Talk:Paedophilia claims made against "living god"

Add topic
Active discussions

SourcesEdit

I'm getting to it. :) IronFist 05:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"fresh wave of paedophilia allegations"Edit

took a cursory look at the guardian source, don't see any "fresh wave of paedophilia allegations". rather, it seems to be a fresh furore about old allegations, sparked by the upcoming trip and the award thing.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The term "fresh furore" is sourced at the DNA article. Even though allegations of sexual abuse have been circulating fr some time, the "freshness" arises in the new links to the Duke of Edinburgh Awards/British Royal family. IronFist 06:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

the lede needs to be corrected to reflect the fact that there are no new allegations.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The title of this article is misleading and should be changed to the correct title. This title gives the assumption that there are new claims when there are not. This article only talks about the old claims. The correct title of the sourced article is "The Indian living god, the paedophilia claims and the Duke of Edinburgh awards". Sbs108 (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •   Not done This is too old to make such a change and normal practice would see the old title kept as a redirect. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Quote

Soliciting edits to historical articles

Wikinews articles are not works in progress and are intended to be a record of what was known at the time. Key to this is that titles remain as they were when the article was initially published on the front page.

Corrections are never made to reflect changes that took place subsequent to the article's publication. To give an example verging on hyperbole, the New York Times does not edit archives of their papers from the start of last century to avoid using the phrase "Armenian Massacre" - no matter how much the current Turkish government would like them to.

If an article contained clearly inaccurate information at time of publication then a correction notice may be added, I see no need for one in the case you are petitioning. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

--Brian McNeil / talk 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

denialsEdit

are currently buried at the bottom of the articles. they need to be more prominent - a mention in the lead paragraph and elaboration further down, say.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Zeest(Talk)(Newpages)   07:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

quotesEdit

and other information exclusive to the Guardian should be attributed to them.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll make the denials prominent. Please bear in mind that I am a relatively new editor and I followed the guidelines given at Writing an article, so I was unsure of how to attribute quotes to publications, etc. IronFist 06:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
no probs, we are all relatively new editors :). because the article makes grave and potentially libellous statements against a prominent figure, it'll get lots of close scrutiny, u'll just have to bear it, am afraid.
a quote made to a particular news source, as opposed to a public statement/press conference can be attributed by using constructs like, "Speaking to the New York Times, Mickey denied allegations of cruelty towards his pet dog, Pluto".  — Doldrums(talk) 06:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully it is all ok now? IronFist 07:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

fyiEdit

You know Mahatma Gandhi was nown for giving enemas to young girls. Nyarlathotep

What does that have to do with anything? IronFist 03:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Kuwait TimesEdit

I can understand the removal of irrelevant categories but why was the source link to Kuwait Times removed? If source is from Middle East then surely at least this story is applicable to the Middle East portal? IronFist 01:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

this article is dated Nov 7 and shld only include information and sources available before the publish date (see Wikinews articles are not works in progress). further, only external news articles which have been used as sources shld be included, the sources section is not a "related links" collection.  — Doldrums(talk) 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Return to "Paedophilia claims made against "living god"" page.