Talk:Personal relationship between Bush and McCallum questioned

I find it interesting that this "prepared" article is produced and labelled as a "minor" edit. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Amgine acted "out of process" , I think, when he deleted a similar "disputed" article; not even bothering with a deletion request. I see this as blatent vandalism and have asked admins to have a look.
• Hopefully this article will now receive some objective evaluation. If one imagines the term "XYZ Men's Club" instead of the S&B; which some wish to censor out of all reporting as a "taboo subject matter"; it might help, I think. I have decided to really try to collaborate on finding a compromise on this article as it's important to the integrity of the project that we not simply censor out topics because some feel uncomfortable about them. If one applys logic rather than labelization("conspiracy theory"),pre-conceived notions, and assumptions, there is really nothing wrong with this article at all,imo. Neutralizer 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Not news and POV

All previous comments about this article, which is a repeated recreation of content previously removed from the main namespace, apply here. None have been addressed, and this is disruptive behavior. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This article highlights the Australian news coverage and there are no actionable objections here at all; you can not demand editors address your previous objections to a previous article since you have unilaterally deleted that article and those objections. If your objections are the same; please cut and paste them here so they may be addressed. I demand the right to collaborate over the specious tags if you put them here also. Neutralizer 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to meet npov concerns

is it on the right track now? Neutralizer 20:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
202.169.218.174 08:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC) I deleted "some bizzare" from the story. Does this solve the npov problem? (inkybutton in wikipedia)

Not really news, but could be...

As it stands, all this article is doing is highlighting the fact that Australian news is interested in the President's relationship with the US Ambassador to Australia. This isn't news - it would be like saying that US news is interested in something that applies to the US. Not a big surprise. What COULD be news, depending on how this would be written is something like "Personal relationship between Bush and McCallum Questioned", and a discussion of why this is occuring, what issues it may cause, and the reactions of press both in the US and AMerica, along with government officials. Lyellin 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Are we really interested in writing news articles *about* news articles? Just a personal opinion, perhaps, but I think this is an attempt to create news where there is none to push a POV. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I will try to develop an article along the lines of Lyellin's suggestion. It is normal for editors to work on stories about topics that interest them and reasonable for other editors to notice pov when it exists; but not reasonable to tag articles when there is no pov manifested within the article; it would seem to me. Neutralizer 23:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Amgine - no it's not something we should be interested in. It could be interesting though, to explore the relationship between the two people - or to write a piece on the appointment of the ambassador. Both of those could also include other's opinions - other editorials. Lyellin 23:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And to continue on that vein - the intitial article could seriously be considered a POV violation Neutralizer - and it is apporpiate for someone to tag an article and mention their concerns on the talk page. That's how we fix these things. Lyellin 23:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100% Lyellin, but Amgine actually deleted that initial article (and put it in my own user space) without going through our deletion request process and he did that some 18 hours after the last previous edit. Neutralizer 23:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no substantial content in here that would suggest this page be more than an editorial suited for a conspiracy theory forum. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

One further exploration, it does appear that the subject of the ambassador being appointed has been covered. I'm unsure now if a proper direction for THIS article is possible. Working through possible angles, I don't think I find one that is actually news, and not POV regarding the topic. Lyellin 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyellin, what about your additional suggestion above; "It could be interesting though, to explore the relationship between the two people"? That is the angle I plan to work on and have been doing research on...so I will forge ahead with that approach; as you see I changed the title to the one you suggested. Neutralizer 00:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I had it framed in my head was one where it would be something related to the appointment of the Ambassador. In this instance... it's close to being just a smeer/conspiracy article. I would probably encourage a writer to work on it more, but put it as developing, and see where it went. Could work as a research news article - something akin to what Time does.... but I'm cautious that that might not occur. 67.171.75.30 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Right; ok; we'll give it a try. Neutralizer 03:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Title change

The title change actually does a little for the article and reflects it better than the previous one - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO

1. The Age and the SMH article are essentially from the same source - Fairfax. So not much variety in sources.
2. The use of "bizarre" is NPOV.

The article is an interesting obsevation, although perhaps not necessarily "newsworthy"... --elliot_k 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Will deal with word "bizarre". please feel free to edit. Neutralizer 13:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Neutralizer, Someone already did! --elliot_k 13:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The tagger has not said why the article is npov. This tag should be removed and I will if there is no actionable objection? Neutralizer 13:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I thinks its cool to remove the NPOV Tag. --elliot_k 13:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

remove other tag and publish?

I have added another source and expanded. hopefully it can be daye bumped and oublished now. Neutralizer 23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a heads-up news story. -Edbrown05 03:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute! The who is McCallum isn't answered (at all). -Edbrown05 04:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Nor when appointed. -Edbrown05 04:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I tear into the structure of this story, the more I see gaps. It does needs transition paragraphs to provide context. (My intent was not to destroy the flow by moving paragraphs earlier in the edit history) -Edbrown05 04:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok; hopefully ok now; please unpublish if it's not ok. Neutralizer 23:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got to go, but please use the {{wikinews}} template to link to previous stories... The proper format is {{wikinews|title=Article title|date=Article date}}. This isn't an actionable objection of course, just a style thing. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ok;thanks Neutralizer 00:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)