Talk:Peace activist claims Iran keen to compromise on nuclear issue, Cheney, Rumsfeld allegedly block negotiations

title history

There is a bad combination of two separate articles combined under this long headline. I propose a change: information about the Activist is moved to another article, while this one is renamed "Raw Story: Cheney, Rumsfeld blocking negotiations with Iran". One of the two main focuses must go into another article, combining them both is breaking a lot of flow and consistency with this current article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well... Iran allegedly wanting negotiations and Cheney, Rumsfeld allegedly blocking negotiations are closely related. There's no possibility to block negotiations if there's no desire for negotiations to start off with. Anyway, here are my comments about the title changes so far:

• 2nd move (cur) (last) 18:49, 29 April 2006 Boud m (Activist claims Iran will compromise on nuclear issue moved to Peace activist claims Iran keen to compromise on nuclear issue, Cheney, Rumsfeld allegedly block negotiations: reverting to accurate title, retaining "activist claims")
• 1st move (cur) (last) 18:37, 29 April 2006 Mrmiscellanious m (Iran keen to compromise, Cheney, Rumsfeld allegedly block negotiations moved to Activist claims Iran will compromise on nuclear issue: More accurate title.)

activist claims: i guess MrMiscellanious' reason for the name change is that MrMiscellanious' personal POV is that Iranian authorities are evil people unwilling to compromise, so that Bidwai's claim is not an NPOV fact? Well, the change can't hurt, though in that case virtually every wikinews article should have X claims in front of the title. Hmmm, or else, we should add some more sources - there are many other sources consistent with this, i guess maybe i should add them...

keen to vs will: there may be lots of evidence that, e.g. Joe is keen to ask Sue out for a date, but no evidence that he actually will do it, for many possible reasons, e.g. Joe is very shy, Sue already has a boyfriend, or every time Joe gets near Sue and is about to speak, Sue starts talking and Joe has no chance to start a conversation. Or maybe Sue only speaks English and Joe only speaks Spanish and flirting through an interpreter is difficult. It is also easier (though) difficult to attribute intentions than to predict the future. Hope this helps explain the difference.

Cheney, Rumsfeld allegedly blocking negotations: this relates to the keen to - if US authorities (Pentagon) are deliberately sabotaging negotiations, then this makes a big difference as to whether keen to becomes will or not - the two parts are closely related.

We could have a shorter title including both aspects - desire and blocking - if we remove the "claims" and "allegedly" in the title, but then sceptics could claim it's POV...

Boud 19:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• You see, without the "allegedly" and "claims", the statements you make are in violation of WN:NPOV. I could sit here and profess my personal opinions on this matter, but I simply don't care what I think on these issues, but I do not appreciate you judging me like that. Wikinews cannot claim fact unless it is a fact - we can't take opinions from everyone and state they are true (or false). All we can do is report on the fact that they did make the comments, and since none of us really were there, we can only assume and give attribution to the source where we got it from. That's the reason for the "allegedly" and "claims", and they are essential that we keep them in. "Keen to vs will" - I'm not quite sure what you're stating there. And, the "Raw Story" is claiming that they are blocking negotiations, so it would be an appropriate title. I'm not sure I see any NPOV objections here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Your opinion does matter: we only need "claims" or "alleged" when a claim of fact is disputed, otherwise we would have Makin alleges U.S. Web host target of denial-of-service attack and CNN, USA Today: U.S. members of congress allegedly arrested over Sudan protest and DragonFire1024 alleges City of Buffalo, N.Y. fighting lawsuit against hotel proposal - nobody has NPOVed these titles because noone has a personal POV believing they may be false. If you have some externally verifiable information claiming that Iran is not keen to negotiate, then please add it to the article or the discussion and then the alleged need for "claims" or "alleged" will no longer depend on your personal opinion. Boud 20:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

fair enough. merriam-webster defines 'claim' as[1]

3 a : to assert in the face of possible contradiction : MAINTAIN <claimed that he'd been cheated> b : to claim to have <organization...which claims 11,000...members -- Rolling Stone>

and 'allege' as[2]

2 : to assert without proof or before proving <the newspaper alleges the mayor's guilt>

so the "possible contradiction" or "lack of proof" is to be shown, for using claim/allege. Doldrums 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

article split

one possibility is to split the article and add infobox-type links in each, pointing to the other as a related article. Doldrums 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• I would support this greatly (see comment above). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

greatly enough to do the job yourself? :) Doldrums 19:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Online website

What is an "online website"? Should I think of this as opposed to an "offline website"? Or an "Online [something that is not a website]"? Why not simply call things as what they are, namely an "Internet news publication" instead of inventing nonsensical terminology? --vonbergm 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, i'm sure there are plenty of offline websites ;), e.g. on home computers of people without internet access just practising apache. They (the offline websites) just don't get many readers... And there are online mail servers, ftp servers, ... Though again, offline mail and ftp servers probably only exist on non-inter(ra)net connected computers... But i guess it makes sense not to overly use superfluous redundancies which are doubly repeated more than once. ;) Boud 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit should be reverted, because it is an opinion by an unnamed individual, and is introduced without significance of its content due to the anonymity. Additionally, this article is not a mouthpiece for the Raw Story. If users wanted every single bit of comment and information in the Raw Story article, they should read the Raw Story article. The comment should be removed at once. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this ? The section is on topic, carfully worded to show RS is the only source. Exept possibly povpushing this is a interesting if not creative way of working against the spirit of 3RR.

Full qoute from Raw Story

"These discussions, however, are now on hold for unspecified reasons. Sources close to the UN Security Council and a former high ranking intelligence official say that this latest failed attempt to bring Iran to the table is part of an ongoing attempt by Cheney and Rumsfeld to squash diplomatic activities."

international 20:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• I repeat my statements; they are not significant, and they are speculation from an unidentified individual. Not noteworthy. I have no issues with this article other than Internationals' addition. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Sources close to the UN Security Council and a former high ranking intelligence official say" Is this same as "speculation from an unidentified individual" ? It is a part from the first version of the story that you edited away not my addition. international 20:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

answer to mrm:s statement below

mrm: No, you are the one who is pushing their POV in articles.

• general acusation, not specified,

mrm: Speculation is not fact, and that statement is labelling it as such.

• ?

mrm: The content isn't significant, so you should not be making a big issue about it

• And who are you to judge about significanse. If its not a big issue, dont tag.

mrm: - all it is... is speculation from an unidentified person.

• "Sources close to the UN Security Council and a former high ranking intelligence official"

mrm: If users wanted to read Raw Storys' POV, they can do it there. But no POV will be transpired to Wikinews

• Your POV that you are pushing to this article

mrm: - that is a violation of WN:NPOV.

• Scream 'The wolf is comming' to many times and nobody will listen to you...

international 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments from other users, please.

I urge other wikinewsies to examine mrm:s edits and build concensus to lift this cleanuptag, which I strongly oppose as a step in mrm:s povpushing of this article international 20:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• No, you are the one who is pushing their POV in articles. Speculation is not fact, and that statement is labelling it as such. The content isn't significant, so you should not be making a big issue about it - all it is... is speculation from an unidentified person. If users wanted to read Raw Storys' POV, they can do it there. But no POV will be transpired to Wikinews - that is a violation of WN:NPOV. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Eh, other wikinewsies. Reminds me about another sensitive dispute... I answer you abowe. international 20:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been watching the edits here for some time. MrM, your POV is showing with your attempts to delay this article. The tag is without merit. Neutralizer 01:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)