Talk:Iraqi journalist throws shoes at US president George Bush

lame
The headline is a joke, while I find this story hilarious it really needs a new title.
 * Have a sense of humor. Seriously. He laughed and dealt with it. I guess God has spoken. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn! I liked the original title :) Wikidsoup (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Smiling

 * "Despite the incident, the press conference continued with some reporters apologizing for the man's actions. It even appeared that Bush was smiling, as the shoes flew past his head."

Obviously written by somebody with limited knowledge of facial expressions when the brain perceives a threat to the face. 204.116.19.240 05:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong...but if you are about to be hit by a bus, would you be smiling/laughing? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a bus a shoe? Hell, I'd laugh if someone was trying to hit me with some shoes. 99.14.234.204 01:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

For semantics' sake
Perhaps this article should be renamed "Iraqi journalist throws shoes at US president George W. Bush" to remove the possible ambiguity. -- Poe Joe (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dictatorial editing = my first contribution ever to this site will also probably be my last
I've just added some facts that - as a professional journalist - I know are germane to the story, only to have them removed by an overzealous 'editor' (or whatever you are). (An egomaniac, perhaps?). Before you go REMOVING INFORMATION, why don't you check some of the EXISTING facts. For example, the fact that the man was not 'tackled' by 'authorities' (whoever they are), but pulled down by a fellow journalist (as confirmed by two newspapers including the Daily Mail). Neither is your Bush 'size 10' quote correct. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO CHECK THESE THINGS IS *WATCH THE VIDEO*. But you're too busy removing information. If this kind of approach to this venture continues, I can't see it succeeding. If there was a complaint procedure, I might have taken it. As it is, I see that amateur despots are in control of this thing and I probably won't waste my time trying to contribute again. I CAN SEE why this thing is nowhere near as popular as wikipedia.

- zenji (former full-time journalist, major metropolitan daily newspaper)
 * So as a writer for a newspaper, did you go back in time to update a story 2 or 3 days old in a newspaper, like you would this story? Hhhmmm... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FIRST RULE OF JOURNALISM PEOPLE
Anonymous said: "Excuse me? the sources (BBC and AFP) clearly verify the facts" I can only laugh...! You just believe the media without checking the facts yourself, even when you have the opportunity to do so? WATCH THE VIDEOS! You will HEAR with your OWN EARS that my quote of Bush is EXACTLY what he ACTUALLY said. You SEE with your own eyes that he was PULLED DOWN (not tackled) by a JOURNALIST behind him - and the fact it was a journalist was confirmed by the Daily Mail and another US paper (the Miami Herald from memory). FIRST RULE OF JOURNALISM: check your facts - YOURSELF if you can.

So far I've found other contributors here pretty arrogant, without good cause. It's all a bit of a ZZZZ frankly!


 * Please read my message to your talk page, I have explained why your edits were reverted. Anonymous101talk 18:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates?
Where are the latest developments for this story? The story has moved on quite a bit, with protests on the streets of Iraq, thousands of comments from around the world (even a throw-your-shoes-at-Bush game), an offer by one man to buy the shoes for millions of dollars, and the man being charged - among other things. See this article for some of these developments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntadhar_al_Zaidi

Where are these updates? News is suppposed to be UP TO DATE. That is one of its main characteristics: it's supposed to be NEWs.

Is Wikinews 'the free news source' or the news-free source? :-)

"Neutralized"?
What does "neutralized" mean in the context of a person? I understand what it means in the context of, for instance, an acid base reaction, but I do not understand what the term is doing in this article. Thanks Zazpot (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose neutralize should be taken as Wiktionary says: To make inactive or ineffective. --SVTCobra 00:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)