Talk:Death of Linda Norgrove

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death of Linda Norgrove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101119025154/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2024869,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2024869,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

MI6 connection

The Intercept cites multiple military and intelligence sources reporting that Norgrove worked for British Intelligence at MI6. I edited the page to reflect this information. My edit was reverted by Drmies:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Death of Linda Norgrove. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted."

It's not my intention to be disruptive.Fx6893 (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I assume you were then also the IP who stuck that in there a few days ago? I warned you because it seemed to me you reverted a valid edit without checking what the edit was. At any rate, I do not accept that The Intercept source at all, and even if that source is acceptable (you can ask at WP:RSN), such a reported association shouldn't be in the lead without much firmer evidence. For now, it seems to me we have a fringe theory on a shock and awe website, not a reliable source. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 02:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making incorrect assumptions: 1. Today is the first time I have ever looked at this page. 2. I did check your reversion edit before undoing it, and simply wanted to add sourcing to the original comment. 3. The Intercept is a reliable source on intelligence-related material since it's inception, including by leading the reporting on the Snowden documents. Finally, my edit identifying Norgrove as a "reported MI6 worker" is clean, non-inflamitory, clearly-sourced, and necessary in the lead to develop context for the military operation resulting in her death. You should let it stay. Fx6893 (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• It was added here. If that wasn't you, then this edit of yours is an unexplained revert of a well-explained edit; if it was you, then it's an unexplained violation of WP:BRD. Most importantly, it's unverified and unexplained. As for the rest, I do not accept, as I said before, that source as reliable; you can take this up at RSN and if they agree with you, that's one hurdle taken. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the statement is neutral: saying someone is possibly a spy is not a neutral statement. And if, as you say, this fact (alleged fact?) is relevant for the events, then at the very least you should include that in the text. For now, as I said, it sounds like a fringe theory. What's next--the report is a cover-up? It was a Russian agent who threw the grenade? Drmies (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

First one, not me. Second one was an undo so that I could add a source to the MI6 reporting. You undid that in 3 minutes, before I was able to complete the process of adding the source. But lets look at where we are now. I agree with you that unsourced claims about someone being a spy should usually be removed, so I agree with your first reversion of the unsourced claim. I also agree that if someone makes wild claims that the report was a cover-up or that a Russian killed her - with no source - that it should be reverted. But my edit is none of that: it's concise and it's sourced. It adds important context to this military operation. You should let it stay.Fx6893 (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, RSN. And then there is the matter of where and how that material should be incorporated and introduced, in a way that does not conflict with WP:UNDUE. Mind you, this is a WP:GA, so it needs to be of high quality. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Whilst The Intercept on the face of it has a solid staff and defined editorial process, the very nature of its material (anonymous, well-protected, sources) means we should be a little careful & appropriately cynical about using it. I'd look for secondary sourcing to help support the material. And as Drmies says, I'd like to see the material given due consideration in the article (the lead traditionally summarises the article so putting a somewhat controversial claim into the lead with direct sourcing is generally discouraged). --Errant ^(chat!) 18:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to give up on this one. I checked with WP:RS and while most people said The Intercept should be okay, everyone had a hedge ("not... neutral", "use with caution", "not enough to justify...", "I would want at least another source"). Anyway, it's important information that should be included in the article, and if someone else wants to try, I'll back you up. Fx6893 (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

References

What does the 2010 Badakhshan massacre has to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.249.71.113 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)