Talk:Full-mast flag generates controversy at Parliament Hill

If there are any fellow Canadians here I'd appreciate some help with this article, I am only a high school student and do not have much time or resources to spend on this... If anyone wants my source, it is The Chronicle Herald, of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Dilbert3 20:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

second paragraph

... needs some npov-ing and some sourcing, not to mention the title. Doldrums 20:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Based on the information I see in the article, "row" is too strong a word for this. 24.10.168.80 03:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that the second paragraph was probably not from a NPOV, but yesterday i did not have time to put in into the proper format. Also the title is not very descriptive about the actual event; it currently reads "Canadian government in row over flag lowering". The real issue is that the current Conservative minority government has decided to reverse the former Liberal government's policy of lowering the flag whenever a soldier is killed in the line of duty, which is currently drawing flak here in Canada. The issue behind this issue is that the media has now dropped all pretense of being NPOV and are definitely taking a side against the Conservatives' decision. (This is without a trace of doubt, as the newspapers have published editorials written by themselves and publishing on the front page. The second page holds a continuation of the title page's article and also a plea by the newspaper: "Write to your Members of Parliament, if you feel, as we do, that the Conservative government should reverse its decision on flag lowering." (Actual quote taken from The Chronicle Herald)

A better title could be "Conservative government draws flak from media over flag-lowering decision" or something of that sort.

If anyone would like a copy of the newspaper I could try to type up the entire article here, or you may wish to try searching The Chronicle Herald on google and go to their website to see if you can get a copy. Dilbert3 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm canadian

Unfourtanatly I'm to mad at the government to write anything that even pretends to be neutral. Liberals may have wasted our money, but they never pulled anything like this :( . Bawolff ☺☻ 04:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

perhaps add the klein (alberta premiere) said that he'll still lower the legestrative assembly of alberta flag when an albertan dies, and that gov now bans media from funeral.

Sources

I tried to find a headline on Google news but I did not find the same one. I found a simular one from The Chronicle-Herald April 25th, 2006 on Google news. Mabie I'll try again. FellowWikiNews 4:42 pm, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble adding in this source, could someone else add this in?

source is The Chronicle-Herald

title is Lower flag as sign of respect

author is Editors of the Chronicle-Herald)

published by The Chronicle-Herald

date April 27th, 2006}} Dilbert3 21:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Media bias section?

The original article had a paragraph about the media bias this topic has received recently - it was deleted by another user since my sources were given. I will re-add the section with sources with tomorow. Dilbert3 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this paragraph should definately be added, but can you make sure it's well sourced and uses as neutral language as possible (let the story itself show how biased the media reaction has been). Some quotes from the 'editorials' would be a good place to start. Frankie Roberto 21:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the entire copy of the "editorial" written by the editors of The Chronicle-Herald and published on the front page on April 27th.

An Editorial

Lower flag as sign of respect (Title)

Whose Peace Tower is it, anyway?

Well, it's yours, the Canadian people's. And if you feel that lowering the Peace Tower flag to half-mast is the fitting way for all of us, as a nation, to honor our service personnel who are killed in the line of duty, as four Canadian soldiers were in Afghanistan last Saturday, then your government should listen and respectfully lower the flag.

Our of respect for those killed in action. Out of respect for you and for our democracy.

Clearly, many Canadians have come to see lowering the Peace Tower flag as the way they want to show respect and solidarity for millitary men and women who are killed in our service and for their families. Since the Harper government announced on the weekend that it will end the four-year practice of lowering the Peace Tower flag when Canadians are killed in millitary operations, and return to the tradition of honoring all war dead alike by half-masting the flag on Remembrance day, there has been an outpouring of criticism and anger from the public.

People are angry that the government appears to be putting propaganda considerations - de-emphasizing casualties in Afghanistan - above its duty to honor fallen soldiers.

They don't buy the standard that it's appropriate to routinely half-mast the Peace Tower flag to mourn public officials or disaster victims, but not ordinary Canadians who die for their country.

Most of all, they don't want the government taking away their right to honor our fallen at the Peace Tower.

It shouldn't be surprising Canadians feel this way. The Peace Tower is our national flagstaff. It's where our eyes look for the respect of the Canadian people to be expressed to those who most deserve it.

None deserve respect more than those who have given their lives for our country. That Canadians are determined to show this respect is

(next page) Readers urged to write for what's right (title)

something to be proud of. That their government is misguidely getting in their way is something that has to change.

The Chronicle-Herald believes we should stand with all those Canadians who want our soldiers honored at the Peace Tower as individuals when they fall, when the recognition may be of greatest comfort to their families, when it matters most to demonstrate our gratitude that they died in defence of our highest ideals. Those of us who share this goal should act on it in our own lives. And so this newspaper has lowered to half-mast the Canadian, Nova Scotian and Union Jack flags we fly in our building on Argyle Street in Halifax. They will remain in the traditional mourning position until funeral services have been held for Lieut. William Turner, Bombardier Myles Mansell, Cpl. Randy Payne and Cpl. Matthew Dinning, the four Canadians who died in Afghanistan on Saturday. In the future, we will half-mast our flags again when Canadians are killed in millitary operations, lowering them from the day a death occurs until after funeral services have been held.

On our front page, we will also carry an emblem of the respect we believe the public wants to pay to fallen soldiers. We will publish a photo of the Peace Tower as so many Canadians think it should look on such occasions - with its flag flying at half-mast.

We urge our readers, Nova Scotian and other Canadians who fly flags from their properties to do the same. Let's set the example of respect and solidarity that the government should be observing.

Those of your who don't fly flags, write or call your Member of Parliament to speak your mind on this.

We respect that the Canadian Forces have their own traditions for half-masting flags and paying respects to their fallen members. But the Parliament Buildings are not a millitary site. They are the emblem of civil democracy and their ceremonial use should reflect the public's sense of what is right. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor has also argued that creating a new tradition of flag-lowering at the Peace Tower is disrespectful of those who died in past conflicts without this honor. But societies, and the ways they express their collective feelings, change and this is no reflection of the past. Paying respects to soldiers as individuals when they are killed in no way detracts from the honors we pay on Remembrance Day to all those who have fallen for Canada. Rather, every flag lowered for individuals who are killed in our own time is a sacred memory with all those who have given our lives for our country. Every Canadian whose family has ever lost a loved one in millitary action will make that connection when the flag flies respectfully at half-mast from the Peace Tower.

Mr.Harper, let Canadians make that connection. It's what they want.

(newsroom@herald.ca)

A box titled "People to write to" urges the reader to write to Members of Parliament. The first sentence reads, "Tell Ottawa what you think, if you feel, as we do, that the Canadian flag atop the Peace Tower in Ottawa should be lowered to half-mast when one of our Armed Forces members is killed during millitary operations" then lists names of Senators and Members of Parliaments and the district they reside over.

My wrists are sore so I'll save my comments on this for tomorow.

The next day, on April 28th, various persons, including myself, wrote to The Chronicle-Herald to protest this amazingly biased article. My letter did not get published, and only two were published. The rest of the Editorials page was filled with letters that supported The Chronicle-Herald for "taking a brave stand against this injustice by the Harper government". Here are the two letters that did get published:

Skewed news Your presentation of the half-masting issue, particularly on April 27th, has been slanted and unprofessional. It has no place in responsible journalism. Opinions, no matter how unbalanced, should be kept to the editorial page.

Slippery slope Re: your front-page editorial (April 27th). Business stories go on the Business page. Sports stories are reported on the Sports page. Entertainment goes under Spotlight. Editorials go on the Opinions page. Keep the front page for news stories, not personal opinions. Deputy Premier Ron Russell's opinion is news. Your is not. (The Chronicle-Herald interviewed and published the opinions of Deputy Premier Ron Russell, who opposed the government's stance on the flag issue.) You come dangerously close to becoming the self-appointed "conscience of the people" with suggestions like "write for what's right." Can we expect that in the days to follow that we will be asked to "write for what's right" on other newsworthy issues after reading your opinion on the front page about child abuse, global warming or government spending? I suggest that reporting the news and providing opportunies for others to voice their opinion is the responsible role of a newspaper. This is written with no disrespect to the subject matter of the front-page editorial.

Dilbert3 20:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there any way to indent?

Dilbert3 you did a great job. FellowWikiNews 23:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good stuff. I might try and incorporate some of that information into the article later. To indent, start your line with a colon (:) by the way (see the code on this talk page for an example). Frankie Roberto 15:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I was going to write a detailed analysis of the newspaper's front-page editorial, but realized that wasn't necessary since the bias there was so obvious. Someone not from Canada, or someone not reading such a bias newspaper may not know but only a few weeks back, The Chronicle-Herald was bashing the Harper government on a "pointless" war in Afghanistan, but now the war is a "noble cause". This newspaper, and The Canadian Press (a journalism organisation similar to The Associated Press) has been publishing many articles which are biased towards the Harper government. Government spending, so-called "secrecy" in government, even an event where Stephen Harper gave his children a handshake after dropping them off at school came under fire by the media. (Many columnists and editors portrayed Harper as a heartless, emotionless droid, saying that he should have given his children hugs.)

I would appreciate if someone took the time to add in the media bias section to the article. I am a high school student, with finals coming up, and my time is very limited. Dilbert3 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've inserted a paragraph about the newspaper reaction, based upon the information you provided above, thanks for typing that up, and good luck with your finals! Frankie Roberto 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New title?

I am considering putting in a new title that better describes the article; does anybody have any suggestions or is the current one good? Dilbert3 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will change the title to "Flag lowering issue generates controversy" or "Government flies flag at full-mast" or something of the sort tomorow. Is there any way to write subtitles? Dilbert3 19:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems fine as it is to me, and a bit late to change it... Frankie Roberto 23:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You can write subtitles (like theres the physical way of doing it), but its against the style guide. I wouldn't bother renaming it now. This was published what - quite a while now, Its sort of late to move it. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The title has been changed, and no its not too late to change the article, I have asked a sysop to unprotect this article for a bit furthur for editing. Dilbert3 22:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is in fact probably too late to change this article? Why are we changing it nearly a month after it's initial publication. If there is new information, we should write a new article. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 00:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, being more familiar with Wikipedia's method of adding on to articles slowly, I origianlly didn't foresee this. I have emailed the sysop back to inform him that the article is complete. Dilbert3 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've re-archived it... Frankie Roberto 21:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiacomo is right. It too late. If this was on Wikipedia it would be different. FellowWikiNews 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)