Talk:U.S. commuter blows up section of Washington D.C. Bridge

Active discussions

Shouldn't Mr Ruefly be referred to as such throughout the article? Just calling him "Ruefly" seems rude to me --Yaf201 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a question...Edit

Is the articel title supposed to be this ambiguous? It makes it hard to tell that it was legit... 16:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, "U.S. commuter blows up section of Washington D.C. Bridge" is more than a little bit sensationalist. Rob T Firefly 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

misleading headline----Edit

---initial reaction is: Oh no the terrorists strike again! My suggestion would be to replace 'blows up' by 'demolishes'

Agreed, my first reaction was "what the heck? why isn't this the main story???" Then I read the article and realizr that it was planned, not that some random guy (or perhaps terrorist) set off a bomb on a commuter bridge. I agree with the above suggstion. Matt White 17:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in on this one. FellowWikiNews (W) 17:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm torn between the fact that the headline is slightly misleading, and the fact that the story behind it is quite well written as a compliment to it. I spotted the headline in Recent Changes and had to read the article to find out more. It brought a smile to my face as I discovered this was planned and the guy had won a competition to push the button. I think "demolishes" would probably have the same draw to readers, but I'm not going to change it. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 18:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Wikinews is becoming a tabloid so gradually that no one will notice until it's too late. I think it's time to re-open the discussion about including a page six girl. TRWBW 02:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Return to "U.S. commuter blows up section of Washington D.C. Bridge" page.