Talk:U.S. House Republicans continue speaking after lights turn off

Any details about what they actually talked about? Wikidsoup (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Politico, AP, NYT, and other sources they do actually devote quite a bit of coverage to the vote the Democrats filibustered and what the Republicans were speaking about. This information should have some coverage in the wikinews article, otherwise it comes off as rather a POV anti-Republican slant.--Quadrastreet (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Prime example: the wikinews article ends with '"Nancy Pelosi, we want a vote!" demanded Wally Herger (R-CA). The Republicans then returned to the floor, even though all the galleries were closed.', which comes off as indicating that the Republicans were off their rockers. From reading the sources, though, the "vote" that the Republicans want is explained quite thoroughly, as well as information indicating that Pelosi intentionally blocked the vote from taking place.--Quadrastreet (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

While Pelosi did block the vote, there was no way they could have forced that vote to the floor by talking after hours. It was a political stunt, although turning off the lights was kind of harsh. Shii (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Shii - I appreciate the edit that added, "floor to speak about the offshore drilling bill which Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) had blocked", but should it not be changed to reflect the fact that it was the vote that was blocked, and not the bill itself? At least that's what I get out of the source articles.--Quadrastreet (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually, this Dallas News journalist makes a good point: [1]

The theater closed at 5 p.m. tonight. Could you imagine what might have happened if Democrats had left the lights on, and C-Span kept its camera rolling? The GOP might have been tempted to dispatch members to talk for hours at a time over the next five weeks. Oh, now I see why the Democrats kicked reporters out.

Shii (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it absurd that people now think it is polite behavior to simply yank the "published" tag off a story without explaining specific problem areas. This definitely did not happen when I wrote my other articles in 2006. Shii (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Missing OR notes

The talk page is missing OR notes to back up the OR tag in the Sources section. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I went to the Wikinews:Original reporting page and it told me that I should make notes of whatever interviews I conduct. But I didn't talk to anyone, I just popped in and had a looksie. Shii (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be some sort of OR notes on the talkpage of some kind, for verification purposes and for journalistic integrity. (As opposed to nothing) Cirt (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here goes.

Original reporting notes

• I am a congressional intern.
• I went to the third floor of the Capitol to observe what was going on; they told me to put my camera away so I did so, and when I came back the galleries were being forcibly closed.
• I did not participate in the event and I was not part of the audience.
• I went back to the office and watched the press conference on C-SPAN.
• Shii (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is much better. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else I need to do before the article is "published" quality? Shii (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed/changed tag to {{Publish}}. Most interesting stuff. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)