Talk:California's SB 1 Bill Originators' and Supporters Turn Against Bill
NPOV[edit]
Statements like "Washington and Oregon have seen the big picture" and "California is so close to following suit but alas, there is a fly in the ointment." are definitely supportive of a single point of view. If this page is intended for publication, it needs to be much more neutral, not to mention cleaned up. That said, it would be the start of a great op-ed piece if only Wikinews were the place for that sort of thing. :-) --Yarvin 22:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wikinews needs an op-ed section. I would propose the following rules:
- 1) articles must maintain a minimum length of 600 words at all times (prevents much garbage),
- 2) articles must clearly identify their POV on their talk page (and via the minimum length),
- 3) any change to the articles POV should require consensus of all significant contributors (so if you poorly describe your POV and someone changes it within your poorly established guidlines, you have to negotiate what the real guidlines should be, or fork the article).
- Of course, op-ed pieces would not appear amongs the main news stoories, but it could make an interesting section. - Nyarlathotep 09:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Op Eds, or Editorials must be published under the user namespace (e.g. User:Nyarlathotep/Supporters Turn Against Bill), and use the {{Editorial}} tag. -- NGerda 17:06, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you!! I din't know you could do that. Can others edit them? Do they ever show up on the front page someplace? If not, where? - Nyarlathotep 21:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I brought a proposal about this a while ago. Aparrently we can't link to them anywhere, but I might slide through an Editorial page that automatically links to all editorials. But we need to create them first! ;) -- NGerda 22:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I've got plenty of crazy ideas which I'm only half able to develop into stories, although that may be due to them being only halfway sound at times. :)
- Why not just have a little box for the most recent/popular ones? Or at least a note saying "Check out our editorial pages!" when we get too many. I think it would get a lot of people to write more stuff for wikinews if they knew they could sometimes write whatever they wanted.
- What do you mean by not linking? You can presumably link them to a real article, just as you would anything else, no? - Nyarlathotep 23:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- I brought a proposal about this a while ago. Aparrently we can't link to them anywhere, but I might slide through an Editorial page that automatically links to all editorials. But we need to create them first! ;) -- NGerda 22:09, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I rewrote it to be more NPOV. Set it to publish if you concur. - Nyarlathotep 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- Nice work. I fixed some spelling and grammar errors and revised the text a bit. I'd publish it, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate to (a) use a commentary as the only source (though here I think we have to) and (b) make use of information from the user comments on the article cited (the part about the grandfathering). --Yarvin 03:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Your version looks good, I'll set it to publish. For such (not so) subtle legislative points, one often has only the text of the bill and the press releases of special interest groups. You can cite the text of the bill if you like, but I'm not going to read it myself. :) - Nyarlathotep 03:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I would cite the bill, but given that it's been amended since Cinnamon wrote his article (the points he argues against seem to still be there, though I don't plan on reading the whole thing either), I'm not sure which to cite, so I guess I'll let someone better at citing than me do the citing. The bill is at this site. --Yarvin 03:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)