Talk:Bulgarian government says U.S. killed Bulgarian soldier in 'friendly fire' incident

Please, read carefully the Wikinews:Style guide, Wikinews:Content guide and the Wikinews:Neutral point of view. This article has too much troubles to be accept as valid for publishing: it is pov, the sources are not cited properly, it is very bad written. You should at least do a effort so this article follow the basic recomendations for Wikinews. This article, as it is, in this area is a suitable candidate for deletion.--Carlosar 19:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One cited source is not directly relate to the article subject. Although it can be used, it does not explain most of the articles' claims. The another link to the another source does not work (if you typed the URL by mistake, please correct it, sou we can check the story).

Since the claims stated by the article are controversial, you must put this in evidence, and you must write other possible point of views about the same subject.--Carlosar 19:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am afraid this article is being used only for difamation. The article is trying to conclude something that is circunstantial and not related to the facts. --Carlosar 19:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what controversial claims are being made? The article seems very un-POV to me. The title might be a bit POV, implying that there is doubt about it. US Forces did kill a Bulgarian soldier in Iraq. There are two reputable sources that say that. What's the problem here? It would be a disservice, and POV in itself to delete this article. - Xcjm 20:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Carlosar, please carefully read all of the sources linked! Then you will understand why they are there. And in what way is this article PoV? Please be specific. What way are the sources not cited properly? Which one doesn't work for you? Both are fine for me. Dan100 (Talk) 21:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• To be honest I'm lost for words. What I'm reading above doesn't seem to be related to what I've written. A Bulgarian soldier is dead: verified fact. The Bulgarian government claims the US did it and it was friendly fire: cited in source, one PoV. The US military have said nothing except that the death occured and they are investigating: cited in source, the other PoV. That means that: the article is factual and fully referenced. Both PoVs are presented, making the article npov. What else is there to say?! Dan100 (Talk) 21:54, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The story is using circumstantial facts trying to prove, in a disguised way (what is terrible since we are trying to deceptive the reader), that something which can be put under dispute is true. And this disguised conclusion is not verified by the references. The case here has some reseamblance with the Larry Roether's article about the Brazilian President Lula. At that occasion he collected a lot of evidences about President Lula trying to prove he is a drank man. Although the collected facts were true, they were circumstantial. Because of that we can say that the Larry Roether's article was possibly a libellous article. The same arguments can be used here. --Carlosar 22:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, be specific! What is this 'something' that is being presented as true?? And I ask you again, what links are broken?! Dan100 (Talk) 22:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cannot reach: http://www.mnf-iraq.com/media-information/March/050308e.htm --Carlosar 22:27, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google's cache Dan100 (Talk) 22:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The 1st COSCOM source indicates the investigation is just getting started into "who done it". So,although its fine to report the Bulgarian allegations,its ludicrous to be using terms like "accidently" or "friendly" before the investigation begins. In fact, the label of "friendly" fire is absurd, patent non-sense, and not in the dictionary. Just ask the victims's family how "friendly" the bullets were. Its a war. Someone aimed a gun and pulled the trigger.Its not an accident unless the gun went off accidently. References to "accident" or "friendly" fire must be direct quotes attributable to a press release or individual; otherwise its POV and should not be repeated on Wikinews. Paulrevere2005 23:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disputes - discuss calmly, please

Neutrality dispute

There is no bias in the facts presented (which are minimal). There is no interpretation of these facts. There is no background for the facts presented. This is not unusual in a developing story, but does not by itself create a POV.

If there is a specific element you find non-Neutral, Carlosar, could you please explain it to me? - Amgine 22:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Editorial dispute

I believe the facts could be expanded to explain more carefully. I also believe the article is not "badly developed" but in fact developing, and with support will outgrow any issues.

If there are specific elements you find in need of editorial clean up, Carlosar, could you please explain them to me? - Amgine 22:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is trying to show that the US Army is killing allies on purpose. First, friendly fire is not a rare occurence during military operations. Second, there is not even evidences showing that the Bulgarian soldier were really killed by friendly fire or by enemies fire. What you know is that the Bulgarian government said the death was caused by friendly fire. Everything is too vague, even you told that at the begining:"Although details are vague at the current time..." --Carlosar 22:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is trying to show that the US Army is killing allies on purpose. First, friendly fire is not a rare occurence during military operations. Second, there is not even evidences showing that the Bulgarian soldier were really killed by friendly fire or by enemies fire. What you know is that the Bulgarian government said the death was caused by friendly fire. Everything is too vague, even you told that at the begining:"Although details are vague at the current time..." Third, since the death of soldiers is a commun causality during a war, what is the relevance of putting in evidence the misterious death of a single soldier? --Carlosar 22:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is trying to show that the US Army is killing allies on purpose - it is doing nothing of the sort! It is a simple news report, a single story about a single event (that was overlooked in the mainstream media due to the shooting of the Italians the same day). Where does it say anything about the shooting being 'on purpose'?

Sure, I agree, you did not said that. However you are clearly inducing the reader to believe in that claim, what is worst than if you have wrote that.--Carlosar 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you have some referenced casualty figures for friendly fire events in Iraq recently feel free to add them.

And I never said that soldier was actually killed by friendly fire. I said it was 'apparent' - which means that it 'appears' as if that is what happened, but is not fact. I did say that the Bulgarian government claim it was an FF incident. However the use of the word 'apparent' could be seen as drawing a personal conclusion and forming an opinion, yes. But that would be very easy to fix with a simple edit (which I'll do now if no-one else has).

The title has been changed to a better one now (thanks Elo). Dan100 (Talk) 22:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, Elo has greatly expanded the article. Thanks! Aren't wikis great? :) Dan100 (Talk) 23:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there some serious evidence showing the US Army is being negligence?

Is there some serious evidence showing the US Army is planning to kill his allies? Is there some reason for that?

What is so uncommon about the Bulgarian soldier case so we must put this old story in evidence? Was the soldier a very important person? Was the conditions related to his death so uncommon?

There were another cases of friendly fire which have occurred during the US military operations Iraq. What is the diference between the Bulgarian soldier case and all those cases so it must be put in evidence?--Carlosar 23:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the diference between the Bulgarian soldier case and all those cases so it must be put in evidence? Nothing at all. You are free to write any news story you want on any topic. BTW, I wouldn't call this 'old' news - the investigation is ongoing at this time and the incident only occured a few days ago. Dan100 (Talk) 23:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In general, Wikinews will report on stories the contributors consider important. Hence we have stories like Three Romanian ports closed due to heavy fog or Cambridge Planning Board approves new science building at Harvard. The inclusion of this article in Wikinews cannot be seriously disputed. Carlosar, please unlist the article from Wikinews:Deletion requests. It does not belong there.--Eloquence 23:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Misleading Title Dispute

The Voice of America article does not attribute the term 'friendly fire' to the Bulgarian government whereas the title gives the impression the Bulgarian government spokesperson used the term. What the VOI specifically says is "what the army calls 'friendly fire'", and we know its not talking about the Bulgarian army because the link Eloquence gives to the wikipedia definition clearly shows the term is "United States military parlance"; and ,in my opinion, is a term so creepy that only the US military would ever utter it. The article title implies the term was used by the Bulgarian government, especially since it is in quotes, so the term needs to be taken out of the title,in my opinion.

If I was a Bulgarian I would be offended by the use of such a silly term in relation to this tragedy and especially so if I thought the Bulgarian spokesman was using it, which was not the case at all. So, lets please not be attributing US Military parlance to representatives of other nations...they may not like it..I wouldn't. Paulrevere2005 05:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

In what circumstances an friendly fire accident can occurr?

See w:friendly fire.--Eloquence

What are the attenuation conditions? If a accident caused by friendly fire happens it is only because the soldier is negligent?

Of course not. Friendly fire incidents can happen for a large variety of reasons, including equipment malfunctioning.--Eloquence

Is there another occurences of friendly fire in another cases, e.g.: another armies, another countries, another wars?

Certainly..--Eloquence

Is there really happening an abnormal ocurrence of friendly fire?

Nobody claimed that there was.--Eloquence

Is there some interest from certain political groups for putting in evidence the stories about friendly fire? From who? Or are these stories not used politically?

Possibly, though it appears from the statements of the Bulgarian government official that the incident could have been avoided, so it is entirely legitimate to ask questions about what went wrong.--Eloquence

Why do we talk about the causalities of friendly fire concerning the US army and not talk about of friendly fire about other armies, or in another times?

Feel free to write articles about other friendly fire incidents.--Eloquence

Several troubles has been fixed. I will study it a little more but I am more optimistic about it.--Carlosar 00:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal recognition

I recognize the effort being made in this article. I will study it carefully. I am almost convinced it is suitable for publication. I am optimistic about it. I would like to say thank you to the users who improved the article. --Carlosar 23:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph added, please check it

I have added one paragraph. Since I am not a Shakeaspere son I would appreciate someone to fix possible mistakes in grammar, trying to respect the intention on the paragraph. I think that with this last paragraph the article is suitable for publication.--Carlosar 00:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dispute over last paragraph

Last paragraph:

Incidents of friendly fire are a cause of worry to the U.S. Army. Such events sometimes are inevitable, but also may represent a failure in the way the U.S. Army is operating. These incidents can jeopardize relationships with countries who see reasons to be critical of the United States. They might also be used by the political opposition in negative propaganda.

The rest of the text is resposible to me, since it describes in details, correctly what happened. You have to see that it is very different when compared with the first versions. I could accept the new refactored text as it was, I did not see any serious problem, it was a good work. However I would like to try to put another point of view in the text. This new point of view is described in the last paragraph. I think that this new point of view is important. It describes a situation I see nowadays that is the political use of certain events. However almost nobody in media talk about this point of view, even if it is relevant, and there are many evidences supportting at a least a little note about it.

That is what I am asking. At least a honest and little note about this point of view. In my opinion, if we do that the article will be perfect.

The first version of last paragraph maybe was not good. However after some changes, the current version seems resposible to me. It is not accusing anyone in particular, it is not openly defending the USA Army neither. Anyway, I accept other sugestions, so the point of view can be represented in a fairer way.--Carlosar 10:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to point out that I dont want to impose anything. This is a suggestion. Other members of the community can explain and convince me that this new information is not relevant or good. I would like to hear what the other wikinews users think about the subject.--Carlosar 11:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Carlosar, I will take you up on your offer to "hear what others think about the subject". Your entire thrust in this and other disputes has come across to me as "openly defending the USA Army"(your words); This is a global news site, and its important that we all, me included, keep our own prejudices out of the stories. I emphathize with you because I have exactly the same problem; keeping my opinion out of the story. To show an example of what I mean; there is absolutely no basis for your insertion of the word "inevitable" especially since I do not believe any American has yet been killed by another coallition partner(e.g.Bulgaria,Britain etc.). Every day a child is killed by an abandoned landmine or un-stored gun. A lot of words can apply, but "inevitable" is not one of them. Paulrevere2005 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not "information" though, is it. It's some personal commentary you've added to the article. Everything on Wikinews needs to be referenced, or there's nothing to convince us that you're not just making it up. If you want to put commentary, opinion, spin etc on stuff, just get a blog. Wikinews is not the place for that kind of stuff (that's what makes us different to blogs). Dan100 (Talk) 18:47, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont think that is a personal commentary, I could cite someone speech for example. However I will not continue the dispute anymore because I think it is not a good thing, and the article seems aceptable . --Carlosar 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Conclusions

• First version: 6 lines, 468 words, 2 bad references (one was not working, the other was giving too little details)

• Last version: 21 lines, 3062 words, 3 references (at least a good one: the VOA, very detailed description, with recording). A well detailed article!

The first version of this article was terrible, too vague, the references were not helping. I would like to ask people to be more careful with their articles. Some kind of information is clear and seems ok to you who knows the story, but for another people the things are different. Maybe they dont know the story and they can see the article as a troll thing if it is not well written. You can write about anything, but please, do effort to write a good article (the article dont need to be big, or over detailed, or with a lot of references. But it must have a minimun quality).

I desagree (in part) of Eloquence when he said the article did not belongs to Wikinews:Deletion requests. It does not belong NOW, however the first version was too bad and I thought it was suitable for deletion.

Anyway, I think the conclusion is overall positive. I would like to thank you everybody and I would like to apologize for any incovenience.--Carlosar 15:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)