Talk:Candle knocked over during voodoo sex ritual causes apartment fire

Review of revision 1185737 [Passed]

Revision 1185737 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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 1185737 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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.

The article seems to be misleading. I don't see in either of the two sources the incident involved "a borderline-prostitution voodoo ceremony". Nor do the sources support that the priest did not call 911 because he "was apparently afraid of the legal repercussions". Mattisse (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The CNN source stated that the woman paid $300, while the NY Daily News source stated that they had sex. In my judgment, that's prostitution disguised as a "religious ceremony." Thus I referred to it as "a borderline-prostitution voodoo ceremony." If you can think of a more accurate term, be my guest. --Ashershow1_talk 20:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's your judgment; it is not reflected in the sources, neither of which mentions a concern over the legality of the religious ceremony.

And this also is misleading: "However, despite the legally questionable nature of the encounter, a source in law enforcement said, "Nobody sees a crime right now. It was an accident. Maybe they weren't careful, but they did try to put it out." The legal question concerning law enforcement officials was whether the priest was legally at fault for not calling 911, not the legality of their sexual encounter. However, because the evidence indicated that he did try to put out the fire, they determined he did was not legally at fault. The Wikinews focus on "a borderline-prostitution voodoo ceremony" seems misguided. Mattisse (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Even now, this reads like trashy Red Top sensationalism. The author should stop reading tabloids for a few months, refrain from watching Faux news, and try to find quality journalistic work to read. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• Re-reading the above, I see the source of the gutter-style. The New York Daily News? Manhattan's answer to The Daily Mail. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

• I don't read tabloids. However, my experience at WN has been that only skimpy irrelevant articles like this one will be published. When I write important articles, such as Controversial autism research found to be elaborate fraud, or Rahm Emanuel elected mayor of Chicago, they don't get reviewed until they're "stale," because reviewers aren't willing to read long NY Times or WSJ articles. --Ashershow1_talk 21:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to take a look at our past articles and articles some of us have written before you go making an insult like that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)