Talk:'Buried' video surfaces of police making mass arrests during the Republican National Convention

I think a little more info on how the video footage surfaced and where it was first published is necessary (and when --SVTCobra 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)). --SVTCobra 03:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If more sources can be found on it then sure. But at the moment, there is only this that I can find...but I very well could have missed something. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No more sources, and the PR that they released with the video is in the first source. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know the Alternet.org page was the first to get that specific video. Perhaps pasting the statement from the filmmaker would help. Also, as for verification...the second source links to two youtube videos which show the same event at a slightly different time (when everyone is sitting down), recorded in worse quality and by someone else. --Poisonous (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I added who reported it first and where they were posted before they got reported on. As for how they surfaced, I don't think that will be known unless someone steps up and says so. So I am not sure we can get that information unless we can get a hold of the person who made the videos. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tentatively adding in something...that Glass Bead Collective, who took the video on Alternet.org, was raided. I'm sure I'll have to be corrected, sorry. :) --Poisonous (talk) 04:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube

I mailed one of the supposed guys that filmed the arrest. I am not sure if he actually filmed it, but its worth a shot. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Glass Bead Collective

I e-mailed them and got a reply. Accredited reporters can contact me to see a copy or see 'scoop'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 695721 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: as one of the sources links back to us. amusing. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 695721 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: as one of the sources links back to us. amusing. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 07:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@ The reviewer comment: That was me...;) I was so delighted that I was sourced, I sourced back. =P I can take down the link if you like? --Poisonous (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wordpress

Why is Wordpress mentioned? It isn't a relevant piece of information, just one of the most commonly used blogging platforms. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I give up. I took the Wordpress bullshit out myself. That was a piece of nonsense that had no place in this. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asleep..sorry. I put it in because I thought it was a blog, not software. Simple mistake. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

It does bugger all good labelling this NPOV if you don't explain why here on the talk. This is not Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is totally biased. If we keep it the lead, it can seriously damage Wikinews's credibility as a legitimate news source. --WNewsReporter (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm giving up and going for a lie down. You just made the same accusation as the tagger with bugger all details. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Brian is pretty pissed at something, but if you tone down his words they are basically right. If we know what is wrong then we can work on fixing it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it biased? Its not my fault or the fault of Wikinews if the people we contact make no effort to get back to us. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

With stories like this, you are rarely going to get a viewpoint from "the other side". Unless you can get ahold of police files and court records that can shed some light. Kamnet (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kamnet. It's pretty clear-cut what happened and there wasn't anything added in. There's not much help to be done. --Poisonous (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)