Talk:U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village

I removed the following sentence from the article on the grounds that it is highly NPOV and none of the sources for the article repeated the information. If it is first-hand journalism, it needs to be recorded as such. If a source is found, it can be restored, but should be revised to fit NPOV. Removed sentence: "U.S. News agencies generally failed to emphasize that those killed by about 10 missiles were residents of a small village, who happened to live there..." Joshua Nicholson 08:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On second reading, it doesn't say what I first thought it said. I thought it claimed 10 villagers were killed. At any rate, it's still POV. People can certainly be "residents of a small village, who happened to live there" and also be members of Al-Qaeda. While collateral damage on a strike like this would be nothing new, hurling POV accusations about the coverage of the event without evidence one way or another about the identity of the victims is incredibly irresponsible. Joshua Nicholson 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of sources say that Ayman al-Zawahiri wasn't even in the houses/village...so why was that removed?

Title suggestion
Just added source for 'POV' comment. Story needs to emphasize this was a civilian zone.. "Collateral damage" (sic) is an important element of any 'war' news AFAIK. Can we by any chance change the title to emphasize this seems to be a civilian residence? For example: "CIA after Al-Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri in civilian village" or similar? towsonu2003 03:47, 14 January 2006 (ET)


 * I'd like to see the article moved to a new title (currently: 'Al-Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri targeted in attack'). The main interest of the story is not that Ayman al-Zawahiri was targetted, but (arguably) that the strike killed innocent civillians and was in Pakistani soil. Vote for something neutral like Air strike on a Pakistani village kills 18 people Frankie Roberto 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No assuming
Until DNA results are out, no assuming that al-Zawahiri wasn't in the compound. Equally, no assuming that he was in there (again, quotes that support either claim should be added). Also, only add the editing tag if you are going to edit the article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment;MrM ; we can not report possibilities that have no basis in either fact or reliable sourcing. We can not report President Bush might have been there because there is no evidence he was..same thing with this demonized bogeyman.Neutralizer 14:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhh...ok My mistake. i agree. I did state that in there too....my bad. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 16:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I stumble on the assumption that the FBI currently has al-Zawahiri DNA to match up with the casualties/victims. -Edbrown05 22:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, TIME reports that the FBI has a DNA sample from al-Zawahiri's brother: How Would the U.S. Know if it Killed a Qaeda Chief?. -Edbrown05 00:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was what I was going to say. For example, bin Laden has blood relatives living in the United States that have willingly given up DNA samples for agencies to test against.  I'm not a pathologist (?), so I don't know what is exactly considered to be a definitive test result on the testings, however I would assume that it would have to be overwhelming resemblence to a very close relative in order to correctly identify the people.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, should Osama meet a fate where similar methods are needed to determine identity. -Edbrown05 05:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It states that a borther or something in prison in Egypt. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Breaking
Shouldn't it still be breaking? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 16:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

18 Civilians killed in Air Strike by America. Unnamed Pentagon official claims that they targeted Al- Zawahiri
Don't you think that it is very easy for Pentagon to claim that it was after a Wanted terrorist after the media finds out that people killed in the attack were civilians. Or were the reported eight children killed also Al-Qaeda terrorists? How convenient is the term "Collateral damage", when it does not signify any western civilians. May be all Muslims can be put in the net of Collateral damage and got rid of once and for all. No Muslims- No terrorists. The mere heading of this News break is a shame to journalism. It reflects the tendency of western people to tow all the official lines fed to them; without asking for facts. The KNOWN FACTS about this attack uptil now are absolutely clear. 18 Civilians have been killed inside a sovereign country. Those killed have a right to be considered innocent, till the time it can be proven otherwise. Anyways, will anyone reading this allow children to be willfully killed inorder to get rid of a terrorist in such a fashion. For God's sake, Please show some heart.


 * Could not agree more. The news here is not that some person has been "targetted" (and even that has not been independently verified, so it should at least read "allegedly" in the headline, as in articles that are critical of United States actions. I guess this just shows that editors that insist on the insertion of such phrases under different circumstances merely do this to push their own agenda...). I propose the title: "18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan". --vonbergm 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto above plus;

The photo is POV
By showing a photo of the man claimed to have been targetted completely embraces that unsubstantiated claim and leads credence to it. Think about this; if Russia bombed a small town in Kentucky killing 17 or so civilians and then claimed they were targeting a Chechneyan rebel leader; would that rebel leader be the story? would his picture be the only picture with the story? Neutralizer 02:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No. But if they attacked a Chechen village it certainly would be a major element of it except in anti-Russian press coverage. I'm restoring the image, and looking for additional images to provide balanced coverage. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? The attack has been confirmed that it was an attempt to attack al-Zawahiri.  Your removal of the image for dubious reasons such as the one above shows that your bias is overcoming what is undisputably fact at this point quite transparently.  So, please, if you could explain to us how this image is POV, please provide it.  Because right now, we have proof that he was targeted.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No; Amgine, do you not realize the attack was in Pakistan? Not in an enemy territory? MrM.;Who has confirmed that it was an attempt to attack this person? Wikinews is not a publication that accepts the US government's statements as "confirm"ation of anything anymore than we would accept bin Laden's word as being the "truth". Your stubborn insistence that the US version of events permeate the tone of this article is baffling at best. Neutralizer 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no official confirmation of the target of the attack. -Edbrown05 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidently the United States thinks it can go into Cambodia or Laos in the interest of... crossing international borders for the purpose of ... I think I got lost and rediculous. -Edbrown05 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV cleanup
Starting to clean up article to get rid of several NOPV issues: --vonbergm 23:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "which left 18 people, including civilians, dead" -- This phrase is misleading and violates NPOV. It suggests that there were non-civilians under the victims, which is not backed by any of the sources. The only thing that all news reports agree upon is that there were several children amoung the victims.
 * "But a portion of a Foreign Ministry statement released on Saturday said" -- This is extremely vague. Either there are solid sources on this and more specific information can be given, or it paragraph should be deleted.
 * Made an effort to address the 2nd bullet item. -Edbrown05 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, looks very good now. --vonbergm 01:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently Fox News is confirming that Zawahiri was invited to a dinner at the house...and apparently there is someone saying he WAS killed. I just got this off live TV and am looking for the sources to confirm or deny this claim. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? What has that got to do with blowing up a bunch of civilians in a non-enemy country? Does anyone really care why a mass murderer kills 17 people? Would it matter if the satanic criminal thought someone he hated might be among the 17??? Please do not buy into the USA government's definition of what the story is here. Neutralizer 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok...now no more! This article is PUBLISHED...if you want to report on what the article is NOT about, start a new one. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Title is NPOV again. We are talking about Zawahiri. Thats what the article is based on. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Use of this image "courtesy of the FBI" inconsistent with NPOV
It is simply pandering to ther US government's pattern of murdering innocent civilians over and over again and deflecting the horror of those stories to some sort of vague, esoteric justifications that some bogeyman might have been the target. It is absurd for a global site like wikinews to include the bogeyman's photo in this article, especially without any collaborative evidence that the guy was there or even that he was the target before the bomb hit. Are we to take the word of anonymous US sources as fact? I don't think so. The insistence of 1 or 2 editors to impose that nonsensical absurdity on the article is not acceptable, at least in my opinion. Neutralizer 14:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but all news nedia I have seen on tv and on the web CONFIRM that he was supposed to be there....look at the sources and read them. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 15:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I only put it in the EDIT SUMMARY. FBI images are public domain; I'd use the Al-jazeera image, but it's COPYRIGHTED.  Black and white.  Stop trying to stir something out of nothing.  If you continue, it will be disruption.  I think we've had enough of this by now, read the sources, the CIA targeted al-Zawahiri, not the Pakistanis.  If you can let your anti-US stance even try to divulge that...  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop your "disruption" labeling to those who disagree with USA POV pushing MrM. Name calling is not acceptable HERE. Neutralizer 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, disruption would be you trying to pin anything remotely related with the USA as POV. That is disruption, and I for one am sick of it.  You know well enough than to call POV on a picture of someone who was targeted in the attacks, therefore relevent, simply on its source.  That is disruption.  You're trying to start fights with people, and you will be stopped before you succeed.  This site was peaceful these past few weeks.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM; where is your evidence that your FBI picture is of someone who was targeted in the attacks? Where is your proof? And again, please stop with the threats, personal attacks and not assuming good faith; you are the one trying to start fights, not me, and you will be stopped like you were before.Neutralizer 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources. They're attributed in the story.  You cannot write whatever you want to write here; we stick to facts, not theories or conspiracies.  There are reports that stated al-Zawahiri was targeted.  If you'd stop hating the US for one second and actually read something, you'd realize that.  However, if you continue to make edits against the NPOV policy, you will be blocked.  Consider this your final warning.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What is the basis for claiming to know who the CIA targeted?
This question must be addressed BEFORE including a photo or reference to the supposed alleged target. This is journalism 101 folks and I KNOW Amgine knows this to be so. Neutralizer 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is NOTHING to address. ALL sources on THIS ARTICLE state that HE WAS THE TARGET. IF you can prove otherwise, then do so. Otherwise, leave the article ALONE. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

18 or 17 dead?
Initially, most news reports said there were 18 dead, now the article has been update to suggest 17 dead, which some of the referenced sources also say. Shouldn't we reference this discrepency until the facts have been cleared up? Frankie Roberto 14:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not large enough that I think publishing should be held off on. Besides, check WN:NOT, Wikinews articles are not works in progress, and are historical documents from the date they are published.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...somewhat...but this story is continuously changing and reports are still conflicting. If the article is inaccurate after it is published...should it not be changed? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 15:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, we're not CNN here. The time of the publish of the article provided the facts as it is.  People writing papers, etc. will reflect back on these "old articles" and report on what facts have been provided at that time.  We encourage new articles for major "breaks" in article topics, but we shouldn't ever try to rewrite history.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. VERY WELL PUT. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * The number in the article and the number in the title are still at odds with each other. If we're not meant to be rewriting old news, then shouldn't we revert back to 18, which it was originally? Frankie Roberto 16:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be. Otherwise, we'd be contradicting what we say... (and that'd get confusing after a while). :) --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Target
After reading the above discussion on "tagets" I would like to make some comments. The sources that I have read DO NOT STATE AS A FACT that al-Zawahiri was the target. In fact, they go to great length to point out that this is merely a rumor and has not even been claimed by any government officials or agencies. Here are some quotes from the sources (emphasis added): Apart from what the specific formulations the sources choose to use, I find it unacceptable to claim that Zawahri was a "target", when
 * The Foreign Ministry said on Saturday that foreigners had been near the village of Damadola in the Bajaur region bordering Afghanistan and were the PROBABLE TARGET.
 * The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the airstrike was based on "very good" intelligence indicating Zawahri was at the TARGETED LOCATION.
 * there was NO FIRST HAND INFORMATION that he was actually at the location
 * even if the initiators of the strike had KNOWN that Zawahri was at the location, it was clear that women and children will also die in the attack. These women and children were as much of a "target" as Zawahri, but nobody is reporting on that. In fact, it seems like some people don't care at all that some innocent people have been killed, but they want to make this a story about Zawahri. I am appalled by the arguments some people make on this site! --vonbergm 16:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; vonbergm, "appalled" to you is "scary as hell" to me. I now can see how a society can quickly devolve into something like the third reich.... and the question is, what can reporters do to try to keep up the standards of reporting? When this story first "broke" on CNN, Wolf Blitzer was absolutely gushing with excitement that "Maybe" one of the big bad guys had been blown up and the following hour of "expert" discussion among reporters and politicians made absolutely no mention whatsoever of; A; the bombing of a non-enemy state or B; the large number (known even then) of innocent civilians murdered. I fear the "appalling" arguments here are little more than a reflection of the downward spiral of clear thought processing and the rapid evaporation of moral/legal standards within our western society at large; and the fault,imo, lies more with those of us who can still reason than with those of us who can not. What could have been more "appalling" than rascist laws in the USA as little as 40 years ago. Tomorrow is Martin Luther King day."He was arrested thirty times for his participation in civil rights activities." How many of us are willing to be arrested thirty times for demonstrating and civil disobedience activities against against appalling laws and behavior by our governments in 2006???? Unless we are, we don't really deserve the type of world where a villager's dreams in the hills of Pakistan are safe from the horrors of satanic instruments of death with names like "hellfire" that are proudly delivered by the very trolls who dare to claim a connection with Dr. King while we citizens sit idly by.Neutralizer 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well lets see, there are 12 sources on the article...all of which say he WAS the target. There is one that also says he was invited to dinner and that WAS/IS CONFIRMED. So unless you have PROOF then this discussion is closed. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 17:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Apparently you have a reading difficulty. The claim you are making is plainly false (just look at the Reuters article for example). I tried to help you out by explicitly quoting from the sources on the discussion page to make it easier for you, but clearly, you don't care about facts but have a separate agenda. Looking at your earlier comments, there seems to be a pattern. MrM might want to point you to the relevant section of what wikinews is NOT about. --vonbergm 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * DragonFire1024, the reason wikinews is more reliable than most is because we do not publish rumour. The discussion is not closed because you say so and if you feel proof is required then you should provide it supporting the rumor theory and please try to remember this is a collaborative project. Neutralizer 18:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not here to determine whether or not he was in the building. We're here to determine if he was targeted in the attack; so far, reports indicate that he was the target.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * MrM, what you are saying simply does not make sense. One the one hand it sounds to me that you are saying that the target was the location of the dinner (this is how Reuters reports it), but on the other hand you say the target was a person that probably was not even close to where the missiles hit. The only way to make this statement consistent is to assume that the missiles did not end up in the location that they were supposed to be. While possible, this is really not backed by any of the sources! --vonbergm 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, up to now we don't even have reliable information who was the perpetrator of the missile attack. In light of that, saying that there is reliable information who the target of the attack was is quite rediculous. On top of that, I still have not heard any argument why Zawahri would be any more of a "target" of this attack as the women and children. It must have been clear to the perpetrators that women and children would be present at the site, after all it was their home. But I guess, in the war on terrorism it does not matter how many innocents die as long as there is a possibility that on suspected terrorist gets killed! I would be curious to hear what people would say if LAPD would adopt these ethics. --vonbergm 22:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * After those comments, Vonbergm, I'm going to have to ask you kindly to step away from this article. If you cannot engage in a discussion such as this without bringing up a "view", then perhaps you shouldn't be in this discussion at all.  I don't care what the government does.  All I'm doing is reporting on what reports state - that al-Zawahiri was targeted.  I don't care if you agree with that or not, but it doesn't change the fact that they have reported it as such.  I don't care what stance you are on the War on Terrorism.  I don't care if you feel the actions by the US were unfair.  I don't want any of that.  We're here to report facts, not make excuses because we feel we need to defend an ideology.  The reports have stated that it was an unmanned CIA plane which targeted al-Zawahiri in the compound.  This article has to do with the reports as its focus; not on the event.  If we were reporting on the event itself, yes, I'd say put the probables into fashion.  But this article is reporting on the reports - which state that the plane was from the CIA and was targeting al-Zawahiri.  We can't change that, and we won't.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

confirmed by whom?
The article states:


 * But, it has been confirmed that Zawahiri was invited to a dinner in the village where the strike took place, but he "did not show up," said Pakistani Intelligence officials.

There is no such information in any of the sources. There is only one mention of this in the sources, namely


 * "He was invited for the dinner, but we have no evidence he was present," a senior intelligence official told Reuters

I will edit out that this was "confirmed". If you find sources confirming this independently, you can put it back in and add the source. --vonbergm 23:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look. The story is poublished and the story is as such. ALL Sources say he was supposed to be there and if a pakistani intelligence official say that he was invited to dinner I think that's close to be confirmed. HE WAS THE TARGET regardless. So leave the article at such. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * So please show me the statement that the Pakistani official confirmed (not the statement he made). And if you read the sources (specifically the one I pointed out above and that you added to the article), you will see that other people do not state that he was the target. --vonbergm 23:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but everyone CONFIRMS he WAS THE TARGET. GIVE IT UP. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Are we speaking the same language? I already know that you have a different understanding of the word "confirm" as the rest of us, but please stop pushing your erratic interpretation onto wikinews. --vonbergm 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look * DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * I cannot believe the extend of your dishonesty! First of all, the article itself does not make any claim that Zawahiri was a target. And on top of that you did not give the correct title, which is "Report: US raid targeted al-Zawahiri", supressing the fact that the editors apparently did not deem the statement that he was targeted reliable enough to make the claim themselves. There is no place for people with your level of dishonesty at wikinews! Please reconsider how you approach news or find a different medium. There are plenty of conservarive blogs where your way of processing information will be appreciated, but wikinews is actually trying to deal with news. --vonbergm 00:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look *
 * Similarly, the article does not state that Zawahiri was a target. On the contrary it states explicitely that a "location" was targeted. No further comment. --vonbergm 00:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you blind? what does it say in the sources on the article? THERE IS NO NPOV! If you want to state that he was never a target, start your own article DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * I already noticed that there is no NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) in what you are saying. I never said that I wanted to state that he was not a target (your comment is off-topic as usual), but I am saying that there is insufficinet information to make the claim that he was a "target", and that in particular the two sources you link do not make that claim (contrary to your assertion, see explicit quotes above). If you think your claims have any merit, provide me with a specific quote that shows that the linked articles actually do make a definitive claim that Zawahiri was a target. --vonbergm 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's it. This article is DONE. Please NO MORE EDITS! This is how the news is and we cannot change it. If you want to report on something NOT related to this article, START A NEW ONE!!!! DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

women and children
Whoever the IP was that edited out the info. This article has several sources. Just because you did not find some information in one particular sources does not mean that it should not be in the article. Next time, read all the sources. If you cannot find the information in any of them, then editing it out is the right thing to do. Also, if there is contradictory information in the sources, you can edit it out and leave a comment on the discussion page. But don't just edit out information because your favorite news outlet did not report it! --vonbergm 23:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources state civilians and some state women and children...one or the other...thats how it is. Thats what the reports say and thatsd what the sources say. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 23:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That's why I put the info back into the article. --vonbergm 23:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but everyone CONFIRMS he WAS THE TARGET. GIVE IT UP. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Title again
The title "Airstrike in Pakistan targets Ayman al-Zawahiri. 18 reported dead" violates NPOV as it states as fact that Zawahiri was targeted (see targeting discussion). Morover, it carried "american bias" by elevating the alleged "targetting" as the main news instead of the actual deaths and the fact that missiles were fired into the territory of a sovereign country (see the discussion on cultural bias above). While this seems to be common practice for north-american news media, this is not acceptable for wikinews with its international reader and editor base. Please fix! --vonbergm 01:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * THE MAIN NEWS IS WHAT THE TITLE SAYS. IF YOU WANT TO REPORT ON THE DEATHS THEN START A NEW ARTICLE! THIS IS WHAT WE ARE REPORTING FROM THE SOURCES LISTED IN THE ARTICLE. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous headline was the most accurate without any official U.S. response to the attack. -Edbrown05 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) And since when is there a period in a headline. While I go to the trouble to change this, I will change it to the more neutral headline this story previously possessed. -Edbrown05 01:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Where in the headline does it state anything tabout the U.S. confirming anything? The title is based on what the reports/sources say which is he was a target. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * I agree with Ed and Vonbergm about the title. Neutralizer 01:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The title is NPOV again in my opinion NOT "neutral." we are talking about Zawahiri...he is the focus...not the "dead" DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

who is talking about al-Zawahiri, some un-named spook? -Edbrown05 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So many edit
I think this article is going to have to be dumped or something. It has been edited and re-edited and edted some more so many time I think no one knows whats going on anymore. The article was founded, by me, on the basis of breaking news that Zawahiri was targeted in a strike. Thats how the article started and thats how its going to end. If NO ONE can agree on anything in this article (which is Zawahiri was the target...based on the articles sources). If you want to talk about anything else, then start a new article. period. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Nice that you "founded" the article. You display some signs of claiming "ownership" of the article. Let me remind you that for one this is a wiki, meaning that you should not be surprized when others edit "your" articles. Moreover, this particular wiki has policies (e.g. NPOV) in place that bar biased stories from being published. You may want to write a news story with main focus on the 'targetting'. But as this violates NPOV, wikinews is not the right medium for that. Hope that clears things up for you. --vonbergm 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * getting a chuckle from Vonbergm. -Edbrown05 02:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you and your anti-US buddies are the ones trying to take over the article. I started it on the basis of it being Zawahiri was/is the target...as per the sources. You and the others have continuously violated NPOV by insinuating that the news is about the dead civilians which it is not. You have been warned before by MrM. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * If I felt al-Zawahiri wasn't a part of the story, I would not have restored the deleted image of him. I believe the headline, not the article, should not include a reference to him. (BTW, I am not anit-USA, so don't attack me personally) -Edbrown05 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * DragonFire, do not accuse people of bias. It is rude, and it is also true of everyone who writes. The community attempts to work together, regardless of our political differences, by adhering to the NPOV, and being polite. One element of being polite is to only use the -type tags when the article is being actively edited. There have been no edits saved for nearly a half hour, so I am removing it. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Edbrown05, i was not speaking of you. I was speaking of the individual you were talking about that was just blocked and Vonbergm. I disagree with the current title period. The news is about Zawahiri...I do not think the title is for the article. As it stands currently, I do not think that the news is about the 18 dead. I still have and will keep my NPOV...for now. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

actionable objections
Put actionable objections describing why the article/title violates NPOV here. If there aren't any, I will remove the flag. --vonbergm 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to the headline as I said before. You will NOT remove the flag until this issue is resolved COMPLETELY. You are not collaberating with members well on this article at all. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you explain in what way the title is POV, please? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As I have said time and time again, this new article is about Zawahari...thats the main news event that he was a target. The MAIN news is not the 18 dead civilians. whats wrong with "Zawahiri targeted in airstrike. 18 reported dead??? Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Because news is what happens, not what was intended to happen. Zawahri was targeted, but nothing happened to him. On the other hand, 18 people died in a US air strike in Pakistan. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree...and my NPOV still stands. I have to go to work. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Can't see that any reason has been given to explain why the title violates NPOV. Removing the flag until someone can give a good reason. --vonbergm 04:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has been, IMO, just completely trashed with spin. If users are not seeing how, I'll demonstrate: this article was about al-Zawahiri being the target of an attack in Pakistan, says reports.  Within a few hours, the article transformed into a political piece denouncing the US for making the attack, and it can even be interpereted from the current version that the US intentionally called for the attack where women and children will be.  Why do I make these statements?  They're in the article.  It went from a well-written, small bias article to one that is terribly written, accuses a nation of murdering innocents, and highly POV.  I don't think it has to be spelt out any further; this article will forever be doomed if it is not reverted back to an earlier version where the reports claims were the focus of the article.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is in poor condition atm, MrMiscellanious. I don't feel as pessimistic as you, but I strongly disagree that the title is, itself, POV. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I also disagree that the title itself is POV. Frankie Roberto 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * MrM, I agree that it can be read into the article that the US knew ahead of time that women and children would be present. But this is the sad REALITY of this situation, where one completely flattens several houses to kill one person it MUST BE EXPECTED that women and children will die in the process. There is nothing wrong with the article reflecting that. As US senators have said on Sunday, this is the regrettable reality of this situation, arguing that killing innocents is a neccessary byproduct of hunting for terrorists. You may disagree with such practices, but that does not change the fact that this is happening. And about the title and the "focus of the article". Making Zawahari the focus of the article plainly constitutes North-American bias. Imagine Switzerland bombing a couple of houses in LA, killing several inocent people while "targeting" a terrorist who most likely was not in the vicinity. Would you consider that the "news" would be that Switzerland "targeted" a terrorist? --vonbergm 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And the only erronious information that I can find in the current version of the article is the implication that DNA test will be performed on the victimes. But this is probably ok as it reflects the reporting that was available at the time that the main development of the article happened. --vonbergm 04:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a specious argument. al-Zawahri is believed to be in the region of Persia, which includes southern Afghanistan and much of Pakistan. The cracked eggs argument is appropriate, but the swiss comparison is not. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * :-) Sadly, there is more than one terrorist on this planet, so if picturing al-Zawahri in LA is too hypothetical in this hypothetical scenario, just imagine the word "terrorist" as referring to some other terrorist. But I agree that the comparison is not entirely fair for several reasons, but the point here is how news is perceived depending on whether you sit on the side with the trigger or looking down the barrel. Wikinews should take both perspectives into consideration, weighted not by where the editor is located but by the severity of the situation. With 18 people, including several clearly innocent ones, dead, it is clear that for wikinews the focus cannot be the "target" (although it remains part of the story). --vonbergm 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As the 3RR does not allow me to revert this article any more times, I will do nothing more than to say that I am extremely disappointed in the Wikinewsies who have saturated this article with bias. I am even more disappointed that even after the article was complete and finished, users chose to ignore WN:NOT and the NPOV policy. I hope this is not a continuing fashion, otherwise we will have major issues on our hands. I also hope that users choose not to take the method that they have on this talk page, either. It is showing bias if users chose to turn a story about a target into the victims. The article was focused on the reports, this new article is focused on the atrocities. I can't help but to think there's some reason for that. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 12:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This article has been smashed and torn apart. I am continuing my NPOV on the headline and on the info now in the article. I believe this article was changed and edited to the point where it is not even a valid article anymore and possibly contains misleading info...or false statements. I vote for this article to be either majorly edited in a non bias form and changed back to the news at hand, Zawahiri being the target, and not to focus on the victims. This article was created on the basis of Zawahiri and it has been changed to focus on only one point of view...the victims. That is bias. I continue my NPOV. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * So you are saying we should ignore the victims, and just say "Yeah, Zawahiri was the target. Oh well, he wasn't there, maybe next time. Too bad about the precious missile that was wasted." --Deprifry|+T+ 14:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * when the article was first written it stated both the victims and Zawahiri. I am saying that we need to focus on what the article was initially about which is Zawahiri being the target. We were NOT bias in the begining and it was a clear cut article until all these edits went on. Someone started a new article on the victims. So I think that we need to go back to the issue here..Zawahiri. When the article was posted as the top story it was FINISHEd and needed no more editing. It first started as a pic dispute then it went on and on and on and got so messed up that at its CURRENT state, its nothing and is as far as I am concerned, misleading info and smashed to bits. I also still site my NPOV on the headline. Read all the disputes on this page too. You will see that this article turned into an editing nightmare. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Large parts of the article still focus on the alleged targeting of Zawahiri. The very same event caused the death of 18, probably innocent, people. Omitting that fact would be highly POV. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The title is bias. And the article is chopped. In my opinion its not even an article. The title is bias. Totally one sided. It should read "Aman Al-Zawahiri targeted in airstrike. 18 reported dead." <--perfect. That new title states both sides...the facts...fact 1) Zawahiri was targeted. fact 2) 18 reported dead. There is NO bias there. The article itself, in my opinion, is chopped to bits and needs a MAJOR re-write to be reported on the sources in the article. Not a POV. We are reporting here, not stating our opinions. What a poor collaberation this was. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * I would have no problem with a title that somehow mentions Zawahiri. However keep in mind that the U.S government has not officially confirmed the actions which by precedent on this site would warrant a "allegedly", that titles ought to be short and that we don't use periods in them. And I believe the death of 18 civilians is far bigger news than the not-death of a terrorist. Regarding the article: It probably won't win a Pulizer Price but I highly dispute the claim that it does state an opinion. It does not. It is a collection of facts. Whether they are very cleverly sorted and put is certainly open to debate but it is not POV. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I think the article is chopped and misleading. thats my opinion. And i still cite a NPOV on the headline. It is too bias as it is. And I still request a complete re-write of the article. Dragonfire1024 is Jason Safoutin

minor cleanups
I've tried to clean up the intro based upon DragonFire's complaints. I've left two bits in html comments which probably need to be worked into their respective paragraphs. Maybe it would be best to fork the article on Pakistan's objections into a new article, and just have one paragraph talking about it here, plus a related news link? Nyarlathotep 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe the objections are too integrated with the method of attack, which is the issue here, but I'm not sure why they are really. Nyarlathotep 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My dispute is with the headline as well. I do not like it. The headline is totally one sided. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 17:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Also...the article looks good. Now if we can just get the headline changed...I still think "Ayman al-Zawahiri targeted in airstrike, 18 reported dead" <---non bias, tells BOTH ends of the incident. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Headline
PERFECT! It's done...NO MORE EDITING...we need to creat a no edit flag or something. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

"U.S. airstrike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead" sounds a bit too passive to me. How about U.S. airstrike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri kills 18 people? (although personally I thought the original 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan was fine) Frankie Roberto 17:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I vote NO to that. I do not think Kill is appropriate...in my opinion it sounds too personal like the strike killed them INTENTIONALLY. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Nahh, "kills" is fine, but "leaves 18 dead" is fine too, both are neutral. Nyarlathotep 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about 18 killed in U.S. air strike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan then? (Think we should still keep the country name in the headline, thinking about it) Frankie Roberto 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

DragonFire1024, I'm not going to muck with it, but here is my prioritization of the information: I might even rate Pakistan above U.S., although U.S. comes free with airstrike, so its a moot point. Anyway, my point is that Pakistan really deserves mention more than Ayman al-Zawahiri, as they are the location of the bombing. So obviously I also prefered 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan, but 18 killed in U.S. air strike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan is fine too. Nyarlathotep 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) 18 dead by airstrike
 * 2) US or CIA airstrike
 * 3) village in Pakistan
 * 4) Ayman al-Zawahiri was targeted


 * Inclusion of country names can be tricky, but I think the addition should keep everyone happy. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good. "U.S. anti-terrorism airstrike on Pakistani villiage leaves 18 dead" or "18 killed in U.S. air strike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan" might also work.  Nyarlathotep 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. I am happy. I think it looks good. IF there is no more dispute for either of the 2, then shall I remove the tags??? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin


 * Again the targetting issue... Adding the "target" information into the headline disproportionally elevates the "targetting" over the innocent deths and constitutes north-american bias as explained by several people above. On top of that we don't even have reliable information on who pulled the trigger, let along who decided what the target should be, so there is no basis for the facutal nature of the assertion that some person was a "target". Moreover the title is implying that the missiles somehow malfunctioned as they apparently did not explode anywhere near their intended "target", an assertion not backed by the sources. It people want to talk about a "target" then it was the "location", namely the home of the villagers that died. If you really want to insist that people were targeted, then it was the villagers. You might want to talk about "intentions" of killing al-Zawahiri with the missile, if you really feel that this has a significant enough impact on the story that it warrants beeing displayed in the headline. --vonbergm 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look...This has gone far enough. I think its fine the way it is. I think we butchered it, edited and butchered it some more and edited enough times. All sources LISTED IN THE ARTICLE state Zawahiri is/was a target. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Two possible middle grounds are "18 killed in U.S. air strike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri in Pakistan" or "U.S. anti-terrorism airstrike on Pakistani villiage leaves 18 dead". The perks of the 2nd are that it mentions exactly the verifiable or safely assumable information and places "leaves 18 dead" in a position of distinction at the end of the title.  The perks of the 1st are that it mentiones everything which is currently mentioned.  Whatever. Nyarlathotep 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't object to the current one, but I do understand why people might want to bring out the 18 deaths more. Nyarlathotep 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There is another article for the 18 deaths. Elaborate more extensively on the victims in that artile. We cannot go any further with the way the article is currently written. I am sorry but I think the headline is FINE just the way it is. I also think the article is FINE the way it is. I think this is the closest we have been to to agreeing on this article, and this is probably the closeest we will get. Everything is fine with the way it looks right now. It is totally neutral as far as I am concerned. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 1:51PM January 16, 2006 (EST)
 * Nyarlathotep, I don't believe that this is a matter of taste, but one of NPOV and factual reporting.
 * Factual issues: Please explain to me how a missile "tagetting" Zawahiri can explode nowhere near Zawahiri, unless it was grossly malfunctioning (which is not backed by any of the sources).
 * NPOV issues: Assuminng that the title is fixed to read "U.S. airstrike allegedly intended to kill Ayman al-Zawahiri instead leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village", which at least makes it factually accurate. How do you explain to someone outside of the US media bubble the prominent display of the "intentions", that can't even be independently verified, when on the other hand it supresses information like the fact that this constitutes a unilateal military attack on a territory of a sovereign nation without a declaration of war? Imagine to substitute Pakistan for Switzerland, and think of how Europe would perceive the headline. But of course Pakistan is not Switzerland... --vonbergm 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zawahiri was supposed to be at the compound...but decided not to show up. Sources in the article say that. Read them. So therefore they were targeting Zawahiri. Second, the title you are suggesting is too long. This is an article. not a book or a thesis. The headline is FINE just as it is. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 2:51PM January 16, 2006
 * vonbergm, Your lanague sanitization suggestions seem reasonable. Nyarlathotep 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

vonbergm, Here are two peaces of strategic advice:
 * 1) DragonFire1024 is the one you really have to convince, pay attention to his opinions.
 * 2) Pakistanis condemn US attack on civilians should grow into a seperate article covering this aspect, but it could easly be abandonded, while continuing to provide an excuse for this article to slight such condemnation.  If you have more cross-linked article on a topic, it means they show up in RSS on more days, garnering more attention, so just focus on the other one.

Alright, it seems my previous favorite titles are out, which is fine as I have a new favorite:
 * "U.S. airstrike, targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri, kills 18 Pakistani villagers"

Good variations include eliminating the commas (I'm neutral), saying "allegedly targetting" (meh), and saying "leaves 18 Pakistani villagers dead" (neutral). Thoughts? Nyarlathotep 20:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I think the headline is just fine. There is nothing more to fix in this article in my opinion. The headline states both sides of the issue as well as the article. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Don't worry, I'm not going to move it. But you really don't think that "U.S. airstrike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 Pakistani villagers dead" reads better than "U.S. airstrike targetting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village"? Nyarlathotep 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The headline, as it is at this moment is the best one. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
 * Headline is great. Article is great...how about the tags now????thoughts??? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Article gone??

 * After I click on the discussions tab on the article...the article tab goes red and the article disappears...whats wrong with that???? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

It looks like MrM tried to fix the spelling, but only moved the talk page. I tried to move teh article as well, but it didn't fix it. Nyarlathotep 21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Oh, wait, yes it did. browser cashe maybe. Nyarlathotep 21:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for some reason it periodically gets "stuck" like that. Refreshing does the trick :).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

All clear for publishing?
Does anyone have any objections to this being published? -- user:zanimum
 * jeez, let's get this published! -Edbrown05 02:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been set to have it published for a few hours now. So should I remover the tags?..sorry I was napping earlier. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin


 * Per your post on Neutralizer's talk page, DragonFire1024, I am unclear if your comment was directed at me or Neutralizer. If it was directed to me, I stand by my belief that until more official information became available that I was opposed to the al-Zawahiri name appearing in headline. That stance now seems silly given events that have occurred since then. (And please don't suggest that I should be able to peer into the crystal ball as you and all those other media sources can)
 * But it appears to me, out of deference to those objections that you also played a role in halting the publication of the story over an insistence to include the target's name. Vonbergm and myself are now on board, and Neutralizer, well he has personal reasons for his position, and he is also in a position where he can only edit his user page. My point as much as anything is that you played a role in being intransient on this.
 * I think you should clear tags and publish (or I will). The zanimum question was does anyone object and I don't see any objections here . -Edbrown05 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. My cooment were inteneded for Neutralizer. I WANT it to be published...I have been tryting to do that since the story broke. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Just so you know, I wasn't going to object to its publication at any point. I rarely object to the publication of anything readable and vaguely NPOV, as I agree with Eloquence:


 * Generally, I think the right reaction with issues of balance is to fix them yourself instead of putting an article into dispute. Perhaps I will be able to articulate this view into a policy proposal. It is very important to me that dispute tags cannot be used as a sort of filibuster until an article is no longer relevant: We must be able to report on controversial issues that push people's buttons, whether it's left wing, right wing, or postmodernism.

Anyway, you should be aware that republication is the most effective way to get further comments from editors who tag&dash. So you really can't be shy about publishing articles! However, you should make good faith efforts to deal with other editors objections before publishing, you don't have to succeed, but you'll piss people off if you don't try. Also, if your emotionally involved in an article, and try to accomodate changes another editor requests, you might want to delay republication yourself, just to give yourself more time to think about it. Nyarlathotep 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected Category:Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Ali Rana (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)