Talk:Navajo group files fourth lawsuit against Trump Administration over U.S. national monument site

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Recognizability of Utah[edit]

I actually feel pretty good about this title and consider it fully usable in its current state, but let's throw this out to the floor. If I were to write "California" or "Texas" in the title of the article, I would expect an international reader to know what I'm talking about—an American state—because these two places are internationally famous from history and popular culture. I'd know the article was about a province in Canada if I read "Ontario" or "Manitoba," about England if I read "Hertofordshire," or about a province in China if I read "Guangdong" or "Sichuan." But Americans like myself might not know "Yunnan" or "Shaanxi." So I pose this: Is "Utah" recognizable as one of the United States of America to people not from North America? Is Utah Sichuan or is it Shanxi? (Yes, there's a "Shanxi" and a "Shaanxi.") Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: And, if not, is "Trump Administration" sufficient tipoff? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Consider this: "USA: Bear Ears Inter-tribal Coalition prepares to sue Trump Administration over Utah national monuments" USA instead of US because the headline seems to be long, and "US" might not be the best choice, however, USA is good enough to tell the country, and solves the problem of "the tribe is native to?" "Trump Administration?" and "Utah?".
•–• 16:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
That might be better than the way I did it, more thought indicated; but I did tweak the title, first thing, because I felt a need to explain "Trump Administration".

We've had less than unanimous agreement about Texas and California, but I don't think Utah is nearly up to the international-recognition standard. --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Current title suggests that there is more than one Trump Administration. It's not a dealbreaker for me, but I don't care for it. "Bear Ears Inter-tribal Council prepares to sue U.S. presidential administration over Utah national monuments," perhaps. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC) "Bear Ears Inter-tribal Council prepares to sue Trump Administration over American national monuments in Utah." Eh, still feels forced. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not greatly enamoured of "U.S. Trump administration" myself. That would be "U.S. national monuments" not "American national monuments", but in any case either of those is only moderately less awkward than "U.S. Trump administration". "U.S. presidential administration" seems possible, though it would be nice to get Trump into it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Virginia, "When" is one of the five Ws[edit]

The lede does not say when the focal event occurred. --Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't tell her about Santa Claus. Do tell her about next Monday. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: The focal event of a news article is something that has already happened. I really want to see this article succeed, but it cannot do so without a focal event shown in its lede to be specific and fresh; and a specific fresh event has to have happened (past tense) on a specific day. --Pi zero (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Without insisting anything with respect to the current article, we should add this to the list of things that professional news organizations don't consider necessary but for some reason Wikinews does. There are several news outlets talking about the President's scheduled visit to Utah; news articles focus on upcoming events all the time. Do you know of some reason Wikinews would not do the same or is it just that it's not what we usually do? There could be merit in that if reviewing it involves a different kind of skill or if there's some legal issue that hasn't occurred to me.
I want this article to succeed too, but I'm not worried. There's Monday, ready for a retread. It's not often that we have a refocus scheduled in advance. If something crops up in the meantime to give the date in the format that we're used to, I'll drop it in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Lo and behold, that is what has happened. Future-focal issue is now moot for this article, but we should look into it at some point. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
There are, broadly, three classes of reasons for us to do something differently from msm; at least, that come to mind atm.
  • Some things we do because we are an open wiki, with various implications of how that must work.
  • Some things we do because we aim to correct defects of msm.
  • Some things msm does differently because of its commercial incentive.
There's often overlap between these classes. Our approach to neutrality, for instance, is something where we mean to do better than msm, is enabled by our being non-commercial, and is tuned for practicality on an open wiki. A finger-grained but distinctly visible problem in recent years is that some high-profile msm outlets have apparently forgotten that "when" is one of the five Ws; we have not forgotten. (Note that both the defects I've mentioned are points where we're positioning ourselves on the more conservative journalistic side of things than msm. Conservatism, in this sense, also enhances practicality for an open wiki, making for simpler, more straightforward, less subjective principles that can be followed and enforced with greater consistency, which is a source of further overlap between the first and second classes of difference.) Our approach to synthesis freshness provides a simple form, with attendant straightforwardness and avoidance of excessive subjectivity, while allowing common sense to exclude things that lose freshness early. It bounds debate on particular articles, and helps us avoid pointless poaching on Wikipedia's scope. And what sort of msm items don't meet our demand for a specific, recent past-tense, focus? We can immediately disregard the ones that are the result of investigations, because in our terms those aren't synthesis, they're original reporting, and we treat OR freshness differently. A bunch of the no-visible-recent-past-focus msm items are just omitting information, which is a defect for us to improve on; omitting central information weakens the traditional journalistic mission of informing the readership, and as practiced by msm is likely in the penumbra of the commercial motive. Often, when it's not clear why a story is appearing now, it's because somebody is promoting the story, which we don't cater to both on non-commercial and on neutrality grounds.

It's likely that much of the motive for our approach, that you were asking about, is at least brushed on in the above. It's also likely I've missed some aspects, perhaps important ones; the way we do things isn't motivated by just one thing at one time; it's been developed through years of cumulative experience on Wikinews, and decades (really, centuries) of cumulative experience in the journalistic tradition. So any list of reasons why it works is likely to be incomplete. (I distantly recall a FAQ about, at a guess, 'traditional conservatism' in politics, observing that traditional ways of doing things are likely to contain experiential wisdom that can't readily be articulated.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they've forgotten. My whole life I've been reading newspaper articles written with a variety of introductory styles, not just the inverted pyramid, and it's not remotely unusual to deliver the "when" information in some format other than a -day word or in some place other than the first paragraph. In these source articles, it's delivered in a verb tense. Frankly, the "5 W's" resembles a newspaper article far less than an elementary school writing exercise. It's like how a first-grade teacher might say "Good writers use lots of adjectives!" when the point is for the students to learn what adjectives are and how to use them. The 5Ws passage strikes me as something that started out as a guideline but came to be enforced as an absolute rule. It feels like the inverted pyramid format was intended as a "here's one good format" but it's slid into "this is the only format." Real newspapers use several.
Specifically, I would like to know why you, Pi zero, think that Wikinews should not have in-future focal events, if you do indeed think so. If you don't happen to know, I'd like to know that. If you don't feel like saying, that's cool too. Right now, from over here, it looks like there is no reason. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Example: "Although a mainstream newspaper would not, on Wikinews, we specify 'United States' even though we already said 'Utah' because we're focusing on an international readership who might not all know the names of every American state." Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
without answering "when", one can not establish newsworthiness. If a news org is not doing it, it is their mistake. We won't be following them.
•–• 12:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: I gave a pile of reasons, and you responded by asking for a reason. I'm not sure why the reasons I gave failed to come across to you, but it took me quite a bit of time and effort to write out the things that, from your reaction, it's as if I didn't say. Evidently what appears to me to be answering the question does not appear to you that way; and whatever that might imply about how I should go about trying to explain this, one thing it does imply is that for the moment my time is better invested in review. --Pi zero (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about not establishing when. I'm talking about doing so solely by using a -day word in the first paragraph. It's a good here's-one-way-to-do-it recommendation but excluding other ways of indicating when seems excessive to me.
Pi zero, you answered a question but not the one I asked. Your post, which I reread just now to be sure, talks about Wikinews' general philosophy and how you believe about it in very broad terms, but I was asking a specific question: "Wikinews does not write about future focal events even though mainstream outlets do because--." For example, you say that one of the reasons for Wikinews being different from a newspaper is correcting faults in mainstream news. Well, is that, in your view, why Wikinews should not write about future focal events and, if so, which fault is being corrected? Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
News is something new that has happened. Not something that might happen. For example, for the article: 2028's Olympics is in Los Angeles, Olympics is going to happen in LA is not news. The news is LA being elected to host the games. Might sound almost same -- it is not. This is the first one being something spoken in confidence is going to happen. And second one being what has actually happened before (possibly) end of earth.
•–• 18:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, we now have a clear statement of what Acagastya thinks about this issue. Next step: Establishing why Wikinews would follow Acagastya's or someone else's view and not that of mainstream news organizations. The articles in this case were about the upcoming Monday speech, not about the announcement of the speech. So why do you believe Wikinews should be different? With specifying which country we're talking about when a mainstream newspaper would not, we have a clear reason: we pitch to an international audience who are less likely to know than a mainstream newspaper's audience would be. So what's the congruent reason here?
"I don't know off the top of my head but it just doesn't feel right to me" is okay to say if it's true. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Instead of asking why we don't have you asked yourself why we should? There are tonnes and tonnes of things that are going wrong with the MSM. For example, not telling when something happened -- yes there was a two-week-old article which was published in the New York Times. MSM provides personal opinions and they are biased though ideally, a news org should not. Like what I said before, news, by the very basic definition is about something that has happened and not something that is probable to happen. (Else, just like how South Park made an episode about Clinton winning last year's election, one could have expected "US gets first female president", a year ago, and all kinds of weird speculations in news outlets). MSM has investors, and a particular set of audience to target, and they are aware of their demographics and would indulge in practices which suits their business model. We don't do business. The only thing that concerns us is free, unbiased news. There is no constant pattern in our demographics and we do not need to please our investors to write something that is not news. MSM does not define what is news, nor they should.
•–• 08:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
“.@serenawilliams ‘very likely’ to defend her @AustralianOpen title” (http://www.hindustantimes.com/tennis/serena-williams-very-likely-to-defend-her-australian-open-tennis-title/story-VNnNgmdJ5MtwlzTWerXAhI.html) there you have yet another news org publishing anything but news.
•–• 09:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC) read.ht/BcPs

Actually, posting news articles about upcoming events seems like a good thing to me if the goal is to keep the public informed. So long as everything posted is true rather than fiction like Clinton winning.
Heh, there actually was a case like that back in the mid-century when a newspaper printed up "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" headlines (about a presidential election) and distributed them. There's an iconic photo of President Truman, who ended up defeating Dewey, holding up a copy. I'd say their problem was that they used the past tense rather than announced something upcoming. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It might be your personal opinion that writing future articles as news is a good idea. However, the tweet I pasted above, which says Serena Williams to defend her AusOpen title is just blatant and baseless speculation. Just like how nobody had thought Portugal would have been in the UEFA Euro 2016 finals let alone winning it, after how they performed in the group stages, and ended up shocking everyone, speculations should not be in a news article. For the part about winning the presidential race, the “news” could be “A leads B on XYZ presidential election exit polls” but not like “A to defeat B in election”. Just like how “Los Angeles elected to host 2028 Olympics” but not “2028 Olympics will be in Los Angeles”. Because it is possible it was rigged and/or there could be a new proposal, LA could back out… there are endless possibilities. One must look on what has happened, which is related to something which can happen in the future, and focus on that, in the article. The future events can be covered in the lower half of pyramid, or mentions in between, depending on the context.
•–• 13:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4367935 [Not ready][edit]

Gave it a refocus, trimmed out anything contradicted or not supported by current sources, and she's good to go. I'm not too worried about this one. Lawsuits provide plenty of opportunity for further updates. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4369103 [Not ready][edit]

Freshness, right? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Yeah. --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I did check your edit sums before asking. I know you're careful with those.
There was a new lawsuit yesterday, the Patagonia. I'd prefer to focus on the Inter-tribal Coalition, but I expect more new developments, in weeks if not days. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Gave 'er another retread. It's a bit late in the game for this focal event but I have a feeling that more is going to come around in the guitar for this one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: Thanks. We'll see how review unfolds with this. I doubt I'll be doing any further substantial review today, local time. At this moment, I'm rather numb from an all-day OR review (and really, it's been too long since I did one of those; original content is very near and dear to our project mission, as reflected by the way it dominates Category:Featured article). --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh I agree entirely. Like I said, this one will probably have further opportunity for updates. Lawsuits are like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Relative date and identification in lede[edit]

@Darkfrog24: Though the title tells the story has something to do with the US, it is not clear from the lede. And frankly speaking, I don’t understand what it is trying to say. I have also noticed the article mentions “On Monday”. It is already Monday here, local time, so it would be best if you make use of relative time. (Last Monday…though UTC clock is still on Sunday, best to describe it in a better way.
27.59.96.154 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Since it's likely that this will time out and need yet another update before the reviewers can get to it, I'll leave it as it is for now, but if it truly bothers you, go on and fix it yourself. Remember I wrote this last week, when there would not have been any time zone issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4369408 [Not ready][edit]

It seems there may have been one today. I don't have time to check just yet, but if anyone's available before I am, run with it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)