Talk:Police may have killed some of the eight tourist victims in Philippines hostage crisis

Long article!

But it's a bit old, isn't it? Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Its not very long at all. And no, its not old. The actual event took place in August, yes, but the news that the police may have shot some of the hostages was reported in the last few days. WackyWace^talk 12:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. The TV has been suspecting that ever since the day after the crisis. They even made up conspiracy theories about it. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1093169 [Failed]

Revision 1093169 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No source for brother's quote. No source for the quote regarding tourism in the area. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No source for brother's quote. No source for the quote regarding tourism in the area. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1093169 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No source for brother's quote. No source for the quote regarding tourism in the area. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No source for brother's quote. No source for the quote regarding tourism in the area. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1093172 [Passed]

Revision 1093172 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Info mentioned in failed review, was mention in related article and its sources. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1093172 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Info mentioned in failed review, was mention in related article and its sources. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Misleading title

The article title is misleading. Some of the eight not all eight. Current title infers all eight and that is next to impossible given eyewitness testimony. Even better than confirming my edit is to move the article to an appropriately named page. Lambanog (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Would Police may have killed up to eight tourists in Philippines hostage crisis be acceptable? Bawolff ☺☻ 17:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Closer to the contents of the article I think would be "Police may have killed some of the eight tourist victims in Philippines hostage crisis" Lambanog (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Done: I agree. I switched the {{misleading}} banner for a correction notice, now awaiting review:

 
Correction — September 15, 2010
 
This article was previously published under a misleading headline that implied that police may have killed all eight tourists who died.
 

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As the author of this article, I would like to apologize for this mistake. I did not intend for the headline to be in any way misleading, or for it to imply something that was not the case. This was, however, my fault, and I apologize for it. WackyWace^talk 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note the reviewer hasn't edited since they published this article. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)