User talk:Neutralizer/Bush and McCallum; Skull and Bones brothers

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Not news, NPOV[edit]

Neutralizer: there is no news event in this article which justifies the information of Skull and Bones being a major part of a news article. I understand your interest in this topic, but this is not news - it is a reasonable editorial topic. Wikinews does not do editorials. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Amgine seen the sources? It seems to be news in Australia being in 2 major papers tomorrow? I don't think we have the right to dictate that what others obviously see as being news is not news; that's just allowing our pov to censor Wikinews,it seems to me.Neutralizer 01:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is one article, published in two of a news paper chain's papers. It is remarkably speculative. And Wikinews does have the responsibility to determine what is news. We've also done so. See WN:CG - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added another source; but I do not get the feeling you wish to act in a collaborative way on this article; you just say "no" and that's it; please advise if I misinterpret your comments? Neutralizer 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how this article can be other than an editorial. Editorials are not allowed in the main namespace of Wikinews. Please explain how this is a news event? - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its news just as Cheney's connection to Halliburton was news when Halliburton got government contracts. It's obviously news when there is any personal or business connection between important government people which most citizens are not aware of. Neutralizer 01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to side with Amgine on this one, stressing about how Mr. McCallum is a Skull&Bones is implying that this is all a conspiracy to conquer the United States for the Southern Conservative Jesusians. While a brief mentioning in an article regarding his nomination is perfectly acceptable, an entire article devoted to how they're brudders in their little club really isn't for Wikinews. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Messed; we already did an article on the nomination; this was just in keeping with our "start a new story" methodology. I think the connection/relationship is important enough to be a story (as was the connection between Cheney and Halliburton which generated many news stories) and obviously the sources think so too. I have to go to work so I will not be able to defend the newsworthiness of it any longer and I've concluded it is "taboo" subject matter for a couple of editors here. But I think we're all acting in "good faith". We certainly have published many stories about less newsworthy issues it seems to me. I would not have tried to do this story again except that the Australian papers think its worth an article or 2.Neutralizer
I definitely agree that it's good faith writing. Just questioning the reason for an article and all... —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you suppose the Aussie papers did an article [1]Neutralizer 02:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Cheney had ongoing revelations of news; his oversight of some of the contracting decisions, the fact he is still receiving salary from the company, and so on. There is no evidence of the same currency with either Mr McCallum or Mr Bush. I simply do not see a current news event which can reasonably be connected in the manner you have done here. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<grin> I really have to go; but Cheney has not been on salary, just a pension which will not be effected and I don't think he had oversight of the contracting decisions. Actually, I never could figure out why the Cheney/Haliburton connection was news at all; but if some people think so, thats ok with me. This is much more newsworthy because of the ongoing collaboration that will be happening between these two. I think there is some huge geopolitical event on the horizon that has a lot to do with Australia and McCallum is being parachuted in to manage it. Neutralizer 02:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why its "News"[edit]

Its difficult for anyone who has not read any substantive material on this cult to appraise the newsworthiness of the event,imo. If one reads the wikipedia info Skull and Bones including these sections;

  • 3 The U.S. branch of a German secret society
  • 4 Global drug trade
  • 5 Bones and U.S. Education

one may come to the opinions that;

  • 1; Its an important society.
  • 2; The members are very close; perhaps as close as family. However, because it is a secret life long cult, they don't reveal the information willingly. The Vietnam war was largely managed by Averell Harriman, McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy who were all members but nobody knew it at that time.

So, suppose , hypothetically, Bush had a secret, real brother who was the result of his Dad having had an affair and he appointed this brother to this position but the vast majority of people did not know the nominee was Bush's brother; would it be worth an article to disclose that they are brothers and some background information on their personal relationship? If your answer is "yes" then this,also, is news; if your answer is "no" then its not. Neutralizer 02:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your fascination with this group. This is not at all news. Membership in the society is a publicly known thing; there is no revelation of relationship. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. You did not know McCallum is a member; very few people do; so its not a "publicly known thing"...however; as I said; I accept that its simply a "taboo" topic. Have you read the wikipedia information? Neutralizer 02:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's gotten ugly and crufty again, and needs to be cleaned up again. Encyclopedic articles do not speculate. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are wrong and not wikipedia; possible? Neutralizer 02:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway; you have put 2 tags on; what is the NPOV all about? What is the actionable objection regarding NPOV. Everything is from the sources. What exactly is the pov being put forth since you say its all public information anyway?Neutralizer 02:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I can add any more justification for the article and I don't think its a huge news story myself. I do think its interesting,well sourced and that many readers will think its newsworthy so I'll leave it at that. Either some other editors will agree with me or maybe none will; but I think most who read the wikipedia info. might change their minds. It's no big deal either way.Neutralizer 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is news, and thats all Im going to say. Jason Safoutin 03:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • representing all views fairly.
    Including the view that S&B is utterly irrelevant to the decision to select Mr McCallum as ambassador to Australia, - for starters.
  • Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.
    such as the view that the S&B society has a larger-than-life effect in politics, business
  • The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree.
    I'm afraid I see no effort to meet this formulation of the NPOV.
  • Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view;
    or only the least popular. It presents all reasonable points of view.
  • Writing objectively can be conceived as representing disputes, characterizing them, rather than engaging in them.
    Again, this article appears to be engaging in a persuasive argument.
  • The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints.
    This article does not present any of the multitude of reasons Mr McCallum might be an admirable ambassadorial candidate, but only his membership in the Skull and Bones.

I could go further, but what it comes down to is your article may be a very good editorial, but it is not news and it does not pass the NPOV for me. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting tidbit for another article[edit]

But not a news story in itself unless we do an original reporting job on S&B.--Eloquence 04:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that; but I don't know how to get it past the "notnews" tag? Neutralizer 05:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Become a member and do an undercover story. ;-) --Eloquence 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok; ya' got me:) Neutralizer 11:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ku Klux Klan comparison[edit]

By way of analogy, if McCallum was a member of the KKK would that qualify as a news story? Likely not for people who know nothing about the KKK other than it is a private club. But it likely would for people who knew more concerning what the KKK was all about. It's frustrating for me because I am confident that were the editors here to read and accept the reality of just the Wikipedia information about this truly evil society, there would be many who would think this is an important news event. The power of the S&B collective is unimaginable to anyone who has not spent at least a few hours reading good source information about the cult. Verifiable information indicates that they have been the major force behind

Just as I would have the opinion that it should be reported if an important U.S. government official is a member of the KKK (and include some info about the KKK in the reporting article); much moreso do I feel it should be reported if an important U.S. government official is a member of the S&B(and include some info about the S&B in the reporting article). I'll say no more except the life-long allegiance is so strong they even inter-marry (George Herbert Walker Bush) and they participate in occult rituals.Neutralizer 10:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't consume what was said! -Edbrown05 11:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me Ed, I couldn't have either had I not read,evaluated and accepted Wikipedia information about this bunch of weirdos. I just added wiki links above. Neutralizer 11:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Neutralizer/Bush_and_McCallum;_Skull_and_Bones_brothers&oldid=226561"