Talk:Suspect arrested in death of elephant in Kerala, India that ate explosive fruit

The lede needs to mention when the person was arrested. •–• 06:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4568468 [Not ready]

 * ✅ --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of MSM
Thank you for taking efforts writing this story. Three days ago, I wanted to write about it; but there were no "new" developments. I stayed up all night that time, writing about this incident on my website. This is a story, I gave deep thought and attention to, invested a lot of time, and it just didn't work out. So I hope you understand how deeply I wanted this to be out there. I am glad you wrote about this. And I can look at these sources as well as the synthesis, and this is what I feel: (note, these are my thoughts, and others are not compelled to agree with them)

This article is just like how MSM reports it:


 * 1) "...with the death of an elephant..." => "...with the death of a female elephant..." The "social media outrage, the cartoons [which I will speak about] made sure to highlight she was pregnant.
 * 2) "...it ate fruit filled with firecrackers." => "...a fruit filled with firecrackers exploded in her mouth, damaging her jaw leading to her ultimate death."  Details.
 * 3) "The incident drew widespread condemnation as reports surfaced." => MSM never fails to report that, does it.  There is widespread condemnation of almost everything today.  How does the condemnation affect the newsworthiness of this story?  My personal opinion: that line is redundant.  A deeper dive: in his book Stop Reading the News, Rolf Dobelli says how current "junk food" type news reports new events as news -- even if they are not relevant or significant.  If people didn't condemn, will that still affect the newsworthy status of the arrest of the suspect?  If we aren't reporting the outrage, that information should definitely be at the bottom,.
 * 4) "and is said to be a rubber tapper in his fourties" => Too close to the source. -- haven't checked the copyvios yet, but please avoid that.
 * 5) Comments by Virat Kohli or Ratan Tata.  MSM and quote-farming.  I don't know why are their comments newsworthy, or even included.  Yes, I have done this in the past.  Over here, in this case; they are just giving opinions.  They aren't the judge on this case.  Nor are they the ones supposed to guard/protect/look after these animals, nor are they leaders of this district or state.  In this case, they are just fellow humans -- and their comments don't add anything at all.  What is does accomplish is including sentiments in the news by attributing -- effectively circumventing the NPOV, by attributing.  There are far more people who have expressed similar sentiments, and we don't report them.  Why?
 * 6) "Some other Twitter users also posted artworks in memory of the elephant." => Again, a common MSM thing.  Report unnecessary, unwarranted fact that has nothing to do with the story, which just serves a filler text.  It is irrelevant.  It is a spinoff.  In the chapter "News obscure the big picture", Dobelli said, "These facts are usually no more than the consequences and side effects of deeper underlying causes".
 * 7) "The firecracker-laden fruit was initially stated as a pineapple but later reported to be a coconut" => Again, MSM reports things that really add nothing to the incident itself.  Does it really matter what the initial report said?  Some reported facts cease to be facts.  Even if it was a watermelon, it would not matter; it is not related to the arrest of this person.  As far as death is concerned, the elephant ate fruit with explosives.  It does not matter what the reports said -- say the newly discovered truth.
 * 8) "most experts believe" => MSM really needs to stop being mind-readers.

Ixfd64, I would be glad if we didn't make the same mistakes the MSM makes. There might be other reviewers who would look at this story and not find these problems a barrier. But I hope you look at my reasoning and understand my POV. If you agree, it would be really great if you incorporate that in your writings. Other than this, it reads well. It is just that we ought to see that what is common in MSM may not be right. •–• 07:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for taking the time to review my article so meticulously. I had initially decided not to write this article as the incident happened over two days ago, but I changed my mind after the arrest was announced. That counts as a "new" development in my opinion.


 * I've incorporated most of the feedback you provided. For the part where the type of fruit was changed, I feel it's important for readers to be aware of conflicting information. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine which is accurate, especially when the old information is still being used in numerous sources. And I definitely agree that many mainstream media sources tend to be sensationalized. The New York Post is a major offender in my opinion. But I digress. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I am actually quite surprised to read the latest revision. It reads very well, and I am glad you eliminated almost every major issue that I have, about MSM.  Thank you very much for that.  Both pizero and I agree you have put significant effort to this article, and I applaud you for your efforts.
 * I really wanted this story to be out. When I took a shot at it, no arrests were made.  Many of the "hard" news articles that I wrote over the years were on the topic which I wanted a "permanent record" of the work, which I can later critique in my off-wiki writings.  That last part never happened.  However, this time, when I had no idea when the arrest was going to happen (and yes, you are right; that is the focal point, which is newsworthy; I agree with you) and I left that article as it was, and went on to express my views on my website.  Since I hold strong opinions about this incident, and it would take great effort for me to leave the opinions aside and be neutral on this one, I exempted myself from writing this article.  CoI should be expressed, if that is the case.  And it is not like I haven't written articles about something I held strong opinions while writing.  I just felt the best way to spend my energy was elsewhere.
 * Thank you for your effort, Ixfd64. Prelim reading makes me feel it should pass the review unless something major comes up.  (Re pineapple vs coconut; since it is at the bottom of the inverted pyramid, I might pass). •–•  03:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4568539 [Not ready]

 * Thanks for your detailed comments. I believe I've addressed all the areas where the wording was close to the original sources. I've also de-emphasized the outrage on social media as it's not really relevant anymore. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4568845 [Passed]

 * Thanks. I know both you and Acagastya also spent a lot of effort checking the facts! --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)