Talk:New report details strain on US Army

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

All exact quotes available at the time from the source located had been used. All paraphrasing of quotes and report components was present in divergent form in the source article at the time of writing. Opalus 20:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Paraphrasing is not allowed under the NPOV policy. You must include exact quotes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exact quotes are unavailable for the paraphrasing of the report and will not be made available according to the article and not located for the paraphrasing of the interview. It is not policy approved even though all are present in the sources of the article? If so, the interview paraphrasing could be removed but I thought it tended to balance NPOV more effectively by its inclusion. Opalus 20:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I must declare opposition to the return to development given the present justification as I have not paraphrased any available quotes which so far as it appears is what the policy was directed at preventing. If there is direct policy reference on a policy page forbidding use of source material paraphrasing of interview for which no transcript can be located or against use of paraphrasing from source articles of reports that will not be publicly release, I will drop this upon its direction and identification as valid. All paraphrasing was done by the AP in their original article about their interview with Krepinevich on this matter. On the alternate potential application of the alleged paraphrasing violation as to the report, I have already stated the nature of the report and the original articles support it as not publicly available and that all paraphrasing of it is the only source. This is supported by the AP original article also, which has been added as a source to the wikinews article. Opalus 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With that said, then the quotes where exclusive to the AP and cannot be used in the article as it may cite copyvio. I think the tags should stay. Jason Safoutin 21:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the case, then this article should also remove all exclusive content to the AP. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have not included intentional direct copies of the paraphrasing but rather reworded the limited information conveyed in those provided instances. If I have, unknowingly, not differentiated these phrases adequate for the fair use here please identify them so that I may correct those phrases. AP does not practice exclusion in this regard, the story has been effectively republished by both China Daily and USA Today under AP permission. Opalus 21:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but the sites state that "in an interview", which was done by AP. That being th case, the quotes are exclusive to the AP. But regardless cannot be paraphrased. The mere rewording and including of the "quotes" makes the artilce highly subjectable to copyvio. BUT I am not going to add the tag unless I get any agreement from other users. Jason Safoutin 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue with this is that USA Today and China Daily spend money to reprint or use AP stories as basis for their articles. We do not. Therefore, we cannot use this source for the article, if it contains exclusive information or quotes. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to the AP FAQ (

All requests for republication of AP material must be in writing, clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the copy will be used. All republished material must carry AP credit. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all permission is given for one-time use only. No political candidate, political party, political action committee, polemical organization, or any group formed for partisan purpose may use AP copy in any publication. There may be a fee for reprint use.

This however is not a reprint. It applies rather in my mind at least as it is not such direct reprint to questions of fair dealing, for which in Australia for example specific exception is made for application of news; also in the US fair use allows for use in news reporting. What potential violations remain? Opalus 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The argument that we can not use AP as a source seems ludicrous and specious to me at first blush; could this pov be explained more succinctly perhaps? Neutralizer 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paraphrasing outlawed?[edit]

MrM; regarding your comment above; "Paraphrasing is not allowed under the NPOV policy. You must include exact quotes." Please provide the specific reference in our NPOV policy which outlaws paraphrasing as I have been unable to find it. Neutralizer 22:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AP material was already used in USA today and etc. They PAID for it and have PERMISSION to use it. Unless you have WRITTEN permission from AP...that material CANNOT be used. Quotes paraphrased could be misleading as to what the person quoted is saying. There for paraphrasing is not allowed as it may MISLEAD readers. Jason Safoutin 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jason, do you perhaps know what section of our NPOV policy MrM is referring to? Neutralizer 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Written permission is required for reprinting only by the FAQ on AP policies. US Fair Use and others for example Australian Fair Dealing allow usage as I have intended to use the source. If it violates those policies in a way that can be corrected the task is to meet those policies, not suppress the article for its content based on false and invalid or at least as yet unvalidated interpretations that it is somehow a reprint by any AP definition. It was not certain whether policy was for disputed tags to remain or not, is it policy or convention to leave them until the dispute is settle or to remove them until justification validation? Opalus 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a very good question; anyone may remove a tag if they feel it is unwarranted BUT some admins. will often call that "site disruption" and a block may result. There have been minimum requirements that a tag be justified; as far as I can see. Neutralizer 22:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please provide actionable objections[edit]

I do not know if MrM is still involved with the article, but if anyone thinks there are actionable objections, please list them here so they can be dealt with and the article move forward. An editor has put much work into this story. Neutralizer 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I asked Amgine(IRC) to have a look. Neutralizer 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


"Amgine> This article does not mention Krepinevich as an interview:

<Amgine> I'm workign through the other sources.

<Amgine> This source does not mention Krepinevich as an interview:

<Amgine> This one does:

<Amgine> Not AP, I note.

<Amgine> No, it is AP, just in USAtoday

<Amgine> China Daily is the same as the last story, just in a different venue.

<Amgine> This sentence is the only quote from the private interview: ""You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue,""

<Neutralizer> so we should just take out that sentence?

<Amgine> All other quotes are from the report, and not from the interview (which was probably by phone).

<Amgine> If that sentence is in there, yes."


So, that sentence is not in the article; therefore there is no copyvio, it seems to me. Neutralizer 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On specified complaints[edit]

I must apologize to MrMiscellanious for my former misinterpretation of his complaints. The currently provided Rumsfeld paraphrased view was present in the China Daily article and adapted at the initial writing. I have located a new article with his direct response to this specific event and left it as a source, I unfortunately do not have time at the moment to refine the article for its use instead. Would alternate use of its material and listing it as source satisfy the Rumsfeld aspect of the complaint? As to the the Murtha aspect, this site has a summary with such a quote: Would use of its material and listing as a source satisfy the Murtha aspect of the complaint? Again, it is unfortunate my time is limited at the moment so it must be left to another to correct those aspects of the article but if it is not done when I next have time I promise to make those corrections. Opalus 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't care where they are located. I want them attributed as full quotes, or explain who paraphrased. I refuse to respond to your every disagreement anymore; so don't expect it from me. Listing a source of the quote is not sufficient enough. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MrM, you have no reason to get upset here. If you had laid out your objection clearly from the beginning, there would not have been any discussion. Pointing toward the Murtha and Rumsfeld quotes like you did the second time you taged the article took you just as much time as your first comment did. If you had explained your objections properly in the first place, there would not have been any discussion at all! So please, next time try to be constructive in your criticism (in which case it would be greatly appreciated)! --vonbergm 04:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If readers would have read the article, and read my complaints, it would be impossible for them to miss what I brought attention to. Please, let's use a little sense. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote the initial and quite a bit of the final article and did not understand your first complaint. Perhaps in that sense I am a bit dim. In the future if you would provide some specific identifying detail as to what lines you may have complaint about in articles I edit in the future like your second complaint had here it should allow for faster resolution. That I believe was the intent of Vonbergm's comment. Opalus 12:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I should not have assumed that a fast resultion is in everybody's interest. And Opalus, it looks like not just you but also at least Neutralizer, Amgine and me had the same problem. --vonbergm 18:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest you get your eyes checked then. It should be fairly obvious when someone is said to have stated something, but no exact quotes are there, that you would get what my message was. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can't get a fix on a complaint, but I think this story needs to be reported. -Edbrown05 06:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ditto. Neutralizer 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply] Identity[edit]

Apologies, I was not aware that I was not logged in, I am the user who edited. Opalus 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Way cool. (neat work) -Edbrown05 08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"help". Can you look at the text to the image, I cant get it to show upp. International 08:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed image text display, and added comma that seemed necessary. Based off of code used for successful image by Vishakh in the US ambassador links India's civil nuclear initiative to Iran vote article. Opalus 08:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]