Talk:U.S. Pentagon conference says weapons entered Iraq from Iran

Original reporting of a Pentagon conference
Probably by the time I wrote this, other print sources have begun to appear. -Edbrown05 20:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Using the term original reporting for being present at a Pentagon news conference is absurd IMHO: it's a shift from N-th hand reporting to (N-1)-th hand reporting, sure it's better than reading what a newspaper says that Pentagon people said - but you're still a long way from first-hand observations of weapons actually being transferred from Iran to Iraq. Lots of people in Iran have blogs and some people have internet access in Iraq - if someone in Iran (or Iraq) sees this happening, then that would be first-hand or original reporting. Boud 23:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea of original reporting is to explain the lack of a source for those statements, nothing more --Cspurrier 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Penagon Press conference was televised live. I was not there personally, but no one heard events transpire at the conference any sooner than myself. It is a report on what top Pentagon brass said. What the rest of the world is saying is beyond the scope of the story. I too noticed with cynicism the timing of the news released about weapons border crossings (note Syria too), but did not make a mention because I hoped to maintain a Neutral Point of View in the report. -Edbrown05 00:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The Point-of-View in the story is from the Pentagon itself. -Edbrown05 00:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify things, this is original reporting in that the reporter is personally vouching for the fact that Rumsfeld said those things, and not for the validity of Rumsfeld's claims. Regarding whether telepresence is the same as physical presence, there is the possibility that anything televised could be edited to give an erroneous impression of what was said, but don't know if we need to worry about this detail.  If C-SPAN or another media source says they are broadcasting a news conference live, unedited, and in it's entirety, that's good enough for me. If it fails to meet those criteria, I would say the motivations of the person who produced the edited clip, or decided to show it at a later date, would make it no longer a direct news source, but rather a filtered one. StuRat 00:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Timing of announcement ?
This happened right after Iran restarted it's refining activities of nuclear material, against the wishes of the US and several European nations. Could the timing of this announcement be related ? Perhaps it's an attempt to curry favor in the UN Security Council to authorize sanctions against Iran. I suggest adding info along this line to the article. StuRat 09:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you also believe in a large scale UFO conspiracy? Perhaps you are looking for a reason to make the government look bad? Perhaps you are an idiot who needs to shut his trap? 22:21, 10 August 2005 67.142.130.11


 * Personal attacks are of no value here. I didn't list my feelings on this issue, since my feelings are irrelevant to the story.  But, since you misjudged my feelings on this issue entirely, I will list them now -> If the timing of this announcement does get the UN Security Council to put harsh sanctions on Iran, and this in turn gets them to stop their nuclear activities, I think that would be a good thing. StuRat 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the line "timing of the Pentagon release coincides with the controversy over Iran restarting its nuclear facilities" for consistency with the "teaser" on the main page. The person who added that there seems to have found a nice middle ground by just stating the facts without implying that the news was timed to influence the UN Security Council. The reader is left to reach their own conclusions. StuRat 02:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

It worked before,it'll work again?

 * It is starting to get funny now. Kinda like the guy who sold you a used car a few years ago...without an engine...showing up in your driveway with another used car to sell you. Can't really blame the ballsy huckster for coming back to the well; and if the sucker gets sucked in again...well,whose fault is that anyway?? Paulrevere2005 12:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Photo of Rumsfeld and Saddam
 * [] here's where "Rummy" sold another line of Bull("we're your pals") to yesterday's puppet enemy. Paulrevere2005 18:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Your comments seemed to be a reply to mine, so belong in the same section, not new sections. I wasn't saying Rumsfeld was lying, just that the timing of the press release may have been intended to influence the UN Security Council.  Also note that I only said this to elicit responses for whether this info should be included in the article (comments not related to changes, or potential changes, in the article do not belong here). StuRat 22:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So your comment;"I think that would be a good thing." does not belong here..right? Paulrevere2005 01:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Certainly not on the main page, no. It is permissible here only as a response to someone questioning my motivation.  Also, was I wrong in thinking your comments were a response to mine ? (and hence belonged in the same section) ?StuRat 02:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Good thing we have a wiki
Because the Iraq war story is changing so fast that the easy editing features are a must. MikeCapone 01:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

recent International Atomic Energy Committee meeting
I removed the Boud edit. Not that I am unreceptive to the reporting, but because that particular contribution has no context in the story. The narrow focus and intent of the story was to report solely on the news conference itself.

A lot happened since the Pentagon news conference. I deliberately wrote a local story Wednesday to poke my head out of the international scene. Frankly, I'm disappointed no one undertook reporting on the IAEA events.

Maybe Wikinews is an international community that doesn't want to report on politically hot topics. Maybe it wants to focus on the the slice of life stuff like 'Disasters and accidents'. Boud, so intensely interested in the matter, could report topic 'terrorism' stories from that neck of the woods. -Edbrown05 04:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with you on the removed material. It originally talked about the number of civilian casualties in a definite anti-Iraq War bit, so I tried to soften it a bit by taking that out and adding the part about the Saddam-era weapons.  But, I am fine with the whole thing being taken out, too. StuRat 06:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Connection refused error ?
I tried adding the following link, but got "connection refused by www.defenselink.mil", even though it works fine from Google. What, do they have Wiki on their banned list or something ?


 * (full transcript of press conference)

StuRat 08:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I listed the DoD link in the 'Sources' section. I encountered no problem. Can't explain why StuRat had a problem.


 * I also made corrections to quotes in the story so they are now verbatim. Lesson to myself <-- be in a quiet place where I can devote full attention to the broadcast. Tape recorder?


 * I think it is rediculous to wait for the transcript to come out, even though I notice it is dated the same day as the press conference. Unless my search for the transcript was imperfect, I doubt the DoD listed it until StuRat recently found it, although I note the transcript is dated Tuesday, August 9, 2005 1:16 p.m. EDT. I published this story August 9, at 7:03 p.m. EDT. I did specifically search the DoD website for the transcript Wednesday afternnoon EDT with no success.


 * _Edbrown05 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yea, both links work fine for me today, I suppose it was a temporary access problem. StuRat 20:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)