Talk:FEMA accused of misusing trained disaster workers as public-relations workers
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Neutralizer
Don't see what is wrong with this article. I added another source with interview of firefighters. Please specify what is NPOV here, the critique given by the tagger clearly does not apply. --vonbergm 06:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't know either. I simply searched for articles in Category:Disputed that were published. Disputed articles are not published (even with a publish tag) so I thought it best to move them back to develop so the disputes could be dealt with -- better, I think, than people believing an article had been published when it has not. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good find. I will see if anyone sees a problem with it and will pulish it sometime tomorrow if there are no osbjections until then. --vonbergm 06:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Simply housekeeping... I don't know whether to bump the date or not -- it's somewhat old. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- <generally opposes date bumps> Remember, one of the goals of Wikinews is to provide an archive of news articles which will always be available as a historical record. News articles which indicate what was known at the time they were written. - Amgine / talk 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; I just ran into a 1 week date bump re; a 2 week old article. Neutralizer 20:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- <generally opposes date bumps> Remember, one of the goals of Wikinews is to provide an archive of news articles which will always be available as a historical record. News articles which indicate what was known at the time they were written. - Amgine / talk 06:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- This case (and a few others) may be problematic as the articles should not have been (and weren't really) ever published. Again, I'm not sure how to handle articles like this. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- <grin> It is quite simple; approach the article as though it were new, but publish with the original author's date when it is ready to be published. - Amgine / talk 07:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- Have not heard anything regarding the NPOV claim. I believe the additional source removes all remaining doubts, if there ever were any. Will publish tonight leaving date intact unless someone objects. --vonbergm 19:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an actionable NPOV concern here. I say publish now. Neutralizer 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)