Talk:US congressman causes controversy by comparing Bush to Hitler

I was attempting to work this story, then the powers that be, sort of fukked up. -Edbrown05 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have information to contribute to this story or to a followup, but have previously been harassed and threatened by regular Wikinews buffs while using the "collaboration" page, so I will withhold my donation at this point. For those with the insight to find the same info, look for connections between Bush's "perpetual war" against drugs and terrorism, Wales' perpetual war against (or for?) vandalism and inaccuracy, and common international funding sources identified by a Congressional leader. MoreTruth 17:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ed, my first draft of the article was incorrect when I said that Cheney had 'refused to testify'. My bad. It should have read 'refused to provide information of the Vice President office's role in the Federal Prosecutor firings, and other matters'. Instead of deleting this info, you could have provided the correct info as to Cheney's actions which spurred Ellisons remarks. Context is important. Your actions did not make me mad though. Are you now confident that Obama is a Christian, and not a Muslim? Did some Googling? Good man! fnordEmperor NortonXXIII 20:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than impugning the person who removed false information for not having done more (You only wiped up my spilled milk. You could have refilled my glass, you know, boo hoo") "emperor" norton could have thanked the person who removed the false information and then contributed accurate information himself, otherwise known as "fixing one's own boo-boo" or "taking responsibility for one's self". Instead, we get a borderline threat -- Ed didn't "make" norton mad enough to escalate his inappropriate response, norton says (which correctly stated would read "Norton did not make himself mad enough to escalate his ridicule of Ed's contribution"). Even though Norton knows he distributed wrong information, he considered the person who removed his error to also be responsible for correcting it and he couched his displaced responsibility behind a thinly veiled threat of personal conflict. This tells us a lot about how Wikinews differs from a real news service. Let's rank these priorities as established here:

1. (best) correct information

2. (second best) incorrect information

3. (last choice) no information.

A responsible news service publishes corrections when earlier editions were wrong. Simply having archives of the earlier, errant versions is not sufficient to notify readers that the account they read today is different, and more accurate than the false account offered yesterday. Intelligent readers usually hold a dim view of news services that refuse to report their errors as errors in generally the same context as false information was reported. -MoreTruth 22:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You should write some articles, you're a real wordsmith!. Ed deleted my inaccuracy which is great. (thanks) That also deleted the context as to why Ellison said what he did. He did not add 'accurate' information, he added a link to an editorial piece. I didn't know what I wrote was inaccurate until after Ed deleted it. Keep up the good work Mr Truth. fnordEmperor NortonXXIII 22:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Who me, write articles? Don't hold your breath -- if you're waiting on my further donations to this network, you're backing up. Mon travail ici est pour la résistance. We aren't easily mislead by people who use anti-Bush sentiment to build group cohesion. MoreTruth 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

'Group cohesion'? I have no such aims. I walk alone. I also write what interests me. These days its the failings and flailings of the Bush administration and their watercarriers. Maybe you'd feel comfortable writing articles here: [1]They have a breaking news section. I don't think they'd appreciate you writing in French though. I did however. Cela était si très impressionnant, et sophistiqué aussi! Toodles. fnordEmperor NortonXXIII 06:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"I walk alone" said the marcher as he paraded down main street with several thousand others, all marching in lock-step chanting "I walk alone." How about I write an article about Wikipedia, Conservopedia and other 2.0 cults? MoreTruth 15:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Welp, all I got to say is, when a geniune edit to this article dissappears into so smoke, then WTF? -Edbrown05 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Or, rather, what's with WMF? -Edbrown05 09:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiMedia Foundation is not censored.... hmmm? I know you have heard this one before. Do you care? -Edbrown05 10:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

edits burned, perhaps banned is better word, before they occur... that = news? in baseball chatter is encouraged. here, if you don't get it right you get grilled (my bad for participating in that). chat it up is waht baseball is all about, so what if the batter is hum-dinger. -Edbrown05 10:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned

This article has been copied by several other sites:

• http://clipmarks.com/tags/politics/
• http://mediamonarchy.blogspot.com/
• http://optimisto.tumblr.com/

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Date

Why is this article dated July 15? All edits were made July 16 and later. --SVTCobra 11:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)