Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/2

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

What is Wikinews:Policy and where do I find it? I.e What should we be discussing here? I assume it is The Stuff that everyone has agreed upon but what is it that has and what has not been agreed upon andh ow do I know what to look at to find this out? -- Huttite 23:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines help Wikinews avoid conflicts, and to resolve them. Another item which is really vital is the Style guide, which helps us work together on the layout and appearance of Wikinews articles. One of the ways we can reach consensus is through judicious use of polls, as well discussion on talk pages.
Here on the Water cooler we can bring up ideas for policies, new things which have come up or changes to existing policy. But we need to keep in mind that most "policy" is not written down anywhere; it is just the way we have learned to do things which works. (see How are policies created? on the policy page.) - Amgine 23:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Date/Timezone etc[edit]

Is there a policy on dating of articles? It's February 2nd down here, but according to my calculations it's still Feb 1st in Seppoland, and no doubt many other places. Can I give my article the date that it is here, or is there some other standard? - Borofkin 22:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

also relating to time and dates, are we meant to put 01 or just 1 in the byline? The bellman 03:15, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly urge the use of single-digit days under 10, for the following reasons:

  • It is more natural
    • Humans don't say "January zero-first"
  • It's more common
    • Search google for "January 1" vs "January 01" (or for any other day) and you'll find many times more mentions of the former
  • It's the Wikipedia way: It's w:January 1 there, not w:January 01
  • It's compatible with {{CURRENTDAY}} which we already use for article editing
  • It's consistent with Wikinews to date

I think the reasons for having a zero do exist, but are less strong than these reasons not to use it. -- IlyaHaykinson 10:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


We need to standardize on UTC for deciding when each new day starts. Otherwise we will have the ridiculous situation of never having less than two days being edited. Dan100 (Talk) 20:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced that this is the best way to move foward. As soon as Bug 1411 is implemented, this might become moot anyway. For now though, I think it's a lot more user-friendly to simply write the story from your own point of view. Thus if you're in Asia and it's already Thursday February 3, but it's still Wed Feb 2 UTC, then you should be reporting as Feb 3. News needs to remain as local as possible, and from that point of view it should probably be the original reporter's timezone. -- IlyaHaykinson 23:53, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? UTC is the standard time for pretty much any international organisation, from NASA to the BBC. I think the majority of internet users are used to the fact that all (truly) international website uses it. The idea that there can be two days being appended with new items is farcical. Dan100 (Talk) 19:58, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also note that the new main page displays the current UTC date and time. Dan100 (Talk) 20:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Wikinews servers use UTC, thus the date/time are UTC. But a user can change that in their personal settings, and it will be localized to their timezone. Which is the wikimedia way - the user comes first. So, articles can and will continue to be written from the local point of view time, will be stored in UTC, and may be served back up in either local time or UTC. - Amgine 20:38, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
UTC is user unfriendly.-- Davodd | Talk 02:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Given New Zealand is +13 UTC (and Chatham Islands are +13:45 UTC) during Summer there is never less than 3 possible days that a story could be written in - if it is written on the date it occurs. I think the following convention should be used. The story should be written on the date and with times that it occurs locally. UTC dateline should later be appended as (Date UTC) or the +/- UTC time zone. indicated. I say this because local stories are most relevant to local readers. Local time should be assumed unless UTC is clearly indicated. NASA used UTC because it is the astronomical standard and local time is meaningless in space. BBC used UTC because it is their timezone, so easy for them to convert. Most people use local time and are mathematically challenged by the 24 hour clock, let alone UTC time conversion. (And Zulu time as used by the military is out of the question.) -- Huttite 22:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there are a variety of issues; for example a person at UTC-12 writing an article at 2330 local time appears to have written it two days ago for a Chatham Islander when it gets submitted. And the reverse, an article appears to have been written two days in the future.
Using the local date is fine under the current set up. Using the main page link to add it to the current day's archive will bring the contributor to the server's current day, or the contributor may add a link to the archive day which is local for them - their choice. But it is not unexpected for another user to "correct" the date, based on their local day. - Amgine 22:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The date and time should be based on the date and time where and event occurred. This should be clearly marked as being the local time with the UTC equivalent given in parenthesis. --Maveric149 11:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Editorials & Opinion Columns[edit]

The poll conducted on wheter or not Wikinews should have opinion columns was flawed. There are several "yes" options, but only one "no" option. This lead to vote-splitting among the "yes" people. The poll should have been conducted with 3 options: Yes, No, and Delay. Then, if "yes" won (and it would have), there would be another poll on what the opinion poll policy would be (with disclaimer, without disclaimer, only admin users, etc.) This way, the people who voted "no" could still have a say in the policy, and the decision would be more fair, as the majority of "yes" votes would be grouped together. --Munchkinguy 20:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re-start it; anyone can start a poll. Dan100 (Talk) 20:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Opinions by definition violate the Wikimedia NPOV policy. Opinions in Wikinews namespace should be limited to the discussion pages, and user pages. -- Davodd | Talk 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is not, in fact, the case. An ascribed opinion does not violate the NPOV; it is in fact the example used. Editorials and opinion columns, however, are not news; they are either commentary on news, or analysis of news, and I agree with Davodd - opposed to either at this point in the main namespace. - Amgine 22:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let me amend what I meant: please replace the first word of my above statement to read: "Wikinews-published opinion articles". -- Davodd | Talk 22:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Most newspapers have clearly marked sections for News, Features, and Commentary. It's only the News portion (and, to the extent that that's possible, the Features) that's supposed to be fair, accurate, etc. I wouldn't mind seeing commentary on Wikinews if it is clearly identified as such. That could mean a separate namespace, a template tag, or some other mechanism. It may also mean that commentary should not placed into the public domain, because the commentator may wish to be identified. If so, commentary would have to be licensed as cc-by or more restrictive. --MarkSweep 07:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We are under mandate by the site owner, the Wikimedia Foundation to have all of our content to be neutral in point of view. Added to this, articles on Wikinews are not the work of one person - but are a collaborative work done by everyone here, which means that all the articles must be agreeable to every one of us. This means that any opinion article that we create must: 1. give equal treatment to every perspective (liberal, conservative, moderate, radical, fundamentalist, anarchist, etc.), and 2. be representative of each and every Wikinews contributor. In essence, Wikinews cannot be the right forum for editorializing or opining - I suggest those who wish to write reviews or share personal thoughts on the world should look into creating a blog on some other service that specializes in that sort of content. -- Davodd | Talk 09:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Wikisource? There are several "non-neutral" pages there, such as The Book of Mormon, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, and The Holy Qur'an. Nobody would argue that these texts should have a neutral point of view. --Munchkinguy 21:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Opinion articles is that they kind of have to be the poin of view of one person: you can't create an opinion article by consensus. Therefore I think that the only logical place for these kinds of articles is in the User space. We can have an index to those articles if we wish, but they would then be in a particular user's space and not get edited by others. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We can have opinion columns, just not editorials (what does that mean?) I just read the Wikinews:What Wikinews is not page, and it says:

"Wikinews articles are not editorials. Although opinion columns are likely to be an element of the Wikinews site, articles in the main namespace should restrict themselves to reporting news and not commenting on the news or newsmakers." --Munchkinguy 21:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An editorial is the opinion of the editors or publishers. The specific element of the above quote is "in the main name space". We might be able to request a special namespace, such as "Commentary:" or "Opinions:" at some point. In the meantime, opinion columns can be made in the "User:" namespace. - Amgine 22:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll refer back to the [The Wiki] article I wrote. The only place where it is possible to have columns or editorials in is user space, and then we need to close userspace for editing for other user (except Administrators). What have we then done? Well, we have basically created a Wiki-based blog for the Wikinews users. That is *doable*. It it DESIRABLE? Well, only three people voted for that option, so I guess not.

In short: All things that are the beneficial effects of a Wiki prevents editorials. To be able to have editorials and columsn, we must create a space (by changing userspace) that for all intents and purposes are not a Wiki at all. What's the point of that? No, peoples: Get a blog. Really. I have. It's lots of fun. --Regebro 13:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This poll is so obviously designed to produce a desired result the term "flawed" does not apply. In fact, this poll beautifully illustrates the orwellian concept of making the peons feel as if they have influence over their intellectual environment when nothing could be further from the truth.paulrevere2005

Again, Paul, re-start the poll if you feel that way. My own 2p is, as said by others - use a blog for opinions pieces. Blogs are very, very good for that sort of thing - publishing the point of view of one person.

Wikis, however, are all about collaboration, which lends them beautiful to pieces which have a neutral point of view. Anything that gets posted in the main article space is open to editing by anyone; even if we did allow you to post an opinion piece, you might come back an hour later and find someone has completely reversed the sentiments of your article. Dan100 (Talk) 17:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protecting old articles[edit]

I believe that we should start protecting articles older than seven days to prevent vandalism and reduce the pressure on any Recent Changes patrolling. News has a sell-by date of only a couple of days; after that, people aren't interested (except for research) so I doubt old articles are viewed much. Further, anything that hasn't been added to a story within a few days probably isn't worth adding, and (I hope) all copy-editing will have been done by then. If there are major new developments to a story, that probably deserves a new article, rather than revising an old one. Dan100 (Talk) 10:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, archived news are valuable because of their historical value. People might look at old news to see what the opinion was on topics at the time. 16:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about the protections. Edits to very old articles are rare, and are usually valid things (like spelling fixes, changes to make URLs work, etc). Old articles should be edited when problems in them are discovered, even if it's a week too late (especially for local stories with less exposure). Some articles are aggregate pages about ongoing events that need to be edited as the story develops (i.e. like the tsunami main page was). If we do have protection, we need an easy way for people to tell the admins when the changes do need to be made. -- IlyaHaykinson 00:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe most article-fixing is done within a day or two of creation, as at the moment new articles tend to come under quite intense scrutiny as soon as they are created.

Proposed changes to protected pages could be made on the article concerned's talk page, then highlighted on a page for suggested changes that admins would check regulary.

Although vandalism isn't a problem now, as we become more popular it will almost certainly become an issue and we should be prepared. Dan100 (Talk) 16:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is not as great a concern as POV pushing. For example, the history of Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy shows a user reverting to their position a month after the last previous edit, and willing to revert-war over it. Similarly, United States anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by WOLA report has content edits a month after publication, and Department of Defense report lambasts communication failure in US War on Terror was posthumously published (after its own death) with a byline fully a month and a half after its creation. Old articles should be protected to prevent attempts at re-writing of history. - 18:09, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would be OK with protection, if there's very clear policy on making changes to protected articles. Amgine, please put that together if you're protecting articles. Otherwise we're not friendly to newbies who want to fix spelling errors. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page protection should be rare[edit]

Protecting old stories, as a matter of policy, is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

First of all, protecting articles establishes a hierarchy of editors.

With the exception of the Main Page and the site-wide banner, I shouldn't have to attain status as an Administrator to edit any of the articles on Wikinews, unless that article has been subject to edit warring or repeated vandalism, in which case the protection should be temporary.

Is this proposal to put aside section two of the Foundation issues for convenience, or for a real, tangible problem that is making the site unviable?

Unless there are too many cases of bad edits to old articles for us to deal with in a timely manner, let's stick to the "wiki process" (section three) as the guiding authority for article content.


DV 22:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Protecting old articles as historical documents was part of the initial agreement to set up Wikinews (meta). The goal was for Wikinews articles to become static, citeable sources.
As linked above, it is a real, tangible problem which is affecting our archives. - Amgine 22:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which set of policies has precedence, the Foundation issues or the Wikinews proposal?
In any case, I see links to a handful of articles which have been problematic. So protect those articles.
A number of older stories are still rife with spelling mistakes and typos. From time to time, I will fix those mistakes if a story I am working on has reason to link to an older article.
Were we really being overwhelmed by bad edits to older stories?
As a compromise, could you wait for a longer period of time before enforcing this protection?
At a minimum, please clearly state what the deadline shall be, so I know when I'll have my last chance to fix an article.
DV 23:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I support protecting archived stories for historical value - but I think 7 days is too early. It should be at least 2 weeks or a month. We can always update or do major corrections with a new article. -- Davodd | Talk 22:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I do think we should set aside point 2 of the Foundation Issues. For one, they were written with regard to Wikipedia, and secondly we should be making our own policy.

While we certainly aren't getting many bad edits to old articles (or plain vandalism), I don't think that's a good reason for leaving the door open to such things. Why not take pre-emptive action?

To sum, I would support page protection after two weeks. However, we would NEED to have an effective and timely manner for getting admins to fix old mistakes anyone spots. I suggest an admins' noticeboard page. Could also be used for reporting vandalism etc. Dan100 (Talk) 17:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Multiple stories on one topic or event[edit]

One of the beauties of Wikinews is that it allows the telling of a story and its impact from multiple angles... and to keep our stories focused, this means we may have more than one story covering different aspects of a particular event. Not duplicate stories, but related stories. -- Davodd | Talk 22:32, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Aggregating a whole bunch of stories together starts to create something more like an encyclopedia article than a news story. I hear we have another project for that. :) --Maveric149 11:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Amgine thinks my submission re; Afghan opium production skyrocketing under our watch is "opinion".[edit]

I completely disagree with Amgine's curt assessment. USA Today ran a similar cover story with not nearly as much background. I think my story (concerning Afghanistan opium production) is just too political and the facts are too controversial for "don't rock the boaters" to intellectually deal with; hence,a few seconds of unwarranted censorship prevents readers from having the opportunity to make up their own minds about whether afghan opium production increasing 1,000+%(as verified by the UN's office on drugs and crime) since we took it over is news or opinion.

I understand your disagreement with my assessment your article is a commentary, opinion, or editorial about news and not reporting of news. Having re-read your article, I would also add the assessment that it is not written in the neutral point of view, uses sources in an inappropriate manner (out of context quotes, lack of citation, etc.) and would benefit from some copyediting. None of which indicate my underlying agreement or disagreement with what is written.
If you wish to write an article on the subject, your article should address What is the event/circumstance, When did it happen/is it happening, Who is involved, Where does it begin/happen/affect, and possibly Why and How the event occurs. You may wish to look at Wikinews:Content guide, Wikinews:What Wikinews is not and Wikinews:What Wikinews is for some more extensive discussion. - Amgine 15:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:paulrevere2005/Afghanistan opium production keeps skyrocketing while the administration says "Drugs Fund Terrorists"[edit]

Perhaps there is less censorship at this venue.

[article, including hotlinked images, is currently available in the user's space - Amgine]

paulrevere2005, The water cooler policy section is for discussing policy questions and ideas. It is not for publishing columns and opinions. Please do not break Wikinews to make a point. You're welcome to bring the discussion of columns and opinions back up here, however. - Amgine 15:08, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • This episode suggests that we need a 'requests for comments' page. Dan100 (Talk) 17:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Inconsistant Wikinews copyright policy[edit]

On #wikimedia Ausir pointed out that Wikinews versions other than English and German are licensed under the GNU FDL. Was this intentional? I understand that the PD status of the German and English Wikinews versions is temporary pending a final decision on licensing. However, having different language versions of the same project under different licenses is, well, insane since it makes some translations illegal (for example, translating a story from an FDLd Dutch article into a PD English Wikinews article). Something needs to be done to fix this train-wreck in progress. --Maveric149 11:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This needs to be done by the local sysops of the project, by editing MediaWiki:Copyright and MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning.--Eloquence 12:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removed crossword link from front page banner[edit]

I removed the crossword link from the front page top banner being that it is niether news nor a user aid. Maybe a more appropriate place exists for it. -- Davodd | Talk 23:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please replace the crossword link. It is a feature of the site, there is no other place it is or reasonably could be linked from, and it is popular. - Amgine 23:12, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and people have posted about this on the Talk: Main Page, since it isn't really a policy question. - Amgine 23:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I put it back. I think there is consensus for it - many people like the crossword, and as far as I know only one person objects. Dan100 (Talk) 08:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to see any consensus that Wikinews should alter its mission to be a publisher of games. -- Davodd | Talk 11:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Come on... This is Wikinews, and crosswords are found in newspapers. Since the idea for wikinews seems to be an open source newspaper, the crossword abseloutley makes sense. --Munchkinguy 20:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that this is exactly what you said: Wikinews — nowhere does it get called Wikinewspaper. Wikinews is a source of news, which does not involve games. Nor does it involve classifieds or advertising, also commonly found in newspapers. I object to the crossword puzzles, as good as they are, and would like this put to a vote. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I am defending the crossword. Newspapers have crosswords. There may not be a classsified section in Wikinews, but there are Obituaries. Anyway, look at the temporary wikinews logo. It's a newspaper. Look at the Main Page. It looks like a newspaper layout. --Munchkinguy 21:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Most people agree that the temporary wikinews logo is bad. Wikinews:What Wikinews is not explicitly states that Wikinews is not paper. The main page isn't really newspaperish: those generally don't have lists of stories or editor tasks.
Either way, please see Wikinews:Crossword poll for a slightly more structured version of the debate and a potential way to form consensus. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: a discussion addressing the substantive issues and concepts is not the way to gain a consensus. Selecting one of three options on a biased survey question is a way to reach consensus. Can you explain that to me, addressing the points of "structured" and "consensus" in particular? - Amgine 05:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Newpapers have crosswords. They also have comics, TV listings, reviewes of local theaters, personals, ads for cars and suspect massage institues. Should Wikinews have that too? No. This is not a newspaper. It's a Wiki. Embrace The Wiki --Regebro 14:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is my first visit to wikinews, and I was extremely surprised to see a link to a crossword puzzle up there. Since when have news and crossword puzzles been linked, outside of newspapers? Maybe if the crossword puzzle was about the current news items, but I don't believe it is. Take it out. 00:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories on Wikinews[edit]

[Moved to section by Amgine]

The exchange below among myself,fastfussion,and amgine is food for thought as to the acceptability of conspiracy theories on wikinews. My own opinion is that most major crimes in real life involve a conspiracy (e.g.9/11 involved a conspiracy among the hijackers) and that solving a crime usually begins with a theory (who done it?).The leporization of the term "conspiracy theory" is quite orwellian in that from a criminal group's perspective, the best investigation is the one that never begins(because noone wants to investigate a "conspiracy theory").paulrevere2005

  • February 24,2005 (revised)

Its funny how we have become so brainwashed that we only think words like conspiracy or sabotage or terrorism or subversive apply to the people our government leaders tell us they apply to. Maybe,sometimes these words apply to people who are in high places within our government..ala President Nixon.

All I know is that Hunter Thompson's most recent book was aggressively anti-Bush and anti-war in Iraq and even with his death being the #3 story of interest on the internet today,NOBODY...I MEAN NOBODY.....even mentioned that fact. Nor did anybody mention that the other author that went after the Bush clan so viciously(according to George Sr.),and was one of the first to report Jr.'s cocaine habit and cover-up, James Hatfield, also supposedly killed himself. Has everybody forgotten that George Sr. ran the CIA? Wouldn't he have had access to professional killers over the years?..or, maybe its just a coincidence these 2 guys did themselves in.

The wiki-news crash happened within minutes of when my article "Another Author of "anti-bush" Books Dies of Apparent Suicide" first hit the "developing stories"section of the main page.If the site wasn't sabotaged, then please tell me; what did shut it down??? paulrevere2005

Wikinews is not the place for conspiracy theories. Please stop posting them—you are wasting our time and hurting our credibility. (and please learn the difference between the words "vicious" and "viscous" before posting any more stories, regardless of their conspiracy-content) --Fastfission 14:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Watergate was a "conspiracy theory" this a conspiracy theory>>>In a Jan. 2003 interview Thompson gave on KDNK in the Roaring Fork Valley in Colorado Thompson railed at the state of America; (source; "Bush is really the evil one here and it is more than just him. We are the Nazis in this game and I don't like it. I am embarrassed and I am pissed off. I mean to say something. I think a lot of people in this country agree with me -...we'll see what happens to me if I get my head cut off next week -- it is always unknown or bushy-haired strangers who commit suicide right afterwards with no witnesses."

Watergate was authored by two journalists willing to put their credibility on the line in case they were wrong, and would have suffered consequences had their research proved faulty (compare with the Dan Rather/Killian incident not too long ago now). You, on the other hand, are just an anonymous Wikinews editor. You have done no research except to combine two hair-brained ideas into one. You have no credibility. You personally suffer no real consequences for posting nonsense. The only credibility you can hurt is that of Wikinews as a whole. As such, please refrain from trying to be an investigative journalist. If you had built up a reputation for good work, and were really bringing some new information to the table, it would be one thing (perhaps such a thing is never really possible on Wikinews). As it is, you're just another anonymous internet person who seems to have a minimal control over the English language and absolutely no concerns over presenting balanced journalism. Woodward and Bernstein you ain't. --Fastfission 23:44, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yet. Let's try to keep a perspective; very few of us have written professionally - and if we were highly successful as professional journalists we would probably not be writing for Wikinews now. At Wikinews we have the opportunity to learn some of the requirements of journalism, and perhaps learn some of the techniques required for investigative journalism.

One thing I have seen is reporters interested in the heavy research required of investigative journalism often begin by doing the work on their own time. Very much the wiki way. But their stories won't get published if they are not verifiable. And like most research - the end story is based on what is found, not what the reporter went out looking to prove. Start with with questions, report the answers. - Amgine 00:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Objective journalism is one of the main reasons that American politics has been allowed to be so corrupt for so long."-Hunter Thompson.

It burns my ass that old guys like me and Hunter have to still be the rebels..the hell raisers; while all of you young politically correctos talk about "control" of the english language and "balanced" journalism.You just don't get it. Events and their causes are usually NOT controlled and are usually UNbalanced so the language that reports them is best when IT'S uncontrolled and unbalanced.Why? Because the words should spring to LIFE;and LIFE is wild! You just don't get the essence..the soul of TRUTH and the fact that truth is not sitting on the side of the road like a dead raccoon; its way the hell up on the top of a mountain like an eagle and you have to scratch and claw your way up to where its at to get a good clear look at it! Amgine is right about one thing; the answers are all that count..the real and true answers like "where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" "Where were they?""Why,BEFORE we invaded, when weapons inspector,Scott Ritter,was on TV saying over and over again that there was no wmd,does everyone now pretend that everyone before thought Saddam had'em?Scott Ritter didn't think so.Why has he not been heard from since?" Why?why?why?...Can you even imagine going to print with an anonymous source known as "deep throat"???? GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!paulrevere2005

anyone criticizing someone for crossing a line they consider legitimate really should refrain from commenting in a pedantic way about specific advantages they enjoy, such as knowledge of how to spell a particular word. how childish