Talk:At least 85 dead in shooting at Norwegian youth camp

Broadcast report

I'm watching the live feed on the BBC News channel. I haven't taken anything from only there yet (I don't think I have, anyway) - if I do get anything from there, I'll list it below, but so far it's only been used to verify information from elsewhere (i.e., I know someone said something because I saw them say it on TV). DENDODGE George Watson 13:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• BBC News reports that members of the government were among those killed in the Oslo bombing. DENDODGE George Watson 13:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Everyone the BBC has interviewed claims that the immigration policies are a likely motive. DENDODGE George Watson 13:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• Breivik is cooperating with the police, apparently. DENDODGE George Watson 13:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• The PM's comments regarding speculation were broadcast on TV. DENDODGE George Watson 13:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• The BBC reported Reuters's death toll orally. DENDODGE George Watson 13:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• A British ambassador to Norway was interviewed on BBC News; her comments are the best we have, in lieu of any official release. DENDODGE George Watson 14:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
• The BBC says the police have received no concrete reports of a second gunman, but cannot rule out the possibility. DENDODGE George Watson 14:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All information taken from broadcast sources is indicated with hidden comments in the page wikicode. DENDODGE George Watson 13:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OR notes

Breivik's comments on Document come from this Google translation of http://www.document.no/anders-behring-breivik/, where he posted using his real name. DENDODGE George Watson 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

OR = Original reporting = 'first-hand journalism'? I think this does not fit. Anyway - good article! --Itu (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking stuff from the place it was originally published, rather than from another news website that has synthesised it, is considered OR on Wikinews—it's not a policy I necessarily agree with wholeheartedly, but it makes sense and it's how it works here. DENDODGE George Watson 21:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought OR reporting meant that the reporter (credentialed) was at the scene doing first hand interviews. etc. Not using Google translate (which I know from experience is poor) and using primary sources to create a secondary source. Mattisse (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Not by my understanding of policy. Taking stuff from secondary sources is synthesis, and taking it from primary sources is OR. This is a primary source. And FWIW, that was a very good Google translation indeed, and I was surprised at its quality - no -> en must be good. DENDODGE George Watson 22:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Or on Wikipedia is drawing conclusions from primary sources and publishing them as fact, without the validation of secondary sources (who have editors as gate keepers). Does wikinews have a lower bar for fact checking than Wikipedia. I though OR on wikinews meant that a credentialed reporter (from wikinews) was at the scene, conducting interviews etc. and publishing their reporter's notes on the talk page. No so? Any one can go to primary sources and synthesize without any secondary source to validate? Mattisse (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1262783 [Passed]

Revision 1262783 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Nice 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 1262783 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Nice 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.

Review of revision 1262787 [Passed]

Revision 1262787 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1262787 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Explosion in Downtown Oslo should be merged/redirected

It seems that the article being created yesterday got totally unattentioned. It is actually the same event, though obviosly "forgotten" since the shooting got a higher magnitude. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a single short paragraph. I spotted it, but it covers a separate event to the shootings, and I assumed the original author would want to expand it. There is a hidden link in this article to that one in case it ever does get published. DENDODGE George Watson 15:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not considered a separate event by the Norwegian government, as the same suspect is arrested for both. More were killed in the island shooting, but the other incident involved a powerful bomb and damaged government buildings in Oslo, killing at least 7. The city blast happened first, so originally it was coveered as a separate incident. Now most news articles consider it related and the bomb as of equal or more importance, e.g. Your Take: Canadian in Oslo learns of Norway attacks,Norway attacks: ‘A nightmare,’ PM says; suspect identified; at least 92 dead, Blast rips out city's heart, Norway attacks shock, disgust Europe. I think this article needs to contain both attacks, as they are related and mostly likely committed by the same person. Mattisse (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Being related to each other doesn't require them to be in one article. There are two separate events that took place, there's no reason they can't be in separate articles. The two being related doesn't keep them from being two.

One oughtn't be trying to change the focal news event of an article after publication. Put another way, as a rule of thumb if you want to add something to an article, and it would imply significantly changing the headline, you shouldn't be adding it to that article but instead should be writing a separate article. What should go in the same article versus a separate article may be different after one article has been published. --Pi zero (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. It is hopeless now to correct. Mattisse (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Original reporting?

I agree somewhat with Mattisse's concerns. Could someone explain how this article qualifies as original reporting? Does watching television and using Google translate equate to first hand journalism? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

According to current policy, yes. But since I am a "piss poor" journalist who clearly has no idea how Wikinews works, my opinion and interpretation of policy are meaningless and I'm only posting this to boost my edit count. DENDODGE George Watson 23:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean to infer that you were a "pissport" journalist. What you did was done may times in the past. To me, OR on wikinews is very unclear. Wikinews goes through all this business of "accreditation" to be an "Or" reporter, but apparently either these standards are vapid, or mnany editors do not understand them, or the normal standard of journalism are not enforced. Mattisse (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I did not make those accusations and do not agree with them. However, I did read WN:Original reporting and see no evidence that this constitutes original reporting. I would request that you either explain why you believe this is original reporting or remove the tag.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care either way. But the policy, as I understand it, is that taking anything from a primary source - i.e., not another news report - constitutes original reporting. If I'm wrong, the tag can go, but that's how it's been done in the past, such as with Cablegate when information from the cables was used directly and listed as OR. DENDODGE George Watson 00:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC News is a primary source?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

No. BBC News was listed as a broadcast report. Document.no is a primary source. DENDODGE George Watson 00:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding how quoting from the google translation of a publicly available document is original. An important question to answer is: did you locate the documents yourself or were you directed to them by a news report? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

There has to be some tag on the article since some of the source information is on the talk page, surely. So is the question here whether the tag should be {{original reporting}} or {{broadcast report}}? --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC News is a broadcast, so there should be {{broadcast report}} - I expect that is undisputed. The question is whether Document.no counts as OR or not. In the past, such things have been considered OR. If consensus has changed since the last time I wrote an article, I'm very sorry, but I was unaware of that. Feel free to take the tag off the article - it isn't something I feel at all strongly about. I was just trying to adhere to what I thought was common practice by adding the tag. If I did something horrendously wrong, I will happily admit it, and that's why I've put myself up for reconfirmation. Had I known it was going to be this controversial, frankly, I wouldn't have bothered in the first place - I spotted that Wikinews didn't have an article on a big news event and started writing one because I thought it was in the best interests of the project for me to do so. Since it has distracted everyone from news-writing and caused drama, my assumption was evidently erroneous, and I apologise. DENDODGE George Watson 00:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Dendodge, the problem isn't you. Don't lose your sense of accomplishment for the article; this to-do, not of your making, isn't worth it.

It seems reasonable to treat it as OR. And it got reviewed that way. So let it stay as is, and be done with this. --Pi zero (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was unaware of the Template:Broadcast report. That would certainly be appropriate here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It's already there, except in its inline form ({{broadcast-inline}}). DENDODGE George Watson 10:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

New info on death toll

Norway police lower youth camp death toll to 68 This calls for a correction. --PeeKoo (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It calls for a followup. We can only rely on information that was available at the time the article was published. We do not have a crystal ball, and we aren't going to apologise for that fact. Feel free to write a followup, but there is no way a correction is possibly warranted in this case. DENDODGE George Watson 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

See: Norwegian police lower death toll in massacre. Please expand and get published. --SVTCobra 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

If a followup is published, this is an occasion when it will be appropriate to use {{update}}. Whose notorious appearance should probably be... updated. --Pi zero (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

unproductive discussion collapsed 

This is what happens when there is a rush to publish from inaccurate "first" reports without waiting a little time to see what pans out. And from a BBC newscast called "Original reporting" no less. The police have enough sense, after the initial hysteria, to refuse to give further updates of the death total. Mattisse (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to continue to create a poisonous atmosphere by being hyper-critical and putting down the work of other contributors? If so, I'd suggest sticking to the "threat" you made in your last 50-or-so edits, and cease contributing. People here are doing as best they can; and, the majority of your edits I've noted over the past 48-72 hours have been hyper-critical and qualify as poison-penned. I have tried to avoid conflict with yourself for a considerable time now. But, of late, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to criticise in an prolific manner. Don't. I'm painfully aware of how disturbed you'd be if a similarly harsh critique of your work was regularly forthcoming. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.I'm not writing articles any more, in case you have noticed. But I have not "threatened" anything in my last "50 or so edits". Any suggestion or questioning of practices is a "poisoned pen"? But thank you for being so interested in me and my comments. However, you have never given me a compliment when I write good articles. I have published close to 100 since March, more than anyone else. So the way to get your attention is to question and suggest and to seek to learn? Why don't you stop your poisoned pen in response to my comments, just because I suggest improvements and question practices. That is not allowed here? I apologized for my comment do Dendodge, but I have never seen you ever apologize for your responses to me. Mattisse (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse: constructive criticism is welcome, but I think you're being unduly harsh in this case. Every news source that I saw ran with the higher death toll. At at some point you can't keep waiting for further developments, and you've just got to publish with what is known. News ceases to be news after all. the wub "?!" 00:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. All I suggested was that the inaccurate headline not be in the lead position on the front page. Sorry if that is being unduly critical. And I did think that transcripts were required, as they are in the news organization I work for. My mistake and I am sorry for that and I apologized to Dendoge. But I don't understand this atmosphere of not learning from mistakes. Why should we not learn and improve?

And I am not writing any more articles for a while, so as to please Brian McNeill. I don't think I was being "hypercritical" but merely realistic. As an article writer I should be able to ask questions and suggest improved practices. But not so here. I think if I were not taunted for my suggestions/questions and if my every comment were not stalked and chalked up, I would feel a lot more welcome here and my comments would not necessarily be seen in such a harsh light. But when every comment is put down and "chalked up", it is hard to feel friendly and comfortable here. As it is, you and Dendodge have been friendly (and accepted my apology), and so have four other editors, three of whom have left. So I appreciate your kind words, but it is hard to withstand the negative scrutiny I am under. Fortunately, I get positive comments for my articles from readers. And when the poisoned atmosphere improves and I am allowed to make suggestions and comments without ridicule, I will probably write articles again. As it is, I know I am not welcome. But I will continue to make comments, as I am allowed to do so. The ire of one editor should not be enough to prevent me from giving input. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
You seem to have a persecution complex. You've been quite disruptive over the past few days, harangued the wrong people in relation to what may have been legitimate concerns, and now choose to "retreat" blaming me for problems which are wholly your own. You were "scared" to bring up a possible incorrect review by Diego; I did so, and he's up for reconfirmation through his choice. You, for the umpteenth time, did the "drama-queen" I'm quitting schtick and now retract it. It does not endear you to the community; and, as I'm sure you'll be pleased to know, it just lessens the respect they'll have for you. If you, just one more time, post another "I'm not going to contribute" threat, I'll raise the issue on WN:AAA seeking community consensus for a permanent ban for perpetually crying wolf.

You've insulted numerous Wikinews contributors as individuals, the community as a whole, and the basic goals of the project. My belief is my responsibilities as a bureaucrat put bringing this to your attention above any advice or recommendation to avoid interactions with yourself. I've asked Diego to stand for reconfirmation over one or two sloppy reviews; you were someone that prompted that. You seem to have taken such as a license to widen criticism of this project. Desist. Your synthesis-only contributions are far less of a loss than original reporting, and I say that with confidence the community will back me. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

How can you honestly ask "Are you going to continue to create a poisonous atmosphere by being hyper-critical and putting down the work of other contributors?" then barely an hour come back with "Your synthesis-only contributions are far less of a loss than original reporting". I suggest you check your own comments and threats as well Brian. Everyone is a little on edge at the moment, the last thing needed is more fuel on the various ongoing fires. the wub "?!" 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have collapsed the above discussion, as it was generating far more heat than light, whilst not helping to improve this article (including my own comments in it, for which I apologise). As SVTCobra suggests: Let us concentrate on solving our immediate problem of getting Norwegian police lower death toll in massacre published. the wub "?!" 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

{{update}} added. --Pi zero (talk) 05:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)