User talk:Jade Knight/AIP

Review

Revision 714046 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: I can't find any mention of "victims of this lie". NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Could you please use the proper source formatting ( {{Source}} - you can see the quick insert on the bottom of the edit page). We generally don't source blogs when we don't need to, and "Several high-profile independent blogs have praised" really doesn't add anything. "which other reports have confirmed" - The point of source section is to provide this verifiability specifically so we don't have to mention it in article. Comments by reviewer: I apologize over the NPOV earlier. It was supposed to say "n/r" or not reviewed. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 714046 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: I can't find any mention of "victims of this lie". NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Could you please use the proper source formatting ( {{Source}} - you can see the quick insert on the bottom of the edit page). We generally don't source blogs when we don't need to, and "Several high-profile independent blogs have praised" really doesn't add anything. "which other reports have confirmed" - The point of source section is to provide this verifiability specifically so we don't have to mention it in article. Comments by reviewer: I apologize over the NPOV earlier. It was supposed to say "n/r" or not reviewed. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Next time, please address all stylistic issues at once. Would make things much easier. Jade Knight (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my misquote: the original article said "the lie", not "this lie"; I've corrected accordingly. I'm somewhat confused: you tell me to find more sources, and then you tell me you don't like my sources. If you could please point me to the WikiNews policy which states exactly how many sources of what kind are needed, I'll gladly do my best to comply; unfortunately, I can't find the relevant policy myself. Otherwise, if you could find the sources you're looking for which you think this article lacks, that would be great. Jade Knight (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Title

As a FYI, we do not use camel case titles. This is in the style guide section on headlines. I will rename appropriately. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what "Camel Case" means. I'm familiar with the terms upstyle, downstyle, sentence-caps, title-caps, etc. Mind explaining? Jade Knight (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia to the rescue. I clearly wasn't using camel case. Thanks for introducing me to a new term, though. Jade Knight (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Blog entry

Although well constructed I feel this article is still essentially saying, "Go read what OSC wrote". That's what blogs do, not what Wikinews does. Without going into minute details I think it fails to answer Who What Where When Why and How adequately. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes this newsworthy is the blame he's placing on the media. He's accusing the media of lying and of being biased, and is specifically documenting cases where this is so; the fact that he writes for a newspaper and is indicting his own party in the process makes this more newsworthy. Consider that we're currently featuring an article which says, in essence, "go read what Gordon Brown wrote", and recently had others which said essentially "go read what Jose Zapatero wrote", and yet another that said "Mac users wrote that they didn't like something". There is no question that many bloggers seem to think that this is newsworthy. 134.197.111.181 20:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interview

I've contacted Card asking if he'd be willing to take an interview on the issue. I'll report back if I hear from him (yes or no). 134.197.111.181 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OpEd pieces and NPOV

Writing a summary of an opinion piece published elsewhere does not make for an article that can be published under WN:NPOV in my opinion. --SVTCobra 03:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this respectful and straightforward response. You'll have to forgive me: I feel somewhat deceived that this is only being brought up now after I have submitted the article for review 3 times (and worked diligently towards addressing the concerns raised in the first 2). If the article is inappropriate based on its content (which has not significantly changed since then), this should have been pointed out in the very first review. Jade Knight (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You have successfully taken every freaking opportunity to offhandedly insult my reviews. I am sick and tired of it. You didn't get what you wanted out of a review the first time? Tough shit. Guess what? I am a freaking volunteer too. I'm working 12-14 hour days, 7 days a week right now. I take my few and far between breaks trying to help WN a little bit. I don't have time to do a full review especially when the submitting user fails SO MISERABLY the first time around. The only reason I put down a {{peer review}} tag instead of just flipping the article back to develop was because I was trying to be nice. That time is now over. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 04:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have never attempted to insult your reviews at all. I am sorry that your life is so hard right now, but I would appreciate it if you would please try to remain civil regardless. I recommend you review Wikinews:Etiquette before commenting further here; it seems that this article may be particularly upsetting for you. I am trying to contribute effectively in good faith here; if you feel I have been incivil at any point, please let me know and I'll apologize and try to do better—I have made an attempt to correct every thing I can see how to correct with this article that you have brought up in your views; I have fixed quotes, reformatted sources, added additional sources, etc. You point out something wrong, and I do my best to fix it. I took your two reviews as in good faith, and my edits to try to address the issues you bring up have also been in good faith. If you see elements in this article which still, after all my work, need help in making this a publishable article, then please, be bold and make those corrections! I am doing my best here, but I'm still new to the world of reporting (and wiki-reporting), and so I can use all the help I can get. Jade Knight (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently so many people have been wondering about this article that Snopes had to report on it.[1] Jade Knight (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had been looking for criticisms of the article to provide another perspective, but I'm not turning up anything. Not a single one of Google's top 20 results on the article (all of which are about the article) includes negative commentary. Jade Knight (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

This page does not fit (remotely) any of the criteria at Wikinews:Criteria for speedy deletion, so I have removed the speedy deletion tag. If I have made an error in doing so, please point it out to me here on the talk page (and which criteria this article falls under deserving a speedy delete). Jade Knight (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Content

So, after listening to the various objections about content, I'm thinking that people might appreciate a different approach to this article. Initially, I thought to report the event that Orson Scott Card was lambasting the Media. I was like: Here's someone attacking news, and I thought that would make a good news article. After listening to reviews, however, I'm thinking that a different approach may be more appropriate: Would it be better if I turned this into a more general article on the issue of potential media deception on the issue? The idea is to make it about Media representation of the Housing Crisis, and to include multiple points of view, instead of just Card's. I've started a cursory search for sources, and turned up the following: [2], [3], [4], [5]. I'd be glad to see any other sources people can contribute (particularly if you feel one side isn't being adequately represented). In particular, I'm trying to find some mainstream media articles which discuss the housing issue and demonstrate bias or lack of bias (to be used as examples or exceptions). I'm really interested in improving this article, and I'm glad for constructive feedback. What do you think of the current revision of the article? What about this new idea? Jade Knight (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems that I see with this

Even with the recent changes, this article still only presents the view of Orson Scott Card. Further, it is {{stale}}, if for no other reason than the fact that his open letter was written October 5. And while I share his concerns about how the financial crisis might be manipulated by the media to affect the outcome of the election, it is also an unfair simplification to describe Card as a Democrat. Despite your arduous work on this, I do not think it can get published here. Instead, it would make much more sense to me if this work was added to his Wikipedia page. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you read my comments above about taking this in a new direction? You do not seem to have commented on my ideas there at all; I am very much interested in hearing your thoughts—and I think that you may find, if you read my comments more carefully, that there may be a different approach to this you might find acceptable.

I do not understand why you think that it's "unfair" to say that Card describes himself as a Democrat, when he clearly does so. You may disagree with Card's political stances, but that does not mean it is "unfair" for him to call himself a Democrat.

Please realize that I am describing an event; certainly, it may be appropriate for a brief mention of Card's article to be added to his Wikipedia article when it has gathered so much attention. But I'm not writing a biography, nor part of a biography, on Card here. I am describing a recent event. I've tried to make this particularly true with my comments and suggestions above.

Let me make this simple: I am asking for your help in figuring out a way to make this article meet the standards of Wikinews, and am willing to work as hard as it takes to do so. I am not asking you to like the event described. I am not asking you to censor anything. I am not asking you to violate Wikinews policies. I just want help in improving this article.

Jade Knight (talk) 03:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That is part of the problem ... it is simple ... it is an event (the writing/publishing of the article/open letter). Since Card wrote this on October 5, it is nearly three weeks old, thus hardly newsworty. It should have been reported on much sooner to fit the Wikinews format. The secondary point is really irrelevant to whether it could be published, but relates to Card as Democrat. When I say it is "unfair" to call Card a Democrat (as he describes himself) it is because doing so without mentioning that since before the 2006 elections he has endorsed Republicans is misleading. Would you describe Michael Bloomberg as a Republican or Joe Lieberman as a Democrat, without mentioning their departures/disagreements with the parties? I hope not. If you can find current newsworthy developments, then you might be able to use Card as a commentator. So I while I agree Card has some valid points, I don't see any way to meet Wikinews standards on this. --SVTCobra 04:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on the "new direction" you speak of, it would be interesting to study media bias, but the links are all several days old (not news). They could be used as background if we find some current research. Of course, both sides perceive media bias. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate you taking the time to be specific about your issues with this. Ultimately, what I take away from what you think is that it is simply "too old" to be published by Wikinews. For future reference (so I don't waste time at Wikinews only to have people refuse to publish my work), what's Wikinews policy or guideline on timing of news? Is there some reference which talks about how to evaluate whether a potential piece of news is "too old"? This seems like a critical issue: I've put a few hours into trying to find sources, engaging in discussion, etc., here, and it's very important to me to be able to determine this in advance. Jade Knight (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)