Talk:Gore criticizes use of unwarranted domestic wiretaps

As this is the longest article I've started so far, I'd really like to ensure it being NPOV. If there are parts that are not, I'd like advice on avoiding that in the future. Also, I don't have any particular connection to this title so I encourage other options if people deem that important. --LoganCale 05:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

How about "Gore criticized the use of unwarranted domestic wiretaps"? It's really softer than "accuses Bush of breaking law", but indicates the story is about the wiretaps, making it a bit more neutral. Karen 16:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gore criticizes use of unwarranted domestic wiretaps" sounds good to me. --LoganCale 16:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncharacteristic/Characteristic

I had started the article "In an uncharacteristically forceful speech Monday..." but it was recently changed to "In a characteristically forceful speech Monday..." I used "uncharacteristically" as... well, it was uncharacteristically forceful. He's usually a more placid, wooden speaker and that wasn't the case with this speech. If this is disputed, however, I suggest just removing that altogether and starting it "In a forceful speech Monday..." or something of the sort. --LoganCale 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed "characteristically" until a third party can offer a suggestion as I don't believe it to be factually correct. --LoganCale 17:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

LoganCale, the use of adverbs like "(un)characteristically" on wikinews is quite difficult. Although often (as for example in this case), good arguments can be made to support its use, you will find that in practice you will not be able to achieve concensus on these kind of questions as they are too subtle to be explained in one sentence and too easily boykotted by people with "entrenched idiologies". So while it will be difficult to achieve consensus on "uncharacteristically", it is an easy to see that "characteristically" is factually wrong. IMO editing out the word altogether is the most sensible solution (given certain shortcomings of wikinews). --vonbergm 19:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I had figured that may be the case when I wrote it but left it in to see what other people thought as I liked the sound of it. It's no great loss to have it removed, however, and I think it works well without it. --LoganCale 19:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

factually wrong

The last edit by MrM introduced many factual inaccuracies. I recommend it being reverted. I am happy to give examples if there is the need, but they are easy to pick out by anyone who read the sources. --vonbergm 19:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that concern got addressed, thanks. --vonbergm 19:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Editing out information

I don't really see why it was necessary to edit out large portions of the article. They did not violate NPOV, were not redundant and added to the overall coverage of the speech. Comparing the new and the old version, I believe that the old version reflected the content of the speech much more accurately.

Bottom line: Please explain why you think that the new version reflects the speech more accurately than the old version. --vonbergm 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the things he said weren't directly related to the wiretap situation, so I found them irrelevent to include. If you have specific concerns, I'll be happy to respond. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)