Talk:Liberal Democrat leadership contenders address party members

Original Reporting

I watched the speeches broadcast live on BBC News 24, and used the streaming on-demand video repeats on the BBC News website to do further quote gathering and summarisation. Frankie Roberto 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Great use of resource, Frankie! - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Objections

The following objection was added to the article: "This article has been nominated for editorial cleanup, that is, an editor considers it not to be publishable in its current form. The following reason has been cited: 'This article is NPOV until all statements are quoted from the individuals. Additionally, having an article entirely about one party is not NPOV, I'm guaranteed that there are responses to many of the statements here from the other parties.'"

I really don't understand the objections. It is an article about people competing for the leadership of the w:Liberal Democrats. How are other parties relevant for this? And what's wrong about paraphrasing? An example of this is given in the Style Guide which implies that it is allowed. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't understand the objections either. Paraphrasing the speeches seems to me to be perfectly acceptable journalistic practise, indeed many of the news sources referenced do exactly the same. Much of the 'paraphrasing' is actually almost direct quotation too, just without the speech marks and a few errors for style, not content. This can be checked by watching the videos ([1]). At the time of writing, no other political figures have given any direct responses to any of the speeches. I'm removing the Cleanup and NPOV tags -if anyone still has objections then they should retag the article and clarify what they think needs to be done here. I'll leave the article in development status for now, and will re-publish if there are no further responses after 24 hours. Sound fair? Frankie Roberto 21:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment much on the tags, I found the way the thing was structured sufficiently offputting that I didn't want to read much of it. Do we have a couple of people who watched this on TV or something like that who can turn it into Original reporting by detailing the delivery as well as the bare facts? A lead-in about Kennedy's departure and a sentence or two to explain where the party fits into the British political scene is all you can expect on something like this in terms of "political balance". Anyway, I read the first BBC article and just wanted to edit it... "On Saturday, the 64-year-old said [he] wanted to affirm his belief in the cause of liberalism that had "inspired and dominated" his life."  :-) On the {{NPOV}} issue, the story is the forthcoming election, the article can't be seen to favour any one candidate, but may report on others saying one is a recognised leader or what an opinion poll says. I don't think other parties enter into it, unless they're commenting on the candidates.--Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I watched the TV broadcast, and used the streaming on-demand video on the BBC news site to note down the quoted statments. There wasn't really much to comment on, delivery-wise, they were all pretty much the same. I don't think the article favours any particular candidate at the moment. I'll try and add in a few contextualising statements at the beginning. Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any wikinews articles on the Charles Kennedy resignation story... Frankie Roberto

Nice intro

That's a nice intro, I made a few minor changes but got stuck at "wach" (spelling?). I've given a bit more thought to what else might help improve it, and if you list the candidates in the lead-in then that stops the wikilinks breaking up the article flow later on. Then you need to do something to flow between the sections on the candidates, things like, "The leading candidate, <blah> stated/said/insisted/assured/whatever", and vary the introductions by using details like what constituencies people are from. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done some editing. "wach" was a typo, opps. Ready to publish yet? Frankie Roberto 00:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I did what we call a "copyedit" on this, now you need to click on the "add comment" section on the top and explain when the broadcast was, if and how it was edited (or live) and so on. Then you, me, or some random stranger needs to stick an original reporting tag on it. Incidentally, I hope you like the changes I've made so far. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. I re-edited your edit of the first sentence, which introduced a minor factual innacuracy, and re-edited another sentence of the first para, improving flow and clarifying a minor factual innaccuracy of my own. Frankie Roberto 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You really need to put something on this page about the original reporting, even if you have covered it in the article you need a section on this page (the "add comment" link) that says "Original Reporting" I watched the speeches on BBC News 24. By this page I mean the talk page, I'll go dig up the original reporting tag to put on this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I see what you mean now. Sorry - tired! Hope the info above is ok. Frankie Roberto 00:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Geo-bias

Need some geo-context information in headlines for those of us who don't live in U.K. <thacksto@pacbell.net>