Talk:Pakistan court sentences one man to death penalty, and life imprisonment to five others for Mashal Khan lynching incident

Review of revision 4381847 [Passed]

Revision 4381847 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4381847 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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

{{moveprotected}}

@Pi zero: not sure if I am connected on IRC but typo in headline -- Mashal Khan, not Mahal Khan.
•–• 23:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation note

{{flag}}

@Pi zero:should we consider translation note as substantial change to the article? What to do when we have (in this case: Devanagari and Farsi script for the language?)

•–• 08:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am bit confused here. I see there's a Hindustani translation note in the article. There are some sources that are said to be Urdu. Where do Devanagari and Farsi play into it all? Acagastya can you break the issue down for all to understand? --SVTCobra 08:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It is confusing. (I guess pizero will understand this analogy: any DFA is an NFA as well as an epsilon NFA) similarly; Urdu can be considered as a child of Hindustani, so can be Hindi. Hindi is written in Devanagari script while Urdu in Nastaliq script, derived from Farsi script. Most of the Hindi speakers can understand Urdu and viceversa because both are derived from Hindustani. The speaker said in Urdu, or in Hindustani, both are equivalent. However, it is better to use Translated quote with both scripts; (Urdu would have been of course better as it is de facto official language of Pakistan. But usage of Devanagari isn’t incorrect, as such. (CC@SVTCobra:
•–• 08:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Is our English version still correct? If so, let's just eliminate the {{translated quote}} note. It'll be quick and easy. The non-display notes can remain. --SVTCobra 08:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you want to remove translation note? I had spent a lot of energy on and off wiki for it and yes, it is correct. Can you explain your last comment?
•–• 09:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe I misunderstand, but I thought you wanted to change what is inside of {{translated quote}} but not the English result. That template is not required. Any and all transcriptions of the quote can be on the collaboration page in whatever language and/or script is necessary to show that our Wikinews translation is correct. That's how we dealt with quotes from non-English sources in the past. I am not talking about removing the quote itself. Cheers, --SVTCobra 09:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

there are a lot of things not required, yet better to do it. It is informative. And the information should be on the article and not on talk (quotes are available in sources, too, still we use it).
•–• 09:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

<coming in to conversation> I think of a translation note as value added, something useful that English msm generally doesn't provide. It makes especially clear when a quote was not originally English; if the reader happens to read the other language, they can see for themselves what was actually said, comparing it to our English translation and picking up whatever further insight the original text affords them; and even if they don't properly understand the original language, they may be able to make some deductions from it and might too conceivably benefit from a bit of exposure to it.

I understand the question here to be, what status does the non-English original have relative to archiving. Clearly the archive policy applies in full force to the English text since that is the primary meaning we are delivering to our English readers, and we have had to exercise journalistic judgement in producing it. The non-English original is more objective, based on what was actually said and which bits were translated into English. The question would seem to be whether or not it constitutes adding information.

@Acagastya: What specific edit to the article are you contemplating? --Pi zero (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: here, the translation in Devanagari script is provided -- if it was available in Nastiliq script (post 24-hour mark) could we add it? It is different from -- let's say we had an article where we quoted Spanish PM and added translated quote after 24-hour mark. Even Punjabi is written in two different scripts. So the question is 1> how to manage two scripts if available at the time of writing. 2> if one script was there before 24 hour mark, can we add the other script post 24 hour mark?
•–• 14:53, 7 March 2018 (UTC)