Talk:Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force

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

It still presents a non-neutral point of view. It would also be helpful if we observed the Insurrection Act which allows the president to legally employ federal troops in such a way. -- 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not sure this article presents a NPOV. The article from is straight-forward, but bulk of the article is based on a youtube video of a 30 minute radio interview with a political activist, clearly not neutral, ther's nothing else to balance it out. Kamnet (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be wild factual inaccuracies that seem to prevent a simple "bring this within WN:NPOV"-type of fix. The whole premise seems in violation of WN:NPOV as it considers an exercise to be a troop deployment. If I am misreading something, please enlighten me. --SVTCobra 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


I'm going to try and fix this up, it's interesting but there's very little on it, would appreciate it if someone more experienced could help. :) --Poisonous (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Basically finished, if someone could read it over for me before I set it to review tommorrow (waiting for kamnet's military friend to give some info on it, which should make it more neutral) and let me know how it is? --Poisonous (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


Thank you![edit]

I was the one who originally posted this article. A copy of my original can be found at my livejournal on Oct 9th. This was the first article I tried pushing on Wikinews. Thank you to all the people who finally got this posted. I'm sorry if the article had a biased point of view, if you feel that way: I did not intentionally write the article that way, I did the best I could. I also understand there was a bit of direct copying from the original article from ArmyTimes: I'm a novice writer, perhaps if I put it into quotation marks we could avoid copyright infringement?

Again, thank you to everyone who got this article posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)