Talk:Bush nominates a new ambassador to Australia

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

NPOV[edit]

The carricaturing of this news event with the Skull and Bones conspiracy theorist title is biased and POV. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "'secret' uni mate" is the title of one Australian source. The tagger tagged this within 2 minutes of it appearing on developing; I don't believe the tagger had time to read the Australian sources; unless the tagger feels they are promoting conspiracy theories too. Amgine's chategorization of a non-disputed fact (that both are members of Skull and Bones) as "conspiracy theorist" is bizarre and hard to understand; perhaps that reasoning can be expanded?Neutralizer 22:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does their membership directly impinge on the selection of this person as ambassador? There have been more than 40 ambassadorships filled during his term in office; in how many of them was it relevant what collegiate societies they were members of? Is their mutual membership in Phi Beta Kappa equally relevant to this news event? - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine, please do not misrepresent. Bush was never a member of Phi Beta Kappa; you don't see that in the sources but you do see the skull and bones references highlighted in source titles and content. I repeat, have you read the sources? Also, you did not address the applicability of your "conspiracy" characterization. Neutralizer 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of if the sources are biased or not. It is a question of if this article on Wikinews is biased. If you can prove to me that membership in the Skull and Bones society is specifically relevant to his appointment I would remove the NPOV. I don't believe it is possible to prove that case, thus it's focus in this article is to massage or manipulate the audience to a particular conclusion and is biased. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Amgine, but I don't see any actionable objections here from you. There is nothing here but a story with information gleaned from reputable sources; if you wish to edit the story with information you feel is more relevant, please be my guest; this is a wiki; but please do not allow your own POV to cover up facts which all the other news reporting agencies seem to feel is relevant. Wikinews is not a platform for censorship. Neutralizer 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. There is a clearly actionable objection: remove references to collegiate societies unless you can cite proof it is relevant to the news event. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact they were both members of the Skull and Bones is relavent to this article, however I don't think it should be the focus of the article, and it shouldn't be in the title. If there was a demonstrable connection between the membership and the appointment, it would be different. The Skull and Bones element should be limited to one sentence, but placed towards the end of the article as an interesting piece of additional information. The title should be something like "Bush nominates ambassador to Australia". - Borofkin 23:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment;Just for clarification and also to try to show how McCallum's S&B membership is such an important aspect of the story,imo, one of the typical misconceptions is that the S&B membership/involvement is something limited to University days (in which case Borofkin's use of the words "were both members" above would be correct. Actually, this society's members only begin their involvement in their senior year at Yale and then their S&B membership mutates into an intensive,lifelong business/social network complete with ongoing contact and collaberation; e.g.[1] and as they age they are known as "Patriarchs"(like the elder President G.H.W.Bush). Some are known to never remove their pins to the point of jammimg them into their chests when they shower. My personal research indicates McCallum has been carefully groomed for a major role in pursuing S&B domestic and foreign policy objectives and that this Australian placement tells me Australia is now the most important country in the world from a S&B foreign policy perspective. Until/unless one has read the skull and bones background material on Wikipedia and other reliable sources, this likely sounds quite speculative on my part. The bottom line of every serious work on this group has been that allegiance to the S&B cult(Yes, the word does fit dictionarily) and its collective objectives comes before all other allegiances (including God and country). This explains why Bush doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Republican party now that he's finished using it for his run on the multi-generational relay team; and there is only one S&B member [2] ready to carry their baton into the 2008 presidential election; and he's not a republican. Neutralizer 14:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also the photo should be removed, as it won't reflect the focus of the article. - Borofkin 23:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but that is a very cool photo I think. I think I will also include a link to the Wikipedia list of the 11 members Bush appointed to government positions section from wikipedia; hopefully that's allright. I also want to ask, is there anything wrong in writing an article exclusively about this aspect of the story? Obviously the sources are given it more exposure than we will in this article. Neutralizer 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the ....?[edit]

This entire thing belongs on a somewhat conspiracy oriented blog in the manner in which it has been presented. Even the article on The Age does not place such bias on its coverage by over-emphasizing the association with this secret society. As to the photograph, it should be one of the candidate himself. Certainly not some supposed "cabal" where he's in the photo with chum George and you can't figure out who he is. Sorry to be so blunt, but you really do downplay the other achievements that make McCallum a valid candidate for the position. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok,fair comment, it did have an "expand" tag and I hope others will add things about McCallum. The only other thing I know about him is his notorius lessening of the penalties to the tobacco industry [3] which is extremely negative, so I saw that inclusion in the article as leading to a NPOV tag. Neutralizer 01:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be ok[edit]

to write an article exclusively about the skull and bone aspect of the story? Obviously the sources are given it more exposure than we will be in this particular article. Neutralizer 00:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine a news event angle related to the Skull and Bones society, no. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amgine, do you realize that both Kerry and Bush are members;[4][5] or do you think that is a "theory"? Neutralizer 01:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To say there could not be a news event related to the Skull and Bones is,I think, like saying there can not be a news event related to the Ku Klux Klan or to any other small group of people. POV can show itself through exclusion as well as inclusion I think and it is patently absurd, imo, to say one can not imagine a news event concerning a particular group of people; particularly a particular group that includes the 2 most powerful politicians in the USA; at least that's my opinion about that. Neutralizer 01:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I was unclear. I meant I cannot imagine an angle on this particular news event which would be related to the Skull and Bones. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok, yes I should have realized that, my fault. Also, you're probably right about this event not having enough S&B relevance for its own article...damn it. Neutralizer 02:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has criticised the President, accusing him of appointing his secret-society buddies, then we could report on that. - Borofkin 22:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I'd like to discuss the title a bit more. S&B is a topic I have a lot of personal interest in so I would be inclined to agree that the S&B aspect may not be a substantial part of the story (to other people) BUT, the other sources like ABC/AFP are making more comment about S&B than is being proposed here which leads me to think it MAY be a bigger part of the story after all? If Bush were to appoint his sister to the post, would it not make sense to have the word "sister" in the title-regardless of qualifications? Bush's very first meeting at the WhiteHouse was with his 1968 S&B brothers according to USA Today so I think it may be a mistake to discount/ignore/not report the relevance of the association between these men. I propose making some mention of the Bush/McCallum S&B connection in the title..or should we not? Neutralizer 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop hypothesizing. We're not ABC. We're not AFP. We're Wikinews, and unlike the other two, we have a responsibility to provide unbiased, quality articles. Continuation of this discussion only destroys both of them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete the reference in the title but I hope there may be a consensus built later to reinclude it as I think it is just as acceptable as saying "President Bush has nominated his sister,Dorothy Bush, to be Ambassador to Australia" if that were the case. Neutralizer 01:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think mentioning it in the article is sufficient. It shouldn't be the core of the article - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove content which is of value to the article[edit]

I have noticed that Bush has appointed several other members of the 170 year old secret society to government positions according to ABC News. was removed. There was no problem with this statement and it contributes value to the article. Noone is proposing a conspiracy theory here. MrM, please do not remove content of value to slant the article towards your POV - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cartman, refrain from jumping to conclusions. Read the statement again, then come back here and tell me if it makes any sense. What government? Who? Why note how old it is without the other two statements? That sentence alone is a mess. Please read the definition of a wiki, and please stop jumping to conclusions - I have nothing to gain being on this wiki. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MrM, the sentence should have been reworded and not removed if that was the case. It is pretty clear that if we are talking about Bush then we are going to be talking about appointments to the US government. I agree that the age of the organisation in that case is irrelevant, but it most certaintly is interesting to read that President Bush has appointed 11 other skull and bones members to positions within his government. With regards to your POV, a quick question - are you a Bush supporter? (I had assumed that was the case, sorry if I am incorrect) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to know about my personal life, then here it is concerning my political status: I've been a registered Republican since I could vote, and I was a volunteer for Bush's campaign in 2004. To call me a 'supporter' would be quite shallow, since I disagree with him on many different issues (if you want my personal feelings on them, send me an email). That, however, doesn't justify that we can allow editorials or link our articles to conspiracy thoughts. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the things that you gain my respect for - your openess on your POV. Do you not find it interesting that President Bush has appointed 11 members of a "secret society" into his government. I didn't see it as a conspiracy but as a demonstration on how well Mr Bush must trust fellow S&B members. I agree that the link should have been removed but I see no real problem with the statement. I would expect in Australian politics for someone to comment if PM Howard appointed 11 members from his cricket club or something (maybe Australians see these things differently though) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MrM. is vandalizing the article[edit]

  • MrM you are now vandalizing, it seems to me. You say "who" but you do not really want the 11 S&B members appointed by Bush listed in this article do you? A consensus was reached yesterday to minimize the reference to the secret society and that is what the rest of us have done. The related news article is the most newsworthy event that McCallum has yet been involved in ever, so your removal of that is pure vandalism, imo. I will not be dealing with you on this article as I do not see any good faith edits here by you at all. Neutralizer 22:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it out, or take issue with my edits. The Skull and bones article has a link to Phi Beta Kappa Society in the first paragraph. Have you looked at the list of members there? Seems equally impressive, yet you're not looking to shout about their members positions in government. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, please note that 1% of all graduates get into phi beta kappa. Last year alone there were 18,432 new members. This society takes in 15 per year. There is no logical comparison, in my opinion. It's like saying all the people in a city of 18,432 are as close as a family of 15. Neutralizer 22:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?[edit]

I have almost entirely removed any reference to the skull and bones by striking out the ABC reference to the 170 year old society and the numerous appointees as well as removing the external link to the list of 11 Bush appointees who are Bonesmen. The related story is the biggest news event McCallum has ever been involved in so I put that back. Is this satisfactory now? Neutralizer 22:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with the current article version. It relies on what Wikipedia states to explain the Skull and bones, thus keeping the conflict off here. However, I'm under the impression that what you think we should be writing/featuring is overtly editorial. There are venues for editorial content, and participation here is not mutually exclusive with the production of editorial material elsewhere. You can do brief, just the facts articles here, add wikilinks, then interpret the sum of all the information in an editorial on Indymedia or similar. If, as it appears, you have a problem with not getting to express your POV, then you should seek an outlet for that instead of clashing with other contributors here. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I can understand that being the impression you have. In fact, up until recently, that would have been a correct impression. I certainly do not feel as though I am trying to write editorial comment now nor instill my pov into articles, and very few of articles I have been involved in in the past month come anywhere near my pov about anything. I do have quite a bit of knowledge and have done extensive research on the facts surrounding US foreign policy and the skull and bones club so I do try to inject some of that information where appropriate; just as you might get more excited about articles to do with your particular geographical location or interests. Looking back on the original draft I put together, it may have been a bit overboard...but I think I did a good job of pulling back and working in a collaborative manner toward something reasonable, wouldn't you say?..at least I hope so. Neutralizer 02:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan comparison[edit]

By way of analogy, if McCallum was a member of the KKK would that qualify as a news story? Likely not for people who knew little about the KKK other than it was a private club. But likely would for people who knew more what the KKK was all about. It's frustrating for me because I am confident that were the editors here to read and accept the reality of just the Wikipedia information about this truly evil society, there would be many who would think this is an important news event. The power of the S&B collective is unimaginable to anyone who has not spent at least a few hours reading good source information about the cult. Verifiable information indicates that they have been the major force behind

Just as I would have the opinion that it should be reported if an important U.S. government official is a member of the KKK (and include some info about the KKK); much moreso do I feel it should be reported if an important U.S. government official is a member of the S&B(and include some info about the S&B). I'll say no more except the life-long allegiance is so strong they even inter-marry (George Herbert Walker Bush) and they participate in occult rituals. Neutralizer 18:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_nominates_a_new_ambassador_to_Australia&oldid=918723"