Talk:Afghans riot after civilians die in crash

Review of revision 1069324 [Passed]

Revision 1069324 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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 1069324 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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.

Neutrality?

Specifically, what is POV about this paragraph?

In southern Afghanistan yesterday, six U.S. soldiers were killed, increasing the death toll this month for US forces to 66, the deadliest month for American troops since the country was invaded almost nine years ago.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It takes the view that US troops are somehow so important that we need to hear about them on an entirely unrelated story. I'm sorry they're dead, but I'm going to - gasp! - refer to a Wikipedia policy that about sums up my view here: WP:MEMORIAL. It is not appropriate to insert mentions of such things into other random articles.

That aside, if you were uncertain then perhaps you should have refrained from sighting it.

While I'm at it, using 'American' to mean 'US' is a pet hate of mine. American refers to someone from any North, Central or South American country. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• "if you were uncertain then perhaps you should have refrained from sighting it." Not at all - I sighted your deletion because to do so was to err on the side of caution, and hide a peripheral fact, assuming that you had a good reason for the deletion, even though I could only guess what it was.
• I would imagine that the Taliban and US citizens agree with the sources that US troop deaths are an important aspect of this story. You disagree, as I imagine would many Afghan civilians, while I remain neutral. The paragraph should remain deleted, for the reason that Wikinews could be seen as making a case for war by treating the conflict in southern Afghanistan as directly relevant to this story.
• wiktionary:American#Adjective
• http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=American&title=21st

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comments, in order:

• Perhaps; though I would be inclined to ask and leave unsighted or ask another's opinion if I was uncertain.
• I daresay I can settle for that viewpoint, though I still feel that, whilst they are very much part of the same bigger picture, they are distinctly separate.
• I am aware of how common usage has shaped the meaning accorded to 'American', and I continue to loathe such. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a little upset as the sentence "Security forces are concerned that the incident could lead to widespread rioting against the military occupation" was removed I assume because it was considered POV?Soapy (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

That sentence is still in the article. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)