Talk:Mother's plea to U.S. president gains widespread attention

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

Casey needs to be introduced before his name is used on its own. --Mattm

I have added in the family statement from Drudge Report. Usually I do not use the site as a source, however I feel as if the statement was an important item to include in this article to neutralize the POV. --Mrmiscellanious 21:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition, I believe the use of the word "tell the truth" is a little too much to be used here (some believe what the reasons given are true). She is asking for a one-on-one conversation with the President. --Mrmiscellanious 21:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

then we should put it in scare quotes. Kevin Baastalk 21:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the NPOV references [[1]]"The prevailing Wikinews understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct" This article did not imply the demonstrator is correct;simply that she is demonstrating. There are millions of people who disagree with her and if they were also at Crawford,demonstrating,then that may warrant inclusion; but certainly, something from the Drudge report that only required a few computer clicks should not stand in the story as some sort of counterbalance to the time and effort this demonstrator has put in.NPOV does nmot mean "neutralizing"..it means unbiased reporting. 70.50.77.14 21:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • And "demanding the truth on why her son had to die" isn't favoring any side (many believe the reasons given are true)? Seems a little biased to me. Besides, as I stated before, nothing but the release came from Drudge. --Mrmiscellanious 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • We aren't talking about Hamas right now. I am saying that "demanding the truth" when people might believe it is the truth is a conflict of POV. However, she does want to speak privately with the President - and that does not hinder on the NPOV policy. Please, don't start a fight on a talk page. --Mrmiscellanious 21:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The title[edit]

The title of this article needs to be altered a bit, such as something more like this: "U.S. mother's plea to the President gains widespread attention" or Mother's plea to U.S. President gains widespread attention" ..also possibly dropping the article before "President."

Eliminate quote[edit]

Do we have too quote the extended family? I realize someone is all hot to use some source material in the PD, but they are not very realivent to the story. The story is the mother & her followers, the father & the dead guy are realivent, but not objections by extended family? Sure, mention they don't like her much, but they don't warrant a quote as they arn't what we are talking about. Now if yoou have quotes about the controversy from the media, that seems more relevant, as it goes to the mothers influence, but family fights are for Opera. Nyarlathotep 21:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they help balance the story and should be left. --Cspurrier 17:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Justification as "neutralizing" is irrelevant. This is a news item, the content of the entry for it must be the event it reports on and related material. That related material however, does not have the value of the event by any margin at all. The direct quote is excessive. A summary statement similarly to what follows is more NPOV: "Some members of the extended Seehan family oppose Cindy's action."

  • Surely if you are going to report on one person's feelings about the manner, you should also include others? Keep the quote. And besides, two "agree votes" (if you can even call them that) are not a consensus. --Mrmiscellanious 19:17, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The aspect it seems you claim justify the inclusion of the quote seem to be no more than: the quote from representative of that faction of the extended family, response by Seehan of awareness of that faction, and comment that her direct family support her. The news is that Seehan's encampment has gained greater support from the family of other soldiers killed. Summary statement of both aspects of the disputed area including the quote and the extended commentary on Seehan's response to its publicity should be provided for completeness but the presence of a full quote from the opposition in the extended family and the commentary on Seehan's response to it are both out of place here.

  • So, you do not approve of the opposition quote in this article for what reason? It certainly relates to the article. Furthermore, we are not here to gain support for Ms. Sheehan - we are not here to take a side. --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not approve of the mention of secondary information with emphasis as to confuse the focus of the entry from its primary point. This is not an editorial. The length of the quote and response to it deflect focus from the news recounted-that greater numbers have gathered into Seehan's encampment. This based on its title is the focus and not a comprehensive overview. I advocate that summaries as short as possible replace the present forms. This seems not to have been clear in either comments made previously but stated again to correct misinterpretations. Quoting extended family accusing Seehan of covertly operating for class of purpose that they directly operate for only reports on a political feud in that family and only reduces the article's worth.

  • Agreed, its about emphasis, no one here is objecting to mentioning it. Can we delete the quote and link to Drudge? At minimum, we should delete the quote's signature, it really does not warrant so much space. Nyarlathotep 18:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the quote. The concensus is to take it out. If the minority opinion puts it back, just keep taking it out. Paulrevere2005 21:45, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul, the vote is at 2-2 (NPOV is no longer with us). That is not a consensus. Nevertheless, there is no justification for taking it out - it isn't anywhere near breaking the NPOV policy. In fact, excluding it for no reason (as it does relate to the story) would be more of a violation of the NPOV policy than including it. --Mrmiscellanious 22:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heisenberg-ish...[edit]

"Mother's plea to U.S. president gains widespread attention"... this is equivatlent to "newspaper reports on news story" No; it's more like a big story we had a week ago "Bush says 'we're at war'" Paulrevere2005 21:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother%27s_plea_to_U.S._president_gains_widespread_attention&oldid=125819"