Talk:Seven killed, forty-eight injured in attack on London Bridge

Terror

@Darkfrog24: Wikinews must never describe someone as a terrorist, nor describe an action as an act of terrorism, in Wikinews's own voice. This should be gut instinct by now. --Pi zero (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Title's fixed. I'm feeling like that second bit is a little uncalled for. I generally use first titles as placeholders. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: The problem also occurs, and thus needs fixing, in the second paragraph of the current draft. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

(Btw, re the second bit of my first remark: it seems likely you imagined it spoken in a different tone of voice than I did.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is a tone issue. Those happen on the Internet but I don't think this is one of those times.

You do know you're allowed to fix it yourself, right? This would be the bigger disconnect for me. This is a collaborative project, so it seems incongruous to me that you would spend sixteen words plus a ping to tell me about a problem with a single word instead of correcting said single word and, if you felt it necessary to say "you missed a spot," why you wouldn't perform both actions. Surely the article text action is more important than the talk page action. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

You know what? Previous conversations have led me to believe we're in the same time zone, which means you got up about as early as I did and are reading about terrorist attacks on a Sunday morning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is tone. Another thing that happens on the Internet (and irl) is negative interpretations/feelings getting amplified by a positive feedback loop between parties; I do admit to feeling a bit put upon for a reasonable remark.

Off hand, I can name three reasons for me to remark rather than doing it myself. In no particular order: I'm a reviewer so I should minimize what significant changes I make myself in order to preserve my independence, not wanting to have to disqualify myself from reviewing the article. In the long run (beyond merely this one article) it seems to me likely your articles will benefit more this way than the other. And, lest we forget, it also appears you might be actively working on the article so that if I edited it directly, and especially if I renamed it, that might cause an edit conflict.

I've never made a particular secret that I'm based in central Massachusetts, although this morning it happens I had a task irl requiring me to get up at 4am (that'd be 0800 UTC). Perhaps I come across as being in a later time zone because it often takes me a while to get going in the morning. I seem to recall hearing something about happenings in London yesterday evening. --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not your tone. It's the qualitative judgment about my progress on Wikinews as if you were Teacher and I was your student and I don't like that. It makes me uncomfortable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4320239 [Passed]

Revision 4320239 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The ******* news sites have changed their articles; as usual, not just adding information (which would be understandable) but also removing information (which I abhor; if one supposes the sacred trust of news sites is to inform their readers, removing stuff that's true is reprehensible, whereas removing stuff that wasn't true without leaving evidence is sweeping one's errors under the rug; it's not as if they had limited room on the page on their web site). At any rate, the extended Theresa May quote isn't in the Guardian source, nor on either of the Guardian articles that it links to, but is on a Guardian article that one of them links to, and I was about fed up with this redaction nonsense — for most purposes I have a high opinion of the Guardian, and really feel they ought to be held to a higher standard — and chose to allow it. 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 4320239 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The ******* news sites have changed their articles; as usual, not just adding information (which would be understandable) but also removing information (which I abhor; if one supposes the sacred trust of news sites is to inform their readers, removing stuff that's true is reprehensible, whereas removing stuff that wasn't true without leaving evidence is sweeping one's errors under the rug; it's not as if they had limited room on the page on their web site). At any rate, the extended Theresa May quote isn't in the Guardian source, nor on either of the Guardian articles that it links to, but is on a Guardian article that one of them links to, and I was about fed up with this redaction nonsense — for most purposes I have a high opinion of the Guardian, and really feel they ought to be held to a higher standard — and chose to allow it. 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.

That rant is beautiful. It's not like they can't say "a previous version of this article said..." All that would do is impress upon the public that there is a difference in the reliability of just-breaking and carefully considered news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)