Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

This was obviously not just "another death" in afghanistan. It has prompted worldwide headlines. and also comments from hgih ranking people sutch as the british prime minister.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This may be an item for Wikinews but this fails the long term notability requirements for encyclopaedic biographies. The incident may or may not become notable if it can be demonstrated to have long lasting historic impact. See WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Fæ (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to smell like a case of double standard. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your comment or was it just intended to be offensive? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No. and I have responded on the Afd. I think you know what I mean:) thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Article scope

I note that biographical information includes the names of Norgrove's parents. I propose that this level of personal detail is trimmed, particularly to avoid naming others not directly involved in the terrorist incident and who would not otherwise be notable. Obviously her job and basic details seem relevant to explain why she was in Afghanistan but this article has been justified as being notable and renamed on the basis of being primarily about the terrorist action that lead to her death and any consequent response, it should not become a biography or a memorial page. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think personally that the article in its current version is best to keep. Her parents have themselves decided to go public with their opinions on their daughters death so.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your hostility to the article; you're coming off as being simply contrarian. Her basic biographical background (and so the mention of her parents by name) is not subject to the same notability criteria of a full length article. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Babba and Tom.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

She was killed by Americans

BBC News: October 11th 2010 British aid worker Linda Norgove was accidentally killed by US forces during a rescue mission in Afghanistan, David Cameron has said. US forces there originally said the 36-year-old died on Friday when one of her captors detonated a vest. But the PM said new details had come to light saying that her death was caused by a US grenade. He said he had spoken to her family about the "deeply distressing" news.

Yes, I added that to the article in the edit before yours :) I have removed your edit because "it became apparent" is IMO not quite what the source is saying :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

News coverage

• "Abducted aid workers freed". Pajhwok.com. 4 October 2010. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
• Richard James (26 September 2010). "UK aid worker Linda Norgrove killed in Afghanistan". Daily mail. Retrieved 9 October 2010.
• British aid worker was killed by bomb vest blast during afghanistan rescue bid

Note, removing sources on the basis of them being articles in a "tabloid" is a very poor rationale as it is based on your personal opinion as to what constitutes a quality paper (as almost all UK national papers became tabloid format some years ago). Could you please clearly explain your rationale for removing these sources which may well illuminate the public interest in this kidnapping and death? It would also help if you signed your comments and explained why you have listed three sources in this section. Fæ (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not related to the physical format, but to the approach of reporting: e.g. superficial, sensationalist, narrow, ahistorical perspective. exempli gratia read the Guardian article establishing context about recent events surrounding three British aid worker in the location in question. Daily express "contextualised" what type of pet the victim had in her juvenile home with her sibling... Mootros (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Fae. Bring it to the RS noticeboard if you think it is not an RS -- otherwise, pls don't delete based on POV.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Perhaps you may care to review a selection of "good articles" and see what type of references prevail. Mootros (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've written a number, so feel a slight familiarity with the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Good man! Mootros (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the style of the Guardian and the Daily Express are so very different is a good reason to include both as sources on her background, not a reason to delete the one you feel is sensationalist. A wide selection of sources is what we should be going for, not what our prejudices lead us to believe gives a better historical perspective. In particular it is common for articles about an event of significant media attention to include sources reflecting the nature of public interest, this may well include sources that diverge into personal trivia and opinion pieces. Fæ (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources note

There is no need to source one sentence with about 4 refs. Use the minimal references you need to source the whole sentence - if it is covered in one reference, just use that :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources are encouraged, particularly for complex or controversial events. There are no guidelines advising against adding sources unless they fail WP:RS or the article is in danger of becoming an arbitrary directory of sources. However, I'm happy to be proved wrong if you can point to an authoritative guideline (i.e. not an essay or discussion page).

You may consider the fact that a BBC webpage as a single source may be quite inappropriate for a dynamic Wikipedia article as it can be seen to be changing in content as the day progresses and the citation does not limit itself to a particular timed version. Fæ (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but 4 sources for one simple sentence is major overkill and makes the article difficult to parse. The best approach is to source adequately and add sources if content is challenged; if it is a single sentence two sources are usually sufficient. For example the completely uncontroversial content She was in Afghanistan at the time of her death working for aid organization Development Alternatives Inc, also known as DAI, which rebuilds businesses and infrastructure in developing nations, on an irrigation project is currently cited 4 times.... :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be your personal preference for style. It would be helpful if you could point to any consensus or guideline that limits the number of footnotes against a item to less than four or considers four footnotes to be an overkill. Unless you can do so, or create such a consensus locally, I suggest you avoid deleting valid alternative sources based on your personal taste. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh... well I argue that there is no guideline encouraging as many sources as possible, in which case the style guidelines come into play and we should aim for readable material. Prove to me we need to over cite the content and I will agree, otherwise I disagree. You will note I have not deleted sources, simply placed them as references. Per WP:V there is no requirement to intricately inline-cite every sentence, only stuff likely to be challenged. Remember we are writing for readers so please always try to consider them first. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would consider the readers by adding alternative sources. Four citations for controversial material is not considered excessive by any guideline, MOS included. I am not suggesting a massive string of footnotes as good practice but your deletion of a reliable source when there were two footnotes to leave the BBC as a single source was not adequately justified and could have waited until you were ready to add a better quality alternative source. Asking me to "prove" a need to "over-cite content" is a blatantly loaded question making it clear that you intend to disagree no matter that you are the one deleting content without the support of any consensus or guideline. Based on your reply I can see little benefit in discussing further so I shall ask for a third opinion instead. Fæ (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there were three sources. One I took a quote from to make another sentence (which it sourced). The other I deleted because it was largely irrelevant, it was an editorial about Cameron. The BBC source was entirely OK for what was cited, and I stand by that! When I asked you to "prove to me" I was referring to this argument you used to oppose my opionion: There are no guidelines advising against adding sources, this is a fallacious argument because it is not an argument for using large numbers of inline citations. But you presented your opinion as being the policy, so I was hoping you could link me to the relevant policy :) I believe WP:V is quite clear in supporting my point, but something may trump it! Why is it necessary to inline cite the fact she worked for X aid agency 4 times? Answer: it is not. (it doesn't even have to be inline cited even once, as pointed out to me today elsewhere :)) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this change where your change removed The Telegraph as a source, five minutes after I added it as a citation, which was explicitly about Cameron's speech and instead left the statement reliant on the BBC as a single source against that text. V does not support your claim that more than three footnotes would be considered "major overkill".

I have already asked for a third opinion.

At no point have I presented my opinion as policy, please do not misrepresent my statements. Fæ (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, (I apologise) but by saying It would be helpful if you could point to any consensus or guideline that limits the number of footnotes against a item to less than four or considers four footnotes to be an overkill. Unless you can do so, or create such a consensus locally, I suggest you avoid deleting valid alternative sources based on your personal taste. strongly implied that there was a current policy or consensus supporting your point and opposing mine. You told me I was wrong with some force and told me to desist, which again implied a policy backing. If none exists I think that both are personal opinion, and in fact mine is backed strongly by WP:V, which says that but in practice not everything need actually be attributed, so most of the content may not need inline citation anyway. Policy and guidelines require adequate sourcing to verify content; there is nothing I can find that encourages multiple redundant citations for non-controversial sources/material. In terms of the change; take another look at the source - it is an opinion peace about Cameron, his reaction and how people might view it. The actual content it was supposed to support, the fact that she may have been killed by a US grenade, is only trivially touched on and in insufficient detail to support the content :). Such commentary might be interesting/relevant but I couldn't think of a good way to get it in without violating WP:UNDUE. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to be clear on this (after reading your 3O comment); the reason for removing the source had nothing to do with there being too many sources but related to the citations content/focus. What I was saying was that the other 2 citations sensibly supported the content and there is no need to overload the sentence with citations that only trivially deal with the content because it affects readability. The content was well and indisputably sourced. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• On balance, I agree with Fae's views on this issue of citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, did tend toward Wikipedia:CITEKILL. Mootros (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi there, I found this article because someone requested a third opinion involving this dispute. Both editors have good points here: it is important to have a readable article, and excessive cites and wikilinks certainly do detract from this. However, it is also extremely important to have well-cited articles. I'd like to draw both your attention to Wikipedia:Cite#"Bundling" citations, and the related essay Citation Overkill: it is possible to bundle multiple citations for one or more statements in to a single footnote, but have that footnote give all of the citations in the references section. For a good example of this, see Intelligent Design, where the topic is so controversial and highly visible that many statements in the lede have 5 or more citations, but they are bundled together so it does not drastically affect readability.
As for the actual quantity of citations: if the statement is non-controversial, and one source adequately supports that entire statement, I would be inclined to stick with using just that one source. However, if it is controversial, or requires multiple sources to support the statement (be careful of WP:SYNTH), I would recommend keeping some, if not all, of the sources so its accuracy is not challenged in the future.
I'll be following this article for the next few days, so please keep any subsequent comments on this talk page. Thanks, Mildly Mad^T_C 19:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mootros (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bundled some citations as per CITEKILL in this edit, I'm open to suggestions as to best options for layout formatting. Fæ (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that extremely important to have well-cited articles is something I 100% agree with. But also 100% entirely wrong, or so I was told by a large group of editors yesterday. I was told that, basically, there is no requirement to inline cite anything unless it is challenged or likely to be challenged. In fact it was said, basically, that there is no need for sources on the article so long as the content is verifiable that is enough. I was surprised by this to say the least.

As to the rest; I entirely agree, thanks for putting more eloquently what I said with a massive clumpy boot (sorry) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The statements are not contradictory. Citations do not have to be footnoted if it is obvious what the information is based on and in fact if the information itself is blatantly obvious then it need not have a source (unless/until challenged). For example a short BLP that has no footnotes but the text includes a reference to their autobiography (or official website/blog) where the information is easily verifiable might be seen as fine and meeting the guidelines for verifiability. As soon as other contributors start questioning the exact page certain bits of information come from, it rapidly becomes apparent that footnotes provide an easy and practical solution compared to explaining this each time in excruciating detail in the body of the document. I believe that all current Featured articles have footnotes and I would be very intrigued to see an example that does not. Fæ (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, however it is policy that only challenged, or possibly challenged, text and quotes must be sourced directly. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Your meaning is not quite clear and there are exceptions. If by "directly" you mean in-line then even when challenged there is no hard requirement to source information in-line as you may use any method of clarification in order to meet the guidelines of V, so long as any challenge is resolved or a consensus reached. It is also true that BLPPROD exists, which means that BLPs should now never exist without at least one source. In the case of any controversial subject such as this article, it can safely be assumed that almost all information needs to have a related (quality) reliable source. Fæ (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No, by directly I mean no source needed to be listed on the article at all (the actual phrase used to explain this to me was "as long as we are able to verify the information, we are not required to actually do so"). Weird huh? EDIT: by no source, I meant for specific content.. the consensus was that a source was required to establish notability, although that was not cut and dried in the case notability that could trivially be verified --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds badly expressed to me. With these issues I invariably find it helpful to re-read Five pillars which represents our core consensus of what Wikipedia is all about. The phrase you quote appears to potentially be in conflict with pillar number 2 where it can be read as requesting references for "all articles" and warns quite clearly that "unreferenced material may be removed". This does not necessarily imply that unsourced articles should always be deleted or even that they should be challenged. Fæ (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nice catch on the pillars wording there. I'll buzz that into the conversation, it's on WT:V btw and from that perspective they say WP:V is very clear in not requiring it --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting. Errant is correct, WP:V does not appear to explicitly state that all information must be directly sourced (in line with WP:PRESERVE), but IMO the general consensus for "best practice" is to (within reason) give citation for information whenever you can. Mildly Mad^T_C 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please take care with the wording. The 2nd pillar does not say information must be sourced but it does request that articles have sources and warn that unsourced information may be removed. Consequently under the 5P guidelines, if you say in an article that "the sky is blue" and I delete it because it is unsourced, you should not revert my deletion without supplying a suitable source as requested (or even gripe about such a trivial deletion).

Interesting chat but we probably are drifting off-topic and any further follow-up would be better placed at WT:V as mentioned. Fæ (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

In the news

When the Afd is closed I would suggest that this article is put into the In the news section on the Wikipedia front page,as it is the kind of article that would fit into that section. And it is about a current subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Already listed under WP:ITN/C (October 11th) though most comments currently oppose. Fæ (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Could be made into either. She was covered as to at least two events -- her kidnapping, and her killing.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Rescue notice

Can we remove the distracting rescue notice from the top of the article? It seems a bit pointy considering the number of editors positively contributing to the article over the last week and there seems little danger that the AfD will result in a deletion. Rescue notices are normally used for articles with low profiles but good prospects for improvement, not high profile articles that have obviously already had major improvement. Fæ (talk) 09:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Though ... the same can be said of AfDs. Can someone snow close that, for the same reason?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Page type

Is this a "people page" or is it an event page? If it's a people page, then the name should be altered to just "Linda Norgrove". If it's an event page, then some categories should be removed. The event can hardly count as a humanitarian, a 1974 birth, a 2010 death, etc. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an event page, this fails as a biography per WP:BLP1E. I disagree 2010 death is inappropriate, but the other two categories you are possibly right on. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, there are probably other more apposite categories for this sort of event and most of the person-focussed ones should go. Fæ (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Would support either an event and/or person page. Two events, at least (kidnapping, killing). And wp is replete with articles on terrorists and terror victims famous for one event.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E and WP:OTHERSTUFF, if those other biographies exist they are an exception to the rule. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And wp;blp1e says "if that person ... is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. ... If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate.... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

And wp:otherstuff says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this."

It is because of these two concepts that we have all these articles. Otherwise, the Times Square bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and countless others would not have articles, and would not withstand AfDs.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Location "controversy" about the picture of Norgrove

Someone claimed that there is a controversy about where the picture of Norgrove was taken and therefore feels the need to reference the caption of this picture with a News of the World citation of their caption of the original picture.[1] Citing captions is not normal done unless they state controversial facts. The picture itself does not even state where the image was taken. What do other people think about the unnecessary and uncommon referencing of captions? 15:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be yourself that used the word controversial in the referenced discussion rather than someone else. The NoW citation was the original publicly published source of the photograph and the only place where the location and confirmation of who the photograph is actually of is verifiable. Without such a citation, the caption of where the photograph was taken and the photograph itself (as it is not actually referenced in the text) would be subject to deletion. It took some time to upload and justify (using NFCI) the photograph, it would be a pity to have it removed on such arbitrary grounds.

Including footnotes in captions is hardly unusual, I suggest you take a look through some featured articles before making such a claim. Fæ (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Today at 09:48 you said[2]:

“ Inclusion of this photo is controversion ”

It is not unusual to cite captions for controversial facts! Either way, all facts in captions need to be cited in the main text. You have not cited this fact in the main text. Mootros (talk)

(edit conflict × 10000)It does appear that nowhere else verifies the location this image was taken (although, I only checked byt flicking through the sources on this page). On the other hand we have verified the fact, so there is not technically much need for the citation. There is a reasonable argument that as this is the only source to verify the image caption it is worth preserving it for posterity, in the case that someone does question the image. But I don't think it really matters either way. Certainly it does not seem worth "edit warring" over :) As a point of order, facts/info in captions come under the same verification criteria as the rest of the article - so if the caption text is not cited in the article and it is challenged it can be cited in the caption. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry about the ec, I try not to post edit) All information in captions should be in the main text. Information about the picture itself should go to the actual page of the picture. Mootros (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All information in captions should be in the main text., no mention of this on WP:CAPTION :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You have confused my edit comment about the controversial photograph of Siddiqui with the photograph of Norgrove. I previously said that people might make this mistake and you have rather proved my point, thanks.

As for you statement that "all facts in captions need to be cited in the main text", I know of no guidance that states this. It would be helpful if you could point to where you got this guidance from as a number of Featured articles must be in conflict with it. Fæ (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I just saw the message you left on my page. I thought the issue was solved, by you clarifying that the fact that photo was taken in Afganisant is NOT controverisal. There is no controversy about this; hence we can remove this reference from the caption of the photo. I made a concession --listening to your and others concern that it would be nice to know where this information comes from, and moved the information about the photo itself where it belongs: i.e. the page of the image. Mootros (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving the reference for information about the photograph of Norgrove to other pages

Deleting the same reference for the fourth time on the basis that the citation has been moved to the image page is not supported by policy of any kind. It is a well established precedent that citations must be in the article for which they apply, one cannot assume that other pages on Wikipedia will be constantly maintained to be consistent. As previously pointed out, if the citation is to make claims about the photograph, such as where it was taken, this is not self-evident by looking at the photograph. The information has been supported with a citation in line with WP:5P#2 as discussed here and on the user talk page referenced above. As this is the fourth deletion within 24 hours this appears to be direct edit warring. As per the guidelines I shall apply the WP:3RR process should this not be corrected or occur again as rational discussion appears to have failed. Fæ (talk) 10:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, as long as the information can be verified there is no policy requiring citations here in the article. So it is fine for it to be on the image page. Honestly, this strikes me as a rather silly thing to be arguing about! Is anyone challenging the assertion? It doesn't appear that way? It was indicated to me that 5P is an essay discussing the broad overview and not policy, so WP:V is the one to follow. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If 5P were an essay then it would be templated as such. V states "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". The information has been challenged more than once (by me) and 5P and V are both clear that references are required. I note that your "Nah" comment does not give a rationale for waiving the 3RR policy. Fæ (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I make no comment on 3RR, clearly that is a problem needing redress. I'd question why you are challenging the material; it is clearly and patently verified and does not look to be something that would be challenged in the future. WP:V is not a license to challenge something with the aim of getting an inline citation. If you accept the verified nature of the information there is little real argument for keeping the citation. And, once again, I fail to see why this is such a major issue :) it doesn't seem worth it --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Without a citation the photograph would have no context. It is highly relevant that the photograph was taken while Norgrove was in Afghanistan and this is not obvious by looking at the photograph or common-sense information that might not require a source. The policy you have quoted (V) states unambiguously that an inline citation is required (not a vague reference to another Wikipedia article) and based on your assumption that 5P was some sort of essay makes your summary of the guidelines seem doubtful (see the first paragraph of WP:POLICY). To claim that once information is verified we can delete the sources is plainly not supported by policy. Fæ (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors in good standing informed me 5P's are not policy. They are tennets/principles, but the expansion on that page is an essay. WP:V does not require citations for everything. Just that everything can be attributed to a valid reference. Does this matter? For us, the editors, the information is successfully validated, so it is allowable to go in. The idea of inline citation is to address material that is likely to be continually challenged by editors - and thus to avoid persistent discussions/reversion etc. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 11:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have never suggested that we require citations for everything, please do not make it appear that I am making such a claim. I have explained why I have challenged the information as you wanted to know, though the policy makes it clear that any unsourced information may be subject to deletion. You do not disagree with the policy of V but you still think that 5P is probably an essay. You have your own ideas on what matters and when inline citations should be used. I have explained how repeated deletion of this citation is a violation of V, 5P and now of 3RR. You no longer appear to disagree with my interpretation and have reduced your argument to your opinion of whether it matters. My opinion differs to yours and happens to be supported by policy and the fundamental principles rather than just being my opinion. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

but you still think that 5P is probably an essay; no, I think it should be policy. But according to the community it is a set of principles expanded to an essay overview, and I cannot prove them wrong (despite trying). though the policy makes it clear that any unsourced information may be subject to deletion; incorrect. It says Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, important difference. Your challenge on the photograph (this is not obvious by looking at the photograph or common-sense information that might not require a source) is insufficient. Fair enough it is not possible to ascertain from the photo where it was taken. But the information and verification is one click away, and that is easily sufficient under WP:V. There is not a binary problem here; the information certainly does not qualify as "the sky is blue" but equally it is uncontentious and unlikely to be challenge (and sourced in the image page) so WP:V does not require it to be cited inline. In addition you are not challenging the content, just challenging the removal of the source, so it's not really challenged material. A common sense application of WP:V is probably best here. It is inefficient to focus on trivial matters when we still have a stack of un-required duplicate referencing an some copyediting to work on :) (this is a common problem) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested to remove the information that the image of Norgrove is in Afghanistan. The caption fits perfectly well and contextualised her distinct appearance in the photo. Mootros (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Aafia Siddiqui

I note this grainy image has been re-added. I removed it as it seemed tangential to the article subject to include such a photo (after all the Prime Minister, high ranking military, regional areas etc. could all be illustrated with rather pointless thumbnails) and at first glance the photo is easily mistaken as being intended to be a portrait of Norgrove (which would be rather nice to have and may even be justifiable under WP:NFCI). Could we reach a consensus to keep or remove? Fæ (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Might be useful, once we start developing the much needed serious context analysis in form of sections that move us a way from the single focus of the victim. At the moment, I fully agree it looks rather overwhelmingly out of context, probably like the rest of article Mootros (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that in an article about the kidnapping and subsequent killing of a person, the fact that her kidnappers say she would only be released for Siddiqui makes AS highly relevant, and her photo completely relevant. The analogy to the Prime Minister is not IMHO a good one -- he is clearly less relevant. Same w/high ranking military. Here, we were told that the quid pro quo for the release was AS. The fact that the photo is grainy does not bear on its relevance; nor does the fact that we do not have a pic of Norwood (which I agree would be good to have, and no doubt would address some of your concern). The caption clearly makes clear that the person in the photo is not Norgrove. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You should note that (as per the sources currently footnoted) these claims about the negotiation are based on a single report from a local Taliban news organization, the Afghan Islamic Press which describes itself as part of an anti-Soviet jihad and cannot be considered an independent reliable source. To say this is "a fact" about what the kidnappers said is tenuous and is a weak justification for this poor quality photograph of Siddiqui. Again, the photograph introduces undue weight compared to other facts which are very well confirmed from quality sources, such as videos of Cameron making his speech, the geography of the region, Norgrove herself and the US military involved. Any of these topics would be more appropriate for images compared to the suspect "facts" about a link with Siddiqui. Fæ (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Epeefleche.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

1) There is now a pic of Norgrove, addressing one issue. 2) There is now a pic of the geography. 3) See this, for example -- it is not just the Afghan press that has reported this. Since our colleague Moot has deleted many sources from the article, it is not sufficient to rely on those in the article. 4) Just because there should perhaps also be other pics is no reason to delete this appropriate pic.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Scotsman article you refer to, along with all other sources, got their quote from the Afghan Islamic Press. The Scotsman states "an Islamic news agency based in the Pakistan" as their original source for this reason. Again, this photograph represents undue weight as inclusion is based on a single report (albeit then multiply copied) from a highly politically biased source that in its stated objectives as a publication is their on-going jihad. Inclusion of this photograph is tangential and misleading.

If we are going to include information based on what the Afghan Islamic Press state, then we should include their report of claims that Norgrove was still alive on 9 October:

The local Taleban have said that reports about the killing of the kidnapped British woman are wrong. Qari Dawat, a spokesman for the Taleban in [eastern] Konar Province, said that the report by the British government that the kidnapped British woman, Linda Norgrove, had been killed in a rescue operation was wrong. Qari Dawat told AIP [Afghan Islamic Press] at 1630 hours [1200 gmt] by telephone: "The announcement by the British government that Ms Linda, a worker of USAID [US Agency for International Development - as received], who has been kidnapped by the Taleban, has been killed in a rescue operation is completely wrong. Ms Linda is alive. She is safe and sound." He added: "The Taleban have taken Ms Linda to a very safe location and foreigners will never find her." He said that foreigners should hold talks with the Taleban to release her and they should accept the Taleban's conditions for her release. The Taleban kidnapped a British worker of the agriculture branch of USAID [as received], Ms Linda, in the Chawki District of Konar on 26 September and announced some conditions for her release.

— Personally I would not, for the reasons of reliability already stated. Fæ (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not see any evidence in the article that it was based on the Afghan Islamic Press. Your conclusion is based on synth. This has been reported by a number of newspapers at this point.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, number of newspapers have repeated the original statement from the Afghan Islamic Press, I thought that I had made that point. There is no other original source for these quotations from the Taliban. It is not SYNTH to quote information directly from a published source. I strongly object to removing all reference to the Afghan Islamic Press in the section on Siddiqui when they are the source of the information and no other organization claimed to have direct quotes from the Taliban about demands for the release of Siddiqui in exchange for Norgrove.
  • In order to clarify your claim of SYNTH, here are direct quotes from 3 example newspapers more are available if needed:
    1. Hindustan Times, September 27, 2010: Osman told the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP), based in Peshawar in northeastern Pakistan: 'We are lucky that we abducted this British woman soon after the ruthless ruling by an American court on Aafia Siddiqui We will demand the release of Aafia Siddiqui in exchange for her.'
    2. The Evening Standard (London), September 27, 2010: Osman told the Afghan Islamic press: "We are lucky that we abducted this British woman soon after the ruthless ruling by an American court on Aafia Siddiqui. We will demand the release of Aafia Siddiqui in exchange for her."
    3. The Times, September 28: Osman told Afghan Islamic Press: "We are lucky that we abducted this British woman soon after the ruthless ruling by an American court on Aafia Siddiqui. We will demand the release of Aafia Siddiqui in exchange for her." —Fæ (talk) 23:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
• It is either synth or OR for you to claim that all the sources base their information on the AIP. I've shown that above, and in the refs in the article. More than one newspaper has reported that information without indicating that they were sourcing it to the AIP -- perhaps the AIP was sourcing it to them, or they were all sourcing it to the Taliban. There is no reason to name the AIP, the Scottish paper, the Lebanese paper, and so on, and so on. And nothing indicates that those that do not mention the AIP were basing their report on the AIP. You're simply assuming that. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The Scotsman's quote on October 10th is "Speaking to an Islamic news agency based in the Pakistan city of Peshawar, Osman boasted: "We are lucky that we abducted this British woman so soon after the ruthless ruling by an American court on Aafia Siddiqui. We will demand the release of Siddiqui in exchange for her." This is two weeks after the identical quote is published by the above sources. You appear to be attempting to misapply SYNTH which clearly states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It is explicitly stated by multiple sources that were the first to carry the story that the AIP was the source of this quote. No other source is explicitly claimed by any of the other publications. Your claim of SYNTH against me appears frivolous. Fæ (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Where does the Daily Star name the AIP? Where? Tell me. Where does the Scotsman name the AIP -- and how do you know that the only Islamic newspaper in the city of Peshawar in the "Islamic State of Agfghanistan" is AIP"? Without engaging in synth or OR?--Epeefleche (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That was precisely my point, these sources do not claim AIP is the source and they do not claim anyone else either. By saying "not explicitly stated by any of the sources", it is clear that if one of the sources does explicitly state it then SYNTH is irrelevant. I have provided three reliable sources which explicitly state that AIP is the source of the statement and no other source claims the statement originates from anywhere else. Consequently SYNTH does not apply. If you still disagree I suggest a formal dispute resolution process as I cannot think of how to explain to you why SYNTH is irrelevant any more clearly than this. Fæ (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not being clear. You have no reason to say that the Daily Star received its information from AIP. Rather than directly. Or from another source. You simply do not know that. The Daily Star does not have to tell you its source -- RS articlea are replete with information where the specific source is not mentioned. That is normal. It does not allow you to make the enormous jump of "Oh, paper x says their source was y, so it must certainly have been the source for paper z as well -- even though paper z does not say that".

The same with the Daily Express.[3]

The same with Herald Scotland.[4]

The same with The Telegraph.[5]

The same with the other Scot paper. You do not know that it received its information from AIP. It did not say that. Not at all. You are simply making an OR/synth guess.

Plus, one paper that did in fact base its reporting on the AIP, The Wall Street Journal, said that the AIP "has links to the Taliban". I know you are trying to denigrate the AIP as a source, but a top-level RS not only reported their statement, but bolstered the fact that the AIP would be in the know.[6]

And -- though this is refuting OR/synth with OR, there is no reason to believe that it did not get its information from another islamic news agency in Pakistan. It is full of papers/news agencies that are islamic (e.g., The Daily Mashriq Deeni Edition). You are making leaps of assumptions that are not at ll stated in the RSs as to who the Daily Star, the Scottish paper, etc., are relying on. And your view has not attracted consensus support on this talk page.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting No original research as I explained in my last statement. Your argument of having "no reason" is incorrect as I have already cited 3 reliable sources above (which you have not challenged as incorrect) and these are my reason for saying that the quote from Osman (the Taliban) was given to AIP. No other newspaper has claimed to get such a quote directly or attributed the quote to anyone else. My edit is positively supported by the guidelines of No original research.

Let me slow this down and spell it out one more time.

1. For the guidelines of No original research to apply, there would have to be no sources that explicitly make a statement that supports my edit. If any one source does explicitly make a statement that fully and directly supports my edit then it cannot be considered a synthesis as this would require two or more different statements from sources being combined.
2. My edit was to attribute the claim that the Taliban were attempting to swap Siddiqui for Norgrove to the AIP.
3. I have above supplied 3 sources which individually unambiguously state that the quote from Osman (representing the Taliban) was from the AIP. If we pick one quality source, such as The Times above, to fully source the statement then it is not multiply sourced.
4. The fact that other sources exist which are unclear about who received the original statement from the Taliban does not invalidate The Times as a source and can be ignored unless they claim the source was someone else. If other sources make no statement as to where they get their comment from then this adds no information either way, and there is no reason to consider other sources invalidated. It is not necessary for me to know where the Scotsman got their quote from, so long as it does not conflict with specific source given in The Times. If the Scotsman gives no source (or a vague one) then there is no conflict, only an absence of information in the Scotsman.

In conclusion there can be no synthesis or original research when an edit is made on the basis of a clear uninterpreted statement from one source. Such an edit may then be multiply sourced for additional verification, this does not then make it a synthesis. Fæ (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I feel as though we are talking past each other. The sources indicated in the article above do not all unambiguously state that their source is AIP. Papers that are RSs reported the information. They are not obligated to, and commonly do not, indicate where they got the information from. That is standard fare in reporting. There is no legitimate reason to jump to the conclusion that you jump to, without OR and/or synth. One could always say that one of the sources is the AIP, but that is not what we usually do when we have half a dozen or more articles that support a sentence, 3 of which say that their source is the AIP. But I will give it another look and see what I can do to help you, as I gather that you would like to mention the AIP very much. Perhaps there is a legitimate way to do so, without suggesting that it was the source of all the newspapers reporting based on the AIP (which we do not know to be the case).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

Whoever keeps putting the map back on the left... stop it. It pushes the next header out, which looks awkward, I can't find it atm but I am positive the MOS advises avoiding doing that with images. It looks fine on the right. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things -- one, it doesn't reach as low as the lower header on my screen. Would reducing its size avoid that? I have no problem keeping images to the right where the result is header disarray. Otherwise, for two reasons the left is best. First, as MOS used to say (was there discussion changing it very recently? I had not seen it) it is best to alternate pix. Second, as where a person in a pic is looking one way, we have that look inward, moving the pic accordingly. By analogy, the relevant part of the map is on the right, which is closest to the center when we move the pic to the left.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well as I said on talk. WP:IMAGES says most images should go on the right. I've always agreed with this advice because it looks best on pretty much all screensizes. Left aligned images usually break something. The MOS does not, to my knowledge, suggest alternating pictures (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images). And at my screen size (22") it breaks the header. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The resized image still broke layout, but it was very very close :) so I stuck in a {{clear}} which fixes it. Good compromise. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Perfect. FYI, the MOS on images has for years suggested alternating images as a general rule, subject to exceptions. Not sure where that has disappeared to, or how. Feel free to as an alternative make the pic even 10px smaller. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well in '06 it was debated whether to add it as policy a couple of times but rejected. I don't think it has ever been in policy; although Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Avoiding_stack-ups suggests it as an option to fix stacking. Still, moot point, it looks fine now :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... moot. I read through a number of discussions (that you were probably reading at the same time) that point to the pictorial. Nice working w/you.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Votel

Do we really need a photograph of him? Is it overly relevant or illustrative? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I might not have put it in myself, but find it acceptable. He is leading the investigation, which is relevant to the story.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I always appreciate illustrative pictures for the readers but I'm not sure Votel's picture is appropriate (yet). While Votel is heading up the investigation he's not (yet) a principle player in the subject of the article, The Death of Linda Norgrove. To put his picture in the article at this point lends credence to the idea that he had a larger role in the event than he actually did (so far). I purpose we remove the picture and revisit its inclusion at a later time. TomPointTwo (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate (which is the correct test -- the question posed at the outset of this string, whether "we really need" it, is not the correct test. The investigation is -- already -- highly relevant to her death. And he has been appointed head of the investigation, and is therefore a principal (and, hopefully, principled) player in the subject of the article (her death). I agree w/whoever added the pic that it is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, no one is arguing he is not involved. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• That was the very first thing that jumped to mind when I did my very first quick scroll. I think the use of the picture places undo weight on him. He is too tangential to the subject matter. I have taken the liberty to remove it. Greg L (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with Greg L, actually. I think he is close to the core of the subject of the article, Norgrove's death.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• The image was towards the bottom of the article in the "Subsequent events" section. In the period following Norgrove's death, he has become one of the key players. If anything, I'd argue that Votel is a little more important to this article than Aafia Siddiqui and we have a picture of her (which I am not in favour of removing). Greenshed (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Gee, you forget to add the courtesy of saying that you restored the picture after adding your opinion here. That’s fine; your argument seems as sound as any of the others’ on this issue. My son tried out for the SEALs. Those guys have to be awfully “with it” (ASVAB scores that could get them into Navy Nuclear if they wanted), and quite tough physically, and must exhibit a tenacity and willingness to endure physical punishment you and I can scarcely imagine. Therefore, I tend to be a tad biased in favor of all those who work their asses off and endure brutal punishment just to qualify to further work their asses off day and night to protect you and me and everyone else from harm while we sleep. So whereas it seems to me that the picture is a tad tangential, on a personal level I’m pleased to see a picture of Capt. Square-Jaw©™® in the article. :-) Greg L (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

DevGru; deletion of "special forces" and "Team Six"

I understand the urge to quote RS verbatim but that the bevy of sources identify the US unit that botched the raid as "Seal Team 6", "Navy Seals", "Special Forces" and "Special Operations Forces". These terms all mean different things and in the constant flow of information from sources who may not be aware of the exact semantics of the terms they use accuracy gets jumbled. The group they are trying to identify is The Naval Special Warfare Development Group (DevGru). "Special Operations Forces" is a generic term for commandos in western military terminology where as "Special Forces" in the context of US military forces is reserved for actual US Army Special Forces. Seal Team 6 does not exist anymore and to identify this as the unit is demonstratively incorrect. Seal Team 6 has become DevGru, Seal Team Six is a different, historical unit that is sometimes used colloquially (but incorrectly) to identify DevGru. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The same logic of WP:COMMONNAME is used to choose which name to use. However a clarification in the article about the accurate current name would be useful (if sourced to an official website or document). Fæ (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Seal Team 6 is (and.or was) a subset of all the others. People still -- as is clear from the articles -- call it that. The same as the Willis Tower is still often called by its prior name, the Sears Tower. Here, interestingly, noone has called it by its current name in an RS. Team 6 is a team of the Navy Seals -- no conflict. It is also what is referred to generically as special forces. Again, no conflict. What not one RS has done, as far as I can see, is call it the term TomPoint put in. That's why I reverted it. It is OR to go beyond what the RSs say. If the RSs say DevGru, I would have no problem reflecting that. A clarification of the name would be helpful if sourced to an article relating to this event -- otherwise, it falls under OR and synth.

In any event, and this is OR but may cause you some comfort, the Navy Times indicates that it is "the Navy’s Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or DevGru, also known as SEAL Team 6",[7] and the Army Times indicates that it is "Navy Special Warfare Development Group, also known as SEAL Team 6".[8] So the OR view that it is incorrect to call it Team 6 does not even withstand OR review.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then I will change it to simply "Navy Seals" which is supported by the text of the RS. It's a disservice to readers seeking accurate information but it's still technically correct and it avoid the confusingly superfluous and misleading "Seal Team 6 Special Forces" ridiculousness. TomPointTwo (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Navy Seal Team 6 is supported by this RS (and others).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, I found a RS that correctly identifies the unit involved as DevGru. I will re-re-correct the article.TomPointTwo (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Guardian refers to it as "Seal Team Six special forces"[9] But though I'm not wed to special forces myself, it is overwhelmingly how the press generically refers to the unit in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• And there are loads and loads of references to Navy Seals as special forces ("Army Special Forces is another subset of U.S. Special Forces). All you have to do is look at the 2002 book entitled U.S. Special Forces, and go to Chapter 3 on p. 58 which is entitled "U.S. Navy Seals". There are also all manner of such references by Navy Seals themselves and others.[10][11][12][13][14][15]

I've correctly cited the unit, I have no idea why I'm still having this conversation. Look, "special forces" is used informally and colloquially as a generic term for "commandos" but that doesn't make it accurate when referencing US military units. This is an encyclopedia so we need to be striving to correctly identify people and organizations by their correct names, not lazy generics. I know it's not an RS but for the sake of your understanding let me point your attention here. This is the sort of confusion and anger generated by ignorant reporters hurrying things out the door and the use of generics in encyclopedias. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, which states at the very outset: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." We have information reflecting how the unit is referred to in the RSs. Wiki is about verifiability, not truth, and I have provided verifiable references (which also appear to be true, btw). We reflect what the RSs say. Not what TomPoint says he knows is correct. It's a pretty basic wiki concept, and as I indicated above we also have Navy Seals referring to them that way, as well as the Navy newspaper. Please stop deleting the RS-supported material based on "TomPoint knows it to be wrong", when the RSs disagree with you.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, in principle. However this RS seems clear in identifying who the group are. As it is possible to verify it seems reasonable to go for accuracy --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 10:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Errant -- which is why the proposed edit, RS-supported (which TomPoint continues to delete, despite the RS support for its accuracy), is the parenthetical in the following: "the Naval Special Warfare Development Group (also known as Navy Seal Team 6 special forces).

All manner of RS support the fact that the team here is called both Team Six (1,060 ghits) and special forces (170,000 ghits); in fact, Tom's edit Naval Special Warfare Development Group (19 ghits; which I am happy to have be the lead description of the group) is barely used. For him to argue that only the 19 ghits descriptor should be used, and he should willy nilly delete the 171,000-ghit-supported descriptors because he "knows" they are wrong, is not appropriate.

As Fae points out above, this is consistent with the logic of wp:commonnames, which says "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." For Tom to not only insist on using the uncommon name (which I've agreed to, even giving it top billing), but also insist on deleting references that appear thousands of times more often than his in relation to the subject of the article, is a bit over the top. IMHO. And starkly inconsistent w/the rationale of wp:commonnames and wp:verifiability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dude, give it up. This isn't a competition, you don't have to try and one up me or get in the last word. I've clearly laid out the naming conventions for the unit and provided a RS from the city the unit is based in that clearly says that ST6 is now called DevGru. Calling them Seal Team 6 (so much as "Seal Team 6 special forces" which is just a confused mash up of related terms) is like writing an article about the CIA in 1948 but insisting on calling it the OSS because that's what most of your sources call it that. It's absurd and a total misunderstanding of why the sources say what they do. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• In accord with Fae's comment and that of Errant, and my above comments, I will -- after the mention of DevGru-- add "(special forces also known as Navy Seal Team 6)". That accords with the guidelines I mention above, and the fact that this group has overwhelmingly -- and that is no exaggeration -- referred to the squad as special forces, and Team 6, rather than the naming convention that you prefer.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• SEAL team 6 is part of the SEALs which is part of U.S. Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC), which is part of the United States Special Operations Command. Since “USSOC” is not well recognized by a general-interest readership, it is not improper, IMO, to refer to a joint operation that includes the SEALs or a particular part of the SEALs using the colloquialism “special forces”. It should be lowercase “special forces” because uppercase usage properly refers to a component of the U.S. Army. Accordingly, I suggest that the best use for lowercase “special forces” is when one is referring to any joint operation using multiple special forces units, including others from the U.S. Navy (namely, the SWCC) or those from one of the other U.S. military branches, or those from other countries. If one is referring only to the SEALs, then I suggest greater specificity and encyclopedic rigor by using the term “SEAL” or “SEALs”. Greg L (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
• Lowercased the reference to special forces, and also reflected Seal Team Six -- the name used by the overwhelming majority of the RSs reporting on this story, in accordance with the above comments consensus and with wp:commonname. Would ask Tom not to edit war, against consensus, and against the guidelines. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, very very strongly. We do not report "what the overwhelming majority of sources say", instead we report which is accurate and verifiable in the sources. So even if we have 10 sources saying "SEAL team six" and one reliable source that says "DevGru (formerly named SEAL team six)" then we go with the latter every time. The only time majority of sources applies is where the issue is not clear cut, obvious or otherwise possible to verify. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 08:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

My son is now a Navy Diver working with SEALs in a command that supports SEALs. His CO and XO are SEALs. Both are hitting up my son to try out (again) for the SEALs. Interestingly, he was formally tasked recently to head up the facility and the program for physical conditioning of SEALs in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. More importantly, he has long fancied being assigned to DevGroup, knows the history of it all, has a Master Diver who came out of DevGroup, and probably knows every detail about the Linda Norgrove rescue attempt—and more.

Indeed, there has been a huge amount of restructuring of the SEALs and there continues be restructuring. Whereas my son is not an RS, perhaps he can provide the true facts in order to help us identify the proper terminology and compare it to the various RSs we’re looking at. The deciding factor might then be a current U.S. Navy SEAL web site providing the proper nomenclature for these SEAL teams. Until we know for sure what we are seeking, it will be hard to figure out the best encyclopedic practice.

I know it may seem odd, but in aviation and military-related matters, reporters are often “dudes”. Sonic booms are a common example; you will still see articles in RSs that refer to the phenomenon as marking the instant an airplane “broke” the sound barrier. Sometimes we, as Wikipedians, have to use the *proper* terminology and then add a little parenthetical after the first occurrence that goes something like “(commonly but inaccurately known in pop culture and even many newspapers as…)”. Greg L (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can only do the latter if a RS identifies this as a fact (for verification). However on the other hand, while we can only report that is verified (i.e. not the truth) if the accurate truth is discussed in a RS that is preferred over anything else. Which is where the intricate idea of us being editors of content only comes into play; we make a valid editorial judgement that says "X is accurate and a RS, we will use X to source this". --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My only other point is that if we are going to be cherry-picking the true facts from a most-reliable source, and if that proves to be at odds with most “dude” RSs (which use a common but inaccurate term), an explanation must be made either parenthetically in the body text or via a refnote explaining why Wikipedia’s wording differs from the RSs. Otherwise we confuse readers and invite a 16-year-old volunteer wikiipedian to *correct* the facts. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• And... just to be clear. We are reflecting the name "Naval Special Warfare Development Group". That's not an issue at this point. The issue is the proposed deletion of the phrase "special forces" to describe the unit (including the SEALs) that was involved -- but all manner of RSs describe them as such. 288,000 ghits, at last count.

And the parenthetical after "Naval Special Warfare Development Group" of "(also known as Navy SEAL Team 6)". That is appropriate, as that is by far the common name by which the SEAL team is described in the RSs. It has 1,320 ghits, while "Naval Special Warfare Development Group" has 94 ghits. And, as indicated above, the military and navy press refer to the team by that name. No reason to create a disconnect between the RSs and the wiki article. It's like someone saying one can't mention the name UNCITRAL, because that is not the full technical name, even though it is the commonly used name.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Silenced laser-guided rifles."

This phrase in the "rescue" section was most likely made by someone unqualified to make it as these weapons do not exist. Changed the phrase to simply "suppressed weapons". 107.10.79.76 (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

And your change was reverted as "original research". lol. I wonder if I found a "source" claiming that the dinosaurs went extinct as a result of Chuck Norris going back in time and roundhouse kicking them all to death, it would become a fact in Wikipedia's eyes? Laser-guided rifles is obviously a very glaring typo. Typical of unencyclopedias like Wikipedia. If it's "sourced", it's fact no matter how erroneous it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.29.35 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per wiki guidelines, we follow what the RSs say.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless following a RS's wording verbatim is obviously stupid. TomPointTwo (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the term SEALs

I wasn't a SEAL, therefore I was never part of DEVGRU. But I was with the Ranger Regiment and I have served side by side with DEV. And trust me when I tell you that they do not consider themselves SEALs anymore. The degree of seperation between SEALs and DEVGRU is the same as Rangers and Delta. And I am pretty sure Delta don't walk around calling themselves Rangers regardless of what The Unit portrays. SEAL Team 6 was once part of Naval Special Warfare Command but that was once upon a time. DEVGRU is part of JSOC and is open to not only Navy SEALs but Marine SOF personnel (even though there are none in the unit because DEVGRU requires them to at least attend BUD/s and therefore no Marine has ever gone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.189.138 (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I question the veracity of most of your statements here on the talk page but I broadly concur with your edits to the article. Still, if someone challenged it based on the wording of the references they'll be in the right. Regardless of whether or not your assertion of how DEVGRU people "view themselves" is true it should be noted that they all graduated the BUD/S A school and carry the Naval rating SO which makes them SEALs and to identify them as such is not incorrect. TomPointTwo (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have nominated this article as I find it to be very comprehensive of its topic. Good references, it pretty mutch gives a broad coverage of all aspects of this person,her death and her life and aftermath and reactions.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

-- I look forward to reviewing this article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• First, fix the disambugation link (Kalashnikov is the disamb.) - then I will go section by section reviewing the article. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Section-by-section review

Going through the article to make suggestions for changes.

Images

• Everything is fine. :-)

Lead

• I think the two paragraphs should be merged because the first one doesn't even get to the point of the article.
  • Reasonable point, I merged them together --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Background

• This section seems important to state but isn't really 'background' more like 'context'. Maybe mention it in later sections but it is certainly incomplete enough to stand on its own.

Linda Norgrove

• Good! No issues here.

Kidnapping

• First sentence is a run on. Maybe omit "Dewagal valley" to make it more succinct.
  • Fixed --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• You mention 'security forces'. Which one?
  • A bit difficult, the sources just say "security forces" without clarification. Any thoughts on alternative wording? --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Hmm...on second thought its fine. Lord Roem (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I really don't like it either - still thinking on it :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Negotiations

• Seems to omit the a) effect of... b) the end result of... the negotiations

Rescue attempt and killing

• Change 'shot dead' to 'killed'.
  • Done --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
• Norgrove's actual death is only briefly mentioned. Maybe describe what condition she was in on the helicopter, if sourced?
  • I added more detail about her death --Errant ^(chat!) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Great! Lord Roem (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent events

• Everything good here.

Reactions

• Good

Concluding thoughts

• There must be something added to the article to the effect of either 'Implications' or importance. The reader is left questioning why the incident matters and what effect it had on anything. The article is clearly notable, but I feel it must be explained in the article somewhere. Maybe in the 'Reactions section'?
• Beyond that, the article is well-written and is a viable candidate for GA-promotion.

Cheers, -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I didn't nom this article for GA status but I did work on it quite a bit. I've addressed some of the simpler points and hopefully the other article editors will be able to look into the others too :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Errant. Seems you have so far made the needed edits. And thanks to Lord Roem for a good GA review so far.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just one more change. Please include something about the results of the negotiations and whether they failed (which I guess they did but it needs to be more explicit). Lord Roem (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a dig through and there isn't really anything. One moment they were negotiating, the next minute it was reported there had been the rescue attempt and it kinda got forgotten :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Great article and interesting subject-matter.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Moving to promote

-- Lord Roem (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --BabbaQ (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)