Talk:Chinese submarine "embarrasses" U.S. Navy

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Retracted — November 11, 2007
This article has been retracted.
The contents of this article was based on a story, which was recycled from 2006. If you wish to view the article as it was when still published, please click here.

If someone wants to add a picture of the USS Kitty Hawk and one of the Submarine that would be nice, I don't know how. 16:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Old news[edit]

There are several indications that the Daily Mail recycled a story from 2006. This is a problem. --SVTCobra 17:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the sources refer back to the Daily Mail, making this a single source story, which is why single source stories are not allowed. --SVTCobra 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, that's disturbing, but this has been published for a while, so maybe a correction would preferable. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure what the best course of action is but I brought it up on AAA. --SVTCobra 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not the 2006 event, it is a newer recent event. citation 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link proves nothing. In the first paragraph it says: "according to UK newspaper, Daily Mail". The Daily Mail is the only source for this, and it is becoming evident that they recycled a story from a year ago. Note how the Daily Mail fails to mention any date whatsoever. --SVTCobra 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, the last time this happened, the government commented on it. I'd be surprised that this would happen again and there were no government sources. Has someone tried to contact either the Daily Mail or the US Navy? That might help clear things up. JoshuaZ 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the Daily Mail they have a "comments" option, where I asked them if this was from a year ago. Comments there are "reviewed" before they post them. They chose to neither post my question nor answer it. At least so far, but no, I did not call them or take any other more drastic action. --SVTCobra 03:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put a correction on the article, but tried to word it so it says it may be/could be one year old. I havent said definately either way, but we can reword once we get confirmation either way. On another note, if this is new, isnt it funny it happened again one year later? A bit of an embarassment to the US navy. Matt/TheFearow | userpage | contribs 20:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anyone going to investigate this further? Maybe the best way is to mail the US Navy and the Daily Mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sent an e-mail to the Daily Mail yesterday. They have not gotten back to me. They also disallowed the question in their commentary section. The Daily Mail also uses comments like "this is a wake up call" and "U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this". How could that be if the same exact thing happened last year? And this story, which claims to have gotten comments from Nato officials and reports shaken US officials approaching Beijing (all while every other news outlet pays no attention, btw), yet it does not mention the incident in 2006! I don't think that there is any doubt that this is a recycled story. It should not be run with that little disclaimer at the top. It should be retracted completely as it was single source to begin with (and continues to be). --SVTCobra 15:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete appropriate?[edit]

? --Remi (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]