Portal talk:Current events/2018 May 29

This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events articles

Time

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles

Years

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

Lists

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

History: Contemporary

	History portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
	This page is supported by the Contemporary History Task Force.

Fake news on May 29 from Ukraine[edit]

How to report on this day's fake murder story, staged by SBU, that was planned for a month?? Is it relevant to talk about it on this day? For me, the reporting on May 30 is clear enough. And there's the article itself to develop. Wakari07 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this any different from any other story that develops over a period of time longer than one day? This was the reported event on that day. New information surfaces on another day. How would you treat stories of wrongful accusations or false convictions, later revealed to be false? I say leave it as a record of the news on that day just like any other developing story.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, I'd try to agree on some hypothetical past tense, but my English is not good enough for that. Wakari07 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Foobar is supposedly assassinated, but hey, look at May 30!" or so... Wakari07 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what other category than fake news? Special operations, Historical revisionism, ... ? Dialectical materialism ;-? This would fill up the "Science and technology" supercat for the day.. Or "Arts and culture", since it was a staged play? Wakari07 (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. That's probably why your comments sometimes come across as course or rude, its probably just a language thing. I'll try to be more patient with you from now on. I'm having trouble finding it right now. But I though there was a Current Events guidelines page somewhere that said something to the effect of "News is a time capsule for each day. and should only record events as they happen on the day that they happen." or something like that.

There is a rule about tense though. That I do know for sure. Everything needs to be in present tense (and I think that flowed from rule about only reporting things on the day that they happen).

Fake News is similar to propaganda more fitting if the intent is sensationalize or recklessly mislead the public. A covert or sting operation is a bit different.

You are correct that this is a weird grey area. But I still think its better to leave it as is.

I think its similar to listing quotes with factually incorrect information, in a "Reactions from public officials" section.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I just realized why its incorrect to edit it in the way you're suggesting: because it would be WP:Synth. and we have to list events on the day that they happen. so we have to leave today's article where it is because it is the day that the announcement was made. So the question is do we leave yesterday's article or delete it. I still say leave it. Because it's the same as looking at an old newspaper. its an account of events on that day.

I don't know if I convinced you, but I think I just convinced myself.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your honest-sounding reply. I admit that I also lost my patience with you some times already, which of course I shouldn't. You talk about a "weird gray area". I'd rather call it a "clear black operation". But I also need some time to find more words for this in my own mother tongues. Maybe other editors have more input? Wakari07 (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The staged FUBAR of foobar takes place. Those and those media make believe it." Wakari07 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a solution. Add this source, it has been updated in a clear way:

Ukrainian crisis
- It is reported Russian journalist Arkady Babchenko is shot dead near his home in Kiev, Ukraine. Later revealed by the Ukrainian Security Service as a hoax used to catch those who were trying to kill him.(Reuters)(NBC New York)

All articles on the day which they apply, it captures the details you're interested in, and no WP:Synth. What do you think?

I'd love to hear someone with a bit more experience and/or knowledge of the rules weigh in on this situation though.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax is a bit of an understatement, since it has a military/state source. And both media sources mentioned have been updated without it being clear what the modifications were. But it's indeed already much better than the previously published version. Wakari07 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why add SANA as a source here?[edit]

SANA is a reliable source for the words of the Government of Syria. Such statements need to be WP:VERIFYable without ambiguity, preferably in the English language.
RFE/RL is a Government of the United States funded source which is partial (subjective, biased) in this case.
RFE/RL distorts, even if slightly, the citation.
SANA and the .sy ccTLD were subject to DNS DoS over the last few days. That's why, for verifiability reasons, I added the Google webcache version for some time. But this seems more stable today. Wakari07 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This version of the blurb:

Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria recognises the disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. According to a statement by Syria’s foreign ministry this is "in an appreciation of [their] supportive positions towards the terrorist aggression against Syria." Georgia's Foreign Ministry describe the action as an illegal move and a disregard for international law, severing relations with Syria in response.(RFE/RL)(Eurasianet)(The Daily Mail)

contains all the information you were concerned about, and presents it in an unbiased way.

~~Daily Mail is an established regularly cited source in the current events portal.~~ was thinking of the Guardian that might be a fair complaint, not sure. I don't know the Daily Mail (I'm not British)
SANA certainly falls into the category of "State-associated or state-controlled news organisations, especially state media in countries with low press freedom." per WP:PUS
And the Euraisianet source goes a step farther than SANA, by citing (the quote you appear to feel should be included) in full and linking to the announcement on the official Syrian government website.

I fail to see the issue here.Spoonlesscorey (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Spoonlesscorey's analysis and have rewritten the news item accordingly. Wingwraith (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Spoonlesscorey is right.~~ The issue is "keep talking". Clearly WP:BIAS. Eurasianet was George Soros and is now a Rockefeller source. RFE/RL is State Department. Reverted the Wingwraith edit (1RR). Wakari07 (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been four people who have opposed/reverted your edits. Move on already. Wingwraith (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fake and untrue. I see two users, not four. Also, I bow only for admin here. Wakari07 (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: I meant to comment on this edit of yours earlier but couldn't as I had personal matters to attend to. This issue as explained above is that SANA is an unreliable source and there's already a better source for this news item. We might as well do away with WP:PUS and WP:RS if we let this edit slide. I'll remove the SANA source if you don't respond to this comment. Wingwraith (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]