Talk:After much contention Al Franken wins Minnesota Senate seat
 |
Revision 842603 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 842603 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |
"Finally" edit
With regards to the headline, I feel that the word "finally" implies a sort of mild bias -- it's as if to say Wikinews wanted Franken to win the seat, and that it only now finally happened. I would change the headline myself, but I thought I'd ask the community's opinion first. What do you guys think? -- Poe Joe (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, I have changed it. Dotty••|☎ 07:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to have been moved back-something I don't know about? Dotty••|☎ 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It said finally because of all the fuss about this result. Remember, the election was at the same time as Obama's. There's been about four or five Wikinews stories on the dispute where it was pretty clear Franken won, but it was repeatedly disputed. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do see that, but as the original poster says, it does seem biased. Any other wording we could use? Dotty••|☎ 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can everyone agree on, "After much contention Al Franken wins Minnesota Senate seat"? -- Poe Joe (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there is any bias in the wording it is certainly unintentional. If anything, I am biased against Franken, as I think this is terrible news for the US, though I always strive to write neutrally. The word "finally" is only intended to mean that we have reached the end of the road in this saga. --SVTCobra 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am certain it was unintentional, and I have long admired your work. However, the word finally holds a strong connotation of positive relief. I have taken the liberty to rename the article. -- Poe Joe (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the change from against. For the record, I didn't vote for either Franken or Coleman, but I guess am at odd with SVTCobra (talk · contribs) here as I prefer Franken over Coleman. Being from Minnesota, I can attest to the huge local and national dispute this election caused. Brianmc (talk · contribs), it has not always been clear that Franken won, but I agree, it has been clear that Franken won for many months now, but the courts took their time in making sure that the arguments of both parties were heard. One thing that I don't think that was reported so widely, was that sometime beore the election, Coleman said, that if he were behind, he would concede the race, rather than drawing it out (may be slightly out of context, so don't quote me on this quote), but the gist of it was that he came out looking like a hypocrit juxtaposed with this earlier comment. Calebrw (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yep, that's better, thanks! I sure it was unintentional, just sounds better! Dotty•• 07:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with the change from against. For the record, I didn't vote for either Franken or Coleman, but I guess am at odd with SVTCobra (talk · contribs) here as I prefer Franken over Coleman. Being from Minnesota, I can attest to the huge local and national dispute this election caused. Brianmc (talk · contribs), it has not always been clear that Franken won, but I agree, it has been clear that Franken won for many months now, but the courts took their time in making sure that the arguments of both parties were heard. One thing that I don't think that was reported so widely, was that sometime beore the election, Coleman said, that if he were behind, he would concede the race, rather than drawing it out (may be slightly out of context, so don't quote me on this quote), but the gist of it was that he came out looking like a hypocrit juxtaposed with this earlier comment. Calebrw (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I am certain it was unintentional, and I have long admired your work. However, the word finally holds a strong connotation of positive relief. I have taken the liberty to rename the article. -- Poe Joe (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- If there is any bias in the wording it is certainly unintentional. If anything, I am biased against Franken, as I think this is terrible news for the US, though I always strive to write neutrally. The word "finally" is only intended to mean that we have reached the end of the road in this saga. --SVTCobra 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Can everyone agree on, "After much contention Al Franken wins Minnesota Senate seat"? -- Poe Joe (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I do see that, but as the original poster says, it does seem biased. Any other wording we could use? Dotty••|☎ 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It said finally because of all the fuss about this result. Remember, the election was at the same time as Obama's. There's been about four or five Wikinews stories on the dispute where it was pretty clear Franken won, but it was repeatedly disputed. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to have been moved back-something I don't know about? Dotty••|☎ 08:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Election certificate edit
Hi, I came here to correct this article but too late. It says Mr. Pawlenty planned to sign the election certificate, when in fact he and Mr. Richie (Secretary of State) co-signed it by 18:30 the same day June 30, after Mr. Coleman conceded. Which you all know by now, but just a note. -SusanLesch (talk) 09:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- You have entered a slightly gray area as far as WN is concerned. I personally didn't have a problem with the edits as I found them minor enough to stand, but as SVTCobra (talk · contribs) disagreed with my interpretation of policy, it's best to leave it be. Calebrw (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Once the deadline has passed for timely contributions, it doesn't matter whether the events added actually occurred back then even if there were sources available at that time to show that it did in fact happen by that time. That Pawlenty had actually signed the certificate at the time that this was published, is not a reason to add it days later. I hope that explains. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)