Talk:Deadly flooding in Pakistan kills hundreds

Ethics?

This direct and properly attributed quote from a competing news organization is certainly newsworthy:

Sohail Rahman, reporting for Al Jazeera from Pakistan's capital Islamabad, said "The city experienced a deluge of water that came in from Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and the floods have really affected the infrastructure in and around the province, the people in the affected areas were quite critical in the first 24 hours, saying that the authorities were not doing enough."

However, I am an unsure as to whether it is fair use, fair dealing, or appropriation.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Aren't small quotes like this OK? —fetch·comms 22:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a copyright violation, but in almost every case you'd want to rewrite that in your own words rather than quote another reporter. Quoting is for direct sources, not for the people writing down the words of sources (IE reporters). Gopher65_talk 13:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks G65, I thought so, but I have never quoted a reporter myself, and I had never encountered the question, except when the article was about op-ed writer's opinions.
• Is it too late to rewrite it now? It was published 48 hours ago.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1069318 [Passed]

Revision 1069318 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:20, 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 1069318 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:20, 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.