Talk:FBI arrests four in alleged plot to bomb Bronx synagogues, shoot down plane

Review revision 822185

Revision 822185 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting. --SVTCobra 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 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 822185 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Interesting. --SVTCobra 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 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.

"bogus"

Bogus is not an appropriate word for a news report, please do not put it back in the article. It gives the implication that the people supplied with the fake bombs and missiles were so dumb they could not tell an obvious fake. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianmc, dictionaries.... look into them: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bogus

Look, if you think the conversational verbage of "actually fake" is better for a news report than your misinterpretation of a commonly used dictionary word, then more power to you.

Anyway, check out all these bogus news organizations, etc. that choose to use this "inappropriate word" for a news report:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/22/opinion/main5034353.shtml?source=search_story

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/25/tim.masters.year.later/index.html?iref=newssearch

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2009Mar20/0,4670,BogusOrganBroker,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30525324/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/jul/30/student.visas

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/09/money-raised-to-cover-bogus-land-bid/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/technology/09cisco.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=bogus&st=cse

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026875.000-judges-junk-bogus-neuroscience.html

Cowicide (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. "actually fake" and "bogus" differ in that "actually fake" more strongly suggests that the bombs and missiles were good enough to fool most people. "bogus" implies that critical examination of the bombs and missiles would reveal they were fake. The sources you cite, if read critically, tend to back this up. Their use of "bogus" implies, "it wasn't a good enough fake to fool us, if you're smart it won't fool you".

I might add, that if you're going to wait days to respond you're wasting your time. I, for one, will not entertain debating these issues if it goes beyond 24 hours of the article's publication. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brian, you should try actually reading the articles instead of bogusly saying you did. No where is it implied that "bogus" refers to something that is "obviously fake". By the way, you should also finally check out the dictionary. Synonym for bogus? FAKE. Not an "obvious" fake... just fake. You're wrong, face it. Cowicide (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take your combative attitude and accusations that I did not read a dictionary or sources elsewhere; like back to Wikipedia where you cuss and swear at people who disagree with you. This is not constructive discussion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, this discussion where you've been proven wrong isn't constructive... fine. But I'd still like to see that dictionary and/or thesaurus you got there that defines "bogus" as specifically referring to an "obvious fake" as opposed to its actual definition found in every other dictionary on the planet. By the way, last time I checked, you don't run wikimedia. Therefore, I'll stay here as long as I like, thx. As far as constructive goes... in the future, when you revert an edit that's not malicious in any way... please leave a comment in your edit, it'll probably cause less confusion and you'll also be doing a better job at following the wiki guidelines located here and here. Your bogus pal, Cowicide (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Proven wrong? You have a funny idea of what constitutes proof. You could also do with improving your knowledge of English; there are many, many words in the dictionary which have near-identical meanings to 'bogus'. Dictionaries, regrettably, do not tie themselves in knots distinguishing which is more 'plausible fake' than the other.

And, just to remind you, we don't have these Wikipedia guidelines you cite. While the edit was not malicious it was a change to the tone and implied meaning to make your change. Or are you going to argue that "bogus" and "fake" are identical in meaning and equally appropriate in a formal written document? (Hint: neither of these things are the job of a dictionary to teach you, you learn them by reading).

Lastly, I have no illusions about speaking for the WMF, I was commenting on your generally combative approach evidenced by block warnings, notes, etc. on your WP talk and resorting to cursing and swearing at many who apparently disagree with you. You have a similar history here, and blocks, plus you were most assertive in the way you approached this issue; you still refuse to see "bogus" based on a nuanced meaning derived from usage. I could probably pick dozens of pairs of synonyms to argue with you over, language is living and evolves independent of what some word-collector pins into a scapbook called a dictionary. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

<unindent>Just for you, a dictionary definition that should be taken into consideration: bogus. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

> Proven wrong? You have a funny idea of what constitutes proof.

8 links to 8 very different accredited news organizations, etc. that utilized the word “bogus” in news reports after you stated that the word was “ ... not an appropriate word for a news report ... ”.

Plus 1 link to a dictionary (that represents the same results you get with all dictionaries) that shows the synonym for “bogus” as “fake”... not “almost fake” or anything you’ve been alluding to (but haven’t presented one lick of proof yourself).

Even though dictionaries, etc. are in your eyes apparently useless vehicles to the English language... You might want to also check out these links as well:

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/bogus http://www.synonyms.net/synonym/bogus http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561573244/fake.html http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/bogus http://www.synonym.com/synonyms/bogus/

Absent from EVERY link above is your assertion that bogus commonly refers to “almost fake” or “obvious fake” or whatever. It’s simply not true, or... [cough] bogus, if you will.

> And, just to remind you, we don't have these Wikipedia guidelines you cite.

That’s incorrect. The Wikinews policies and guidelines are fundamentally based on the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. As a matter of fact, those guideline links I posted are derived from the “revert” link located here in the Enforcement section at the bottom.

> Or are you going to argue that "bogus" and "fake" are identical in meaning and equally appropriate in a formal written document?

No, I already let all the accredited news organizations that use it that way speak for itself. (See those links I already posted and if that’s not enough, try here) Seriously, check out all those headlines in this new google link. Dude, “bogus” and “fake” ARE identical in meaning no matter how much you hate dictionaries and thesauruses. You are flogging a dead, bogus long horse.

> equally appropriate in a formal written document?

What I don’t find approrate is the informal language that I tried to replace. C’mon... “actually fake”? Sounds like a chick from the valley telling her friends about the incident. “Bogus devices” was far more appropriate and I’ve got back up (see new google link above).

> you still refuse to see "bogus" based on a nuanced meaning derived from usage.

It’s only YOUR nuanced meaning. The rest of the world uses bogus as “fake”. Until surfers from the 1980s rule the Earth, bogus will remain the standard synonym for “fake” for the rest of us.

> I could probably pick dozens of pairs of synonyms to argue with you over

Hahaha... I bet YOU could. But, I’ll settle with bogus... :D

> Just for you, a dictionary definition that should be taken into consideration: bogus. bogus

Great reference! Hahahah...  ;) Have you seen how they define women?

1. Highly ornamental, especially in sports cars. 2. Can be a great aid to relaxation. 3. Very effective cleaning agent.

Shall we stop using the term “women” against this context in wikinews because of this bogus dictionary we’ve got here? :D Cowicide (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding Category:Michael Bloomberg

This article is missing the Category:Michael Bloomberg tag, may someone with sufficient permission please add the tag. Cocoaguy (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)