This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 16 September 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Previous copyedits:
/
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis on 21 December 2013.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles 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.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects 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.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 orplagiarize 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)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
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.
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
The Intercept cites multiple military and intelligence sources[1] 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."
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
Alright, I'm going to give up on this one. I checked with WP:RS[2] 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)Reply