Jump to content

Talk:Tea Party-endorsed Christine O'Donnell wins Delaware Senate primary election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Diego Grez in topic Photo

Review of revision 1094392 [Passed]

[edit]

NPOV issues

[edit]

The final paragraph presents two NPOV issues:

  • O'Donnell's victory, coupled with the recent defeat of Lisa Murkowski by Joe Miller in Alaska, represent electoral victories for the Tea Party movement... This sentence is misleading. It does not fairly represent the facts: the Tea Party movement has dozens of candidates and endorsees, very few of whom have prevailed in their respective campaigns. As a 'grassroots movement' the Tea Party has clearly failed supremely, being unable to convert even a tiny fraction of the Republican races in a non-presidential election year (when special interest groups are notably more successful than in presidential years.)
  • An article by Frank Rich in the New York Times recently accused the Tea Party... Wikinews does not report speculation. It is not news, it is not verifiable fact, it is rumour mongering.

I strongly encourage the contributors to very quickly address these two issues. - Amgine | t 02:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

How the movement presents itself

[edit]
  • Neither libertarianism nor constructionism are supported by the sources, so I took the cautious approach of deleting both words, and sighting the edit. An unreg user challenged 'constructionism', and I can't find that by a quick Google search either.
  • In general, Wikinews should be cautious when interpreting or summarizing political rhetoric. I think we should aim to directly attribute such to either a reputable commentator or a party spokesperson.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Photo

[edit]

{{editprotected}}

  • Since this article was written a more recent and high quality photo of Ms. O'Donnell has become avaliable (File:Christine O'Donnell 2010.jpg). I propose that this photo be used in the article over the more poorer quality photo from 2006. User:Aaaccc (talk) 17 October 2010 (UTC)