Talk:U.S. House vote forced on immediate pullout of troops in Iraq
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Can someone expand the geopolitical acronyms on this, we're not all used to US politics. Brian McNeil / talk 20:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
NPOV[edit]
Issues with this:
Quote
The House chamber debate was highly partisan and emotionally charged.
- DO NOT TAKE SIDES.
- I don't understand this objection -- the chamber was highly partisan and it was emotionally charged. Is the assertion that it wasn't emotionally charged? How is this taking sides? --Chiacomo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was taking sides by calling it partisan. As I was watching C-SPAN last night, I can tell you it isn't the truth. There were equal speeches/opinions shared from both sides. --Mrmiscellanious 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mrmiscellaneous, partisan does not indicate that either party did not make speeches, rather it implies that the points argued were made along party lines and as “highly” rather than absolutely further description it allows for variations but continues to communicate the general status (viz. Majority Republicans in opposition to any type of recall, Minority Democrats in opposition to reckless recall of military forces). Modified by removal of line break as description applies to both actions described, by Schmidt and also Ford and others.68.210.70.211 18:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was taking sides by calling it partisan. As I was watching C-SPAN last night, I can tell you it isn't the truth. There were equal speeches/opinions shared from both sides. --Mrmiscellanious 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't understand this objection -- the chamber was highly partisan and it was emotionally charged. Is the assertion that it wasn't emotionally charged? How is this taking sides? --Chiacomo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Quote
At this, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) and other Democrats charged at the Republican side of the chamber in anger. "You guys are pathetic! Pathetic!" yelled Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-MA).
- "Charged" is inaccurate, and should be replaced with a more neutral verb.
- One of the sources used the word "surged" -- is that better? --Chiacomo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think "shouted in anger" or something would be more gramatically and factually correct, plus it's not really fair to make one side seem like it is "violent". --Mrmiscellanious 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that it was violent, since one of the sources mentioned a "scrum" between Ford, other Democrats, and Republicans in the House. - McCart42 [[User_talk:McCart42|(talk)]] 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I think "shouted in anger" or something would be more gramatically and factually correct, plus it's not really fair to make one side seem like it is "violent". --Mrmiscellanious 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- One of the sources used the word "surged" -- is that better? --Chiacomo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
--Mrmiscellanious 21:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Then fix it. -Edbrown05 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I will not. I refuse to "fix" any NPOV issues, but will point them out for others to fix. No one is learning about the policy if I just fix them. --Mrmiscellanious 21:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Neither of these appear to be actionable objections. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)