Talk:Main Page/Archive 25

Psychic octopus

I am going to replace the octopus story in our main leads with a story a day older (the solar aircraft), although I have no problem with odd news or a dead donkeys as one of our leads occasionally. My reasoning:

1. It is not an original Wikinews article, but a PD one from VOA
2. It is odd news for people who are bad at maths: similar stories have been used as fillers by the press for at least 100 years, and are used as examples in popular maths books.

Sorry - nothing personal at all, I just think that the advantages of the solar aircraft as a lead story outweigh its age. --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Filing this one under "No one cares" --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Dragging it out of the file again for a second:

I don't actually care about taking it off the lead, I never really guessed it would be one. It was just a quick piece to ease myself back into writing articles after a long absence, and the solar aircraft (IMO) is far cooler anyway. But

1. It isn't just a VOA article, I simply used that as a starting point. If you compare the two you will see that they are substantially different.
2. One of the changes I made was to include a professor of statistics pointing out that it was complete bollocks (my belief too of course). Btw David Spiegelhalter is a complete legend, always good for debunking bad stats.

Ok, I'll pop it back in the file now :-) the wub "?!" 08:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Shame on VOA for not mentioning a debunker. (Especially as the bookie can make money from this octopus, even though they are unrelated.) Thanks and welcome back to writing. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina just legalized gay marriaged. Why isn't this headline?

Isn't this worth it to be a headline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.158.128.165 (talk • contribs)

• Simply because no-one's written the article yet! Wikinews articles are all written by volunteers, and though we do our best to cover as many stories as possible, as quickly as possible, we could always use more help. If you want to have a go yourself, check out Wikinews:Writing an article. the wub "?!" 15:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:MainPageMediaMenu‎

Turtlestack has been updating Template:MainPageMediaMenu‎ and I just realized it's not actually on the main page, for which the template is intended. Anyone in favor of re-adding the template to the main page? Thoughts, comments anyone? —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Tyrol5 (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So which section do we want to bump off? About wikinews? Bawolff ☺☻ 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; that can easily be replaced with a link. Tyrol5 (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think it'd be fine bumping off the "About" section. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  Is the template really that useful though? Print Edition is more or less dead, and audio WN is intermittent depending on when Turtlestack is available - which means we're going to see out-of-date stuff or "PE is currently not being updated". No strong feelings, but I prefer leaving things as-is. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee Lieutenant Governor suggests that Islam is a 'cult'

"islamic" needs to be capitalised because Islam is a proper noun.

Done Thank you for bringing it to our attention. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks odd

The page looks odd with a lot of space under the plane crash article. Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

tried to fix it a little. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The darn page hits thing...

...is down since the wub retired. So it should be removed from the main page. Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody tried contacting the wub? I presume xe would be willing to hand somebody active control of the bot. Δενδοδγε _τ\^c 18:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Danielle

I pulled Tropical Storm Danielle forms in Atlantic Ocean from the 5th lead as it is now out of date, and it also has a serious error. --14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki +ko

{{editprotected}} Please add interwiki [[ko:대문]]. Thanks. Kwj2772 (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

New Proposal

Hi all, I have created a new main page proposal that I think eliminates a lot of whitespace currently present and organizes it more. The proposal is here. Please leave feedback on the talkpage, I would love to get this implemented! red-thunder. 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

2010 indonesia earthquake

Breaking news urgent alert flash just in happing now news update etc Original reporting is needed for this 2010 indonesia earthquake --188.23.68.43 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Images on front page

There seems to be problems displaying images on the front page, i'm using firefox on linux. Mrchris (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be something about the servers. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest news part

Why is the section showing the news other than the headlines shorter than what is used to be? In my opinion, it looked better the other way. Nascar1996 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Currently we only list non-archived published articles. Since our article output has fallen, there is less then 20 non-archived published articles. If we include archived articles, the list could be long again. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh okay, on some of my creations on Wikipeida I like to fill up all the space that can be used. It just looks to empty right there. Thanks, though. Nascar1996 23:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes??

Um, the main page is showing a pending version from December 24th... Please tell me someone has been around to accept the new version IN THE LAST WEEK...? Ocaasi (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• No. We've all been in a drunken stupor since Christmas Eve. Sheesh! Check the page history, this is an error with FlaggedRevs. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

Perhaps someone could change all the hyphens in the list of category subjects (Africa - Asia ... and Crime and law - Culture ...) to dashes? —fetch·comms 02:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

What type of dash? em-dash? (—) en-dash (–)? I have no idea which is typographically correct. personally I think • might look good as well (we use bullets elsewhere on the page). For reference, {{Main_page_portals}} is relevant page. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's rather pointless, and does not follow any styling guideline. Mind, if someone really feels like doing it there's no guideline *against* it either. It's just silliness. - Amgine | t 04:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Bullets are fine, as are either type of dash, I think. Amgine, that's true that there is no guideline, but it shouldn't be a hyphen at least. —fetch·comms 19:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL, you can blame me for the hyphens. I remember putting them in there a few years ago when the main page got another overhaul. Back in the Good Ol' Days^TM. I agree bullets or dashes are better. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Any other deckchair rearrangement suggestions? Please, if required, flag for editing the relevant template - that's why those used are listed here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Point of website?

Wikipedia is like Wikimedia's only popular website, they should just somehow fuse these mini sites into Wikipedia for like an advanced News section or something, because I doubt anyone would prefer this over the Wikipedia News section, which is where I go for News.

Excellent question! however, this isn't the place to raise it. I suggest raising that somewhere appropriate on Meta, Wikipedia, or possibly at the Water cooler. This page is for discussion of the Main page. - Amgine | t 19:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sister projects

All the links are missing

11:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending revision

Resolved. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a pending revision of this page. Somewhere, someone needs to review the revision. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I fixed it by sighting an old revision of Template:lead article 1. C628 (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That fixed it. By the way, a sysop needs to review Template:Lead 2.0. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One more time

Resolved. No problemo seeable. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

When I review this change it still shows up as a pending revision on the main page, what could be causing this. I unaccepted my review of it. Maybe someone else does? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Japanese nuclear officials race to avoid disaster as radiation levels in sea rocket"

Shouldn't this contain the File:Wikinews Japan earthquake.png picture? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Comments

{{editprotected}} The first lines of comments are talking about using MediaWiki:Common.css/Main Page for CSS needs, however that page is locked and empty. This comment needs a refresh, I think. - Xbspiro (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - is it better now? DENDODGE 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as it refers to the actual css page now. Thank you. - Xbspiro (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing interwiki

{{editprotected}} Based on the precedent of the removal of the Dutch interwiki, I request the removal of the Hungarian interwiki, as the project to where it is linking to has been recently closed. (See Bugzilla:28342) - Xbspiro (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed, pending someone sighting the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Done - sighted. DENDODGE 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RSS items pubdate

I wish that RSS items had a pubdate on them. They are dated in the content of the news, but not formally in the XML. GaryGo (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's the feed you're looking at? There is work implementing new underway. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  Try this - that's a link to a new ATOM feed, which I'm pretty sure includes dates. DENDODGE 14:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  I am looking at the RSS feed linked from the WikiNews home page, and the items are not formally dated as of today, http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikinewsLatestNews. GaryGo (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is there nothing on the Geert Wilders trial that ended today?

??

Polozooza (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Typo

There is a typo in the blurb about the Former Brazilian president: complictions. Melikamp (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• fixed. Thanks for highlighting this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RSS pubDate

I asked about RSS a few weeks ago, and there appears to have been a redesign that wiped out old discussions. In any case, I request that news articles be published to the RSS feed with the "pubDate" element, found in the RSS 2.0 specification. I previously got a response that mentioned Atom, but I am asking for an RSS element. Thanks. GaryGo (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an RSS one too. I don't know for certain whether it has pubDate, but I expect it will. DENDODGE George Watson 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, it has a pubdate element. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that link. I don't see how to get to that RSS feed from the Wikinews main page, but that's what I was looking for. GaryGo (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

DSK

The lovely young writer who described DSK as a rutting chimpanzee says she will sue him for attempted rape, and DSK's French lawyers say they will sue her for defamation. Strauss-Kahn, the news item, seems to have returned. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Leads 4 and 5

Please re-add leads 4 and 5. There are recent articles in both.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Also, I boldly decided to add the Winehouse story to lead one. It seems to be the biggest story today and received over 3,000 hits in the last hour.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Without wanting to spark even more drama, when the death of one person by way of their own lifestyle choice is considered a bigger story than the brutal murder of nearly 100 people, you know there's something wrong somewhere. DENDODGE George Watson 10:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures of terrorist on mainpage

I propose to remove those pictures of the norwegian terrorist which were chosen by this terrorist from the main page, best all pages here. --Ergom (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? We have a valid fair use claim, one of the pictures was released for use for any purpose by the copyright holder, and the person is integral to the story. Wikinews is not censored. There are absolutely no grounds in policy whatsoever for the removal of the images from the Main Page, nor any other page on which they are currently used. DENDODGE George Watson 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you give the terrorist the media platform with the pics he chose for this exact purpose - the pics are by no means neutral. Use some other pics, so does the german wikinews site. --Ergom (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The pictures are not neutral? How so? A non-neutral picture would show him with a halo, or strangling a puppy. It's a portrait. It's neutral. He has no control over our content, but these are high-quality pictures that adequately illustrate the story. We don't take down pictures just because they offend your sensibilities. Is Obama's official portrait not neutral by your criteria because it was made specifically to illustrate him in the media? No. Get over it. DENDODGE George Watson 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not just any portrait. It is the portrait the killer himself wanted to be in mass media. It does not offend my sensibilities, in fact. I argue that these are not high-quality pictures just because of the way the show the person itself. Compare with http://www.welt.de/politik/article13506380/Breivik-auf-der-Fahrt-zum-Gericht.html?pg=2 No picture on the main page is better than the actual pictures. I would prefer less pictures altogether, high quality pictures that actually tell something clear, true and important about the world are quite rare to any given topic. --Ergom (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

And we can't use that pic as it's not freely licensed. There are now pictures on Commons that are of the aftermath and memorial of the shooting and bombing, but they weren't available at the time of publication. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I know that the linked pic is not freely licensed. I did not suggest to use it. I wanted you to compare.

B. used the killing as a marketing strategy as he himself puts it. The pictures of himself used in his "manifest" are a part of this marketing strategy presenting him in a hero-look-a-like way. He also mentions (to the readers of his manifest) the use Wikipedia and the internet in general as a part of the strategy of spreading his thoughts. So, he, B. is fooling you, wikinews by giving you his pictures presenting him in the light he wants to be presented it. It is quite strange by any standards that there are two articles on the main page that each shows a picture of this guy - his pictures for just mass media use. (And as for the comparison with Obama: B., unlike Obama, attained attention by mass-murdering and nothing else.)

In a nutshell: Just don't use the pictures to help him to reach his goals. --Ergom (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that, as I understand our conventions, the images displayed on the main page leads don't have to be the same ones used by the articles referred to. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
Wikinews is not censored. The comments you're raising about this Ergom are spurious. If you want a photo of the new story subject with horns sprouting out his head, please find a freely licensed one online and stop wasting the community's time. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comment is totally unfair and incorrect. It is an open question whether to use any picture of the guy in order to report the incident is adaequate or not. I think, not. If you use a picture, it is an open question whether these particular pictures are adaequate to report the incident or not. Since it is not necessary to use these pictures these arguments should lead to the conclusion rather to not use them. Understand the argument, comment on that or otherwise please just keep your unhelpful comments which are totally beside the point ("horns sprouting") to the question at hand. Thanks. --07:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
The photo was all that was available at the time. It was the one used when published. This is Wikinews, we don't continually revise content like Wikipedia. Besides, we keep using any politician's PR headshot even when they decide to do positively evil things. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

All that was available at the time. There is no need to use any picture (high quality newspapers use less pictures). By using these pictures he chose for the exact purpose (therefore the picture is not neutral whatsoever) you are doing propaganda, even though you are unaware of it. If it is your guideline to do that: fair enough. I think this conflicts with http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view. Think about it. (And, no, Neutral point of View is not only about text.) --Ergom (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't given us any valid reason based on our current policy. If you don't like the pictures, don't look at them - that would mean either not visiting Wikinews or installing a browser extension that lets you block specific images. Don't try and get us to remove the images based on a personal objection grounded in a misunderstanding of policy. Using a portrait that portrays a person - however despicable they may be - in a neutral light, no matter who took the picture, is not propaganda. So stop scaremongering. It is clear that you don't have anything resembling consensus for this, and I sincerely doubt you ever will, so I suggest you drop it before someone gets annoyed. DENDODGE George Watson 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Dendodge, your whole post would have been much stronger if you'd left off the last phrase, "so I suggest you drop it before someone gets annoyed" (maybe the whole last sentence, but definitely that phrase). Evidently someone already is annoyed :-). Seriously, your points about policy and such are valid, but that last bit sounded a tad threatening, which serves no useful purpose. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of other people, but, yeah, it came across the wrong way. I didn't want to sound threatening. Struck. DENDODGE George Watson 17:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't given us any valid reason based on our current policy. You can argue that the picture is neutral and if it is it is valid to use it. However, I did argue that the picture is not neutral.

Don't try and get us to remove the images based on a personal objection grounded in a misunderstanding of policy. Is it a misunderstanding that there are non-neutral pictures? Neutrality means that both sides can accept the the representation of facts. Whatever both sides are in this case: One can rationally doubt whether both sides can accept this representation.

There is no need for pictures. Information, news is not about pictures. High quality is not only about lightning and resolution. Even if you have grown up this way, many pictures often distort and distract the information they should rather illustrate and clarify. To pick a really good picture is a really difficult job. In featured articles you don't just pick any picture to illustrate, you take the best. Wikinews Main Page is, or at least should be, like a featured article. You take only the best pictures. There is reason to doubt that these pictures belong to the category of best pictures - since they don't illustrate the given fact and they are extremely biased since the party that is charged by mass-murder glorifies himself on these pictures which were made, at least chosen for the particular purpose. So, no illustrating of the relevant information and biased, therefore non-neutral. That are the facts, and if you don't view them as facts one can at least very rationally argue this way. And if one can at least the Main Page should not show these particular pictures.

Your argument seems to be: We have this story. We need a picture. The best (that is: highest resolution best lighting) pictures are the given ones. We always take any given picture and don't apply NPOV for that, not even in difficult cases and not even for the high-traffic-Main Page (If you always drive too fast, by doing that, you don't suddenly start to follow some given rule that driving too fast is allowed.) Therefore we take those. I can follow this chain of thought. But I doubt that this is a high standard editorial work. --Ergom (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than the name of the photographer, what is not neutral about the picture? It's a photograph of a person's face. Nothing else. Look at any other news website - they all have pictures. Pictures attract people's attention, and the Main Page would be very plain and boring without them. We have pictures. If you don't like it, try this. DENDODGE George Watson 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Your response is not really helpful and beside the point. I said what is non-neutral about the picture and that it is not just a(ny) photograph of a person's face. Wikinews is Wikinews, not just any news website. Your recommendation is also beside the point since it is not about me not liking pictures but about this picture and the general fact that quality and neutrality in pictures is really a (wiki(news)) problem. Just accept the fact or argument and deal with it rather than give dubios advice about browser choice. --Ergom (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a physicist. I don't accept things as fact until I can be convinced by evidence. All we have so far is you saying it's non-neutral because of who took it, without further explanation. If Newton had said "Apples fall because of gravity" and left it at that, his ideas would not have been accepted. We're going to need more, I'm afraid. I still see no convincing argument. DENDODGE George Watson 13:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

As I wrote above: Then applies, this picture is disputed (you can read the comments in the german wikipedia for this dispute and take the fact that the german wikipedia does not show pictures of B. as evidence for non-neutrality http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschl%C3%A4ge_in_Norwegen_2011). there is no need to use this particular picture. It is better to use no picture than a disputed picture in order to follow NPOV. To the physicist: What type of evidence would be acceptable for non-neutrality?And: Is a picture neutral just because you say so? --Ergom (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I want a reasoned argument. We do not accept "I say so", nor "Other projects do it". A picture is considered neutral if community consensus says so, and so far you are the only voice to the contrary. Either gather consensus, or give up on your crusade. The water cooler is a better place for consensus-gathering. DENDODGE George Watson 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't say this is not a reasoned argument just because you don't like some premise or the conclusion.

A reasoned argument: If p then q. p. Therefore: q. p must obiously be in this case empirical data, i.e. opinion. Valid opinion would be by people who deal with NPOV. The two german wikipedia articles lacking these pictures shows you this opinion very well exists (you can read the discussion too.) That is: If there is a representative group people/opinion who views this picture as gloryfing B. then it is not neutral. There is this representative group of people/opinion. Therefore this picture is not neutral. This you can call: "reasonable doubt". And if reasonable doubt applies you go for the option of least harm. This actually is an expression of NPOV. Besides: NPOV is one of fundamental rules here. Reasonable doubt about NPOV issues certainly overrules any editorial issues like we have no other (high resolution) picture.

Think about this case (for now and the future) rather than just discrediting my position by just repeating no argument naming my rationally elaborated position a crusade or just telling me to discuss it somewhere else. --Ergom (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

• The picture of the gunman was a studio portrait commissioned by the gunman in preparation for the publicity generated by this event. Therefore, it purposely shows him in a good light, as that was his intent. Mattisse (talk) 15:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
This is a futile argument; the image is not going to be removed. It was used by Wikinews, and by countless other news sources. The actual text of the article carries more weight in letting people draw their conclusions about this individual. Now, please stop trying to apply Wikipedia standards, and policy, to a news site. They are most inappropriate. By applying your logic to any article on George W. Bush, and action in Iraq being possible war crimes, we'd be forbidden from using his official portrait when talking about such. So, stop trying to impose your own personal opinion, arguing that "your PoV" happens to be "NPoV", and let the Wikinews community get on with their work. This discussion does not belong here (per the great big notice at the top), and you're encouraging others who've not got several years experience here to snipe (thankfully, Mattisse has the wisdom not to argue either way on the neutrality of an image). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't shout and try to respect other peoples views as well as arguments.

It was used by ... countless other news sources. They don't have the rule NPOV like [he prevailing Wikinews understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased. ... he prevailing Wikinews understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all] If you don't like this principle ...

please stop trying to apply Wikipedia standards, and policy, to a news site. I did not apply Wikipedia standards. I applied NPOV. I used the decision in the wikipedia just as evidence. You don't have to follow wikipedia rules or guidelines in general.

My POV is my POV, not NPOV. I argue that this picture is not neutral (see above).

You argue that G.W.B. is an analogy. I doubt that. First, G.W.B. picture was relevant for news before he "commited" the news relevant Iraq war crimes. In this case the very purpose is to be used after that killings in order to glorify B. That is not the only difference but a very important one. A picture taken for this purpose can, by definition, hardly be neutral. G.W.B. pictures were not taken for this purpose (even though they might not be neutral and that might lead to other decision but that is some other debate.)

The most important reason why pictures are used in Wikinews stories is to help convey a clearer or more complete message for the reader. All images must be relevant to the story in which they are included. In what way do people get a clearer or more complete message by looking at a picture taken and chosen for the purpose to glorify a mass-murderer?

The bottom line is this: There is this story. You want pictures. But you have got only these pictures - which are inherently biased. And you choose rather to distort the fundamental principles (NPOV) than to choose not to use the pictures. That you might be used to distort (severeal years experience) does not change the fact that you do. I suggest that you don't take my comments as a attack than rather as a refreshing line of thought - what is the greater value, just to have any picture in the article or to follow the fundamental principles? --Ergom (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)