Talk:17 Civilians killed by U.S. bombing attack
Use of terrorist word in headline without qualifying it as opinion, as correctly done in article, is a conversation stopper, not neutral.
The quote "terrorist compound" is from the first source; "U.S. Confirms Some Afghan Civilian Deaths". The complete sentance is as follows:
"The U.S. military confirmed some civilians were killed in the attack on what it called a known terrorist compound."
"terrorist compound" was said by the U.S. military = not an opinion
Mr. Purple 4 July 2005 20:16 (UTC)
- Wha?! Mr. Purple! --> "U.S. military = not an opinion". I can see PaulRevere2005 jumping out of his chair now... :-))
- Please reconsider your opinion Mr. Purple. Plz. -Edbrown05 4 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
The statement "terrorist compound" is, according to the source named above, a statement of the U.S. military. It is not the writers opinion. This is why it is in double quotes - to suggest the validity of the portrayed "fact". Mr. Purple 4 July 2005 20:26 (UTC)
- I reckon you still believe there were WMD in Iraq before the U.S. invaded. -Edbrown05 4 July 2005 20:29 (UTC) That was pre-war intelligence --> fact --> opinion. -Edbrown05 4 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Double quotes suggest mild sarcasm, whereas single quotes suggest sincerity. I would like to hear from the instigator of this. Mr. Purple 4 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
- I sincerely believe the attack on the small Chichal village was conducted under the guidance of U.S. intelligence gatherings of a known "terrorist compound". I fully support the effort to root out insugents and terrorists in Afghanistan. -Edbrown05 4 July 2005 20:47 (UTC)
- You are right Mr. Purple about the use of quotations in headlines. It took me a while to come up to speed on that. And now that I am 'up to speed', I still don't think the change made from double, to single quotations, is incorrect.
- There is no supporting source or information to dispute that the villiage wasn't a "known terrorist compound". The controversy swirls around the civilian casualties.
- It wouldn't be right to use civilian losses as a reason to express mild sarcasm about the existance of terrorists at the location. -Edbrown05 4 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)
Don't get too worked up everyone:) What I was trying to say in the top line of this discussion, not altogether clearly, was that who you call a terrorist is a matter of your point of view, and so it needs to be in quotes in the headline just as it is in the article body, to emphasise that in the opinion of the attackers / their intelligence / whoever, it was a "terrorist compound". You can imagine who the dead and their survivors in this event might label as "terrorists" ...
The distinction between double and single quotes is new to me. Can anyone give a reference in support? --Crockett 5 July 2005 06:30 (UTC)
Paul is trying to change the article into a different one - it's something we don't do (see no. 5). Just start a new article - it's a much better idea, it highlights the new information much more prominently. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)
number in headlineEdit
Not wishing to complicate this further, but: to strengthen the headline you should really take out 17 and keep it in the copy as an estimate. That citizens have been killed has been corroborated by both sides, the number is not confirmed and 'terrorist compound' is an unconfirmed assertion by one side. ClareWhite
re: the T wordEdit
The only material on double quotes vs. single quotes is this. The article kinda explains the use of double quotes in an ironic context, though says nothing on single quotes. As far as I know, single quotes are just quotes.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I thought "terrorist compound" was in double quotes from the beginning? Mr. Purple 6 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article is a stub and unsatisfactory in its current development. I don't see how double quotes has a place in a headline unless it is intended to "scare" the reader. -Edbrown05 6 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)
Mr P: the headline did not originally contain the words "terrorist compound", but in the eighth edit they were added by Dan100, without quotes of any kind.
On the question of single vs double quotes, here is a link  from a technical writers website that suggests that it all depends on which side of the Atlantic you live. Luckily I live in the middle of the Pacific, so I just make up my own rules:)--Crockett 7 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)
- A bit late to comment here, but in grade school English, single and double quote usage was explained to me as being somewhat reversed between American English and British English, as in the article above... --CGW 7 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)