Talk:Taizé ecumenical community founder Frère Roger assassinated

I was many times in Taize and I meet Frère Roger. He was a real "saint" man in his life and make something extraordinary, what is realy important in all Christian life: THE reconciling of the different Christian churches. I don't understand WHY. It's a great missing for all Christians. GOD BLESS HIM.

Editprotected request

The following request has been moved here from User:Anne9853.

I am writing about the {{editprotected}} Wikinews article on the assassination of Brother Roger of Taize.

"Taizé ecumenical community founder Frère Roger assassinated"

Here are some grammatical suggestions:

3rd paragraph: change "kids" to "youngsters" or "young people". This is my hunch based on my visit to Taize around 1980; most of the visitors to Taize were 16 - 28 years old.

4th paragraph: change "One of the brothers of Taizé, a medical doctor, who together with another doctor who was present at the evening service, tried to save the life of Taizé's founder, but didn't succeed and Frère Roger died just minutes after the knife attack." to "One of the brothers of Taizé, a medical doctor, together with another doctor who was present at the evening service, tried to save the life of Taizé's founder, but didn't succeed and Frère Roger died just minutes after the knife attack." Eliminate one "who".

Final paragraph: change "The community have reacted to the shocking events in their own way." to "The community has reacted to the shocking events in its own way."

Anne9853 (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Do you have reason to believe the use of "kids" is actually wrong? If an archived article is wrong, we issue a correction, rather than changing the article. We would put a {{correction}} template at the top of the article, and we'd need to be sure the article was wrong before doing that. If you believe the article is wrong, can you suggest how we can be sure of that?
• Re the spurious word "who" in the fourth paragraph. I checked the Spiegel Online source (the other specific source about this incident is no longer available), and as best I can tell, through the usual laughably bad automatic translation, it does appear the change is merely a correction of a mechanical error in the article that clarifies, but does not alter, its intended meaning. So I made that change to the article.
• Re treating "the community" as singular or plural in the final paragraph. Either singular or plural is correct English usage, so I didn't make that change.

--Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Pi zero,

Thanks for editing out the redundant "who".

My reasoning for believing "kids" is wrong is as my mother used to say: kids are goats. The term seems unnecessarily slangy. If by kids the writer meant "children", that's fine, but it is unlikely it was actually children, so I do not suggest such a specific (and misleading?) change. I suggested substituting the word "youngsters" as it conveys youth in an indeterminate way that could mean either "children" or "teens" or "young adult", since I don't know which is most correct for this news event.

Thanks for your work and for considering this point of view. Anne9853 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these issues. It's good to think things through.

The word "kids" is of course somewhat less formal than "children", but in this context does mean the same thing, so that "youngsters" would apparently be a change of meaning. The two sources were evidently both in German, and one of them is no longer available, so I see no way of judging whether the term "kids"/"children" was in fact justified by information in the sources. I'm not comfortable choosing a word that has different meaning ("youngsters"). The kids/children difference is stylistic, and I'm not really inclined to change it after all these years for a small stylistic point. If we can produce some sort of solid evidence that the kids/children meaning is wrong, a {{correction}} should be issued. Note, though, that even if there were non-children, it doesn't follow that the description in our article is necessarily wrong, if the woman embedded herself in a group of children. So we'd need specific support to justify a correction. --Pi zero (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not necessary to point out the nationality of the mentally-ill woman who murdered brother Roger, it could enhance prejudice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 187.15.165.147 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 19 May 2013‎

Well, news is about reporting facts. Any fact can be twisted by someone who wants to twist it; this one doesn't strike me as particularly prejudicial. --Pi zero (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)