Talk:Information from prisoner leads to freedom for 3 hostages

Watch out for misleading
This happens often where the insurgents seemingly abandon their kidnapped victims and someone(maybe the insurgents) phones in with the pick up location and then our forces go charging in and pick up the victims. US military always tries to spin these events as heroic "rescues" for psyops purposes when they are simply pick ups. If the bad guys are not there; it's not a "rescue". Neutralizer 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. For all we know, the hostages were just left alone for a split second. Every major news site reports it as a rescue. For that matter, it is a rescue. It was not a phone in tip or anything like that, it was an interrogation that yielded leading to their rescue. Lyellin 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, to quote MrM. I don't care what POV publications do, we do not push pov, even USA military pov. There is NO evidence at all it was a "rescue" which has a sensationalistic bent to the word. Neutralizer 23:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - we're not posting POV. It's a rescue. Someone was in a state of duress, and removed from that duress. According to Wiktionary: 1. To free or deliver from any confinement, violence, danger, or evil. - in this case, they were removed from the confinement they faced. 2. To liberate from actual restraint. They were tied up and bound. They were liberated from restraint. 3. To remove or withdraw from a state of exposure to evil. Again, this definiton applies. Lyellin 23:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with Neut on this one, regardless of the dictionary definition of the word, "rescued" has a charged tone to it and implies something else entirely. When I read the stories elsewhere, it took me a while to understand that they were left unguarded. I think "freed" is more appropriate. --Wolfrider 01:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Freed" is an action verb. While I appreciate the sentiment, it disregards that "rescued" is also the interpretation of those rescued. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A Subject refocus for title to match source article content "Combined Troops storm House to Release Three Aid Workers taken Hostage"? Octavian 01:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm actually going to finish the article.. then we can worry about it. Lyellin 02:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If our US marines left 3 "suspected foreign fighter facilitators" tied up in a tent while the marines went to have lunch; and some insurgents came and untied them, would the title be "3 hostages rescued in Iraq"? This is a perfect example of anglo/american centric point of view,imo. Neutralizer 02:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect in Iraqi insurgent papers, it would be, yes. But unfortunetly Neutralizer, the issue becomes that the word works and adequetly describes what happened, without showing bias. Lyellin 02:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You just made my point; putting us on the same level as a pov group except on the opposite side of the scale.:) Neutralizer 02:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutralizer, my point is that any use, of any word, is POV. It would be POV to say "located" and ignore the work of the army personal there. You know what, I'm done discussing this for now. It's a silly argument. I'm going to actually work to finish the article, and make it a GOOD AND COMPRESHENSIVE ARTICLE. Perhaps, if you'd like, you can join me in adding substance to the article. Or, like it seems many people here seem fine with, we can just cause needless hold up and debate. Lyellin 02:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Lyellin, ok,let's drop the title thing. I think the article should include lots of info on Fox. I think that his death was already covered(earlier article) but it seems weird and almost disrepectful to the guy to have a feel good article about these 3 and not address in a major way in the same article the brutal killing of that poor man. What do you think? I will write up the Fox stuff but not if anybody is going to object. Neutralizer 03:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What's your objection to "freed"? Neutralizer 02:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What about "freed"?
That's the title in one of the sources and is more accurate and less sensationalist,I think. The rescue word is better in the body just as Reuters did it,imo, as in a title it gives rise to "firefight" imagery.Neutralizer 00:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are worried about the word giving that imagery, it will give that view in either the body or the title, either way.Lyellin 03:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Fox
I agree Fox should have a larger mention than what he does here currently. Perhaps we should link to the previous articles, and provide a sentence or two more information. We must keep in mind that the point of the article is the other three hostages, though. Lyellin 03:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, bed 4 me now;zzzzzzz Neutralizer 03:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"interrogation"
only the tribune mentions interrogation, all the others simply say that a detainee informed the military. i think we should stick to reporting exactly what the spokesman said (video of press briefing) and not assume "interrogation" if it hasn't been said. Doldrums 06:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Made a change - see if that works.. if not, feel free to reword it again. Lyellin 06:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Title
Lyellin, somebody changed the title we agreeed to to some psyops "mission" thing. Am trying to fix redirects as well. Neutralizer 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutralzier it's not Psyops. It's the word the military uses. Heck, the guy I work for that was in the 82nd Airborne in Iraq - that's the word he would use. But, if this is an issue, it oculd go to "Joint operation rescues three hostages in Iraq". Lyellin 13:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment; that makes the point; much military jargon has a psyops element like "Operation Iraqi Freedom". Neutralizer 14:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And secondly - it's better to discuss the change here, on a contentious article, then just outright moving it. Did you see why it was moved? Because for an article title, the person used active voice, which is a good thing. Lyellin 14:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought we had agreed on 3 Hostages rescued in Iraq? Neutralizer 14:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because you and I agreed to something does not mean that later on, someone can say "wait, this does not meet jouranlistic style guidelines, let me fix it" - it's a wiki. Even so, should it have been discussed? Possibly, although style guideline stuff is normally allowed to go through without an issue - especially since the title was drawn from the article itself. Lyellin 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that to say " joint mission" is really misleading as it misleads/overplays what actually happened in the title? Neutralizer 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't find discussion here about moving it to that "joint mission" title? Is this talk page complete? Neutralizer 14:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a joint mission, under any definition. It was 3 different military forces leaving their bases with a goal in mind. That is what a mission is, that is what it was treated as, that is what happened. Joint mission is what it was, and is what the article says it is. Lyellin 14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

To avoid a block
Lyellin; I am disappointed that even after I gave in to the use of the "rescue" word, you allowed the title to go much more misleading with "joint mission" with no talk page discussion; and now you are criticizing me for moving the title with no talk page discussion. However, since I will be blocked again by attempting to stand up for a NPOV title or now,it seems,even the "rescued" title. I will withdraw from this article entirely so make the title whatever you like. But to support my point, I'd say that technically the word "heroic" could even be added, "Heroic joint US led Mission Rescues 3 hostages". I think it's pretty heroic to risk one's life to rescue others..but the problem is; as Wolfrider pointed out; a title should not give immediate false impressions when people headline browse; and I think this "joint mission" usage definitely does that; at least in my opinion. Neutralizer 14:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, the title was not moved by an anon, but by a user. I did not "allow" or deny anything. The title was moved by someone else, while I happened to be away from the computer, just like you, and only coming back to do small edits in between schoolwork, so I was not paying attention. I am criticizing you because you moved it to "freed" or at least attempted to from the edits I read, without discussion. As I explained above, purely grammatical changes to articles, along with style changes to articles and headlines are normally not discussed. The move was made by an established editor on the site. Changes that affect the actual article or message are discussed, traditionall, especially on an article like this that has gotten contentious. I will not change the title to "whatever I like", but to a title that actual fits both the article and style conventions. You can say technically any word could be added - should we remove all the words from the title? No? Alright then. We can describe the event as the event it was then... which is good, because the military, the soliders on the groud, the guys who could care one little bit about what is being done here, will call it a mission, because that is what they go out every day to do. There is no false impression here - it was a joint mission, which means that more than one nationality had military members go and conduct operations to rescue these hostages. Lyellin 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Commentif insurgents/al-queda stormed abu ghraib and freed prisoners; would your preferred title be "Joint mission rescues 3 prisoners"? The word "mission" carries an extremely positive POV with it.Neutralizer 14:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said Lyellin; I will withdraw form this article, but do not expect me to agree with your opinion; ok? Who is this "established editor" 67-21-48-122? They must have known I would get really upset if they had been looking at the talk page and that Amgine would be ready to block me again. Neutralizer 14:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirects
When the title was moved by the anon; the redirects were not done; I tried to fix them but could not fix the one on this talk page. Neutralizer 14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Information from prisoner leads to freedom for 3 hostages"
The objective truth here is that the prisoner is the one who really caused the rescue to happen; without him it would have been a mission to nowhere. The title should include his cooperation I think "Information from prisoner leads to freedom for 3 hostages" is really, actually the true story here.Neutralizer 14:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is 67-21-48-122 ?
Lyellin says its an established editor who moved the title to include "joint mission"? I don't see anything on his user page? Neutralizer 14:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Xe is a user with about 200 edits. I would not say xe is a established editor, but certainly not a new user. Xe chose a username that is very similar to his ip address. There is a discussion on the water cooler about if his/her user name violates our username policy. --Cspurrier 15:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok; thanks for that; I missed the water cooler topic til now. Anyways, whoever in the heck it is should not have changed the title without discussion here,imo. But no big deal. Neutralizer 18:47, 24 March 2006

(UTC)

"action verb" and "active voice"
Amgine refers to "action verb" above as seemingly a bad thing. 67-21-48-122 referred to his title change as "active voice" as seemingly a good thing. Could someone enlighten me as to how those terms come into play with title selection ? Neutralizer 19:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please look at the wikinews style guide, listed at the top of every page, and the section entitled "headlines". Lyellin 19:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you,I read it; then would not this be a better title; "Information from prisoner leads to freedom for 3 hostages"? Neutralizer 21:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At least it's active voice. Hearing no objections, better late than never, your wish is my command.
 * —67-21-48-122 01:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I really think this is the perfect npov title.:) Neutralizer 02:52, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected

'by by' => 'by' Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done &mdash; Gopher65talk 02:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)