Talk:Ayman al-Zawahiri releases new tape

No credible source for reference to suspected deaths of terrorists
Albeit with weasel words, the Whitehouse spokespeople have now denied that they know of any terrorists being killed in the bombing of the village in Pakistan;

"J.D. CROUCH, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Great to be here, Wolf.

BLITZER: What about last Friday's attack on that building along the Pakistan-Afghan border? Have you confirmed definitively who died, who was killed in that attack?

CROUCH: I don't think there's any confirmation on that. Obviously, I know there have been things that have come out of Pakistan. But all I know at this point is what you have seen, you know, in the press.

BLITZER: But do we know one way or another whether Ayman al- Zawahiri, the number two to Osama bin Laden, whether or not he was killed?

CROUCH: Like I said, I don't think there's any -- there's a full understanding of that at this point.

BLITZER: But there -- but you do -- can you confirm that other senior al Qaeda operatives were killed?

CROUCH: Not at this point, no."

Thus the reference to suspicion of there having been such deaths is not factual and was not when this story was being actively edited. Neutralizer 03:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Supply proof for this and the blitzer statement. Have the link? I saw this "spoof" on your user page. You need to stop editing to your POV. The sources state that the strike killed 4 terrorists. if you do not like the facts then too bad. Jason Safoutin 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The link is at the top left of this page, and here it is again; [[[User:Neutralizer|Neutralizer]] 03:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned that is not a source. that is one statement by one man. There are no toher sources to support HIS opinion. So unless you can back his statement up, then your so called source, in not crediable. Jason Safoutin 03:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not enough evidence. This person doesn't even seem like he was qualified to comment on the ordeal so far.  I therefore am reverting the edit back to its previous position before Neutralizer made his edits; this is very thin proof, and Neutralizer has violated WN:NOT.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM.please advise specifically what part of WN:NOT you feel I have violated as I certainly do not want to do it agian. I have looked but am unable to see what you are referring to? Neutralizer 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Read it. It's plain on there, Wikinews articles are not works of progress.  AT THE TIME OF PUBLISH, all that was stated was factual.  It's not our job to rewrite history as it were.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

From the South Asia Terrorism Portal (SATP) managed by The Institute for Conflict Management, an NGO supported by the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR) a segment on the site http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/detailed_news.asp?date1=1/14/2006#1 where the first section provides review. There is also consideration of the missile attack as extension of earlier attack on the family of Maulvi Noor Muhammad and another of it as attempt to attack possible members of Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TNSM). Given this, I support instead either inclusion of all of this type of supposition from sources with some modicum of authority or that none are included. To be just, none of this type of supposition has a place in the story. Aside, that source also only makes reference apart from the supposition to only the deaths of some women and children. That I believe is the best option given that listing the varied alternative explanations of the attack by implied wording added onto the comment so far made would deflect the focus of this entry. Opalus 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Given this is only an opinion, and really not factual, I see no reason to add anything. If there is new news on this missile attack then a new article needs to be started. Jason Safoutin 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it not only a matter of opinion to state that four terrorists may have been also killed by the attack without any official support as much as the joint opposition to both providing any alternate suppositions and lack of providing official confirmation of presence of supposedly present four terrorists? It is a question, in my mind at least, why the one possible explanation of supposedly killing four terrorists is included while it is not officially supported yet that no alternate explanations are considered when in an article with a divergent focus the relevance of any explanation of the situation is at best secondary to the subject of its not being mentioned on the tape itself. I have the position and state again that the removal of all supposition would be the better option but also that the inclusion of equal additional fragment implications should be added for these and other as yet unofficial possible explanations if even one is in order to avoid a POV preference of position on possible explanations. Opalus 04:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Resolution explanation
Quite appropriate, Shaukat Aziz has now stated and it is being reported on in a new story that "There is no evidence, as of half an hour ago, that there were any other people there," and also that the official death toll now is 13 rather than 18 civilians. Source link the present source of the new article mentioned: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/01/22/pakistan.attack/ Opalus 04:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Deputy National Security Advisor
Who this J.D. Crouch guy is, other than by tiltle, I don't rightly know. Ever since Condi Rice was replaced by Stephen Hadley as National Security Advisor, his people are the new kids on the block. How hooked in the office is to the events across the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan is an open question. Does Crouch know anything? If he did, it's a sure bet he would have spouted it to Blitzer. -Edbrown05 05:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Historical article
Please keep in mind that Wikinews articles are not works in progress. They report what was known, reported, and believed about a news event at that time.

Where new information, reports, and beliefs become known, create a new article reporting the changes in what is known. Earlier articles are corrected by new articles, not by changing previous reporting. This is how we create a valuable historical record - one of the primary aims of Wikinews. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The goal to serve as record also was not previously known. Information available at the time of publishing but not included yet, as with the greater location information, may still be added, yes? Opalus 07:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, generally in addition to rather than in place of. Subtraction of factual statements supported by sources from a published article is problemeatic. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Amgine and MrM. Please note the pertinent dates
Great point Amgine and MrM., we seem in agreement that the cogent point is whether what was stated at the time of publishing was factual or, as MrM says, "AT THE TIME OF PUBLISH, all that was stated was factual"; perhaps you both have misread the dates? The Blitzer interview was on the 19th. this article was published the 21st. Do either or both of you have another interpretation of the dates ? Neutralizer 22:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object if we include the older Blitzer interview as a source for this story? Neutralizer 23:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change anything. It is clearly stated in WN:NOT that articles are not works of progress, and shouldn't be touched after being published.  This article was published for two days.  You are violating WN:NOT if you continue to remove the information, and are knowingly breaking site policy if you continue to violate.  Heed yourself.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * MrM; please help me understand your concern;

1; at first you said(thereby implying it was of some importance);"AT THE TIME OF PUBLISH, all that was stated was factual"; are you now saying that it doesn't matter whether "AT THE TIME OF PUBLISH, all that was stated was factual"?

2;Now in terms of your several references to WN:NOT ;I have read it and here are the words;

"Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the "develop" template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia."

Your interpretation is "that articles are not works of progress, and shouldn't be touched after being published" ; so maybe you haven't noticed the word "continue" in our policy..which means (to me) the articles should not be changed on an ongoing basis, not that they should never be changed at all. MrM you might agree that had the policy intended to never allow changes after being published; it could simply say so. If you believe it should say never, then why not bring the suggestion to the water cooler? But for now, at least in my understanding of the English language, it does not say or mean "never", at least that is how I see it. Neutralizer 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The document is clear and concise. End of discussion; the edit is in violation.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)