Talk:Five Ws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Journalism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to journalism. 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. |
how is not a 'w'!!!!!!!!?
It has a 'w' in it though. It's like saying "writing" and "arithmetic" aren't R's - John F
Contents |
[edit] What about "Which"
Would "Which" be eligible as a "Wh" question in this list?
[edit] Fixed a deficiency
Article was missing one of the Ws. I fixed it.
[edit] Why
When I took journalism in high school (1971), we were taught the 4 W's and the H. "Why" was not included because it was considered subjective and not a statement of fact. Apparently journalism has become more subjective since then. Pity.
- When I think of 'why', I think more of causality, rather than of a value judgement. So, in a story about the LA Riots, 'why' would address the motivations cited by the rioters, or in a story about some corporate merger, it would focus on the business' plans for the combined company. Sometimes this area skirts close to the area of "should", but a good journalist can describe without bias or subjectivity. Many stories are meaningless without explaining 'why' people have done things, and it seems it can be perfectly objective. --Xyzzyva 22:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No why!
There should be no why. Agreed! Flinders 20:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Our personal opinions as Wikipedia editors are irrelevant. What matters is what the sources say, and the sources, including Kipling, include "Why?". Uncle G 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Uncle G, it's important in this case to remember that this article is dealing with two different but related topics. One is the rhyme, which obviously must include "Why?", because that is indeed what Kipling wrote. The other is the "Five or Six Ws" as taught in journalism of the past and present — and I'm sure there are primary and secondary sources on both sides in that case. What should be done is that people should go find some reliable sources, from 1971 or 2007 or both, as to whether "why" is included in the journalism side of things, and cite them in the article. --Quuxplusone 08:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
