Talk:Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal delayed further

OR

All the quotes are recorded. None are interviews, but all were spoken at the meeting. I wish I could say I have statements, but I do not. Nobody really spoke in favor of the hotel, and the one that did, would not let me use his quotes or names in the article. I guess I have to wait until the transcript is available to the public. The letter is however exclusive as no other news agency has seen it or obtained it. Jason Safoutin 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The letter, is authentic. If you question it, please e-mail me. (E-mail address is on my user page). I will provide you with the number to contact the person/business owner who gave me the letter so that you can authenticat it came from the "source". Jason Safoutin 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Awaitng e-mail response from Eva Hassett before publishing. Please do not publish. Jason Safoutin 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I am still waiting on a reply from Eva Hassett, however; if her reply indicates new news I will just write another article. So I guess I am ready to publish :) Jason Safoutin 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I called the Planning Board office in City hall, 9th Floor, room 901 for the meeting times and they told me that no vote is expected. Jason Safoutin 02:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I afraid that I'm getting very lost on this ownership issue. I understand that is part of the controversy of the story, so my chipping in is only in the hopes of lending clarity, on which Jason you are the expert on the ownership. -Edbrown05 03:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hans owns 1119-1121 elmwood. Pano owns 605 forest. I do not know who owns 607 yet, but i think its Mobius. Also, Eva stated at the meeting on the 28 of February...not on the 8th or on a wednesday. Please refer to the related wikinews article for the info on the Feb 28 date. Hmm...I do wonder about the 607 forest property though... :) Jason Safoutin 03:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

-> comment: An intro paragraph with more background would be helpful for readers who 1) aren't from buffalo, and 2) haven't been following the story. What kind of neighborhood is elmwood? why is this important? 24.153.227.130 15:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Local only category

I have added that as it seems appropriate, at least to me. Neutralizer 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Sorry Jason, but I just noticed the "Slumlord" accusations with no attempt to obtain a response from Mobius. This could be libelous. Since the article was published within the past day, it should still be ok to tag. Also the use of the term "at risk" in a heading is also not npov I don't think. Neutralizer 06:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hand has refused to speak to ANYONE on this issue. He will not speak to me, the local news, the city, or anyone. I have his number and address but unfortunately thats none of your business (nbo offense) so your objections are not actionable. Do you think i do not know what I am doing? Jason Safoutin 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Other properties could be at risk"

This entire section should be removed as it seems to be fear mongering by the opponents and is speculation rather than news. Neutralizer 06:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It is news as it decribes, an event which is more than likely to happen. It was said by the common council and it was mention by Eva at the feb 28 meeting, before the "off the agenda." i have the recordings...want me to send them to you? Jason Safoutin 14:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also its a fact. thats what the people said AT the meeting. Its on tape and if you want I am sure you can call city hall here and get a copy of the transcript. But its NPOV as is the reaction and opinion of TENANTS. They live and work there, cited code violations with the city, not made repairs to his properties in almost 20 years (fact also...check records on houses...but I don't think thats "public"). Jason Safoutin 14:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason's talk comments show this(Other properties could be at risk) is OPINION "opinion of TENANTS"(above) where article states it as FACT; Please do not remove the tag until this is FIXED! Neutralizer 17:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use quotes and attribution to whoever actually said "Other properties could be at risk"..if it was some council, attribute the opinion to that council,please. Also, your comment in the preceding section that this is "none of your business" is extremely contrary to a collaborative project and I hope you will not maintain such a viewpoint if you wish to remain welcome on Wikinews. Neutralizer 17:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There is nothnig wrong here. You removed the article after 24 hours hours + of being published. I am calling an ADMIN and do NOT threaten me. Ther ehas been nothing wrong until YOU tagged it...you are the ONLY one with an issue here. Jason Safoutin 18:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said...I have EVERYTHING on tape...if you want to hear them, send me a check with a SASE. Jason Safoutin 18:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that after his combative edits above, Jason did make the improvements I suggested [1] and the article is much more acceptable now,imo. Neutralizer 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mobius may be giving up"

Whose words are those? Whose speculation is that? Please provide a source for the statement that "Mobius may be giving up"; this is not an op-ed platform, so I hope we can attribute that speculation to someone other than a wikinewsie. Neutralizer 17:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The note is the proof...look at it. Jason Safoutin 18:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jason, may I respectfully suggest that the words on the note are "proof" of nothing. Certainly there is nothing in that note stating the writer is "giving up". I think that if he is a cagey businessman he might be playing dead in order to catch his opponents off-guard with his next move. Does that mean I should edit the section with a title that says "Mobius may be up to something"? It is important, I think, that reporters try to avoid assumptions or speculations as a general rule and particularly when it serves no purpose at all in the news report. Why would the reader have any interest in someone's specualtion about whether "Mobius may be giving up"? and once again, these types of speculations are for op-eds and letters to the editor; not for a news report, at least in my opinion. However, I will not be removing the editor's speculation that Mobius may be in the process of giving up; but I do recommend that the editor remove it himself; for the betterment of the article, at least in my view. Neutralizer 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said he was giving up. I am merely stating what it derived from the letter...A dead? Maybe, but thats not for me to assert or judge on without proof. I am NOT willing to speculate on any scandle or conspriacy. (although I suspect that to be the case, and you suspect that to be the case, makes that our POV) Therefore I am not willing to make that assertion until I can back it up. The letter, until then is enough proof. What more do you need? I have the actual letter itself if you would like it...SASE? We try to avoid assumption becsuse its not NPOV...we are not here to speculate. The fact is whats in the letter, and the letter asserts the possibility of giving up...if I did not have the letter, I would understand your concern. It serves every purpose in the story. Someones speculation? Do you not see the letter? Maybe they deleted the photo? Nope its there. This is not an editor's letter. It's a letter to a tenant of one of the five properties. Its a piece of evidence, a FACT, and which you have yet to assert otherwise. at least in my view...correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't that statement violate NPOV in itself? Jason Safoutin 20:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, you've convinced me. Neutralizer 02:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

"At Risk"

For NPOV purposes, I propose those 2 words be replaced with "effected" in the section title "Other properties could be at risk". Neutralizer 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jason Safoutin 20:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Another small non-attributed statement

"So far Savarino Construction has no plans to team up with Termini."- this should be attributed to some source, I think. Neutralizer 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone read related news anymore? Look at the Interview With Eva Hassett. Jason Safoutin 20:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, Thanks. Neutralizer 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)