Talk:Bush's Iraq 'Strategy' seen as public relations exercise

How is this news again? A few people who misunderstood the meaning of a document released by the White House? I'm not finding any factual information here that withstands a news article, other than speculating who the author is (in which case, it was probably a collaboration of many people, and highly unlikely under the wing of only one person). Even if this document/publication was aimed at the public opinion, it's worthless unless there was a sizable population claiming it as so and pointing it out in whatever fashion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I commented on the edit summary, your answer? -Edbrown05 01:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• My answer is I can say something isn't news because I am an editor here. Everyone's opinion and input counts, so don't try to ignore certain users. Not only is it against common etiquette, it's also very distasteful and may be considered disruption if further actions continue. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then don't ingnore my input. It's news. The New York Times a top U.S. paper thinks it is news, they did a story on it. The person who wrote it thinks it is news. Others who contributed to the story after it was published think it is news. -Edbrown05 01:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Then answer to me why you think it is news, without giving me the "other sources" routine. No excuses, just reasoning. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It directly refutes Scott McClellan. -Edbrown05 01:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I can refute John Murtha's claims, but you won't get an article about it. What makes this any different? Who is behind the inquiry? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It ain't about Murtha. -Edbrown05 01:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• It's an example, which is highly applicable in a hypothetical situation extremely similar to this one. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Stick to the story and quit twirling around. The administration is trying to create and impression, others are trying to debunk the impression. What's the problem with that... it is the purpose of news to report. Do you prefer silence? Is there a factual problem with the article. Respect others, I mentioned above that others think it is news. -Edbrown05 01:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• And I don't think it is unless there was an organization or sizable population behind the movement of trying to impose something. Otherwise, it's just a stated fact that should be put in a WP article. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

How would anyone know about it if it can't be reported?! What are you doing, censoring the news? -Edbrown05 01:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Asking how an article can be news isn't "censoring" the news at all. It's improving the standards of news we release, and should be promoting the image of Wikinews to the readers. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I earlier had praised Doldrums on his discussion page for writing this excellent article, sorry you don't believe the story to be so. -Edbrown05 01:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

And this story is out on the RSS feed, so now folks who come here will see a nice tag saying "Not news" when the story loads after reading the headline on their home page. Yes, you are making a good impression MrM. -Edbrown05 02:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's really hard to take seriously from a user who has reverted another user's edits, especially if the user has actionable objections. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Duh... describe the actionable part. -Edbrown05 02:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• As I have been saying, there is no basis for this to be considered a newsworthy article. There's no one lobbying for it's status, there's no groups or prominant persons who bring this issue up, it's an interpretation by the writer. And that isn't newsworthy, nor is it even NPOV. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see your "no news idea" out of merit International 02:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reporting the unreported and ignored news should be praised not punished here and it should be incouraged.Reporters around the world and in all levels often make connections based on the facts --Whywhywhy 11:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

mrm no cencership on Wikinews

Nobody will tolerate it International 02:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think MrM has already broken the 3-revert rule since the "Not news" tag is not actionable. He reverted Doldrums "publish" once, and my "publish" twice. -Edbrown05 02:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Just "publish" it again International. -Edbrown05 02:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Censorship would be me deleting your user page. Censorship would be me banning you because I didn't like what you were writing. This is not censorship. This is trying to improve Wikinews' quality. And anyone who objects to that ought to look at some other options. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thx International, you had already "published" before I finished my post above. -Edbrown05 02:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

I suggest all parties take a bit of a break, before things get out of hand.

That said, the lede sentence:

Revelations that the US commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq had no knowledge of the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document released by the President and speculation that it was chiefly authored by a public opinion analyst have led to calls that the drafted 'strategy' is targetting US public opinion, not the Iraqi insurgency.

Does not describe either a news event or, with specificity, a document. What revelations, by whom, when, where, how and why? What calls, from whom, when, where, why and how? - Amgine | ^talk 02:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I specifically mentions the document. -Edbrown05 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) lol

<grin> It mentions a title. What is the document, why is it important? In what news event does it play a role? These are things which, after reading the article, I am still unsure of. - Amgine | ^talk 03:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The document is in external linksInternational 03:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. But I'd like to know what we know about that document, rather than going to read the contents of the document. Context, the who what where when why how of the news event. - Amgine | ^talk 03:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

yes, your point is well taken Amgine. Doldrums did ask for help with the intro and none was forthcoming. After I cool a bit, I'll take a crack at it. -Edbrown05 03:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

alt intro

The National Strategy for Victory in Iraq document released by the President is targetting US public opinion, not the Iraqi insurgency says Ph.D Christopher F. Gelpi. The document is mainly authored by a public opinion analyst. The US commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq had no knowledge of the document before released to media.

International 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Where do you find that info. International? -Edbrown05 04:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

But Christopher F. Gelpi, Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties, tells the Times on Sunday that this week's 35-page report "is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency. The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight --the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."

This person is Dr. Peter D. Feaver, a 43-year-old Duke University political scientist who joined the National Security Council staff as a special adviser in June. White House officials, while saying the document contained contributions from many federal departments, confirmed, according to the Times, that “its creation and presentation strongly reflected the public opinion research” of Dr. Feaver.

The second sorce in article

wait International 05:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wath do you think? International 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Use it if you like it . Im going to sleep now International 05:22, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

alt lead & other concerns raised

changed the lead paragraph, as the present lead does not summarise the content of the article.

addressing mrm's concerns:

• factual info: revelation that feaver was among authors and, according to white house staffer quoted, a significant one, that the man who is to implement the bulk of the strategy - Lt. Gen. Dempsey never had heard of it.
• mrm's characterisation that the people quoted in the article have "misunderstood" the document is not substantiated.
• see no guideline/policy suggesting that a "sizable population" should claim something for it to be reported on wikinews.
• as to whether the content is newsworthy: i contend that it is relevent, reports facts, qutes opinions properly & neutrally. please point to any deficits u percieve. -- posted by User:Doldrums

Doldrums, that is an editorial - not news. Please see the content guide which describes what Wikinews considers news. The first thing this article does not do is focus on a single news event or phenomenon. There are several important news events which this article touches on, but it needs to focus on one of these to the exclusion of the others.

The current lede very specifically is a problem. It really should be replaced. - Amgine | ^talk 04:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

is the only problem with the article is that it reports on more than one event? am not convinced the line separating different events is all that that clear. does this[1] also report two different events - the graduation ceremony and the release of the strategy? Doldrums 05:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

imo, that article is predominately about the release/publication of the strategy. I would say the current article has issues primarily because it does not have a focused event or phenomenon to cover. For example, the statement by the general that he had never seen this document is one event to focus on. The phenomenon that the strategy document was not created by the military is a separate item. The former *might* be useful in an article about the latter, but the latter would not work in an article about the former unless it were a very limited paragraph as background. - Amgine | ^talk 05:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

thank you, amgine, for your opinion. imo, this article is predominantly about the criticism of the document in the light of its authorship & development. Doldrums 06:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the document is not a news event or phenomenon. It's an editorial. Wikinews does not do editorials. See What Wikinews is not. - Amgine | ^talk 06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

quoting the relevent policy:

Wikinews articles are not editorials. Articles should restrict themselves to reporting news and not commenting on the news or newsmakers.

the article does not make any comment itself. it reports accurately and in a balanced way, reactions to the release of the document and the revelations regarding its authorship, with full attribution. so it does not constitute an editorial. Doldrums 06:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

commenting in sources

I had a thought that after every paragraph we could start commenting in the parts of each article from the sources thus making things clearer if thats possible.--Whywhywhy 11:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Reporting dead link www.whitehouse.gov

• http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html has gone offline. The content in now available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html .

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:13, 21. May 2009