Talk:Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia

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

NPOV[edit]

The phrase "US invasion in Iraq" is POV. While this is how I think of the war in Iraq, others will consider if to be against our WN:NPOV policy. Please find something more suitable - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought "US invasion of Iraq" was a universally accepted term. Who do you think doesn't accept it? Are you able to suggest an alternative? - Borofkin 00:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
You are both correct I think. Google has 642,000 references to the exact phrase U.S. invasion of Iraq and 432,000 for US led invasion of Iraq; so for our NPOV purposes I inserted the "led". Neutralizer 01:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with "US led invasion of Iraq". - Borofkin 01:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok; I thought about "Coalition invasion of Iraq" but that doesn't fit with the story at all and only has 10,200 google references. I have to go out soon so I will remove the tag but Cartman02au might want to put it back if this change does not do the job. Neutralizer 01:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
My point was that invasion could be interpreted as POV by some basically, I would rather see the article held up now rather than in a few days when eveyone is bickering over it. For those who are against the war we use "invasion" but perhaps war is more appropriate. I am not sure, we need to find an Iraq war supporter and ask them! - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The invasion of Iraq was an invasion, legally. It was not supported by the Security Council, and did not meet the Geneva Convention's "imminent threat" standard, nor was it retaliatory. It is also generally accepted in news reporting world wide. (btw: Invasion is not necessarily pejorative; the invasion of Afghanistan is widely considered to have been a beneficial act for the region.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's still an invasion, regardless of the legality, justification, etc. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Invasion says "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government." The important element is that the military of the US/Britain were moved, uninvited, into territory controlled by someone else. That this is an invasion is undisputed. To use another example, the D-Day landings in France was an invasion of German-held territory by US and British forces. - Borofkin 02:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The title is wrong[edit]

"labelled" is not the verb that the article is about. The article is about two people shouting at her during a public address. I can label her whatever I like in my owh home, but that's not news. Can someone think of an accurate title and move this article? Thanks. Bill3 17:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The title was fine![edit]

Sigh. It really irks me that folks are extremely quick to change the headlines of articles on a whim. There really should be more discussion about major Headline changes BEFORE the change is made. The title "Condoleezza Rice labelled "war criminal" by Australian demonstrators" was as accurate as you can get - in my humble opinion. I thought long and hard about it before I published it. Now the meaning has changed, - rendering confusion and verbosity. Whoever changed it to "Condoleezza Rice heckled during speech by Australian demonstrators" makes it now sound like the speech was by demonstrators. I'd appreciate it if it was changed back. --elliot_k 02:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Making change now. -Edbrown05 03:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Things aren't binary. The new title had flaws but the original title also has flaws. These can and should be fixed.
The current title gets the verb wrong. She was "labelled" long ago, the news item is about her having that label shouted at her. If further claritiy is possible, it should also be indicated that it was shouted at her while she was making a public address. I can label John Smith as being "a pretty smart guy", but that's not news. If John Smith was giving a talk in public and I interrupted the event by repeatedly shout this label at him, that might be news. 84.203.7.134 13:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Semantic Folly[edit]

Now the title makes no sense at all! FACT: Rice was labelled a war criminal by Australian demonstrators. You don't demonstrate in private. Rice is a public person. Its pretty simple really. And every time someone changes it, the meaning makes less and less sense. Sometimes I wonder why I bother writing for Wikinews. Sigh... Disillusioned. elliot_k 13:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, That was me who changed it to "Condoleezza Rice heckled during speech by Australian demonstrators" because the previous title("Condoleezza Rice disrupted during speech by Australian demonstrators")'s use of the word "disrupted" was wrong I thought. But you are correct in retrospect; my title did sound as if the speech was by the demonstrators; apologies. Neutralizer 14:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody is saying that fact is false. Just now, I labelled you "confused" while discussing this with a friend - but I won't make a news article. Me and my friend could have been demonstrators, and I still wouldn't make a news article. If you were on stage at WikiMania 2006 and me and my friend shouted the label at you (and if lots of people cared) then I might make a news article. ...and there is no difference when you replace the first word, "labelled", with your new word "dubbed".
The labelling is not news, the shouting of the lable during a speech is news. For clarity and for anyone reading this, my title was: ""War criminal" shouted at Condoleezza Rice by demonstrators in Australia" Bill3 23:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Bill. The meaning of your title reads as if a war criminal has shouted at Condoleeza Rice. Labelling me "confused" is not news. I am not the Secretary of State. If you had labelled, dubbed, named, called me something and I was indeed an important person, then it would be news I guess. Are you Australian? --elliot_k 01:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

==SOMEONE HAS DELETED A WHOLE BUNCH OF TEXT FROM THIS PAGE== --elliot_k 14:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems that was me too; hopefully I fixed it back. :-( Neutralizer 14:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Dr Rice[edit]

Often persons holding high office have PhD degrees but, not being medical doctors, are not usually referred to as Dr X. To attempt to recognize Rice's PhD but not insist too much on it, I have put "Dr Rice" at the start and converted to "Rice" (or "she") later. 67.21.48.122 22:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

With all the "honorary" degrees being handed out in the USA I don't think the title should ever be used as it can often be misleading as to the education level of the holder. Neutralizer 14:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Happy Meals[edit]

Renamed to "Condoleezza Rice dubbed "war criminal" and "murderer" by Australian demonstrators" to satisfy the semiotic junkies. Hope thats the end of it... --elliot_k 14:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I won't be back. Neutralizer 14:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Title issue again[edit]

MrM has changed it; hopefully he will discuss his pov here on the talk page. In the meantime I reverted it back to the previous title which,I think, had been agreed upon through collaboration. Neutralizer 00:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps this title is more accurate. The whole article isn't just about the "war criminal" statement -- it's about demonstrators disrupting her visit... The former title probably was a bit sensationalist. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I must go to work but I support the prior title Condoleezza Rice dubbed "war criminal" and "murderer" by Australian demonstrators. Neutralizer 00:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The title Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia is definitely dry and boring, but probably less biased. One way to think about it is this: why should the title be Condoleezza Rice dubbed "war criminal" and "murderer" by Australian demonstrators and not Rice says "democracy is well and alive" after being heckled by Australian demostrators? To use a quote in the headline is to take one tiny part of the story and make it the focus. There will always be disagreement about which tiny part of the story should feature in the headline. The focus of the article is the protest, therefore, I support the title Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia. - Borofkin 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I also support the "Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia" title. Bill3 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is more than the two brandings the protestors give Ms. Rice. Including them in the way it was only promotes specific statements, and therefore, the protestors' cause. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This sort of behaviour is really starting to make me angry. I am growing more and more disillusioned about the state of play here on wikinews. This is unfortunate and not conducive to good morale. Of course the title "promotes the protestors' cause." The story is about the protest. There were 3 protestors inside the venue. There were two interuptions to Rice's speech. The most memorable being the two quoted assertions. Many other news outlets identified the "war criminal" phrase. Pissed off at this petty and ridiculous edit-war of what really is just a simple title. --elliot_k 01:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Elliot, you are quite right to be annoyed, as the article was published three days ago. If people had an issue with the title, then they should have raised it then. However, now that it has been raised, it's a little difficult to ignore. The article is definitely "about the protest", as you say, and the title should reflect this focus. The title shouldn't promote the protestors cause, just as it shouldn't promote Rice's cause. It should be neutral. - Borofkin 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality is all about a point of view. It is impossible to remove bias from anything. Ever. A story about a protest will by default, by definition, and to all intents and purposes promote the cause in some way. It is impossible not to! --elliot_k 02:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The only people who make that claim are those who are too lazy to even attempt to achieve neutrality. NPOV is non-negotiable - it is imparitive we keep it that way. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Elliot here. NPOV is not about removing bias, or making an article perfectly neutral, it is about attempting to fairly represent all points of view. My position on the title is that Condoleezza Rice dubbed "war criminal" and "murderer" by Australian demonstrators doesn't fairly represent all points of view, whereas Demonstrators protest Condoleezza Rice's trip to Australia does a better job. Not perfect, just better. - Borofkin 02:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
MrM. So now you just label me as "lazy"? That was easy wasn't it! Mate, its the reality of things. NPOV should be chased yes. But as long as you are looking at something there will be a POV. Thats just a logical fact of life! --elliot_k 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is easy to achieve. Don't dismiss it as difficult, or whine about it to be. All you need is collaboration. Some users wish to diminish that, and for that they are lazy. You need to remember that not everyone has a bias, and in many subjects, a lot of people don't have any. Stating that there will always be POV is quite lazy, since so many users have given their time and effort into assuring that there is no bias. NPOV is non-negotiable. Do not substitute it for any reason. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The title[edit]

A significant part of the article is about the fact that Australian demonstrators actually managed to get inside an auditorium and have a go at the "most powerful woman in the world". The reason I used the phrase/s in the title, is because that is the news element of the article in itself. This does not happen very often. The controversy is in the protestor's comments. So therefore have every reason to be included in the title. "Dr Rice had a nice day" is not news. "Dr Rice called a War Criminal" - is news! --elliot_k 02:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; but at least you got the story out. Our Wikinews' policy alerts us to the constant battle before us to avoid presenting an anglo/american centric point of view, but I find it's a constant battle because people who have it usually don't even know it; just look at the trouble I'm having just trying to write a little well sourced article about subject matter that is "taboo" in the USA; and a similar article[1] was simply deleted(and stuck into my user space) without even going through the deletion request process. As I said, be glad the story you worked on was allowed to be published, this story I worked on won't be, because the subject matter has been censored. Neutralizer 04:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The story I contributed is a "news" story. The two articles you point to can't essentially be classified as "news". More opinion than news, in my opinion... But, Re: Anglo-American-centric_point_of_view. The Anglo/UScentric world view seemingly displayed by wikinews admins and editors appears to be the hardest issue at stake. Particularly when a news story reports on a disrespect shown to a US leader (Rice), it seems folks around here aren't willing to accept criticism of their beloved government - at least when it is in the title. Sigh... I also note the attack on me by MrM is yet to be addressed. --elliot_k 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I noted it, the MrM lazy comment. -Edbrown05
If anyone owes an apology, it is you elliot, you have just attacked so many Wikinews users with your comment above. Maybe NPOV isn't a big issue to you, but it is a the lifeline of this wiki. And I will not allow someone to assert that there is always going to be bias, so we should disregard it completely. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Being objective here, I don't think he was saying we should abandon NPOV completely. I do think he was saying that it is sometimes an unreasonable goal on something as simple as a 10 word article title. Summarizing an entire article into something that short requires compromise; that compromise can sometimes be extremely difficult to arrive at neutrally. irid:t 20:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
NPOV is non-negotiable in every category - titles, article text, categories included, everything. Compromise isn't allowed under NPOV, and bias can always be removed. Those who won't, are lazy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on the non-negotiability. Most certainly, NPOV is the very foundation of WN. However, when you reach the point where this article will be sliding off of the front page soon, other editors generally don't contribute as much time to it. And, again, it requires more effort than most people are willing to put into it. Not that they're lazy, but that older articles simply aren't as visible. I imagine we all feel this effect. The only thing I wanted to point out is that User:Elliot K isn't against NPOV, it's just hard to reach a compromise, especially when others have an opposing viewpoint of what NPOV means in that particular scenario. irid:t 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think everyone is missing the point. NPOV is non-negotiable, true. There can be no compromise when it comes to NPOV, true. The point is that there is no objective way to determine when NPOV has been achieved. An article only conforms to NPOV policy until a contributor comes along and says that it doesn't. One contributor cannot certify an article neutral, it is achieved through consensus, which means co-operation and compromise. - Borofkin 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Mrmiscellanious...[edit]

who says to me: "...bias can always be removed. Those who won't, are lazy." And that I have "attacked so many Wikinews users with your comment"... WTF??

Excuse me, Mrmiscellanious - I have NOT attacked anybody in any way whatsoever. Please do not turn the tables. You are using an Ad Hominem argument. I am merely pointing out the difficult notion (and to stress a point - the impossibility) of bias removal. In particular when it involves real-life protest. But THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME LAZY. I fully respect and abide by the rules of WN. If you think that I am not - you are fully mistaken.

Think about it. How the hell do you think I could have managed to publish over 100 articles in 4 months on this site if I wasn't adhering to the NPOV. Furthermore, I'm a WN Admin and was nominated for ArbCom. Also, I've been a staunch supporter of WN in my other writing and media guises, and have been promoting this website since before it was launched. I love this place.

I also did not "assert that there is always going to be bias, so we should disregard it (NPOV) completely" - I have not, do not, nor ever said that NPOV isn't a "big issue" to me. Where have I said that?

My specific point is that there will always be a struggle at the site of meaning. Communication is difficult at the best of times. Particularly here on the internet.

By simply labelling me as "lazy", you have really offended me mate. You have taken a cheap shot. You have taken the easy way out. You are shooting the messenger.

I suggest you read the Wikinews:Etiquette Guide. I am not lazy. I put many hours into contributing articles, editing media on this and other newsmedia services. I also conduct grass-roots news media workshops. It is my art, my life. Please do not attack me for engaging in open discussion. --elliot_k 04:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • You want to take your anger out on me? Do it. I don't care. But I will not let you stand by and take it out on the wiki's reputation. You are lazy. You're lazy for disregarding NPOV, and by saying POV can't be removed. I take offense to your statements on this, because this is what this wiki is all about. You have offended all individuals on this wiki who have worked so hard on keeping this site bias-free, in order to prevent it from turning into another Indymedia. If you don't want attacks, don't attack what we do best. Simple as that. Now, when you're ready to apologize to this community, then I will apologize to you. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mrmiscellanious[edit]

  • I never asked you for an apology.
  • I am angry. Yes. At your remarks towards me personally. But, mate, I'm not going to "take my anger out" on anybody.
  • I am not Lazy. Will you please stop saying that. That is a false and offensive statement.
  • I am not disregarding NPOV. When/where have I done that? Why do you say that?
  • At a semiotic level, the meaning of NPOV is actually a Point Of View. Can't you see the conundrum there? Its not an attack. Its just the difficult reality of human communications.
  • I know full well that maintaining a Neutral Point of View is important to Wikinews. I am fully aware of that and I do uphold that basic concept. I thought I had explained all that above. Over 100 articles contributed remember. How could they have been published without a NPOV.
  • So, excuse me but, just what am I supposed to apologise to the entire community about?
  • I feel I am being unfairly targetted and attacked by you. Is it the content of my contributed article that offends you. Why is nobody else attacking me?
  • Please read the Wikinews:Etiquette Guide before responding.
  • Repeat: I don't want attacks. And I am not attacking anybody.

(preceding unsigned comment made by Elliot K)

  • When you're ready to apologize for stating that many of our articles are biased and not providing a single representation of fact, then I will respond to your statement. But, as of now, I have not and will not read any more responses from you. Perhaps you should look at what you are asserting first. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Surely discussion about the nature of NPOV is a good thing. If Elliot is saying something, then it's likely that many more people are thinking it. The appropriate response for experienced contributors is to engage others in discusssion, not to attack them, or label them. - Borofkin 23:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
MrMiscellanious, So you're just going to refuse dialogue completely? I hope not. Thats a real shame. I need to figure this out. What am I doing wrong? How can you possibly say my contributions are "not providing a single representation of fact"? I just don't understand. Thats a false statement. I thouroughly research all my efforts. I provide sources to every quote. All information I present is verifiable. Please let me know: what is it I need to look at that am I "asserting"? I really don't get it, mate. Please offer some idea as to what it is exactly I am to apologise about? If you refuse to talk about this, how can we move forward? Thanks. --elliot_k 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to other Admins: I am really concerned about MrMiscellanious' combative behaviour on this and many other articles. He seems to antagonise and abuse the wikinews system in an effort to push a certain POV. He is disruptive, confrontational, aggressive, and refuses to engage in meaningful discussion. A consensus community needs open and transparent discussion in order to work; to present all POVs. Are others concerned about his behaviour? Or perhaps its just me. I dunno! But I am increasingly frustrated. I don't mind discussing the issue of POV at all, it is fundamental. However, I am finding WN less than productive and more a shitfight. Is there some action that can be taken? --elliot_k 02:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cooling off[edit]

There are two articles brewing right now which seem to be evoking a lot of anger and frustration. Considering their volatile nature, perhaps it's best if we all back off from them. If they're important enough, maybe we can return to them when we have a level head and a more reasonable perspective. Nobody can collaborate in this atmosphere, not even those who aren't involved in these disputes. I am not labeling anyone here; I am simply saying that the situation is heated and needs a moment to simmer. Can we agree, at least, to that? irid:t 16:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)