Talk:Time magazine refutes US President Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated Time 'Person of the Year'

Review of revision 4366755 [Not ready]

Revision 4366755 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Not established; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is an interesting case study in the mutually entangled concepts of focus and relevance. The lede is supposed to succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event, and in the process it is supposed to show that the focal event is newsworthy; one of the three basic elements of newsworthiness is relevance. The current lede says that Trump said a certain thing on twitter. But, if one is going to report on this at all, it's essential to know that what he said is completely untrue; that's so important that even the headline is misleading without it. What he said on twitter definitely wouldn't be newsworthy if it weren't false. To not put that super-important information up front is what's called burying the lede. Further, one could reasonably ask why it's news that Trump said something totally false on twitter. There is context needed to understand the significance of his lying on twitter — if, in fact, it is significant. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies routinely. I've heard it suggested that he often makes especially outrageous remarks when he's trying to distract people from something. The context of why this particular lie is, or isn't, significant might actually be quite difficult to explain. It has been noted that Trump is a blatant troll; he says stuff to get attention, and to make sure people are talking about what he said. So the news media has to be very wary of helping him get attention, and encouraging people to talk about what he's said. Yes, it is possible for what he says to be news; but we do need to make sure if we report it, we provide sufficient context that our readers become better informed by reading our coverage, instead of worse informed as could easily happen if Trump were allowed to control the conversation. [Btw: we would not, of course, report in the article, in Wikinews's own voice, that Trump lied, which would be loaded terminology, nor even that what he said is false, which would be drawing a conclusion. ] Just to mention, there are at least a couple of somewhat over-length fragments here too close to source; but the biggest problems with this are to do with focus and newsworthiness per above. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4366755 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Not established; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is an interesting case study in the mutually entangled concepts of focus and relevance. The lede is supposed to succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about the focal event, and in the process it is supposed to show that the focal event is newsworthy; one of the three basic elements of newsworthiness is relevance. The current lede says that Trump said a certain thing on twitter. But, if one is going to report on this at all, it's essential to know that what he said is completely untrue; that's so important that even the headline is misleading without it. What he said on twitter definitely wouldn't be newsworthy if it weren't false. To not put that super-important information up front is what's called burying the lede. Further, one could reasonably ask why it's news that Trump said something totally false on twitter. There is context needed to understand the significance of his lying on twitter — if, in fact, it is significant. Not to put too fine a point on it, he lies routinely. I've heard it suggested that he often makes especially outrageous remarks when he's trying to distract people from something. The context of why this particular lie is, or isn't, significant might actually be quite difficult to explain. It has been noted that Trump is a blatant troll; he says stuff to get attention, and to make sure people are talking about what he said. So the news media has to be very wary of helping him get attention, and encouraging people to talk about what he's said. Yes, it is possible for what he says to be news; but we do need to make sure if we report it, we provide sufficient context that our readers become better informed by reading our coverage, instead of worse informed as could easily happen if Trump were allowed to control the conversation. [Btw: we would not, of course, report in the article, in Wikinews's own voice, that Trump lied, which would be loaded terminology, nor even that what he said is false, which would be drawing a conclusion. ] Just to mention, there are at least a couple of somewhat over-length fragments here too close to source; but the biggest problems with this are to do with focus and newsworthiness per above. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4366937 [Passed]

Revision 4366937 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The tweets themselves are clearly stamped on Friday. Since the source articles strangely list the dates as Saturday, I hesitated at first to substitute in the tween stamps; but then afaics we used the stamps for the time difference between Trump's tweet and Stengel's. Ascribing information to a particular source is usually done either because we're giving them credit for an exclusive or because the information is at least slightly uncertain/controversial. Also, in this case saying something was reported by The Straights Times and The Hindu is misleading, because they weren't really where the information was coming from — they were both syndicating AFP. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4366937 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The tweets themselves are clearly stamped on Friday. Since the source articles strangely list the dates as Saturday, I hesitated at first to substitute in the tween stamps; but then afaics we used the stamps for the time difference between Trump's tweet and Stengel's. Ascribing information to a particular source is usually done either because we're giving them credit for an exclusive or because the information is at least slightly uncertain/controversial. Also, in this case saying something was reported by The Straights Times and The Hindu is misleading, because they weren't really where the information was coming from — they were both syndicating AFP. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Move protected =>Time magazine refutes US president Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated Time 'Person of the Year'

{{moveprotected}} Simple reason: Who the fuck is Donald Trump? If the headline can not answer it, at least it should attempt to reduce guessing work.
•–• 15:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Specifying "Time" seems much more central to making the headline sensible than specifying "US President". If we're changing it anyway, though — and I do think the "Time" thing is important enough to change it for, I should have caught that before publication — I've got no problem doing the other at the same time. Getting set up to do that now. --Pi zero (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Although, one might claim it's implicit in the mention of Time at the start of the headline, I suppose. --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not list what all is wrong with the title. What is Time magazine? Is it about sports? Photography? Physics? What is "Person of the Year"? Since we can not answer all these things, at least mention who is Donald Trump. If "US president" was not mentioned, saying Time POTY makes no difference. Time is not known by all across the globe.
•–• 16:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

On reflection (and taking some IRC discussion into account), it's not best to think of this in terms of explaining things in the headline. Rather, think of how to better serve the function of the headline. There's a rubric about headlines in the Wikinews:Style guide, "Tell the most important and unique thing." It's important to realize that Time magazine was correcting a statement that was made about their own choice for Person of the Year. Also, knowing who Trump is contributes to understanding the nature of the importance; that's an aspect I feel I should have paid more notice to earlier in the discussions of this change — and, indeed, imho that consideration is much clearer if one thinks of this in terms of "tell the most important and unqiue thing" rather than "look how many people might not know who Donald Trump is". Best to emphasize what we're trying to do, and how to most effectively do that. --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Look how many people might not know about Trump is just another way of looking at mentioning he is POTUS would add something unique, interesting point to the story while it tackles ambiguity. I have tried to tell (others) to tell something unique, but they say is "it looks good for me, if you are not okay with it, then why don't you change it?" -- that too when their titles had nothing "unique" or "special".
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

New York City

@Acagastya: Why would you want to use the wikilink target that conveys less information? I could say more, but to start with I honestly don't understand your motivation here, hence my —sincere— question. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero:These are subjective things. For example, when I wrote about Al Jazeera, I said Qatar-based news org in lede for this article: Al Jazeera says Snapchat's act a 'clear attack on the rights of journalists' as Snapchat blocks Qatar-based news network's channel in Saudi Arabia However, when I mentioned about it in Visa now compulsory for Qataris to enter Egypt, foreign ministry says, for the article about Qatar, I said Doha-based news org. It depends on how much geographical information was released. Ideally, I should say "Doha, Qatar, based". Like for Amazon, Inc. I said Seattle, Washington. For this article, ideally we should explain what Time magazine is about. Name suggests it could be a news magazine, a photography magazine or it could be related to sports. I wanted to say US-based but that would look odd in the lede. Saying "NY city, NY" would just increase number of commas, pauses and complexity.

However, I did not understand why you wanted to stick with that lede, which speaks about the focal event after the first sentence -- which is entirely a different story. No matter how sooner or how later Time responded, if their denial is the focal point, it should be said first and the previous action should be mentioned later. The first line fails to answer the 5Ws and Hs since tho "who" is Time magazine in this case. Doing it in the way I had suggested would help in answering those questions as early as possible, and also ensuring the transition from the first paragraph to the second showed signs of continuity.
•–• 13:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)