Talk:Japanese detain two anti-whaling activists, deny abuse claims
I already knew about the story, so I knew what it was referring to. But if you didn't, the headline gives you no idea that it was about Japanese whalers vs. anti-whaling protesters. It's the thing that makes this story interesting.
How about adding the word whalers or anti-whaling somewhere in the headline? -- 203.57.68.20 10:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for the idea. -Apartmento2 15:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a edit war so I won't revert. I will discuss and reach a consensus.
Although I understand that the article I wrote a significant portion of may not be of the highest quality of journalism so it isn't the best read.
However, Bcn22's edit chops out significant amounts of information, including:
- Accusations that Sea Shepherd attacked the Yushin Maru with butyric acid, as rancid butter, and Sea Shepherd's confirmation.
- Accusations that Sea Shepherd attempted to entangle the screw of the vessel.
- A sentence about a police report to the Australian Federal Police.
- Whalers offering a conditional release.
- Sea Shepherd refusing and saying the Japanese are acting like terrorists.
- A whole bunch of quotes that would make the article more comprehensive and add more human aspect promotion.
I propose the article be reverted to the 17 January 2008 203.57.68.20 version. -Apartmento2 15:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Apartmento2, the point I wish to make here is that this is supposed to be a piece of journalism not an academic article. Sometimes a cold, detached eye is needed to remove the unnceccessary "bulk" from the piece. That´s what subeditors do, without them our newspapers would look very different!
I chopped your article cos I thought it was too wordy and confusing with a lot of "he said, she said", and a lot of irrelevent information was present such as the nautical position of the ship. Also I felt there was too much use of Sea Shepherd as a source - remember that Sea Shepard has a vested interest in dramatising the event to gain maximum publicity, and it´s the role of the journalist to be sceptical about things like that.
Could you try to make a newer version of my edit, incorporating any important facts you think I have omitted. (Facts that the reader really needs to know). Thanks! Bcn22.Bcn22 11:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- 'K sounds reasonable.
- On the Sea Shepherd thing, I mostly quoted from two groups, the whalers/researchers and Sea Shepherd because they're the only people that matter most and care most. In Muslim world condemns Pope's criticism of Islam, they're are only really two types of people quoted, Muslims and the Christians. I only used Sea Shepherd as a source for their views and allegations plus the nautical position of the incident. I cited a the press release of the IRC as well and even included photos from the media kit.
- In my experience he said, she said is very good in helping give a clearer and more comprehensive view and providing NPOV.
- Wikinews is not a paper so space is virtually unlimited and very cheap but it needs to be useful for the reader and I agree that your edit has made it easier for the reader to read.
- I'll see what I can do. Your edits were in good faith. Thanks for responding and provided your reasons.-Apartmento2 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Cheers, I look forward to the new version ;-) Bcn22 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)