Talk:Dhaka court sentences former Bangladeshi Prime Minister Khaleda Zia to five years on corruption charges

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

Review of revision 4381796 [Passed][edit]

  • It might have been well for the lede to touch on the political accusations. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Currency units[edit]


This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.


@Acagastya: Is there a point where a currency symbol is internationally encountered infrequently enough that naming it would be useful? If so, I think the taka would likely warrant it (though I'd expect you to be more familiar with that one being geographically closer to its home). Whether the ruble would warrant it seems to me a separate question (on which I would also be interested in your perspective). --Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I had no clue about taka's symbol until I had to use it for the article. Similarly, I had no idea how Russian ruble's symbol looks like. If I were to add "Russian ruble" to that article, we would have a "meh" type reaction, and sight it. Removing it adds a chance that we actually get to discuss about it. I feel we should explain every symbol (and that includes metre at the first instance, too)
•–• 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Well, that raises some further questions.
  • Which currency symbols don't need explanation? Dollars euros and pounds? What about rupees? Yen/yuan? Perhaps we shouldn't be trying to explain any of them; though even if that's the answer, I'm just as glad to have tried with taka, because if we were going to that's a likely candidate, and it has (as you say) started a discussion.
  • How ought we to format such explanations; I tried something here, but perhaps there's a better way?
  • How ought we to explain unit abbreviations; for example, if we describe a distance as 500 miles and then specify the metric equivalent in parentheses, how would we explain the "km" that's then already in parentheses?
--Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Interestingly, there is advice on this in the SG that we're not following. --Pi zero (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Um, We take granted that people would know what $, euro or pound means. There was a time when I would confuse between euro and cents. How about:
  • £100 (1 pound = 1.38 US Dollar)
  • 500 miles (1 mile = 1.7 kilometres; so about 805km)
  • 100 light years (1ly = 9.4×1012 kilometres; so about 9.4×1014 km)
Wy you think rupee symbol is fine without explanation.
•–• 16:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think listing conversion rate works for us; that's diverging from the news under discussion. The missing information that's potentially relevant is, what does "km" stand for. --Pi zero (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
500 miles (about 805 kilometres) and 100 light years (about 9.4×1014km) [mentioning at the first instance. As for currency is concerned; CAD 50, or INR100 — that is worse than CA$ or ₹. Those ISO codes are standard, but harder to be understood by common readers. (Like for example CH is for Switzerland. And in three character, that becomes SUI)
223.237.202.133 (talk) 13:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

"High court"[edit]

{{Issue correction}} I'm curious as to the characterization of the court as a "high court". A bit of searching on my part of learn more about what court it was led to to find no reference to it in the sources, and that on reading the Reuters article I found the only reference to a "High Court" being that Zia's lawyers would appeal to one. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I think it's not quite accurate to refer to an unnamed court as "Dhaka high court." Some googling suggests it was an ad hoc court created for this trial, but I'm unfamiliar with the Bangladeshi legal system so I'm not very sure if it's okay to call it such, or if we might need a {{correction}}. —mikemoral (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the article in one edit when I was sleep deprived; and I had to refer my notes which mentions SC appeal (Bloomberg) but nowhere I have written about a high court. The word "high" in the lede causes the problem.
•–• 02:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I suggest we issue the correction in this case. It's been long enough since publication that we do need the correction notice. Perhaps something among the lines of {{correction|date=February 14, 2018|explanation=This article previously mischaracterized the trial court as a high court.}}. The wording could use work. —mikemoral (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
let pizero do it. CC@Pi zero:.
•–• 12:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
(Huh? Whatever; I hope I'll have a chance to study this and add my thoughts here soon.) --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I checked my notes, and the sources, and at least ten different sources, and nobody says "high" court. I searched for "courts in Dhaka" on Google Maps, and there are three, including the SC, but none of them is called a "high" court. Many sources claim it was a "special" court. The word "high" in the lede causes the problem, and that would have to be removed; but since that is a substantial change, one should issue a {{correction}}.
•–• 15:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya, Pi zero: I was reminded of this article reading some news piece with a correction notice. We never quite got around to deciding whether a correction was necessary. I think a clarification should be issued at least. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 07:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t think it's an error as such. The Supreme Court of Bangladesh comprises two divisions - a lower one called the High Court Division and a higher one called the Appellate Division. The court being referred to here is the High Court Division and the appeal will be to the Appellate Division. I would suggest a clarification changing it to "the High Court Division". Green Giant (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Anything not in the source is not acceptable; and that time; post 24-hour talaq period, I had checked other sources and 5+ said it was a special court. (Thanks for reminding, mikemoral. @Pi zero: -- can we get this done tonight?)
•–• 17:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Acagastya is right. I've just read an an article about a bail extension application in the Special Judge Court, and an older article from May last year, which mentions the case was transferred to Special Judge Court-5. Green Giant (talk) 20:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
A general observation regarding use of uncited sources in deciding on correction notices. Correction notices are about making sure the reader knows if the final form of our article has a problem. If something is wrong, it's not an excuse that the sources got it wrong too; the reader needs to know. At another extreme, if something can't be verified from the cited sources, but we determine by other means that it's true, we probably don't want to significantly disrupt the reader's perusal of the article just to tell them that our being right was accidental. (The {{correction}} template is designed to disrupt the reader, to be sure they get its message.) Between those, if we fail to determine whether or not it's true by any means, cited or otherwise, we would need to inform the reader of that.

I'm starting to study this now. --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm unable to access the first of those two articles; on a browser with javascript disabled, it doesn't load at all, on one with javascript enabled it blanks partway into the load and attempting to access its underlying html causes a panel crash. The older one, from May, talks of the High Court transferring the case (as mentioned above) between "Sepcial" courts, which one might tentatively suppose are not "High". It seems that one of the functions of the High Court is supervision of lesser courts. --Pi zero (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant, Acagastya: I have proposed a {{correction}} notice. Does it look right? --Pi zero (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I think that's fine. If anyone is intrigued about what the court is called, they can always ask here. Green Giant (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
sorry I can;t look into it more but i hate that corection. "the court is not high" (or judge) wtf? are we saying they were on drugs before the correction? why cant we say what level the court/judge is? please make this better. --SVTCobra 05:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: well, if one considers "high" in the context of drug culture, correction is hilarious. So how about: This article describes Judge Akhteruzzaman's court as "high court", but sources do not mention it was a "high court".
223.237.235.90 (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I've adjusted it; though I mostly swore off worrying about such double meanings decades ago, as a determined reader can always find them. --Pi zero (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)