Talk:Several blasts rock Mumbai commuter trains
- So why call it "first-hand journalism" when you're just watching TV? --Jambalaya 13:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Because I didn't have internet sources to add at that point of time. PVJ(Talk) 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know of a free-to-use photo of a train in Mumbai we could use? --Jambalaya 15:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
And we're back to plain text. Why was the tv capture removed without any discussion or reason? Why does Wikipedia's tv captures from CNN IBN qualify as fair use and not the one that was in Wikinews's article? --Jambalaya 21:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- i think its to do with the fact that wikinews is a direct "competitor" to other news services, whereas wikipedia is not. if WP uses some material from them, it does not cause the news service any "harm" (by driving its customers to WP for news), whereas if we used their pictures, the news service can claim that our use is harming them by driving their customers towards us, a rival service. showing "harm" is one of the considerations in fair-use licensing Doldrums 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- On the other hand, WN is nonprofit, noncommercial and idealistic. It doesn't not take any sale/revenue/profit away from the other newsorganization, thus it doesn't compete with anyone for a market share. In this case, I think it's a bit ambitious to say that WN is a competitor to an Indian news channel :-) --Jambalaya 15:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Reminder: follow-up storiesEdit
Just a quick reminder that with big news stories like this, any new developments or subsequent events can and should be covered in a new story, rather than substantially updating this one. Eg an article covering international reaction to the event, any arrests or claims of responsibility... Frankie Roberto 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I think 'rock' is stretching it too far into the realms of bad journalism as practised elsewhere.
Contextually, when you 'rock' something you disturb or distress it.
Now, Several blasts disturb Mumbai commuter trains is probably too weak.
Several blasts distress Mumbai commuter trains unfortunately creates the picture that the trains became upset at the blasts.
Perhaps more accurate would have been Commuters killed in Mumbai train explosions
I'd hate to think that wikipedia need sink to the level of tabloid headlines when there are no serious space constraints on the title (unlike a physical tabloid)
- i'll rename it to Atleast 174 dead in serial bomb blasts on Mumbai commuter trains, unless somebody has any other suggestions to make. Doldrums 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd keep as-is, or change to something like 'Several blasts rock Mumbai commuter trains'. The headline shouldn't include the fatality count IMO, especially as that's now retrospective information...Frankie Roberto 22:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- ALong with that maybe add Mumbai into the list of catagories?
--184.108.40.206 11:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)