Talk:Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike

Predator?
I looked at both the sources - where does it say that Predator UAVs were used in the attack? I'm going to remove this unless someone can point out where... I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing it, and in any case, this seems to be highly unlikely speculation.
 * While this is still speculation, it is not highly unlikely. The article should reflect that this cannot be assumed as a fact, so some reformulation is needed. As of the sources, I will add a related stories section, the wikinews stories of the last days back this. --vonbergm 17:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also added a source that states the drone information. Also added the info back to article. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Target
The strike targetd Zawahiri...not the village. I am going to change it back to the other version until PROOF can be provided that the strike was "targeting the village" as you put it Vonbergm. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * If "proof" is the standard, then we cannot use the word "target" at all. Also, as a matter of plain logic: When this missile was fired, the "target" that was programmed into the system was a location, not a person. Zawahiri did not have a homing device on him that would allow the missile to have him programmed in as a target. And if that does not suffice, below are quotes showing that other mews media have also now adopted this more responsible use of the word "target". --vonbergm 18:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I have been watching the news all afternoon and they all have said and still say that Zawahiri is/was that target. Where/who are you getting that Info from?? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * I changed this to "The attack took place in the village of Damadola..." as it seems to resolve this issue. Whether it were targeting terrorists or not - and logically, why would it not be? - the attack took place there.  Arguing the semantics of whether they programmed the buildings as the target or the people is pointless, in my opinion.  They would not blow up buildings for no reason, there had to have been someone inside they were intending to strike - whether that person was actually there or not is not the point in this issue. --LoganCale 08:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the comment is referring to a much earlier version of the article, I don't think anyone had objections to the use of the word target as it was in this version. --vonbergm 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

use of language
Even US media sources have now caught on to the idea that it is ludicrous to claim that a person that was not even near the location where the missiles exploded was the "target". I believe the the most neutral way to say this is that the village was the target, and this is also what the sources say, see e.g. MSNBC: "Pakistani intelligence officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top lieutenant, had been invited to a dinner in the targeted village of Damadola to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead." or Reuters: "The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the airstrike was based on "very good" intelligence indicating Zawahri was at the targeted location." --vonbergm 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)(forgot to sign earlier)
 * I am not going to go through this with you on this article. Zawahiri was the target and thats that. If you do not think so then delete the first related story because the title of that one states Zawahiri is the target. If I have to i will put another NPOV on this. Jason Safoutin 18:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vonbergem (who forgot to sign his comments) is quite correct in this case. The technical definition of the "target" was not an individual, but – I presume – a specific set of GPS coordinates where that individual was expected to be.  --Brian McNeil / talk 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Brimanc, You are now disputing target, after you were the one who changed the previously disputed article headline to include the word target? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * After vonbergem has brought up reasonable concerns about how it is being used, yes. I'd rather see things getting discussed reasonably than turning into heated discussion. I did the title change based on the content of the article and I did not go back to sources to verify it was an accurate representation of the story.  I've still not read the sources, and no I'm not saying don't use the same image again ever, I'm saying in this case don't because the photo looks like it came out of a "Guns 'r' Us" catalogue with the caption "Predator remote-controlled drone, Xmillion dollars." :-)  More seriously though, from checking the BBC RSS feed the story has moved on to the political consequences of the attack. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another look at the article shows the protests story is linked to from the related section. Vonbergem, I'd expect that to mean that the amount that has to be said about the civilian deaths in this article isn't quite so much. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The civilians are not emphasized in the article because the emphasis is dead terrorists...not civilians. Are you disputing that too? If so I can put up a NPOV and take the publish off of it and we can go through this again and see the article chopped to bits for 1 1/2 days before the story is out-of-date...? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Brianmc, I am not sure what to do with the protest information. This is mostly information that is newer than the publishing date of the 'protest article', so it probably should not be moved to that article but stay in this one. However, there is the 'condemnation' article, and this info should probably be merged and cross referenced. About the civilian deaths, I agree that it is fine to merely mention this in this article, but this is pretty much how it is handeled right now (at least once the 'protest' section is moved/merged into the current condemnation article). --vonbergm 19:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: When writing I was not aware that DragonFire categorically edited out my edits. The comment I made on protests is thus obsolete, the current sentence on protests is plainly silly, if not deliberately misleading. --vonbergm 19:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording a little...if that looks better. If not then You can move/merge it with what you like. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 19:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For convenience, here comes my suggestion on how to sanitize:
 * Tagetting language: My attempt to santizes the language in the first paragraph has been reverted. As it stands, this does not comply with NPOV policy as explained above. I will put the appropriate flags back in. --vonbergm 19:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Reports coming out of Pakistan say that at least 4 or 5 terrorists have been killed in the deadly U.S. airstrike that tageted the village of Damadola in the semi-autonomous agency of Bujar in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan, on January 14, 2006.
 * According to unnamed Pakistani intelligence officials, Al-Quedas number 2 man Ayman al-Zawahiri was invied to a dinner in the village for the time of the strike, but failed to show up."
 * --vonbergm 19:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I do not agree with you. Zawahiri was the target. Thats what the headline says thats what the sources say and thats what the related other 1 1/2 day disputed article says. I am not going to allow you to continue these unnecessary disputed. Zawahiri was the target and thats based on FACTS. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 19:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sanatize? NO. What you suggest it be changed to is a NPOV. I will dispute what you suggest to be put there.
 * Correct, my formulation reflects a Neutral Point Of View. --vonbergm 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No it does not. You take out the FACT that Zawahiri was targeted. Thats not neutrality. You are continuously changing these articles to suit your POV on the victims. Well put all that in the article for the victims. I mention them in there 50/50. I think that you are purposely tagging the articles on this subject to push them out of the headlines/front page and out of view to suit your views. Some might think this is Anti-US. All you want is to show the POV of dead civilians. Thats not what the basis of these articles was about. We can dispute. And I continue to do so. BTW disputed articles CANNOT be on the front page/top story. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Why am I reluctant to wade into this, is it because DragonFire1024 can't compromise?) The missiles were obviously targeted at the villiage. Why the target selection, should be the focus. -Edbrown05 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well thats NOT the basis the article was started on. Zawahiri=the target. I will compromise when the headline is fair. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

use of images
Just because we have a picture of something that relates to the article does not mean we should use it. Pictures are powerful in that they can shift the focus of an article. For example, prominently displaying high-tech war imagery like the image of the predator drone while not showing images of the destruction or the victimes suggests that missile attacks are 'clean'. Imagine adding a picture of a child killed in a warzone to the article with text "Dead child similar to the one alleged in the air strike." I strongly suggest the picture of the drone be removed unless it is balanced with a picture of a victim. Similarly, I suggest Zawahiri's picture be removed, unless it is balanced with a picture of civilian victim (say before the death). --vonbergm 18:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The drone relates to the story. As long as the caption says similar then I think its ok. I am not going to allow you to chop up this article like you did the 18 dead article which kept it in dispute for nearly 2 days. I vote the drone to stay. Last I checked the other picture was a Map of Pakistan. On the front page it was breaking news picture. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 18:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The drone has already been used on a prior article, and I don't think it is a particularly good picture. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh so just because its used in one article it cannot be used again? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Re-placement of tag
Whilst I agree this shouldn't have been up as lead, I think it is time to let this go to published and pass into history. Otherwise, please specify what is wrong with the article in relation to the sources it cites and the story it sets out to tell. As far as I can see at the moment the civilian casualties are covered in another story, and prominently linked to from this one. If there's anything else wrong with it I'd like to know. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have explained extensively, the language in the first paragraph violates NPOV. My attemt to sanitize has been reverted without a convincing reason. (I have displayed the sanitized version above for convenience.) --vonbergm 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I made a request for this dispute to be looked at by sever admins. to determine the next course. I believe that --vonbergm is PURPOSELY causing a severe NPOV on articles of this subject. I believe he is PURPOSELY tagging articles and disputing them to be unpublished and disputed for almost 1 1/2 days before ignoring the dispute and allowing the article to publish, only after the news is much too old. He then went on to create articles showing the exact opposite of this POV. This is a major problem. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vonbergm, I DISAGREE with your suggestion. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 21:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024, I believe you are (hopefully) UNINTENTIONALLY looking for a fight. Please don't.  This doesn't need an appeal to admins to resolve it, it needs people being reasonable. I find the proposed edit from Vonbergem pretty reasonable, it delivers the facts without actually biasing them in any way. --21:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with his suggestion based on: 1) Zawahiri was the target. 2) The article was created and reported on the basis of Terrorists being killed, not civilians 3) There is another article, that Vonbergm can use his emphasis on dead civilians 4) I beleive that he is doing this intentionally and it needs to stop. I believe he has A) politically modivated agenda and not a reporting agenda. Wikinews is not a place to subject users to your political beliefs. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am calm. But I refuse to let people distroy valid news articles. I am not going to comment anymore until an administrator can look at the current situation. I am sorry. But I feel as if the past 3 days I have been attacked and I feel as if the hard work of Wikinewsies is being tampered with and warped. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not, in my opinion, the purpose or within the authority of an administrator to decide whether or not an article has a neutral point of view. Editors must collaborate to produce fact-based, near-NPOV news articles. Please attempt to reach consensus (where even if you don't completely agree, you're willing to accept another POV rather than block the publication of an article). If the edit warring continues on this article, I will consider protecting it until you guys can get together... --Chiacomo (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I favor protection of the article. I see nothing worng with it. All I see is a personal agenda going on here. Unless anyone can come up with a VALID basis to remove FACTUAL information then I vote to have it protected. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no vote for protection... and an article protected due to edit warring will not be published until the contributors work out their differences and produce an article that is acceptable to all. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists?
Is the word terrorists good to use? Is the Pakistan officials statement followed by any substance? What if the 'five foreign elements' was Afganistan civilians, maybe relatives visiting Pakistan? My guess is that the border is frequently crossed by many civilians that can be mistaken for extremists from Afganistan International 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources in the article state terrorists. If terrorists was taken out of the article then its an edit violation based on the fact this article is in dispute. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 21:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, 'edit violation'? International 21:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * articles cannot be edited while in dispute. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 21:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * International, how about "suspected terrorists" instead of terrorists. I believe this is the most accurate description and should also settle your concerns. --vonbergm 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vonbergm, that more accurate, ok for me. International 22:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My concerns will not be settled until an administrator or administrators can look into possible SEVER NPOV. I believe this dispute is an attempt at trying to display a political agenda. Vonbergm put this article in dispute for no reason. I want this article to be looked at along with the other one that was in dispute for 1 1/2 days. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not what I know anything about, can you point at any policy suporting this statement? International 22:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excript from Wikinews Neutral POV policy:

"The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favourable facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral." I particularly concerned with the last statement. The article and the one in dispute for 1 1/2 days were factual enough for publishing until they were severely chopped up and then eventually reverted and edited to a point where he ignored the article because his was published already while the disputed article was tucked away. The breaking news that was origianally reported as Zawahiri possibly dead went to 18 dead in pakistan...all in the same article... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have to calm down! Reread my objection and find the policy I asked for. This is not. By the way, after looking at some of your edits I recomend you to read what you copy and past! International 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I might been unclear. I was just not sure what 'edit violation' in an disputed article is. I am not talking about npow but why I cant edit now when it is disputed. International 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * NO EDITS AT ALL are to be made on disputed articles.
 * Exactly that is what I dont find in any policy. Enlight me if im wrong! International 00:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are "sources" (unnamed) that names some terrorists that were either 1) killed in attack 2) suspected of being there and survived. I have the sources for the names. But there is no confirmation of them being there...should I add this new info? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you link the sources here, and propose your changes to the article. If this is new news, perhaps you should create a new article? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 22:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources for possible named terrorists.

1. * I do not know if there are anymore sources for the terrorists names. I just have this one so far. I think the news is just coming out. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of other news sources out there that mention the same name. Since this is information newer than the publishing date of this article I recommend to put this into a new article. --vonbergm 22:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct information in sources?
This is Reuters source. 'As political agent, Wazir is the top federal government officer in the tribal agency'. I think its dubious and untill more independent sources or 'facts' surface this article mybee contains false information. International 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...thats why I am calling for admin review. That was placed in there by the one disputing the article. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a quick serach on google news reveils that many news sources have reported this, in particular the Pakistani ones (who should probably know this best). International, if you deem this necessary, just add one of these to the sources (for example )

--vonbergm 22:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now Im litle confused. What Im saying is that gruond for the article maybe is untru. My argumentation is that, as I understand, the only source saying that 4-5 terrorists was among the killed is Wazir. He might have a political agenda as he is a 'political agent','top federal government officer' and maybe not a good source if hi is the only one. What I imply is that if there is terrorists killed among the civilians US will come out in a 'better light' than if there is only civilian victims. It is a cynical mediawar also...International 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the only sources as far as I can tell. Thus the article should reflect this by clearly attributing the statement to Wazir and not making a statement about its merits. The article (except for the title is (used to be??) phrased that way. As for the word 'agent', I believe this is simply part of the title for this government position. --vonbergm 23:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Late addition: The title should be changed to singular to properly reflect this. Of course that still leaves the "target" issue.... --vonbergm 23:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no issue with the title. You need to stop this constant NPOV. this is rediculous. I cannot believe you would prolong this story ot any story like this. Zawahiri was the target so get over it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 23:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The village was hit, Zawahiri was not hit. Proper title is inkluding village, not Zawahiri. Thats my opinion. International 23:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok well then all the sources are wrong and the previous story is worng....He was the target. Period. Unless you can show me sources that say otherwise, then you have no argument. He was the target now get over it. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No aaron. It does not. Zawahiri was the target. And unless you or anyone else in here can provide the proof I have asked for several times that Zawahiri was NOT the target.... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Title
My suggestion: "Pakistani Official claims 'foreign elements' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike targeting village" International 00:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No...too long and makes no sense. This needs to end now. You need to show me proof of sources saying Zawahiri was not the target. You need to give basis for change of headline, there is none. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Noted International... I'm a bit late to the scene on this, but when I see 10-12 people of interest to the U.S. at the target, I'm thinking Zawahiri should be de-emphasized. (end now dragon, is that a demand?) -Edbrown05 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Pakistani Official claims 'foreign elements' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike" is this sugestion better? International 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No the article was created on the basis of terrorists being killed due to and airstrike targeting Zawahiri...I will not change my view on the headline. If Zawahiri was not supposed to be there, then the strike would not have taken palce. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Litle rethorically, but can Zawahiri be in many houses at the same time? International 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That title seems reasonable. While it could be disputed as to whether the target was the village or Zawahiri, it is not disputed that the village WAS hit, killing 18 villagers and 4-5 foreigners, and that Zawahiri was NOT hit, and is presumably still alive. This last title suggestion removes any claim about the target, and removes other POV terms, giving us readers as close to NPOV as we can get right now. Aaron Winborn 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Better headline International. They were terrorists? they were insurgents, they were enemy combatants, they were foreign elements. Wikinews is positioning itself to serve as a world news source. What adjective is best and quickly understood? Except for the fact that 'foreign element' sound a little like something unwanted in my cereal bowl, I can live with that. -Edbrown05 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No aaron. It does not. Zawahiri was the target. And unless you or anyone else in here can provide the proof I have asked for several times that Zawahiri was NOT the target... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin


 * Edbrown05, is "foreigners" better than "'foreign elements'" maybee? International 00:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragon/Jason, based on your tone and persistance, I see that you seem angry about this issue. I can understand why; this attack and its consequences have angered millions of people around the world for various reasons. Several people here have stated they believe the current title to be POV, and you are currently about the only person on this page voicing the opposite. So that we can all move forward, would you be able to come up with a title that you believe to be more NPOV? Aaron Winborn 00:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No Internationl, I think you got it good as it gets. -Edbrown05 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No he did not getr it right. The title is FINE the way it is. I want to see Zawahiri and target in there like they are now. If the headline gets changed while I am disputing this then I will voice that concern to the admins. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done, and I think the article is good now. But someone else may publish it if agree that there is concensus for publishing. International 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

political agent
Edbrown05, thanks for helping out to clean this up. A couple of issues. 'Political agent' is part of the title for the head of an 'agency' (this is what these regions are alled in Pakistan). I recomment wikipedia or the sources for more information on this (or the link I provided in the earlier discussion about this topic). About the first paragraph. I object to the notion that Zawahiri was the "target" of the missile strike. This formulation is factually wrong (the target was the village, or houses in the village, and not Zawahiri, after all this is why the missiles hit the village and not Zawahiri) and only serves to advance the POV that it was not clear from the beginning that civilians will be killed. --vonbergm 00:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand better now about 'Political Agent', thanks. The try I made in the 1st graph was to take a baby step to establish the village as the target, why it was the target needs to be answered. -Edbrown05 00:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the 'foreign elements" and Zawahiri need to be cited. -Edbrown05 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I have called for this article to be protected due to editing while under dispute. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't yet see a need to protect the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do. I will not allow facts to be distorted and the article to be completely changed because of someones political beliefs. See: U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village edit history. Look how long it was INTENTIONALLY kept in dispute to favor this article: Protests erupt in Pakistan over US air strike and: Pakistanis condemn US airstrike. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 00:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

headline disputed
This headline was changed AGAINST the user talk page. An agreement was NOT reached. Articles cannot be edited while disputed. I will inform admins of this. This is unfair. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite applicable policy as I cannot find anything restricting the community's right to edit an article while disputed. Perhaps I'm overlooking it. Several administrators are following the discussion on this talk page. It is not our place to decide what has a Neutral Point of View (any more than any other editor). Please attempt to reach consensus. I won't express my personal feelings except to say that this topic is "touchy" and it might be best to strictly "stick to the facts" as presented in the source material. --Chiacomo (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is unfair. I will hold my dispute. This title is NOT FACTUAL. I will add misleading to the article if necessary. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What isn't factual about the title. Let's keep very close to the source material and explain it to me... I know that the quote from the Pakistani official did not use the word "terrorist". --Chiacomo (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone watch the news? go to other news sites? Look at the sources...THE VERY FIRST SOURCE STATES TERRORISTS. I mean lets be fore real people. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute that they were terroists -- but the Pakistani offical never used that word that I can find. How about "Pakistani official claims 'foreign elements' among those killed in U.S. airstrikes" ? --Chiacomo (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What does that headline have to do with the basis of the article when it was created? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The original article that you created said that "reports indicate ... ". Those reports were based on statements by the Pakistani official, apparently. --Chiacomo (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The first source says 4 or 5 terrorists.

'''FACT: Zawahiri was the target. Not the village and not the civilians '''FACT: 4 or 5 TERRORISTS were killed saying anything else away from that, basing those facts on the sources as you said, would make the title misleading and one-sided in my opinion. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this..."Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' and civilians among those killed in U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri"... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

foreign elements / terrorists
How should the first sentence be reconciled with the new headline? -Edbrown05 01:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It also goes against what the article was created on. The headline is MISLEADING. There was NOTHING wrong with the last title. I will NOT accept a title that does NOT include the FACTUAL info like before DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does a Pakistani or U.S. official describe person(s) at the target as terrorists? -Edbrown05 01:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Al-Queda operatives maybe? -Edbrown05 01:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They don't. The sources say Zawahiri was the target. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What about:

"Reports coming out of Pakistan say that at least 4 or 5 foreigner have been killed in the deadly U.S. airstrike on Friday that tageted the village of Damadola in the semi-autonomous agency of Bujar in the tribal region bordering Afghanistan. It is unclear if the foreigner have anyting to do with alledged terrorist activity"

International 01:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I did NOT put: "It is unclear if the foreigner have anyting to do with alledged terrorist activity" in the article. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do think that the Pakistani official labelled them as "terrorists". Therefore, it would be appropriate usage.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Im not sure about that MrM, but many take it as a fact without asking.International 01:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well "terrorists" is a fact. The sources in the article state that. The official is a person, and the article said earlier, before it was torn up, that: "Citing pakistani officials remaining annomyous due to the sensitivity..." That is as good as saying a prper name. Its not speculation. SOURCES SAY TERRORIST. Sources also state, again, Zawahiri was/is the target. Previous title "Pakistani Officials say at least 4 terrorists killed in U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri" fits the best. or something VERY VERY close to that title. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Musharraf used the generalization "foreign terrorists" in the Pakistanis condemn US airstrike report. -Edbrown05 01:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * but we are talking about the 4-5 alledged killed foreign elements that Wazir says and he is not using the word terrorists as I can see International 01:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would still like to see something about Zawahiri in the title. I still do not like the new title. Ok. look they are terrorists. International, Site the source where you state that they are NOT terrorists. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think article is good to publish. -Edbrown05 02:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not me. The headline is still not right...still too one sided. I just do not think its "factual" enough. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I cant see that Wazir use the word terrorist. Where and when is Musharraf cited and used the word terrorist. If Musharraf us it generally in a earlier stage of this storys development it sholdnt be mixed in with Wazirs quote as a fact. If it is so this is not good journalism. I like to get sourcese that for sure make it clear that Pakistani official use the word terrorist about this 4-5 foreiners specifically mentionde by Wazir by any other Pakistani official after his statement. International 02:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * read the sources. how about this title: "Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' and civilians among those killed in U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC) (needed to log in)
 * If sources can be updated, you will also see that the US does NOT think Zawahiri is dead.... DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So why should Zawahiri be in the headline, he ain't dead. -Edbrown05 02:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because thats what the strike was targeting!. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I do hope that some real terrorists was hit. It will make me feel as much better as a fart in space bearing in minde all innocent civilian killed. But I also see as i said earlier that it is a war in media to and US have plenty more to lose if no dead terrorist can be proved.International 03:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

published International 03:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

please just stop it!!! i know people from pak!

Published under dispute

 * I had to go to bed. That gives you NO right to publish an article under MAJOR dispute. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

iam just going to wait out the bizaare afternoon on wiki news like jason argueing with hell everyone! later --FragileFrigateBird 20:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not waiting out anything. This artile was published under dispute. I am not happy with the headline that in my opinion is not enough. I have said again and again that Wikinews is not a place to vopice your personal political agenda. We are here to report the news. Not change it. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you say so...I still dispute however. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Ali Rana (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)