Talk:French presidential candidate Sarkozy accuses left parties of betraying left values
- I don't think they were there. Guillom went to this event and is reporting what he saw and heard. Any response the left may have should be in another article. --SVTCobra 12:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- this idea that news articles reporting someone's speech shld refrain from reporting background info or responses (especially from those identified and commented on) goes flatly against standard reporting practice. un-spinning political speeches by providing factual info and the "right to reply" are a key part of what makes a news report. we are not this public speaker or that politician's press office to report only what he or she says and deliberately refrain from reporting any other facts or views. any such articles also goes against the WN:NPOV policy we have.
- the "lets leave it for another article" idea doesn't wash. notable public speeches get coverage. sundry responses the next day are as often as not not reported on at all. further, each article shld strive to cover what issues it touches upon neutrally, rather than one article today spouting only pro-your-favorite-public-issue views and another article tmrrw spouting anti-your-favorite-public-issue views.
- this seems so obvious to me that frankly, i'm astonished that i'm debating this at all. –Doldrums(talk) 13:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- What do you suggest? It's very likely that the left side simply didn't respond to these accusations, since this is simply election yap. Feel free to remove anything that you consider NPOV, or add anything you can find, but I agree with SVTCobra: this article is about the meeting, and if you ask me, it does in no way reflect poorly on the left parties.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- How do you propose doing that in a case like this? I guess if we can find it (I did look), we can add a statement along the lines "Hollande and Royal say they haven't betrayed their political ideal." But they likely ignored Sarkozy. For an example of where WN:NPOV was abused, please look at this article President Bush: 2006 State of the Union. So this is a report on the annual address by the president. A part of the event is the rebuttal by the opposition, which is correctly presented in the article. It also correctly covers protesters what happened to protesters that were there in the gallery. But in the middle of the coverage of the speech is an inserted response by Iran's president. That does not belong there. That is selectively debating Bush's speech and is not neutral. He spoke on many topics, why not a paragraph by paragraph commentary from people "on the other side". He spoke about social security, why not a comment from AARP? He mentions solar energy, why not a comment from the oil companies? He mention Hamas and Israel, why not a comment from both of them? --SVTCobra 15:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- that of course, helps. one way to handle such events is to place the emphasize on a candidate's standing on various issues rather than the boilerplate 'yap'. that is useful information, and it is easy to add other sides' two cents about the issues. if this "leftiness" thing is considered important, an e-mail to the Royal campaign asking for a response is the best thing. there may also be boilerplate messages from the campaign regarding its values that'll serve well.
- incidentally, ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doldrums (talk • contribs) 16:55, 15 April 2007
- Brian, are you going to smack the npov-tag on this Ségolène Royal calls for gentle reforms article too? I wrote the article in a neutral manner and provided plenty of background, but no, it does not contain Sarkozy's side of the story. He wasn't in the radio studio with her. And if I pick to report his view, wouldn't I be obligated to report the views of all 10 of the other candidates? --SVTCobra 17:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC) It's not a "two horse race" after-all. --SVTCobra 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- if that article has statements by Royal about Sarkozy that one can reasonably expect S. to dispute, then yes, an opportunity to rebut is important. while you're welcome to report all the views, they can (in fact, ought to) be in proportion to the "importance" of the candidates. –Doldrums(talk) 17:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Its more valuble to have an article that simply reports on what was said. It's just election yap but English speaking countries could do with a little information about what the French consider to be ellection yap. It's a much higher quality of elction yap in France. Nyarlathotep 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)