Talk:10 American soldiers killed in helicopter crash in Afghanistan

Less US POV please
We MUST stop paraphrasing the US spokespeople as stating something as fact when they use weasel words like "no indication". In my opinion, they use this phraseology hoping media will report their qualified denials or assumptions as definitive statements while ignoring their butt covering qualifiers, but to be accurate and NPOV we MUST always include the US qualifiers when reporting their statements.

I have edited slightly (forgot to log in; 65.95.151.149 is me) to make the report of the US position conform to what they actually said (a qualified opinion that there is "no indication" of a shoot down. Neutralizer 13:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not the POV of an official, who I might add IS quailified. This is what she said and not her POV but her assesment of the situation and reports from troops. So unless you can specify a source otherwise, there was no POV. Jason Safoutin 14:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact from ABC source in article: The crash was not the result of hostile fire, said Lt. Tamara D. Lawrence, a coalition spokeswoman. also this is an exact quote and also from a listed source: "The remains of all the 10 soldiers have been found and there are no survivors," here: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1930725 Jason Safoutin 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi,Jason; please let me clarify. She did NOT say what you said she said; "However; Lt. Tamara D. Lawrence, a spokeswoman for the military said that the crash was not the result of any attack from militants." What she said was that there was "no indication" and she also said they were still "investigating"; so it is misleading to say that she said definitively "the crash was not the result of any attack from militants". Do you see my point on this? Neutralizer 14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact other sources may mis-quote the spokeswoman does not mean we can. You can say "ABC reports that Tamara D. Lawrence said the crash was not the result of hostile fire" if you like, but I think we are better at accurate reporting than ABC so I'd say we just report what she actually said. Neutralizer 14:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but regardless, she said indication...which you changed to "there is no proff". She never said that...anywhere in any source. That is misleading and putting quotes into context and rewording them to fit POV, IMO. Also, read the Aljazeera source. It is IMO completely balanced. Claims, statements, responses. Please find a sources for your "there is no proof." Also, she said it in sataement. Read the sources Neutralizer, Read the BBC source...in a statement... Jason Safoutin 14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis of helicopter crash
Hi, pardon the anon number; that's me but I keep getting unlogged somehow. I think it's better to include both sides opinion in the synopsis or else no reference to the cause at all. Doesn't that seem reasonable? Some people only read the synopsis. Neutralizer 14:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)