Talk:No evidence of dead terrorists in US bombed Pakistan village
Add topicLatest comment: 14 years ago by Brian McNeil in topic Edit
picture
[edit]There is a picture on Wikipedia that i cant get to work in this article. Can somewiki help and put it in? International 06:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- While that picure is tagged as public domain it has no source listed so that claim is dubious. I found a free image of Aziz and uploaded it to the commons, feel free to use that if you think it is appropiate. --Deprifry|+T+ 16:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Article about the mis-reporting?
[edit]I am wondering whether the mis-reporting by western media about this event would be an appropriate news story? I don't want to spend time on it if it will be tagged as "not-news". Any thoughts? Neutralizer 13:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Or tagged NPOV everywhere. Jason Safoutin 19:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would not make a separate news story out of it unless you have several instances of misreporting. This is also a very mild way of misreporting where someone reported "news" with a very thin factual basis. If handeled correctly, this could be valid news. Howeve, I would like to remind everyone that this is not how things were done when wikinews picked up that story, where some editors went to great length to push the story further than the facts allowed (see Al Qaeda bomb maker reportedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan and Talk:Al_Qaeda_bomb_maker_reportedly_killed_in_U.S._airstrike_in_Pakistan#.22earlier.22).
- For one it says REPORTADLY. No where in that article does it state for a FACT that he or any terrorist was killed. its REPORTADLY. Wikinews is based on news reported THAT DAY...sorry but my crystal ball was in the shop and I could not see into today when the strike occured. Jason Safoutin 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jason; thanks for the response. Of course the technical loophole word of "reportedly" as with "allegedly" would work even if we were quoting an anonymous crackhead on his report that little green men from Mars just beamed up his 6 legged dog. The question, in my opinion is, did western media, for whatever reason, sink to an unacceptable level of original and cooberative sources ("Pakistani officials"..."anonymous intelligence sources") over hte past 10 days concerning the attack on the village? What do you think in retrospect?Neutralizer 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think reports are conflicting. Possibly a cover up. Who knows? I do know ABC stands by their word at what they reported. When the article developed new news the next article stated that clearly. reportadly is a good way to use the words because its what was reported at the time the article was published. Reports change, a new article should be written and usually is. We reported what we had and that was published. There were no objections at the time to using the word and there is only one right now. Either way, thew article is poublished and old. Changes per policy are not to be made. Jason Safoutin 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jason, In the light of Pakistan PM facts still is not clear, the story can turn again. But what s clear is that it shows the importans of value sorces. And to use common sense. For example the word confirmed demand very good sourses. I guess you must learn, excuse me for lecturing you, some things from this story. Read the articles history and examine your part of what happned. Its really important. International 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well then you cannot read. The sources are in the article. Thats what was reported on that day and thats what ALL the sources say. Can't get over it can ya? Jason Safoutin 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- To be really honest Jason, if you dont use your common sense in valuating sorces you should think of blogging. International 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well then you cannot read. The sources are in the article. Thats what was reported on that day and thats what ALL the sources say. Can't get over it can ya? Jason Safoutin 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jason, In the light of Pakistan PM facts still is not clear, the story can turn again. But what s clear is that it shows the importans of value sorces. And to use common sense. For example the word confirmed demand very good sourses. I guess you must learn, excuse me for lecturing you, some things from this story. Read the articles history and examine your part of what happned. Its really important. International 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think reports are conflicting. Possibly a cover up. Who knows? I do know ABC stands by their word at what they reported. When the article developed new news the next article stated that clearly. reportadly is a good way to use the words because its what was reported at the time the article was published. Reports change, a new article should be written and usually is. We reported what we had and that was published. There were no objections at the time to using the word and there is only one right now. Either way, thew article is poublished and old. Changes per policy are not to be made. Jason Safoutin 20:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jason; thanks for the response. Of course the technical loophole word of "reportedly" as with "allegedly" would work even if we were quoting an anonymous crackhead on his report that little green men from Mars just beamed up his 6 legged dog. The question, in my opinion is, did western media, for whatever reason, sink to an unacceptable level of original and cooberative sources ("Pakistani officials"..."anonymous intelligence sources") over hte past 10 days concerning the attack on the village? What do you think in retrospect?Neutralizer 20:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe I contributed to start this unhappy conversation, so I would like to reiterate the central point here. Yes, it is ok to report news like ABC's information and the use of the words "reportedly", "allegedly" and so on reflect the uncertainty connected with this information. And after some initial struggle, the article achieved that. What is not accpetable though is to weight cerain information based on personal bias which is not backed by the sources. In particluar I am referring to this diff, which, except for cosmetics, only differs by one sentence moved to the bottom and the insertion of the word "earlier" purely for POV purposes. This is where the line between reporting and mis-reporting was crossed in this article on wikinews. --vonbergm 23:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Like, Vonbergm (who I happen to agree with completely in his summation of the issue), I'm kind of sorry I even brought it up. If mistakes were made before, either they will be repeated again or else they won't be. I'm moving on to new stories now. Thanks to everyone for the provoking thoughts. Neutralizer 23:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Headline is a quote.
[edit]The article refers primarily to Aziz's comments and therefore sould appear as a quote
"No evidence of dead terrorists in US bomber Pakistan village: Aziz (or Pak Pres)"
(In the states, the subject comes first.)
This is very basic journalism. Without this it is asserting that wikinews reporting has come to this conclusion.
Compare it with all the sources provided that are based on quotes:
"Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike"
"Pakistan PM: CIA attack reports 'bizarre'"
"Pakistan PM: No evidence of al-Qaida dead"
Does wikinews have guidelines on writing headlines somewhere? 24.94.246.41 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please see WN:SG. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- You got a point. The headline could be formed as a quote. But as I see it it is not baised or wrong. 1st, title dont claim no terrorist was killed. Just that there is no evidence. 2st, there is no evidence (yet, if it is true is that terrorists was killed). 3rd, Wikinews have published statements like confirmed killing of terrorist wich was speculative. Confirmation need a reliable source. But I will not interfere if someone change title to a quote. International 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Edit
[edit]{{editprotected}} Category:Shaukat Aziz, Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas (site of incident). Ali Rana (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
