset that the ban was lifted; the US banned Iranian reporters ever since a break of diplomatic ties after the revolution. The Iranian reporters that are here must stay within a 17 mi radius of the UN building in New York.