text:
Talk:Further details about Bush-Blair memo stopped

 * You may also want to also read the twin article to this on Wikipedia for further details.

Is it good enough to publish? Perhaps some copyedit first... International 01:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will be away for half a day, fell free to publish when its ready International 03:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

sources and info
Here is a choice quote from the Post article you might want to add:

 * In Washington, a senior diplomat said the Bush remark as recounted in the newspaper "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke." But, the diplomat said, "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."

Also, the guardian has a nice source on the "gag order", you can find the link in the other article.

Eventually, it might be best to merge the two articles, but as of right now that is simply not possible. :-( --vonbergm 02:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mirror
Just some info. The Mirror is not just deemed unreliable because of the pictures, but has in general a history of blowing up stories. The picture episode was quite problematic though. And by the way, the Mirror did not fake the pictures, the pictures were provided to the Mirror by an outside source and portrayed as authentic. The Mirror failed to do the required research to determine whether or not the pictures were originals (it turned out to be a stages picture, staging soldiers in uniforms different from the ones troops in Iraq wear depicting weapons that were not used in Iraq, so it should not have been very difficult to catch this). --vonbergm 02:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I clarified the disclaimer in the article accordingly. Thanks for the info. StuRat 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Which memo is this?
Is this the Downing Street Memo? If so, would the title be better to include that rather than Bush/Blair memo ?--Chiacomo (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Backgound information
The following Guardian article has some interesting background information. This fits right into the main thrust of this article and should be incorporated. I am still too busy with the other article. --vonbergm 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Develop more.
This article is still quite incomplete, and needs to describe things a little more. For instance:

 * Where did he do this?
 * When did he do this?
 * Any remarks from him?
 * What document?

 * I reworded a similar statement on the other article, it's really not our place to accuse it of being a "scandal sheet".
 * I changed that part, but I don't believe the other part about it being at Abu Ghraib was correct, as those pics involved British soldiers, and Abu Ghraib is in the American zone. StuRat 04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I've corrected myself on the other article, included a link to the Daily Mirror's apology of a situation that was similar to Abu Ghraib.  But still, it's not really NPOVish to accuse a source of being a "scandal sheet".  If someone did accuse it of being, though - it'd be a great quote to include.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this can be eliminated from the article, really doesn't have much to do with this specific event.

 * I think his point was already made with the preceding quote, and feel it is stronger and more straight to the point without this here, seems to be more lecturing on freedom of press.

Just a few more items before it should be published. No flags this time, but please take these concerns seriously. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

cooperation mrM
As there was no reason for bringing the article to develop I republish it. MrM, please edit the article or argue on talk befor you tag it developing. Your agressive way to act here is annoying. You really have to communicate your issus before dictate with flags and locks. Please understand that you ar one in a collective, not a chosen leader of wikinews. Be considerate to us and cooperate.International 05:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't return the article to develop, but it appears (above) that he's listed his reasons for returning to develop which seem reasonable. I think MrM's simply trying to help produce quality articles and at least in this case, several of his concerns are valid. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with International's comments and respectfully disagree with Chiacomo. There is nothing in policy allowing for 1 or 2 editors to consistently block/impede articles about particular subject matter as MrM does. This is a collaborative project and to act as a "teacher" forcing "students" back to work on their essays(with a few suggestions for how to maybe satisfy the teacher) until they get it to read the way the teachers want is not a sensible model for a collaborative project and no, Chiacomo, this is not "the" downing street memo. Neutralizer 13:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * What are your problems with my requests, Neutralizer and International? If you ignore a user, it is disruptive behavior.  And I will call you on it.  Stop ignoring actionable objections.  Back to develop until the concerns above are dealt with.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I dont think your objections call for taking the article to develop. I dont agree with you, simple said. Further, You are the disruptiv element in this case. You prevent the article from being publiched by concerns that might seen petty or diligent. By the way, you are free to contribute youreself by edit. If you just put 10% of your "talk-energy" in editing things might be much better. And not to forget, your acting seem baised to disrupt the publishing of articles that are negative to US. A smell of hypocrisy might i find in bad hidden threats ("And I will call you on it") in relation of your strange interpretation of my outspoken critic regarding your missusing of our adminpowers earlier. I now motivated my will to republishing, so please contemlate some time of you as a constructiv force here and not a censor, a policeman or just whatever that implement your idea of order here. Maby its time for arbitration if this continue because I dont like your agressiv attitude that might lead to fullfront conflict. As a sign of good will I wait with the republishing or let some other wikinewsie do it.International 02:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If an article isn't as complete as its going to be (if you need to greatly edit it), it will go back to develop. Publish means the only edits made on it will be small spelling or gramattical/punctuation fixes - it should be as "publishable" as possible.  This article doesn't reflect that.  If you continue to ignore my actionable objections above, you will be considered disruptive.  Community means that everyone works together to get it done, although all you've done is dismissed all of my claims, with no reasoning.  If you tell me one more time to "put 10% of your 'talk energy' in editing things", I will personally ask for your case to be the first on ArbCom.  I will not follow you around and fix every article that isn't up to Wikinews' standards, and I offer these suggestions to help you in the future.  If you refuse my requests, the article will stay in developing because there are actionable objections that are to be dealt with.  Stop ignoring users.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Some responses to the questions raised that may not have been addressed yet: Based on the two sentences from the "Law chief gags the Mirror on Bush Leak" reference that are "The Daily Mirror was yesterday told not to publish further details from a top secret memo, which revealed that President Bush wanted to bomb an Arab TV station," and "The gag by the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith came nearly 24 hours after the Mirror informed Downing Street of its intention to reveal how Tony Blair talked Bush out of attacking satellite station al-Jazeera's HQ in friendly Qatar," that are in an article dated 23 November, the unspecified communication by Lord Goldsmith was on 22 November. As to the rest of aspects questioned, the method of its communication has not yet been listed in any source, nor am I able to locate a source specifying it as yet. The implication in the quote is of course that the document mentioned has not changed from the mentioned alleged memo. So, some proposals and questions.

It is necessary to locate a source with more information about the nature of this message by Lord Goldsmith to include information about its method of communication (the where aspect questioned), to locate a more certain timing for the occurrence of the communication (my interpretation of it being 22 November is not beyond question). So far as the question, what sort of remarks from him, direct quote of his statement regarding violations of the Official Secrets Act and printing the content of the alleged transcript? The only information I have yet found is the mention of only that (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1648590,00.html), though it still does not have any direct quotes from Lord Goldsmith. I have, however, located a source that provides a possible explanation of why Lord Goldsmith made such comment (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1649351,00.html), but it also does not have any direct quotes from him.

The quote from the diplomat on the possible joking nature of the alleged transcript seems appropriate as it provides a distinct interpretation of it. The continuing quote by Mr Dear should perhaps be summarised and combined with the first part of the quote from him, by such as "..." was said by Mr Dear and was further extended to include ; this should reduce the importance implied by the extended length of the quote relative to the length of the article. --Opalus 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Reliability of Mirror
"considered to be an unreliable source for many reasons"

I think this is too strong to be npov. This is a major British newspaper you are talking about here, not a fringe magazine.

Considered by whom?

I think it's best to stick to the facts - i.e. "The Mirror has published material in the past which have later been found to be inaccurate, including faxed photographs of prisoner abuse by British soldiers in Iraq." AndrewRT 13:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Either this caveat should be introduced for every newspaper quote on Wikinews (unless someone can point to a paper which has never printed "innacurate material") or it should be removed from this article. In the interests of simplicity, I have removed it.--Slainty 14:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No ! From all comments I have seen here this is a much less reliable newspaper than all others used (read the discussions above) and the readers should know that, especially since the Mirror is the original source for this story.  If you have a recent example of a comparable scandal caused by other used sources, then we should include those, too. StuRat 14:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * vonbergm
 * AndrewRT
 * StuRat
 * Mrmiscellanious

 * Those who don't:

 * Slainty
 * Neutralizer

 * StuRat 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No need to shout. The only evidence produced to show that the Mirror is an unreliable paper is one bad story. In the context of newspaper publishing this is clearly not exceptional. Should all those newspapers which printed misinformation about Iraq prior to the war be treated in a similar fashion? If not (and it is clear from reading Wikipedia that they are not), then neither should the Mirror. If, on the other hand this claim of 'unreliability' is based simply on a vote on the discussion page, then at least have the honesty to state as much in the story. --Slainty 15:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The difference is the things those papers reported they had no way to verify, like the presence of WMD in Iraq. The Mirror could easily have established those weren't the proper uniforms or weapons for British soldiers in Iraq, they just don't bother to verify their stories.  You may not agree, but you should respect the consensus which has been developed here.  StuRat 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The substantial point, which you have ignored, is that there are no established newspapers which can honestly claim that they have have never printed 'innacurate material'. Knowing this to be true (but not wanting to concede the point), you have switched your argument to one of 'consensus'. Since this is now the preferred justification, I repeat my request that the bogus rationale (the 'bad story' argument) is removed from the main article. --Slainty 18:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, the Mirror actually has a good reputation for breaking war on terror stories, like the British Camp Delta detainee story: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/3/12/53733/2985 It just also has a reputation for blowing things out of proportion, being a tabloid and all. In my view, the Mirror should be described as "tabloid" or "sensationalist", but honestly interested in breaking real war stories, although showing a "mixed track record of accuracy". I don't think the photos need to be mentioned directly, but one could provide inline links to the photo & British Camp Delta detainee story as examples of their mixed bag nature. OTOH, lots of people hate inline links. :) Whatever.  - Nyarlathotep 19:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, that means I also support removing any specific mention of the photos story; although an unexplained link to that story is fine, i.e. related news or ideally an inline offsite link.

Is this article up to Wikinews' standards?
MrM says no, I says yes. Obviously we need some input from the rest of you wikinewsies. I like to publish but MrM will probably put it in develop. Am I wrong? I cant fix this article better so then it stay in develop if nobody make it better. Some kind of referendum to avoid a unnecesary "war"...International 17:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The easiest thing to to allow the consensus building process to work and for editors to attempt to address MrM's concerns. Voting is evil. --Chiacomo (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing thoughts: Flow thoughts: I see nothing else. - Nyarlathotep 18:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Any responses to Kilfoyle & Johnson by Lord Goldsmith should be included, it is an article about Lord Goldsmith's statment after all. I've seen no such responce todate.
 * Daily Mirror photos issue should not be rehashed, but its first mention could read "..., the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid, ..."
 * Shouldn't the Daily Mirror also be given credit for breaking the story?
 * Consider mentioning that the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy is now generally believed to be intentional, and in responce to the embassy relaying intelligence for the opposition. It is plausible this bombing was similarly "well intentioned".
 * Boris Johnson's paragraph might be moved to after the Guardian's, unless there is a chronological issue.

I've published the article. Incompleteness, except for extreme stubs, should generally only be a reason to delay publication, not to halt it entirely.--Eloquence 16:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM, calm down please. republishInternational 02:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't Bomb Us - A blog by Al Jazeera Staffers
Nice blog: http://dontbomb.blogspot.com/

The sedateness of Al Jazeera's reaction is clearly overstated in the past article. Anyone feel like writing an article about the various protests by Al Jazeera staffers, and other people in the arab world, to correct for it. Nyarlathotep 18:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

MrM's points
So, I looked through the discussion above, and can see really no compelling reason not to publish this article. MrM enumerates The article could use a good copyedit, but that can be done at any time. I really see no compelling reason not to publish. Voicing your objections is fine, but Wikinews is a cooperative enterprise, and that goes both ways. Users who put effort into writing an article should not be punished by having their work delayed from publication for days, simply because another user is not quite happy with the wording or the inclusion of details. It's a wiki - everyone has had ample opportunity to edit this piece. Now it's time to send it out to the world. If publication is endlessly delayed and procrastinated, the incentive for newbies to contribute to Wikinews is significantly decreased.--Eloquence 02:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * missing details - a reason to give the article more time to develop, which it has received, but not a reason to prevent publication
 * paragraphs which he does feel are unnecessary. I disagree, they add relevant background to the article, and facts alone, when neutrally presented, should not be used as a justification to delay publication. The "one-liner" quote is certainly pertinent since we mention the al-Jazeera claim itself. It's a relevant NPOV addition.

 * I'm unsure MrMiscellanious's points should be so lightly dismissed, but I did have one concern: Nowhere in this article do I see any statement of the government's position regarding this memo, or why they might have chosen to suggest (Lord Goldsmith's opinion of his statement) newspapers might "need to take legal advice." This seems, to me, to be rather biased without at least some coverage? -  Amgine | talk 02:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The only statement I can find from Downing Street is from the Guardian article, where it says: "Downing Street stressed that the decision to take action was 'entirely up to the attorney general' and was intended to 'draw a line in the sand' on further leaks." This might be worth adding.

 * I think the main reason there are no further statements in this article is that none were available at the time it was written. This may have changed now. But we cannot keep moving the goalposts as new information becomes available. This article is already days out of date and there has been ample opportunity to edit it. If we want to be a news site, we must be willing to publish news when it matters, instead of pulling articles back into development for days. MrM has made exactly three edits to the article: the repeated restoration of . Pointing out flaws is all well and good, but if no effort is made by all participants to actively work towards publication, it tends to leave a bad taste in the mouth.--Eloquence 02:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm really not impressed about your unilateral decision on this article, especially not being present in discussions of the development of this article. Your early dismissal of all my claims, which albeit are briefly documented, really does not help in the development of this or any future articles on the wiki.  A user, with valid claims, wants other users to understand what issues they see with the article.  All users dismiss these without even a detailed message proving they even contemplated half of the proposals.  Instead of tagging this with the various tags I could've chosen, I gave users time to improve it with suggestions.  As they have failed to even respond to any of them, and ignored my claims (just as you have done), I am appalled that you or anyone else would just up and say "it's fine," without even the smallest indication that you even knew what the hell I was talking about.  So please, a little explanation here.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The U.K. attorney general Lord Goldsmith has imposed a gag order on British media on November 22 to stop further reporting of details from an allegedly leaked memo about a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush.

 * The above sentence is untrue. In fact Lord Goldsmith said papers publishing the leaked memo might be prosecuted - a clear threat, but not an order, and relevant only to publication of the actual memo and not reporting *about* the leak.

 * But by all means, if you feel it is ready for publication, publish it. -  Amgine | talk 03:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

MrM, I have responded to your concerns. I think they are not sufficient grounds to halt publication, particularly when you have made no effort to actually improve the article yourself.

Amgine, you're right, it's not a gag order in the legal sense. Several media reports used the term, but it's incorrect in this case. Fixed.

On a more constructive note, I would appreciate it if someone could look over the quotation marks, I think the punctuation is incorrect, but German, English and American rules are all different, so being German, I'm not going to touch that one.--Eloquence 03:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I don't find your responses to be sufficient for bringing it back to publish, especially when not responding to the development notes throughout the case of this article. Obviously, it's in heavey development still.  All the more reason to make sure it is in developing before the article is as "complete" as it can be.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You have not provided any compelling argument why the information you want removed should be removed. I have added information and some background to the into paragraph.--Eloquence 03:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Issues
This article has been tagged with for the following reasons (in chronological order):

 * Gives no examples to specific cases of ever happening; "threatening" is too strong of a word to use to remain neutral.
 * Reworded paragraph to quote Goldsmith directly, changed to "warned".--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This sanitization of langauge is incorrect MrM, the British gov. has never before threatened to prosecute a paper, it usually just gets an injunction barring publication. That would be a warning, this is a threat.  Nyarlathotep 12:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Highly irrelevant to the topic at hand, is questionable of leaving such a large quote (considered a rant) to be adhering to NPOV standards.
 * Relevant, but I agree that it can be shortened a bit. I removed one sentence.--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Not sure this quote is very important, is redundant with the similar statement in the article (see above).
 * Two different statements: prosecution vs. threatening to prosecute. I have switched the sentences to make this clearer.--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Not noteable, especially if you do not attribute them with the "discovery" of the "memo".
 * Added attribution and link to previous article.--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Not sure of the magnitude of this quote, the numerous quotes that are similar in this context and lack of those that aren't in support of this also hinders on the neutrality of the article.
 * Removed quote, the pertinent fact is his offer.--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the quote is quite relevant; he is an MP for crying out loud. It should be reintroduced.  Nyarlathotep 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Who is the "senior diplomat"? Be specific on quotes.  Not NPOV, but still an issue.
 * Unnamed (which is common), now attributed to Washington Post.--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Can't find this statement in the sources. Not NPOV, but still - issue.
 * Rephrased and added source (Sydney Morning Herald).--Eloquence 06:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Use specific quotes instead of paraphrazing to remain neutral. Furthermore, this history can be kicked back a bit.
 * Added quotes and sources. Historical facts can be attributed to Wikipedia, which is cited; that is common practice on Wikinews. I don't know what you mean by "kicked back".--Eloquence 05:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All in all, these are all issues I have with this article as of timestamp. I'm also wondering why some users have sent this to publish, when the article doesn't even summarize the memo in question throughout the whole article. Discussion on these items is requested to be done as detailed as possible. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean a short summery, no? We do have one article on the memo itself.  Nyarlathotep
 * Yes, a shorter summary on the last paragraph. Thank you all for addressing my concerns.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, my major issue with the article now is that Boris Johnson's quote should be reintroduced, as he is an MP. We generally cover the comments of government officials who bother to state an opinion about such things, and we generally include their soundbyte if they formulate one. So it is POV to surpress this one. Nyarlathotep 12:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

New Article?
I propose we make a new article when things develop in this story. The memo will probably leak soon and people will go crazy...International 12:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:Nyarlathotep/Opinions

I'm an Atheist Dawkins wannabe & a sane transhumanist. I beleive that:
 * It is ignorant, hollow, and wrong to hope for more than the possibilities afforded by the real physical world, i.e. its wrong to want an afterlife.
 * Irrational beliefs and behavior, like religion and poor decision making, cause most of the world's problems.
 * The study of sciences like the psychology of human decission making or sexuality, or mathematics like game theory, is the most efficent way to make the world a better place. Deliberative democracy will help change the world.
 * Memetics is the correct explination for human culture; although proof of this remains illusive.
 * Dawkins is naive to seek escape from the "tyranny of the selfish replicators"; hope lies in compromise with our genes.
 * Human identity is overrated. We are our memes.  Any imortality which exists is gained by helping the ideas which will shape the world.
 * Humanity's destiny is to memeticly evolve far beyond our current form, via artificial intelligence, brain implants, human genetic enhancement, etc. Biological humans will nolonger be significant within 200 years.
 * Almost all resources & people should be working in some field of research & development. People should be genetically enhanced to be more intelligent, creative, etc.
 * All consequences of scientific & technological progress are ultimately beautiful & good, by definition (if you use the right one).
 * "Is" is slowely being understood to dominate "Ought", which is a very good thing, i.e. reality is more important than morals. Scientific & technological progress eventually force all moral systems to either accept such progress & merge, or die; a kind of "Church-Turing Thesis for Morality".
 * Peter Singer style "suffering computations" are often a good measure of morality, but that this will not always be true as humanity continues to evolve. Almost all animal experimentation is perfectly acceptable, but eating mammals not really a good idea, although eating shrimp is fine, i.e. the "suffering per serving" is high for mamals, but low for shrimp.
 * Intellectual property should either be abolished outright, or mandate open source, i.e. no copyright unless source code and/or schematics are published too.
 * Anybody who ever complains about dating isn't practicing it enough, or isn't trying to learn anything.
 * Punctuation should come after closing quotes, unless its part of the quotation. :)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Nyarlathotep/Opinions


text:
Talk:Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked/Archive01

This goes against the spirit of what you said about avoiding US/Iraq stories. I know we're a little short on material, but you, Neutralizer, have to realize that you do have a significant bias. I probably dislike the current US administration as much as you (I feel like throwing up watching GWB on TV), but that doesn't prevent you from writing neutral point of view articles. You've been really careful on at least one other, I just don't think you've done a good enough job of taking onboard the comments from various people about the bias you've inherited from the sources you choose to read.

I don't want to come back to saying your contributions to Wikinews are wasted, but your bias would work out better elsewhere where you can find less strict rules. Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is a good start for an article. It is just to put in the other side view or comment to the issue. Btw, isnt it ok to be baised as long as the articles is npow? I mean in this days when The Great Superpower act as it does npow is as difficult as desirable.International 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is terrible to say the best. If you are going to base an article on one person's opinion - then at least include the context that it was someone's opinion, and nothing in the memo specifically states "let's bomb Al-Jazeera! [evil laugh]" - which means it's up to people's interpretation to determine what they think.  Articles about what they think is fine, but don't pass it off as "fact" or the only opinion.  That means for this article a title change needs to be in order, as well as less emphasis on the "exciting" new "fact" found.  I'd also like to point out that the authenticity of the "Downing Street" memo hasn't been confirmed, and shouldn't be treated as a significant document as it cannot be proven.  We are here to get facts, and we can't base the facts on unverified information.  If it is a person's opinion, note it as so.  If you pass it off as fact, however, then the story is fabricated.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the titel should be changed.International 20:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

title
The title needs to be changed. How about: Leaked document alleges Bush intended to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters

 * Sounds better to me than the current one. - Apollyon 22:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Still inaccurate. The "leaked" document may not be authentic, so there should be the word "unverified" in the title as well.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment
This has changed enough that my initial comment is out of place on the page. Brian McNeil / talk 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Problems with latest 'fix'
The latest revision has several problems:
 * Redundant information: how many times do you want to mention that the document is "unverified"? This was clear already from the language of the previous and does not need such an emphasis. Any report that is based on classified information is also "unveified", even if it comes from official soures. Still, there is no need to mention this explicitely.
 * Important contextual information was removed: The fact that the conversation took place during the Fallujah operation is important as al-Jazeera was heavily criticised for its reporting in Fallujah and subsequently banned from reporting in Iraq.
 * The documents don't 'claim' anything, they are simple transcipts of the conversation between Bush and Blair.
 * The title needs to be changed back for reasons given in first and last point. --vonbergm 22:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it is more notable to state that the document is unverified, and that the "information" needs to be given a disclaimer. That being said, it's only mentioned three times - twice in article, once in title.
 * The Fallujah item isn't putting any contextual items in the article without mentioning what you have just claimed.
 * The transcript is being touted as a "document". And those "simple transcripts" are unverified.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will rewrite slightly to remove some redundancy, but keep at least one explicit mention that the document is "unverified". I assumed that the contextual information pertaining to Fallujah is common knowledge. I will add the Fallujah info and add a little bit on the al-Jazeera vs. US government background, including Fallujah reporting and broadcasting of binLaden messages. I will wait for more input before changing the title back. --vonbergm 23:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * MrM, I left two instances of "unverified document" in the text as this seems to be important to you. In particular, the first sentence still starts with this statement. If this is ok with you, I will change the title back. --vonbergm 23:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not approve of the title being changed back. The item of unverified information is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.  I don't want Wikinews getting the story "wrong", and that includes in titles.  Whatever you change it to, MAKE SURE it makes a reference to the item being unauthenticated.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

for information purposes only
"Civil servant David Keogh, 49, is accused under the Official Secrets Act of handing it to Clarke's former researcher Leo O'Connor, 42. Both are bailed to appear at Bow Street Magistrates Court in central London next week."

Would an "unverified" document lead to charges under the "Official Secrets Act"? I suppose this could be explained by Neutralizer 23:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed it would. Charges are based only on suspicion, while the teams build cases that will be presented to courts.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Neutralizer, while I agree, this still does not prove that the document or its alleged contents are authentic. I believe it is best to leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. --vonbergm 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ok..agreed. Neutralizer 01:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on Title
MrM insitst that the term "unverified" needs to remain in the title (see his comments above). I disagree as
 * the previous title Report: Bush talked of bombing Al-Jazeera was already clear in that this is not a factual statement
 * the fact that the document is "unverified" is in the nature of reporting based on secret documents and not stressed in this way in other wikinews articles, nor in other news outlets reporting on this (as a google news search quickly reveals). The fact that the documents are "unverified" is stressed twice in the article, once at the very beginning and once further on. Adding this to the title is neither necessary from an NPOV perspective, nor desireable as it does not add anything.

Please comment. --vonbergm 00:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is very necessary (but your discussions are redundant) to include the "alleged" part, because we are not here to make opinions, we are here to present the facts. To be as factual as we can, I think we should abstain from anything that would make it seem like this is a proven occurrance, because as of right now - it is more factually correct to state that the said conversation did not happen than to say it did.  That being said, the article and title both need to conform to this presentation of keeping the facts right.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The old title did not 'make opinion' either. Your argument is not an argument against the old title. Your title simply unneccessarily overemphasises that the statement is based on other peoples reporting. On top of that it does not make sense to say that the "documents allege" something. --vonbergm 01:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * We NEED to overstress it is other's reporting - first of all, it's not our reporting. Second of all, it's not our "evidence".  So yes, people have "alleged" that the transcript meant something.  It doesn't mean that the documents allege anything, that is correct.  But it isn't our place to a) take credit from others' reporting, nor b) assume a document is fact, and therefore make a stance on an issue by showing support for that stance in the article.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Quote: "BBC News website world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds said: "An attack on al-Jazeera would also have been an attack on Qatar, where the US military has its Middle East headquarters. So the possibility has to be considered that Mr Bush was in fact making some kind of joke and that this was not a serious proposition."" (emphasis mine).
 * This sort of thing needs to be taken into account, this guy has probably read more about the US administration than Wikinews has in total content. The BBC article on the subject is quite lengthy, and has to be because The Mirror has a significant readership.  Their title is nowhere near as sensational as the one here, and people seem to have lost sight of the fact that there is only one source claiming to know the content.  Anyone leaking the actual content has been threatened with legal action, but The Mirror hasn't been prosecuted - yet.  So, where's the section questioning how credible the mirror is as a source? Brian McNeil / talk 20:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion of a more objective title
Perhaps "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked" would be adequately NPOV. Including the word transcript implies that it relates to a conversation, while detail of the greater content of the alleged transcript is better left to the article where greater elaboration is possible. It also reduces the occurrence of the awkward and rather repetitive "unverified document alleges Bush talked of ..." with a more detailed and concise "Alleged Bush/Blair ... transcript leaked". 68.210.70.211 00:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If this makes MrM happy, I can live with it. --vonbergm 01:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I find the suggested title better than the present, anybody change it? International 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

 * Provide some specific quotes if this is the case, however if it isn't - don't take a stand and claim that anyone was "accusing to fuel the insurgency". --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Try searching the Mirror article for it. --vonbergm 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * We're not here to mine all our information from the Mirror. Provide it or it goes.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Come on! Other sources make similar comments.
 * Guardian: The Bush administration has regularly accused Al-Jazeera of being nothing more than a mouthpiece for anti-American sentiments.

And if you want origianl reporting, try e.g.. --vonbergm 01:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * That's great, but not understanding what the Guardian has to say as justification for the statement in the article. Just because the Guardian thinks it, doesn't mean it goes here.  Try again (I'm honestly asking you for a specific example, not another sources' claims, please don't take this the wrong way).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's right there, just above your statement. That little "[1]" is a link to one example. --vonbergm 01:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Or are you saying that that is not "specific" enough? Do I need to dig up a transcript from an "official US government site"? --vonbergm 02:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

"when a particular outlet, Al-Jazeera, does such a horrible job of presenting the news, and when it takes every opportunity to slant the news, present it in the most outrageous way, and when it will do such things as put on videotape that it has received from terrorists, and put it on for the purpose of inflaming the world and appealing to the basest instincts in the region, then we have to speak out, and we have." -Powell, July 2004

 * That is more what I'm talking about - quotes from the administration and the like. But still, there's no mention of the insurgents.  And, the statement would need to be reformatted to display someone's claim, and not the statement it reflects right now (which is an opinion inserted by the editor).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Glad you also found some quotes, although as you said, your quote does not back up the above statement. If you look for more specific quotes, try this interview with Wolfowitz, but remember, this is not the focus of the story but just background information. --vonbergm 03:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

changes
MrM, I added the al-Jazeera background information back in. You pointed out that this is not common knowledge and asked for it to be inserted in the first place. Also, I added the name of the killed reporter that you edited out as it provides further opportunity to explore the background. The fact that he was an al-Jazeera reporter is important here, as this is the only reason that the story mentions him and not the other reporters that got killed by US bombs or sniper fire in Iraq (like the Abu Dabi station). Lastly, you moved the second "unconfirmed document" statement back to the end, although it fits contextually better in the text where it was.

Moreover I added more detailed information on the charges against the leakers as at this point this is the only solid information on the nature of the leaked documents. --vonbergm 01:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive Behaviour
MrM, before you flag an article NPOV because you claim that certain information is not backed up by the sources, I suggest you make a simpe search to verify your claims. At least wait 5 minutes so that people can point you to the right reference if you are unwilling to verify your opinion yourself. Please remove the flag! --vonbergm 01:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I will not until the questionable item is cleared up. Saying "check 'The Mirror'" isn't good enough.  If you will not provide the information and facts that prove this with specific examples, then it is assumed that you are making a stance on an item.  The NPOV tag stays until my issue is cleared up.  It's not others jobs to dig for information that you claim in an article.  We don't make stances - provide SPECIFIC EXAMPLES in order to justify the statement, because as of right now it is a biased statement.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And to your 'disruptive behavior' title on this section, I would have to ask you: how would tagging and discussing the reasons for that be 'disruptive'? You must learn that not everyone shares your viewpoint, and it is expected of users to work towards an understanding between the two.  Saying someone is 'disruptive' for having valid claims of a tagging and justification is not very constructive in my opinion.  At least give me the courtesy of being a fellow editor in asking for a little bit of respect on our ability to discuss items without becoming immature users who must stoop to name-calling or unfair claims because of their different perspective on items.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I provided a link to an original piece of reporting above. This was merely the first that a google search brought up. --vonbergm 01:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Disrupive is (a) to tag the article with no prior attempt to discuss and (b) to tag regarding a concern that is easily verified by looking at the sources. (Which I assume you read as you were actively editing.)
 * I would hope that my removal of the biased statement would've been taken as a discussion - a one-sided one perhaps, but any user should've caught that. It simply was biased.  You need specific quotes or examples to back it up, in which you failed to do.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement is backed by the sources. As long several respected news sources report this, I assume that their information is accurate and well sourced. I find it unneccessary to give links to original reporting to back up the statements in the article. If people question the information from the news sources, that can be discussed on the talk pages and that is why I have provided a link to an original source for you. (Of course, you could have just done the google search yourself to verify that your suspicion is unfounded and thus avoided this discussion.) But this does not justify (a) you removing the information without discussion or (b) tagging the article without prior opportunity for discussion. Remember, the information *is* backed by the sources. Questioning the accuracy of the sources, which is what you are doing here, does not justify an "instant NPOV". --vonbergm 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * You are avoiding the question. Why are other sources constituted as specific examples?  The statement is, blatantly, an opinion.  I don't care what sources you get it from - it doesn't make it any less of an opinion and more of a fact.  If the item cannot be accounted for, then it will be removed, or I will slap on a new "fabricated" warning.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you actually reading what I am saying? Have you checked the source I provided for you or are you really arguing that you only accept "official government documents" or the like and the link I provided is not good enough? With some work, I am sure I can also get the transcript for you. So let me say it again: The statement is backed by the sources in the article, and the sources in the article are backed by the "original reporting" in the link above. And if that is not good enough yet, then I will dig up the transcript from an "official US government" website if you politely ask for it. --vonbergm 02:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I am asking you, as I have been this whole night, for a documentation in the article claiming who claimed that the Bush administration claimed that Al-Jazeera was "fueling the insurgency". Not a link.  Not an excuse.  Explanation of the claim in the article.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess I am still not getting what you want. For claims that cannot be independently verified, I agree that it is favourable to identify in the text of the article who made that claim (as done on seval occasions in the article). But this statement is well backed by several sources that are given in the article. If you question the accuracy of the sources, I provided a link to reporting from the time in question. Are you claiming that the statement a) is not factual b) is factual but the sources provided in the article are not sufficient, or c) something else --vonbergm 03:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked/Archive02

Change title and publish
May I change the title to the suggested and republish the article? I dont find it pow. International 02:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, I can live with it. I suggest to wait another 10 minutes or so just to make sure that nobody else objects. I would prefer if MrM could also agree on this. --vonbergm 02:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Though I agree with you Vonbergm, I wait to give other wikinewsies a chanse to say something about the dispute. Dont like to engage in a possible tagwar. International 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like the new title. First of all, "leaked" implies that the document was verified and is authentic - if it's faulty, there obviously cannot be a "leak" of information.  Second, there was no bombing - something that can be fixed with "alleged plot" (or similar).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, Alleged is teh first word in the title! Its highly POV of you to try to qualify every word in the title once qualification has been added. - 81.97.155.10 09:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it can be assumed that the document that got returned to the British goverenment was indeed classified and not supposed to be released, otherwise they would not have pressed the charges. And making information from such a document available to the press is usually called a "leak". --vonbergm 03:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No, you cannot assume a document was ever authentic, especially when you don't have facts to back it up. The charges, like I said, are only placed when people have suspicion of a wrongdoing.  The trial will provide items with what did happen, this is the time of fact collecting.  "Innocent until proven guilty" also means "fake until proven true" in this sense.  DO NOT ASSUME ANYTHING IS AUTHENTIC.  We are here to report the facts, not suspicions (unless they are backed by the person making them).  You will not assume anything on this document's authenticity; it hasn't been proven yet, hell it hasn't even been seen yet.  You cannot just assume things about it in order to justify the article.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

A new idea: Bush alledgedly talked of bombing Al-Jazeera headquarters. This is a little ovely careful, more accurate would be Bush alledgedly intended to bomb Al-Jazeera headquarters, as this is what the allegation really is, but I am sure that in this case the factually more inaccurate statemet would be preferrable to some. --vonbergm 03:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked was suggested based on the content of the very first paragraph of the article. Leak has already been used (it is currently the seventh word in the article body), approved by you in varied edits before title change by lack of alteration of wording there; that is, unless in an article contested for some time it was still not noticed before – that would be a separate issue to resolve though it would impact the title if the resolution was to remove all use of leaked in the article.

The information relevant to the title is that the transcript is of alleged conversation between Bush and Blair, and that the transcript's content concerns Bush's alleged consideration of bombing Al-Jazeera. The title suggested as objective "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked" includes the described content of the first paragraph and focuses on those aspects. Perhaps the word discussion should be added so that it reads "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing discussion transcript leaked" so that it communicates both "Alleged Bush/Blair Al-Jazeera bombing discussion" and "Alleged Bush/Blair ... discussion transcript leaked" so that both the occurrence of the discussion and accuracy of the transcript are questioned. How is this not acceptable? What aspect have I not accounted for with even this new suggestion? 68.210.70.211 03:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

changes again
I made changes trying to interpret MrM's concerns as best as I could. Someone else may play with the title, I simply don't care at this point.

"Quote"
Please explain WHEN AND WHO the quote was made to, as well as WHO said it (IN THE ARTICLE PROVIDE THIS). This is the quote I'm looking for detail on:

--MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The quotes are verbatim from the sources. You need to give *reasons* why you think it is important to give this additional information in the context of this article if you want your concerns taken seriously. --vonbergm 14:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a consensus
I agree with 68.210.70.211, 81.97.155.10, vonbergm and International. The concerns of MrM have been delt with to the best of the abilities of the people working on the article to understand those concerns and address them. If the article is unpublished again by the same editor, I suggest an uninvolved admin consider a disruption block (as I agree with Vonbergm that this continued article blocking by the same editor is a site disruption). Neutralizer 13:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I publish it now. Should have done it for long time ago...International 14:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Suprised, it was already published. Well thats good. Next time I start to edit I will make sure Im awake.International 14:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree, there is no proof that anyone of the Bush adminstraton ever said that. --204.38.32.5 14:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the sources, its all in the sources! Names, dates, ... --vonbergm 19:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Articles are not here to point people to other sources. They are only there to cite the information found.  That's information - not opinion.  The quotes are not documented in the article, instead people are sent away from Wikinews to grab information.  That is not how an article should stand.  I am sending this back to develop.  I highly suggest that vonbergm review the article in its entirety and the questioned material without resorting back to the external sources to verify the quotes were made.  Do not publish this article until (a): the material is justified IN THE ARTICLE, or (b): the material is removed, or presented in a fashion that can be documented properly.  You haven't done that yet, vonbergm.  DOCUMENT EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION AND EVERY QUOTE MADE IN THE ARTICLE.  Putting a link in the "sources" section DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE QUOTE.  And to Neutralizer - disruption is not tagging an article and justifying the tag on the talk page.  3 - 2 doesn't constitute a consensus - hell, it doesn't constitute anything at all.  POLICY WILL NOT BE BENT FOR ANY REASON, even if people think that "it's OK".  It's not.  Under the content guide, it states the following:

 * Putting a biased statement in quotes and not even stating who made them is fabricating parts of an article. You ABSOLUTELY NEED TO DOCUMENT WHERE EVERY SINGLE QUOTE CAME FROM IN AN ARTICLE.  I am not asking you anymore.  I am telling you - your edits of constantly ignoring my concerns, even when based on policy, are considered disruptive.  THIS ARTICLE WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED UNTIL THE QUESTIONABLE ITEM IS JUSTIFIED OR REMOVED."  Wikinews does not stand for a place for people to make opinions or fabricate parts of an article.  And yes, I say fabricated because the user has FAILED TO PROVIDE the source of the quotes IN THE ARTICLE'''.  -MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I found the quotes MrM is complaining about, they are all contained in the paragraph beginning "The authenticity of the documents ..." All other quotes are cited to their original sources quite clearly, although you ocassinally need to read the previous sentence for context. Anyway, please just be clear about the quotes in the authenticity paragraph & MrM's objection will go away. Its actually a very good article, BTW.

MrM, you should really take a more participatory role in the articles which yout going to critisize so vehemently. Even if you were not willing to search through the sources, you could have easily inserted a "___ said that" in front of the sentence which begins "Section 3 concerns ..." (after depublishing the story). It would have created an obvious place where information was lacking, thus creatively preventing republication without the mistake being fixed, and prevented an edit war. You can't expect people to be mind readers. Nyarlathotep 21:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, the quotes in that paragraph are taken right of Section 3 of the original document, which is linked through Wikipedia. MrM has previously vehemently resisted linking the original document in the case that a wikipedia article about it exists, that also happens to have a link. Attributing it to Section 3 of the document seems like the most appropriate thing to do (although undoubtedly other articles probably also quote this section). --vonbergm 22:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * reading over it again, the last part of that paragraph should also be in quotes as it is verbatim from the document. Will make these changes now. (I guess it is unblocked by now.) --vonbergm 22:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I still cannot edit. :-( So maybe MrM can do it once someone fixed the mess. --vonbergm 22:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

allege vs. suggest/indicate/imply
MrM. Once again, it does not make sense to say that a transcript of a conversation "alleges" something. Since the exact wording of the first sentence seemed important to you I decided that the word "suggest" would be a good compromize. With the word "suggest" or "indicate" in place as I suggested, the sentence makes it clear that it referres to "unverified" information. You seem to have the tendancy to try to overstress that point far beyond the necessary, even if the language gets messed up in the process. If you plan to change this again, please come up with a term that actually fits. I will try a new phrase this time. Let's see if I can fit another modifier into that sentence! --vonbergm 14:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe every sentence containing unverified information should state so. For one thing, this is necesary if we are quoted by others.  If they quote a sentence which lacks that disclaimer, it sounds like we are stating it as fact, when we are not. StuRat 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Your asking way too much, the only reasonable approach is for a moderatly logical and moderatly attentive reader to recognize all unverified information. The 2nd word of the article is unverified, and this is reiterated; hence sentences only need to clearly identify that they are based upon the memo, for their content to be clearly understood as unverified.  What you want to avoid is people burring the fact that information is unverified, but the authors of this article are not hiding anything.  Nyarlathotep 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Daily Mirror a reputable source ?
I'm not a Brit, so will ask the question: Is the Daily Mirror a reputable source or a scandal sheet that reports front page stories about princesses having their toes sucked ? If it's as bad as the National Enquirer in the US, I don't think we should be using it directly, or any quotes from it found in other news reports (like the Yahoo source). StuRat 18:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * As a Brit who is not a Mirror reader perhaps I can give my (biased) view. Mainstream newspapers are divided into two groups - "quality" broadsheets who are fairly reliable (like the Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times, Times) and "tabloids" who focus more on celebrity/soap stories and have clear bias in their stories (e.g. The Sun, The Mirror). The Mirror came out against the war and has published inaccurate stories in the past (e.g. publishing fake pictures showing prisoner abuse). I would be very careful of quoting anything that lends itself to bias - stick to the facts because these are likely to be correct. i.e. A transcript exists, it was leaked to an MPs assistant, he passed it to an MP, he passed it back to the government, the leaker and assistant have been charged under the OSA, the AG has threatened any newspaper editor that publishes it with criminal prosecution. It is clear that the memo is important (otherwise why woudl the AG block publication?) and it is alleged that it involves a conversation between Blair and Bush about bombing Al-Jaz. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if the Mirror hasn't even seen the memo. Hope this helps. 155.202.254.82 18:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it's the website, kinda gives away the fact that it is a sensationalist tabloid.

 * No, the last one doesn't come with pictures - unless they're in the print edition (which wouldn't surprise me).
 * - Brian McNeil / talk 19:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Any chance someone could get hold of the memo and publish it here? That woudl resolve the dispute! :)

 * Only if we can verify that it is the actual transcript, not something the Mirror or somebody like them made up to sell newspapers. Since they have faked pictures in the past, I wouldn't put it past them to fake the transcript, as well. StuRat 19:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is clear by now that a top-secret document got leaked. In sharing the concerns about the reputation of the Mirror, the authors have gone to great lengths to illuminate the flow of information and the unverified (unverifyable) nature of its contents, wherever appropriate and necessary. After thegag order, it is unlikely to hear further reporting on the document (which has been returned to Blairs office anyway). --vonbergm 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, you don't generally get charged under the OSA unless something was leaked. So its not a question of the mirror lying about the leak, but about the mirror juicing it up.  Maybe Bush really was joking, for example.  Anywho, we say when we are quoting the mirror, so it should be fine.  Nyarlathotep 21:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * That only works for people who already know the Mirror to be an unreliable source. Most Americans, for example, won't know that.  I believe if we continue to use this unreliable source, we should at least identify it as such, say by mentioning that they have falsified evidence (photos) in the past. StuRat 22:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Sabotage
Why is this article taged developa nd locked! As I can understand MrM have aganst majority of writers opinion unpublished this article and now Messedrocker locked it. What are you doing Messedrocker. This is going way out of proportions! The combined acting of MrM:s unsensitve way of using tags and an admins interference in MrM:s acting is unacceptable. Do we need to block and deadministrator people here? Hope not but this is going bad !International 21:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the best solution to the MrM problem is to simply point out something constructive which he could have done whenever he does something anti-constructive. I like to think that people eventually listen to constructive critisism.  Nyarlathotep 21:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought I'd given some ways towards why there was a problem with the article, namely that it treats the sensationalism from "gutter" press as fact. I believe MrM's point is that the entire thing gives credence to a story that comes from a source that should be treated with extreme caution.  As has been mentioned elsewhere, when the news of the Abu Graib prisoner abuse broke, The Mirror used fabricated pictures to make the same allegation against UK forces as was made against US forces.  Credible source?  Probably not, but this article treats it as one.  Brian McNeil / talk 21:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, why not just say "tabloid" when the Mirror is first mentioned? Alternatively, its completely clear that *some* document was leaked, so we could mention that the Mirror has faked pictures in the guardian paragraph, but use the guardian quote to show that its not all faked here.  You know, it would be a very funny tabloid coup to take a memo which Blair would treat as extremely sensitive, but would be boring to the public, and just make up lots of exciting but unverifiable lies about it instead.. allthough its pretty far fetched.  Nyarlathotep 21:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, go for it. --vonbergm 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Brian, we all remember the pictures in the Mirror. That is why the information is presented in this article in a way that makes clear that it relies on information given by the Mirror. Most of the body of the article is concerned with surrounding information that is factual and comes from other sources and relate to the charges of the Mirror. And all information coming only from the Mirror is carefully worded to reflect this. Additionally the article goes at great length to point out the unvrified nature of the information. (e.g "An *unverified* document *claimed to be leaked* from Downing Street was *reported to suggest* that US President George W. Bush wished to bomb the headquarters of Arabic TV station Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar.") If you have any *specific* objection, feel free to discuss them. If you care to check, MrM's objections pertain to information that is *not* from the Mirror but from two other sources, namely FOX News and PBS. If he is referring to the quote from "Section 3", this is linked through the Wikipedia article and adequately addressed. --vonbergm 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If we have adequate reliable sources, why should we continue to use any material from an unreliable source (either directly or as quoted by other sources from the Mirror) ? In my opinion, listing such a disreputable scandal sheet as a source diminishes the stature of WikiNews considerably. StuRat 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No, keep the Mirror. If they broke the story, they should not have their involvement sanitized from history, for better or worse.  It speak volumes to just clearly identify them as a tabloid.  Nyarlathotep 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "Tabloid" technically refers to the paper size and way it is folded. We should explain exactly why this is a suspect source, namely the fake photos they made up. StuRat 22:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is still locked, BTW. MR, can you post a list of exactly which edits you felt were a "war"? Nyarlathotep 22:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

And maybe detail which quotes are not "documented". --vonbergm 22:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, we worked that out above. Nyarlathotep 23:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Vonbergm, I refuse to respond to that question - especially after answering that question at least three times on this page already. And Nyarlathotep, let me be like one of the users above for a minute - "it's in the history"!  They should be fairly obvious - numerous reverts.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * A little edgy today, are we? Being a little more constructive might actually get the article published only one day late. -- Oh wait, maybe we should drag it out for another day! Think of all the fun we could have arguing about it! --vonbergm 22:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The next user who tells me to be more "constructive" will get a mouthful from me. If that's all you have to say, I will refuse to correspond on the talk page any longer - but that doesn't mean I won't stop the publishing of this article.  Wikinews has a reputation to live up to.  This article doesn't reflect the quality and neutrality that an article here requires to be.  And I will refuse to let others publish items that show any less of Wikinews than it is.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, as I have not participated in the development of this story, but a quick glance at the history sugegsts that most of your changes survived into the current version, no? As best as I can tell, most of the edits "responding" to your edits were merely adding additional information from the sources.  Nyarlathotep 23:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


title: File:23November2005.sxw


title: File:23November2005.pdf


title: File:24November2005.pdf


title: File:24November2005.sxw


text:
User:Opalus

I am forced to consider whether it is worthwhile to continue any efforts to contribute to or use any aspect of this wikinews project any longer; the answer unwaveringly is that it is not. There is nothing that can be constructed here, the fools are too active. Against all of my previous observations, there is no way to separate their foolishness from productive work; there are no practical limitations to their destructive activities. I must revise the conclusion of my 16 month observation of this site and state that content here is not valued at all, it is worthless, even though only five months ago I thought it the most valued aspect. For anyone considering joining this hell, reconsider. At most, never venture beyond the main page's published articles again for if you do you will be caught on the inaccuracies and omissions that result from the activities of the fools. The mechanisms of this project will only cause you to pity it for its fate and make you unable to tolerate any of its articles. There is a beautiful illusion if you stop at the main page and never venture to any formation pages; stay on the main page or leave completely if you desire to retain a positive view of the project. I resign. An end to this. Opalus 04:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User:Opalus


text:
Talk:Workplace reform campaign most expensive in Australian history

"IR" is a meaningless to the global audience. Can someone please change the title to something meaningful? Thanks. Bill3 09:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"GST" also needs spelling out, or a link. Goods and Service Tax?

Cheers,

Fred K., Cebu City


text:
User talk:G.burns@insnews.org

Welcome
G.burns@insnews.org, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 09:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:G.burns@insnews.org


text:
User talk:69.140.10.16

Welcome
69.140.10.16, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:69.140.10.16


text:
Singers Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey split up

November 24, 2005

After a three-year marriage featured in the MTV Series "Newlyweds", Jessica Simpson, 25, and Nick Lachey, 32, have announced their separation. In a joint statement, the two claimed the split to be "the mutual decision of two people with an enormous amount of respect and admiration for each other". Jessica Simpson recently played Daisy Duke in a movie remake of The Dukes of Hazzard, while Nick Lachey is a former member of the band 98 Degrees. Jessica Simpson and Nick Lachey have been the subject of numerous tabloid rumours about their failing marriage, and as recently as October 2005 had denied their marital woes to the press.


text:
User talk:Slainty

Wikinews Needs You !
Welcome :) Wikinews needs more gutsy reporters. Please give Wikinews as much time as your schedule allows. Neutralizer 15:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Very kind of you to say so. --Slainty 18:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slainty


text:
User talk:Feruzi~enwikinews

Welcome
Feruzi, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Feruzi. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Feruzi~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Feruzi~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Hakpenguin~enwikinews

Welcome
Hakpenguin, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Hakpenguin. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hakpenguin~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hakpenguin~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Gundip~enwikinews

Welcome
Gundip, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Gundip. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Gundip~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gundip~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Deltigar

Welcome
Deltigar, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Deltigar


text:
User talk:Ursanegra~enwikinews

Welcome
Ursanegra, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ursanegra. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ursanegra~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ursanegra~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Geo Swan

Welcome
Geo Swan, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Re: Style
hi Geo Swan, wikinews articles are to conform in style to the Wikinews:Style guidelines. note that these can be quite different from the Wikipedia guidelines. — Doldrums(talk) 16:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. But why replace Colonel with "Col."?

 * Is there a reason why references shouldn't be tied to the paragraph they reference? Why they shouldn't be numbered?

 * the wikilink is not needed, because the WP description of the rank is not particularly relevant to understanding the article. i preferred the abbreviation as it is shorter, feel free to revert this. wikinews, being a news source, does not use an encyclopedic citation style with numbered references tied to the statements they reference. wikinews citation style is meant to encourage readers to read thro' the article and then look at the sources, if they wish, instead of leaving wikinews for an external site midway via a footnote reference. — Doldrums(talk) 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. Thanks for the explanation.

 * FWIW, I think I may go back and fill out things like Col. to Colonel. While Col. is fewer letters to read, I think it requires more thought to parse.  And I think short-forms can be more geographically limited than authors realize.  I see many Americans who are convinced that EPW is the preferred synomym for prisoner of war.

 * What do you think needs to be done to put the article into a finished state?

 * Cheers --  Geo Swan 17:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what I am doing wrong?
I started Former Guantanamo detainees convicted in Morocco. I put a {publish} tag on it. Shouldn't that have put it on the main page?

Thanks! -- Geo Swan 18:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Doldrums appears to have marked it for clean up. Go in to the article and rewrite the sources with the source tag he has demonstrated. Once you've got as many of the news sources like that, remove the cleanup tag on the top of the page, and it will be published. --  Zanimum 19:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

RE Gitmo
Well all the sources are not formatted properly. And we need to go through all of them and fix them and also make sure they work. Something that will take a while to do. I fixed the first 2 sources, so if you would like to fix them following our format then great :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We use this template for sources: * . DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Sorry. Your attempts at correction removed the page numbers.  Several of those pdf files are several hundred pages long.  Without the page numbers they are completely useless.  Geo Swan 21:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look in the history, you can still see those changes and the pages. Sorry but I didn't know. And yes thanks for fixing the sources, it looks great. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike...
US seeks death penalty for detainees who confessed under torture, we should probably try to combine the two into one. I personally prefer my opening, focusing on the torture -> execution aspect of it, gives it a bit of a "medieval law" sort of feel. I'm also a fan of listing the laundry list of charges against KSM under torture, giving context to the claim that he "confessed" Sherurcij 23:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * have merged, pending your approval. Could use your help fleshing out the story a bit on the other four, focusing on the current charges, rather than ARB/CSRT findings. Sherurcij 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work!
I just read the article on the prosecutor that resigned, and I thought it was really nice work! The perspective on past resignations was quite informative, and the article read quite well, thank you :). Sean Heron (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/General_supervising_Guantanamo_Prosecutions_the_subject_of_two_ethics_probes
Sure, needed pictures and I suggest adding and if you see the main the maps... add a USA map or something like that if you can find it on commons —116.71.55.134 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC) aka iDangerMouse

General who oversaw military tribunals at Guantanamo is being investigated for abuse of power
If you seek collaborative efforts for your contributions here at Wikinews, I would suggest that you be less glib. I am just saying. --SVTCobra 03:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Inadmissible confession
I see that you are on a break from Wikinews. I noticed you left a first draft of Guantanamo confession inadmissible due to coercion abandoned from Nov 1, and it never got published to the Main Page. Rather than see it deleted, I have saved your work for inclusion a possible summary article, at User:InfantGorilla/Guantanamo military commission roundup. I hope you don't mind. --InfantGorilla (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor confusion
Thanks for pointing out the double meaning of the word "editor" in some of our templates. That hadn't occurred to me before. I'll fix those as I come across them from now on. Gopher65talk 17:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Attitude
I am sorry if you think I am not being civil to you. I never meant to be mean or angry. I should have been more polite in how I approached your issue. For that I apologize. No hard feelings? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Apologies are an odd thing. Hardly anyone is any good at them.  They can be really unpleasant.  And they can be even more unpleasant when our interaction with the person we are apologizing to has grown tense, and we have a reasonable concern they won't accept our apology, or they will lord it over us.  That can make apologizing tough.

 * There are times when one is in a position where the bad interaction was a mixed responsibility, but there is some reason why the other person doesn't have to apologize. When we apologize in that situation it can also be very unpleasant.

 * So, let me state, right up front, that was a handsome apology.

 * When I was at University an administrator I admired was caught up in one of those situations where something went weird, that was only partly his fault. But his role compelled him to apologize, to the other party.  He offered a very handsome apology.  I notice that it wasn't a full apology.  He also started looking for a new job, and when he left the program he administered fell apart.

 * Some years later I was in a position where I was the one who had to apologize in a situation where the other party bore a pretty big measure of responsibility. I followed the example of that administrator, gave the fullest apology I could, while remaining honest, and looked for a new job.

 * If I am in the position where I could compel someone to give me a reluctant apology, I prefer not to do so. In my observation those reluctant coerced apologies backfire, they are so unpleasant for the apologizer that they end up sitting with a lot resentment.  If I have a choice in the matter, if I think there is some way to get the other person to understand my concern, and amend their behavior, while saving them from apologizing that is my choice.

 * I am going to repeat -- yours was a very handsome apology, and I honor you for it. Geo Swan (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This would make a lovely essay somewhere. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Treatment of Newcomers
Thank you for your comment on Water_cooler/policy -"Too many of wikinews existing contributors treat this project as a closed club, with no newcomers welcome." (Geo Swan, 10 March 2009). Refer my comment on Water_cooler/policy under section (24): Abysmal treatment of newcomers - Wikinews as an Orwellian state. I reproduce the comment here because it may well vanish from the water cooler (and its history obliterated).
 * I recently (4 May 2009) submitted an article called "Thin non-biodegradable plastic shopping bags banned in South Australia". It was blocked from publication with minimal and inadequate explanations, then altered by another contributor who didn't bother to comment on their changes. Now THIS NEWS ITEM HAS CEASED TO EXIST - it doesn't even remain as a disputed, unpublished article. All record of it on my "my contributions" page has vanished. This is straight out of George Orwell's "1984"! Wikinews, it seems, has been annexed by some Owellian Ministry of Truth!

--Miropolitan (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it seems a huge mistake that contributor's failed drafts should be deleted, when they could be moved to an alternate namespace, one not searched by search engines like google -- but still accessible for contributors to cannibalize and re-use useful elements. If unsuccessful drafts were moved to an alternate namespace, not searched by search engines, then they would still be accessible for new or occassional contributors to refer so they could learn from their mistakes.  Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies
Hi. I apologize regarding any past behavior. I was not part of it. I am not aware of any back story involved there. I was looking through Commons for contributors who have uploaded images they took in the past day or two, and trying to encourage them to put their images to use. I can tell you that now we are trying to give much better feedback (though like every project, we always have room for improvement). I would humbly request if you have an opportunity to take pictures that might be newsworthy, that you consider trying a photoessay. I will assist you as much as I can in getting it publish ready so any past problems can be avoided. We really do want Commons photographers here doing photoessays. It is good for Commons (because it makes it easier for photographers to get media accreditation) and it is good for Wikinews (in all languages) because we get new content and higher quality photos for our news stories. --LauraHale (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

State of the health
Have you tried to quantify it? See http://stats.wikimedia.org as source of information, there is heaps but analysis needs some thought. --Gryllida (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geo Swan


text:
User talk:Blondi9999~enwikinews

Welcome
Blondi9999, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 16:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Blondi9999. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Blondi9999~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blondi9999~enwikinews