Talk:Zimbabwean politician Bennett and four others die in New Mexico helicopter crash

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Acagastya in topic By whom; and info in lede
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Washington Post


Is Washington Post only paywalled for US users? --SVTCobra 16:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

I live outside the US, but it is often paywalled for me too. However, in this case, I was able to read the whole article. For the rest, I can't tell why. De Wikischim (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Clear your cache. Or copy the title, (it is AP syndicated) so search title + “apnews” on a search engine and you can compare if they are exactly same or not on dupdet and replace it — as far as I know, pizero said it was okay to replace syndicate articles if paywalled. (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
this? (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I trust you spot checked they are the same. --SVTCobra 19:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Movement for Democratic Change


@De Wikischim: This leads to a disambiguation page. Can you confirm it is meant to be the same as MDC-T? --SVTCobra 20:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

The link in the article leads immediately to w:Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. I have only made the abbreviation itself visible so it's a little easier to read. But the abbreviation itself is not linked to a disambiguation page on WP. --De Wikischim (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am talking about the second link. --SVTCobra 20:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I have determined that Obert Gutu is also of the Tsvangirai branch. But interestingly, this turned up in today's news about him. Hmm, strange. --SVTCobra 20:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Oh OK - I only see what you mean now. Well, see this web site. I think the appropriate link to WP is easy to find now. I'll try to fix it. De Wikischim (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC) I think it's just the same link as earlier in the text. De Wikischim (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes, thanks. I would, however, prefer if you stop editing the article while it is under review. You are creating edit conflicts for me. If you need to comment on something I am doing, please do it here on the talk page. --SVTCobra 21:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
OK, sorry - indeed, I often forget it since this way of "dividing" the edits on an article is so typical for this Wikinews version only. De Wikischim (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4377144 [Passed]

Well, I guess it can still be expanded. By the way, most of the info in the given sources is just background information about Bennett (especially his political career) which, as such, has no direct connection with this news item itself. De Wikischim (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Burnett III is actually quite interesting, too. A Guinness world record holder. At this point, I wouldn't bother. But it's up to you. We have about a 24 hour window before it is inappropriate. --SVTCobra 22:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
The problem is, Wikipedia does not seem to know him because all persons on w:Charles Burnett seem to be someone else. If someone still manages to write an article about him within the next 24 hours... Might it be the one named on w:Burnett baronets? De Wikischim (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
IDK about the baronets, but he has no WP page, but there's this: w:Inspiration (car). Cheers. --SVTCobra 22:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Interestingly, "The Wiki Ghost" had added a link back to Wikinews before I could even get to w:Roy Bennett (politician). I did add it to the w:2018 Sapphire Aviation Bell UH-1H Iroquois crash which I then, politely, linked back to WP. --SVTCobra 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sounds like the way things should be, between sisters. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@SVTCobra: I didn't know yet, when I added the link with my other account (which is "The Wiki ghost", indeed, a translation of my Dutch user name), that latter article existed already on WP (where it actually does not belong, in my opinion). Well, I'd prefer to keep linking to the biographic article because that is encylopaedic. The one about the crash is imho misuse of Wikipedia as an alternative news site. De Wikischim (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Ah, it was you. That makes sense. Well, I do believe the page for the crash will stay since an NTSC investigation has been opened. And who knows, maybe Mugabe blew up the helicopter as an assassination. (wearing my tin foil hat) --SVTCobra 22:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, we'll see - anyway it would be an interesting sequel to this news item. De Wikischim (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Well, granted, the fact that Wikipedia even has an article about the event does not represent an ideal arrangement; not entirely unlike Wikipedia having an article called "List of quotes about <subject>", which would not be greatly appreciated by Wikiquote. But the mutual sister-linking is pleasant. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

By whom; and info in lede


'being especially known as the "sharpest thorn" in Mugabe's side' -- known by whom? Should not this be attributed? Besides, the healine says five were killed. At least something like "Four others were also killed in the accident". (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Are you blind? " four others were killed in the accident: Bennett's wife Heather, pilot Jamie Coleman Dodd, co-pilot Paul Cobb, as well as the wealthy businessman Charles Burnett III. " --SVTCobra 23:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Are you blind? See the subheading: info in the lede -- if something was important enough to be in the headline, it must be mentioned in the lede [actually the reverse helps avoiding useless info in the headline; but it works both ways] Explain details like the relation; survivours, etc. in the lower part. (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Point taken; added the other four. If you log in you can sight it. However, I am not sure what you mean by relation in "the lower part". --SVTCobra 00:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I can't attribute the "sharpest" thing further ... two sources mention it, but they don't credit anyone else. What would you do? --SVTCobra 00:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Lower part of the inverted pyramid/article. I would not mention "sharpest thorn" -- could be a term people would have used in Zimbabwe in his political life or reference to the song, but if it can't be attributed, it should not be mentioned. BTW, @Pi zero: can sight it. (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
"Sharpest thorn" is absolutely a term used in Zimbabwe and his political life. If you feel necessary, we can attribute the two sources and say they both agree that he was called that. It seems a little wacky, but whatever. --SVTCobra 01:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Could be something local media called him. Could be what his opposition called him. Could be what he described himself. Could be started with potential bias by the locals... (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Eh, there are no Zimbabwean sources in this. What is your point, exactly? --SVTCobra 01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I removed it, even if it's in the title of one of the sources. It is really irrelevant, so I don't want to fight about it. --SVTCobra 01:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Zimbabwean media would have called him sharpest thorn once [or probably many times], and these sources were quoting what "titles" he received in his political life. In any case, what if for an article, sources say "XYZ is the worst ABC of all time" that too, in quotations -- would that be acceptable [or anything for that matter, it clearly violates NPOV because it goes unattributed, even if it is quoted]. (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
What are you on about???? I removed it from the article, FFS. --SVTCobra 01:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I am explaining why we should avoid such things in general, using some hypothetical scenarios. Maybe you should start looking at things from a new angle before saying "FFS". (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
You are not explaining anything. Avoid what? There are two sources that say he was a leader in the party. Yet, you don't demand that it be attributed. Maybe it was just a local paper in Zimbabwe that once said it and the rest of the media copied it. Why is that different? The only reason I bent to your demand is because it was not important. Did you read your talk page, btw? --SVTCobra 01:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Unlike the leader, that “thorn” comment was opinion, not a fact. He wasn’t a thorn after all. Those sources say he was the leader, they don’t quote it, saying “he was considered as leader of XYZ”. (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I'll just let you debate with yourself. Because, if you think about it, being opposed to Mugabe at that time was a thorn, but nobody 'legitimate' called him that. And was a leader, but was he 'the' leader? Wow! Mind-fuck! Maybe he jumped from that helicopter before it crashed. Why not? It saves a costly divorce from that bitch wife. --SVTCobra 02:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
at this point, I am enjoying How unthoughtful you can be…it should be “according to reports he was found dead in helicopter”. I don’t need to tell an experienced reviewer how to review articles. @Pi zero: remember the discussion about the articles we had a few months back on #wikinews-en? (Darn it. Reminds me of Simba) (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Let's start every sentence in every article "according to ..." Let's see where that gets us. --SVTCobra 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Could you both please restrain yourselves a bit, and figure that you probably both have some useful insight into these issues? If you get under each other's skins to the point where you tend to be repelled by each other's insights, nobody wins (not either of you and not Wikinews either). --Pi zero (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict)Death is confirmed by someone or the other if you haven’t seen it in person. (Or the medical report) that is the way it is supposed to work. Wikinews doesn’t claim he died. The report did. (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Not really, Pi zero. At this point "the user" is never logged in; uses rotating IP addresses; does nothing but harass things I contribute to Wikinews. "The user" expects me to have conversations as if I can confidently know the IP address is the same person. And when it is inconvenient, somehow you, Pi zero, chastise me, saying "you don't know it is the same person". It is abhorrent. Why should I treat an IP the same as a reviewer and once accredited reporter. Just look at the last entry here. --SVTCobra 02:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
@SVTCobra: I agree, the shifting IPs make things difficult. I've honestly tried not to take sides; I keep trying to find a way to discourage the two of you from going at each other, but my efforts have clearly failed consistently, and if they've come across badly to you, I apologize. --Pi zero (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but please consider the statement by Death is confirmed "in person" or by the "medical report". Holy hell! We now need the coroners report for Dolores O'Riordan. We better send somebody to London or wherever they've taken her body. Well, if we can't do that, let's wait for the coroners report. Well, maybe that's rash, let's just change our article to "According to iTunes, Dolores O'Riordan is dead". The arguments are so inconsistent it borders on schizophrenia. Look at the image issue. First nobody can even add a caption, next, no license at all is needed. I am at my wits' end. --SVTCobra 04:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Since I don't understand the no-license thing either, I couldn't offer any explanation of that. (I do note that O'Riordan's death was confirmed by her publicist, so says our article; but, I feel constrained in pointing out that acagastya isn't completely insane (only partly insane, like the rest of us), since it seems I need to try harder to visibly not take sides.) --Pi zero (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
"According to iTunes, O'Riordan is dead" Holy shit -- you did not even care to read the article, or the sources. That website says nothing about her death. That article clearly states her publicist confirmed the death. Why do you have a problem with attributing -- did you forget the basic journalism elements? (Reminds me of the 2016 Doctor Strange movie where a patient was declared dead by a doctor, and ten minutes later, Stephen Strange removed the bullet from the head and saved the life) Tell me, why do you want a caption for the photo? It was not clicked by you, after all. Description and caption are different, [cross-check with image repository Commons, they use description] For example, this photo can have anything as caption, "my cat", white cat", or even "Ladies do not start a fight, but they can end it" -- a reference to The Aristocats. But the description would be a "white cat with a pink bow". And, you can see the FUR beneath the photos. Wit's end -- just like when you said CC BY-SA can be used in CC BY, but not vice-versa.
•–• 00:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I can ask you the same. Did you read this article before making your claims. If you read it, you will see that the information of the deaths came from the police. Bennett's death is additionally confirmed by his family. P.S. iTunes does state that O'Riordan died on January 15, and I am quite certain that it did on the 17th. --SVTCobra 02:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Of course you can ask, and the answer is: yes, I read the article before commenting. I did not say the "article is not saying who reported the death" I just said XYZ died in a helicopter crash incident per the reports. Besides, you were the one who started the BS about jumping from helicopter. And for iTunes, they have updated the biography. Was not there when the article was under review.
•–• 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)Reply