Talk:US: FBI's work with Orlando shooter's father is not grounds for mistrial in wife's case

Sources

Isn't it about time you add some sources to this article? I realize you are still working on it. --SVTCobra 01:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, '''SVT''':, I know it is happy hour somewhere in the world, but most of us have to sleep. As requested, I posted sources. I also made a few changes making it a bit fresher. AZOperator (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. But isn't it 7:00PM now in Arizona? Nevermind. I shouldn't pry. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

People like me work different from the 9 to 5 people. The whole Facebook being plugged in for 18 hours happens. Anyhow, do you have any suggestions on making this article better. AZOperator (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lede

@SVTCobra:, in the lede the words "in spite of" were used. I think that is NPOV issue. Please consider undo for that particular area. AZOperator (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't revert but reworded. Thanks for the tip. --SVTCobra 21:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4393296 [Passed]

Revision 4393296 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The article could have been cleaner and more wikified, but that will come with more experience. However, be careful about incorporating information that has been gleaned from other sources or may seem as common knowledge. I know the article was started before the prosecution/FBI acknowledged the claim in the filing, but the title should have been updated when they did and that became part of the article. This is a common gripe of mine: There is no excuse for submitting an article for review without categories. It is a basic thing and certainly should not be the job of the reviewer. 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 4393296 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The article could have been cleaner and more wikified, but that will come with more experience. However, be careful about incorporating information that has been gleaned from other sources or may seem as common knowledge. I know the article was started before the prosecution/FBI acknowledged the claim in the filing, but the title should have been updated when they did and that became part of the article. This is a common gripe of mine: There is no excuse for submitting an article for review without categories. It is a basic thing and certainly should not be the job of the reviewer. 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.

Post-review discussion

@SVTCobra:, I like the new title, but only one sentence which is a quote doesn't feel like an appropriate conclusion. Something like, the defense rested today after the testimony of a psychologist on Salman's mental capacity. Click Here possibly? AZOperator (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

As always, I appreciate the feedback. AZOperator (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I may take some liberties others wouldn't take as a reviewer, but adding another source from two days later, well, I'd never go that far. I was tangentially aware that the defense was saying things about Noor's IQ. (It may even have been brushed upon in the sources in this article). But I see no real reason for adding it since this is about the omission of evidence under the Brady disclosure rule and whether it merits a mistrial. I'd say bring it up again when the verdict comes in. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, a reviewer adding sources has been used as a classic example of something right out. --Pi zero (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would be remiss if I didn't mention, you can add things to the article for the next 24 hours as long as they are in the sources. You can fix my mistakes and whatever. The only thing is, each edit will have to be sighted by a Wikinewsie with review status. But, please, fix things. I am not perfect. --SVTCobra 21:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration is about putting ones ego aside and excepting a country viewpoint. As always, I appreciate the input. AZOperator (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Care to explain what FBI is?

•–• 08:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

NO! --SVTCobra 08:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Wasn't wrong when I said you are not fit to be a reviewer since you don't care for the global audience. (Also, direct violation of DG#Headlines)
•–• 09:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you explain in the title what UEFA is when you write a football article? I think not. --SVTCobra 09:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike you, I do not say "NO!" if I had a chance to explain -- but even after asking you to take care of international audience, you haven't taken any significant steps. And also, unlike FBI, UEFA in unambiguous, like FIFA. Have a look at SG once again.
•–• 09:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to explain. FBI is equally unambiguous. It is written out in full in the article. And for anyone who can't figure out what Federal Bureau of Investigation is, there's a nice little link they can click on. You are being deliberately obtuse. It is used exactly as specified in the style guide. No please stop this ridiculous discussion. --SVTCobra 10:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about the article but the title. For starters; Furniture Brands International and Federation of British Industries are also the FBI. Last I checked, the headline did not have a nice little link.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of which haven't existed since the 1960s. --SVTCobra 10:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
and managed to file bankruptcy in this decade?
103.254.128.130 (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

It changed its name to Interco in 1966. Now, please, pretty please with sugar on top, stop this argument. --SVTCobra 10:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please all tone this down a bit. It's just a point of style being discussed.

As I recall, we have usually treated FBI as something that could be abbreviated in a headline if spelling it out would really explode the headline (which it often would), but we spell it out at first mention in the article. --Pi zero (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just look at Category:FBI --SVTCobra 10:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Two wrongs does not make a right.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

We would have renamed the category years ago, if it weren't such a pain to do so. --Pi zero (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My point was to look at the articles in category. --SVTCobra 11:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

From the style guide:

Quote

---

• Avoid jargon and meaningless acronyms — Avoid uncommon technical terms, and when referring to a country or organization, use its full name rather than acronym, unless the acronym is more common than the full name (ex: NASA, UK, AIDS) or length is prohibitive. In cases where using an acronym because length is prohibitive, spell the acronym out as soon as possible in the article body.

FBI is not an uncommon technical term. FBI is far more common than the full name. "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is prohibitively long. The acronym is spelled out in the very first sentence of the article body.

My conclusion: Full compliance with WN:SG. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This argument reads like children wrote it. Cut it out! You are both better then that. I fall on the side of Pi zero on this since the abbreviation is liked at the hip with the United States, which is recognized in the headline. Care should be taken when an abbreviation for disambiguation of smaller groups. With that said, maybe a list of acceptable abbreviations could be developed as a breakout from the style guide. AZOperator (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But Wikinews does not work on SVTCobra’s conclusions. That conclusion is based on the assumption that people know what it is. Not everyone is from a first world nation to know it.
•–• 16:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Such a theoretical reader would also not know what "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is, so they wouldn't be helped by spelling it out. You know how there's a Simple Wikipedia? Maybe you should start Simple Wikinews. --SVTCobra 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

here is the problem; FBI suggests nothing. Federal Bureau of Investigation suggests it has something to do with law enforcement or crime. Talking to you is pointless, to be honest because you live under the assumption that anything a USian knows, the world knows.
•–• 16:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I make no such assumption. What I do resent is your double-standards. Explain to me how NASA is any better than FBI? Both are government institutions of the United States. By themselves, the acronyms don't suggest what they do. Sometimes, people just have to click the links to learn. We can't spoon feed everything. I don't mind using UEFA in a title, but don't for a second think it is more widely known outside of Europe than FBI is outside the United States. Do you have some sort of anti-US bias ingrained in your soul? Or is just an anti-SVTCobra bias? --SVTCobra 17:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

for the record, football is the most watched sport, and UEFA competition is the most popular of them all. I am anti-“only for first world nation”. It should have been clear by now.
•–• 17:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But not everyone is a sports fan, now are they? The FBI is, for better or worse, the best known law enforcement agency in the world, surpassing the FSB, IPS, PAP, MPS, or whomever else you can name. And I would not oppose using those acronyms, either, as long as they get spelled out and linked in the article. --SVTCobra 17:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
For my part, I would recommend the headline would have been stronger had it explicitly clarified what sort of "work" was involved, so that it wouldn't matter whether the reader knew what the FBI is; indeed, that might have been a stronger headline even if it entailed not mentioning which law-enforcement agency was involved in the work. It would be nice to imagine (perhaps over-optimistically) that one might have just made that suggestion, perhaps mentioning its advantages from an internationalization perspective, right at the start of this and thereby avoided all this back-and-forth. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Before I read your last line; I asked myself, “what the fuck is full from of FSB or anything mentioned on that list?” Well, per than statistics, football is watched by more than three billion people around the world (not just heard); and I am not opposing to improve headline in that case, “European football: “ prefix might help. Compare that number to the US citizens which is in the order of 300 M? People outside US may know about it, but > 3B, I doubt that very much. In any case; point of bringing this up is to improve in future, which I can just hope for.
•–• 17:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

No. UEFA is fine, my argument is that FBI is also fine. The FBI is known outside of USA. You speak of mass-media as a gauge. Well, how many people have seen The X-Files, Silence of the Lambs or any of the countless other movies, TV shows, video games, books distributed world-wide and feature the FBI prominently?

Also, I think your statistic of 3 billion is from the FIFA World Cup. But they counted the viewership of all the matches and added them together, so if one person watched all of the matches, they would be counted many times. A more accurate number is probably the number of people watching the final which was 1 billion. --SVTCobra 18:24, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: This last paragraph and the back and forth does not meet the level of decorum for a collaborative and open endeavor. With full knowledge of the implications, I would recommend a low level disciplinary action for User:SVTCobra and User:Acagastya. I do not wish ill will against either, but this is unproductive. I am not familiar with the disciplinary process in Wikinews, so could you guild me to the disciplinary tools or place the appropriate disciplinary yourself it would be greatly appreciated. AZOperator (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just like we don’t book people for writing a poor headline; we don’t have disciplinary action taken for trying to improve content for global audience.
•–• 18:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@AZOperator: Things have to get really awful before we'd take disciplinary action against a user. These two are, I admit, squabbling a bit, but they are both more-or-less sticking to issues in how to report news. We've a particular aversion to being coerced into following some particular notion of decorum. What we can to is suggest, and encourage — and once every few years, it's been known for someone to close a discussion that has become counterproductive, closing it into a {{hidden}} box. I think I had suggested something like that, way back in about 2010; then a few years later someone actually did it, to a discussion I was engaged in, which did indeed have the sort of stunning effect I'd imagined, rather like having a bucket of cold water dumped on one's head; and I recall I used that technique once myself, recently. Not to be overused, and this discussion hadn't gotten quite that bad. But it's breaking up now, I hope; and I really do recommend to both participants to think about what they could have done differently, and/or not done, that might have had intended positive effects with less provocation. --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: If you are not thrilled but not in an actionable state, I guess I can reside there too. Both users should know I am watching this carefully, I really despise quality individuals ripping into each other in such manner. In the effort to deescalate the situation, I would ask both users to take their positions off the collaboration for this article since the disagreement seems to be reaching far passed the articles FBI usage. A talk page would be a far better venue. Find a way to work the problem, not each other. AZOperator (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)