Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What kind of photo might be good to accompany an article like this? I maybe should have taken a photo of the hearing this morning but didn't think of it. What would I need to do to get permission from people in the photo -- if any? I'm not clear on the rules. I assume I'm OK as long as the photo does not include an actor whose livelihood comes from his / her visual image. ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Only one source is recent. Accessdate should not be included in the sources used and does not assist in establishing newsworthiness. There probably should be at LEAST two sources confirming the main paragraph and main newsworthiness/recent point in the article. Just not there right now.--LauraHale (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Large parts of it are copied from a source whose copyright does not allow commercial use; our articles can, to my understanding, be used commercially, so copying the material here violates the terms of the existing copyright on the material. --Pi zero (talk)
We'd need airtight proof that you are the person who is the copyright holder. I seem to recall your off-wiki identity has come up before, but I don't recall a need to establish it to a legal standard before (though I could certainly have forgotten). --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
What would constitute airtight proof for you? I just forwarded to scoop@wikinewsie.org a reply I received from Sean Webby, Media Coordinator, Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, to a request for comments on the Wikinews draft from spencer.graves@effectivedefense.org. I also sent an email subject "i am" from spencer.graves@prodsyse.com to scoop@wikinewsie.org. Is that adequate? Preferences on en.wikipedia.org list an email address for DavidMCEddy of spencer.graves@prodsyse.com. I have three email addresses that I currently use daily: those two plus spencer.graves@structuremonitoring.com. If you want to email at any of these addresses, I will reply.
Beyond that, when I wrote the article, I first posted a draft to Wikinews. Then I decided that I would rewrite it the next day based on new information, and since I owned the copyright and I knew that indybay.org did not request a copyright assignment, I figured I could publish the version I already had there without jeopardizing publication of a revision in Wikinews. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'll take a look at all these things... in a bit. I'm drained atm from reviewing the asteroid article, whose sources put me in mind of Tom Lehrer's Lobachevsky — "Index I copied from old Vladivostok telephone directory." --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Regarding newsworthiness, the focal news event appears to be somebody publishing an op-ed. It'd be pretty difficult for that not to make the article about the event a non-newsworthy rehash of an opinion (and we don't publish op-eds, as a matter of NPOV). --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
The article is still under development; I haven't submitted it yet on Wikinews. I plan to modify the lede to discuss a committee hearing on this currently in progress. I hope that will make it more newsworthy. Thanks for your comments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I suspect we might want to remove the copyvio tag on the article itself? (Assuming someone completed an off-wiki identity verification.) Gryllida06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
This article was first created on en.wikinews.org at 07:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC). The time stamp on the story in indybay (www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/01/31/18731077.php) is 12:19 AM Pacific time, 31 January 2013 = 08:19 UTC -- OVER AN HOUR LATER. I first wrote the article on my notebook. Then I copied it to en.wikinews.org. Then I realized that it would not appear for several hours at best and would almost certainly be heavily edited before it is published on Wikinews, as it has been. So I revised it slightly and published in just over an hour later on indybay. Should we cite the indybay article as a source? I don't think it says anything the current article doesn't, so I won't unless others think we should. Should we change the title of the current article, if only to distinguish it from the indybay article? That may be wise, but I won't initiate that myself right now. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I sent a couple of emails to scoop@wikinewsie.org. One documented an exchange with the media relations person in the DA's office. He didn't say anything substantive, only acknowledging that he had tried the link I had given him.
??? The notes in line include several references to documents available on the web of past meetings by the Santa Clara County Public Safety and Justice Committee and the Board of Supervisors.
Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Comments by reviewer:
If you think the problems have been addressed, removed the tag and submit. Otherwise, submitting a tagged article like this is considered disruptive.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Comments by reviewer:
If you think the problems have been addressed, removed the tag and submit. Otherwise, submitting a tagged article like this is considered disruptive.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Please excuse: I didn't know I was authorized to remove the copyright tag. I would have removed it early yesterday. Thanks for the clarification. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Comments by reviewer:
The next time this gets a review request without addressing and having the copyright tag removed by the submiter with changes mades to insure this problem does not exist, i will nominate for deletion because third review fail without addressing this tag is purely disruptive.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Comments by reviewer:
The next time this gets a review request without addressing and having the copyright tag removed by the submiter with changes mades to insure this problem does not exist, i will nominate for deletion because third review fail without addressing this tag is purely disruptive.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
To clarify, at least a little.
It was, I think, not submitted with the copyvio tag on it. The author removed the tag, apologizing politely for not realizing he was authorized to do so, and resubmitted.
The issue of copyright is discussed further up on this page. The author believes the issue to be probably resolved, and I've been meaning to check and make sure.
This badly needs a succinct lede that makes clear, factually and without ornament, what happened and why it's important. The first sentence atm is a largely content-free metaphor, and the rest just gets lost in detail. A good lede has been described as "the sizzle that sells the steak". Accomplished without rhetorical techniques like metaphors. Writing ledes is a skill very worth acquiring.
The second-to-last paragraph ("A more scientific approach to this issue might...") is POV. It's analysis, op-ed, which Wikinews doesn't do, per WN:NPOV. Opinions, including controversial claims of fact, can be presented only if attributed — "The Senator described the radio talk show host as a 'big fat idiot'", etc.
The third-to-last paragraph also has some POV problem, though if that were the only problem with the article it could probably be fixed by a reviewer. The second sentence ("This seems inconsistent...") is analysis. The problem could probably be fixed with minimal impact on the paragraph by substantially removing the sentence; while we can't opine, it is our role to present facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on those facts.
I'm confused. I've removed, "This seems inconsistent ... ." However, the last 4 of the current 10 paragraphs might seem to have this problem as well, beginning with, "First, it's unclear how Marsy's law applies". Is there a role in journalism for reporting claims by public officials along with evidence that might seem to contradict those claims? I hope most of that can be retained, because to me, that's a vital part of the story. There needs to be a way in journalism to juxtapose current comments by public officials with apparently contradictory evidence from other sources and to draw the reader's attention to apparent inconsistencies between different sources. ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I may have done a poor job of finding all the instances. On the other hand, not every such passage necessarily crosses the line. There is a vital role in journalism for reporting claims by public officials along with information of use to the reader in considering those claims. The trick is not to tell the reader what to think, and not to unfairly bias the presentation. There was a passage in a recent article about same-sex marriage in the UK, where a Roman Catholic archbishop said there had been no warning in the party platform, and then the article notes that there had in fact been something in the party platform for several years; the actual content was fine, we just had to tweak the wording for neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Although this is now three days old, it should have a little life left in it since it's got some OR, if we can move things along. Delays on the review queue unfortunately have held this up, rather seriously.
Thursday was lost primarily because I did not remember to change the "tasks" tag to "review" until Friday morning. I replied to the concern early Thursday, and checked back many times throughout the day, not understanding why nothing was happening. oops. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have not yet undertaken the source-check phase, except for a quick sanity check of the note in earlier discussion that the article was apparently first posted here some minutes before it appeared on the other web site, so that the copyvio concerns appear to be unnecessary after all.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
This badly needs a succinct lede that makes clear, factually and without ornament, what happened and why it's important. The first sentence atm is a largely content-free metaphor, and the rest just gets lost in detail. A good lede has been described as "the sizzle that sells the steak". Accomplished without rhetorical techniques like metaphors. Writing ledes is a skill very worth acquiring.
The second-to-last paragraph ("A more scientific approach to this issue might...") is POV. It's analysis, op-ed, which Wikinews doesn't do, per WN:NPOV. Opinions, including controversial claims of fact, can be presented only if attributed — "The Senator described the radio talk show host as a 'big fat idiot'", etc.
The third-to-last paragraph also has some POV problem, though if that were the only problem with the article it could probably be fixed by a reviewer. The second sentence ("This seems inconsistent...") is analysis. The problem could probably be fixed with minimal impact on the paragraph by substantially removing the sentence; while we can't opine, it is our role to present facts and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on those facts.
I'm confused. I've removed, "This seems inconsistent ... ." However, the last 4 of the current 10 paragraphs might seem to have this problem as well, beginning with, "First, it's unclear how Marsy's law applies". Is there a role in journalism for reporting claims by public officials along with evidence that might seem to contradict those claims? I hope most of that can be retained, because to me, that's a vital part of the story. There needs to be a way in journalism to juxtapose current comments by public officials with apparently contradictory evidence from other sources and to draw the reader's attention to apparent inconsistencies between different sources. ??? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I may have done a poor job of finding all the instances. On the other hand, not every such passage necessarily crosses the line. There is a vital role in journalism for reporting claims by public officials along with information of use to the reader in considering those claims. The trick is not to tell the reader what to think, and not to unfairly bias the presentation. There was a passage in a recent article about same-sex marriage in the UK, where a Roman Catholic archbishop said there had been no warning in the party platform, and then the article notes that there had in fact been something in the party platform for several years; the actual content was fine, we just had to tweak the wording for neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Although this is now three days old, it should have a little life left in it since it's got some OR, if we can move things along. Delays on the review queue unfortunately have held this up, rather seriously.
Thursday was lost primarily because I did not remember to change the "tasks" tag to "review" until Friday morning. I replied to the concern early Thursday, and checked back many times throughout the day, not understanding why nothing was happening. oops. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I have not yet undertaken the source-check phase, except for a quick sanity check of the note in earlier discussion that the article was apparently first posted here some minutes before it appeared on the other web site, so that the copyvio concerns appear to be unnecessary after all.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Although I've expressed elsewhere concern re timeliness (freshness), I've set that concern aside momentarily to address other issues. If other problems were resolved and freshness became an obstacle, I do perceive there might be a chance of refocusing on developments upcoming in a few days.
There appears to be a dearth of reporter's notes. There comes a point at which the reporter is asking the reviewer to take too much of the article's content on faith. Part of the function of reporter's notes is to give the reviewer a basis for catching errors and judging revisions. In the latter case, the reviewer might see a passage that clearly needs something but in the absence of notes might not even be able to judge which of several kinds of adjustments may be needed (making it impossible to consider repair and difficult to offer recommendations).
Here, the talk page says notes are in comments embedded in the article, and then comments embedded in the article speak of some things specifically but then say other stuff "came from my personal memory and notes taken during the hearing, confirmed in conversations with other attendees." The two points that come to mind are (1) this clearly provides no margin for catching/correcting errors, and (2) if there are notes, why haven't they been provided (in some form or other)?
I'll look at the article and provide more notes with names, etc., to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org.
There are neutrality problems, some of which are made more difficult to fathom due to the lack of notes. A primary technique for Wikinews's notion of neutrality is to attribute opinions and claims to the opiner/claimant. (WN:NPOV is different from w:WP:NPOV.) Neutrality can also be violated through invisible choice of what to include and what not to (back when, I not-ready'd an article about the last US combat troops leaving Iraq because it managed, through omission, to give the impression that the war had not been controversial).
I'm dubious of the characterization of the issues involved, as it appears briefly in the lede and then further in the second paragraph. These do seem to be arguments that would be "in the air", although verifying that they're actually said is difficult, and one can't help suspecting when one sees a broad statement such as the second paragraph attributing a specific position to everyone on one side of an issue and another specific position to everyone on the other. But I was also struck that reimbursement appears to have been a major issue in internal discussions (though perhaps not in public comment) but isn't mentioned here.
1. This hearing was poorly advertised. I only found out about it, because I'm working with a group that helped get the current policy passed and is working to retain it.
2. Supporters of the DA and Sheriff didn't start to appear and say anything until after the op ed appeared on Wednesday.
3. The question of reimbursement was added to the 2011 decision for two reasons that I know of: First, it was a convenient way to get around the provision supported by the DA of honoring ICE holds for "serious and violent" offenders. Second, if someone sues for unlawful detention, the county could have to pay if they lose the suit. If ICE paid, then they might have to pay. An attorney who mentioned this said that ICE's refusal to consider reimbursing Santa Clara County for the cost of these holds may have been driven by a desire to avoid the legal liability for such suits. For more on this legal liability question, see an email "notes on US deportation policies questioned ..." from spencer.graves .a.t. prodsyse.com to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org. I didn't mention this in the article, because it seemed like it would add more confusion than clarity -- lengthening the article unnecessarily.
It would, btw, be good if there were some explanation, probably in the second paragraph, of what is actually being discussed here. One can deduce from context, after a while, that this is about detaining people on request of ICE, but it isn't explicitly explained and feels missing.
I inserted a new second paragraph to hopefully clarify this.
The word "insist" in the second paragraph is clearly non-neutral, exacerbating the aforementioned troubles with that paragraph.
Thanks: changed to "claim".
One wonders where you get the bit about everyone said this but the public isn't unanimous (fourth paragraph). And then the sentence following is the sort of claim that wants attributing.
Thanks. I've added more text, noting that the hearing was not well advertised and support for the DA started to materialize after the publication of the op ed opposing the DA's position.
I stopped, this time around, after looking at the first four paragraphs. I'm supposing you can see how these principles apply to the remainder of the article.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Although I've expressed elsewhere concern re timeliness (freshness), I've set that concern aside momentarily to address other issues. If other problems were resolved and freshness became an obstacle, I do perceive there might be a chance of refocusing on developments upcoming in a few days.
There appears to be a dearth of reporter's notes. There comes a point at which the reporter is asking the reviewer to take too much of the article's content on faith. Part of the function of reporter's notes is to give the reviewer a basis for catching errors and judging revisions. In the latter case, the reviewer might see a passage that clearly needs something but in the absence of notes might not even be able to judge which of several kinds of adjustments may be needed (making it impossible to consider repair and difficult to offer recommendations).
Here, the talk page says notes are in comments embedded in the article, and then comments embedded in the article speak of some things specifically but then say other stuff "came from my personal memory and notes taken during the hearing, confirmed in conversations with other attendees." The two points that come to mind are (1) this clearly provides no margin for catching/correcting errors, and (2) if there are notes, why haven't they been provided (in some form or other)?
I'll look at the article and provide more notes with names, etc., to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org.
There are neutrality problems, some of which are made more difficult to fathom due to the lack of notes. A primary technique for Wikinews's notion of neutrality is to attribute opinions and claims to the opiner/claimant. (WN:NPOV is different from w:WP:NPOV.) Neutrality can also be violated through invisible choice of what to include and what not to (back when, I not-ready'd an article about the last US combat troops leaving Iraq because it managed, through omission, to give the impression that the war had not been controversial).
I'm dubious of the characterization of the issues involved, as it appears briefly in the lede and then further in the second paragraph. These do seem to be arguments that would be "in the air", although verifying that they're actually said is difficult, and one can't help suspecting when one sees a broad statement such as the second paragraph attributing a specific position to everyone on one side of an issue and another specific position to everyone on the other. But I was also struck that reimbursement appears to have been a major issue in internal discussions (though perhaps not in public comment) but isn't mentioned here.
1. This hearing was poorly advertised. I only found out about it, because I'm working with a group that helped get the current policy passed and is working to retain it.
2. Supporters of the DA and Sheriff didn't start to appear and say anything until after the op ed appeared on Wednesday.
3. The question of reimbursement was added to the 2011 decision for two reasons that I know of: First, it was a convenient way to get around the provision supported by the DA of honoring ICE holds for "serious and violent" offenders. Second, if someone sues for unlawful detention, the county could have to pay if they lose the suit. If ICE paid, then they might have to pay. An attorney who mentioned this said that ICE's refusal to consider reimbursing Santa Clara County for the cost of these holds may have been driven by a desire to avoid the legal liability for such suits. For more on this legal liability question, see an email "notes on US deportation policies questioned ..." from spencer.graves .a.t. prodsyse.com to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org. I didn't mention this in the article, because it seemed like it would add more confusion than clarity -- lengthening the article unnecessarily.
It would, btw, be good if there were some explanation, probably in the second paragraph, of what is actually being discussed here. One can deduce from context, after a while, that this is about detaining people on request of ICE, but it isn't explicitly explained and feels missing.
I inserted a new second paragraph to hopefully clarify this.
The word "insist" in the second paragraph is clearly non-neutral, exacerbating the aforementioned troubles with that paragraph.
Thanks: changed to "claim".
One wonders where you get the bit about everyone said this but the public isn't unanimous (fourth paragraph). And then the sentence following is the sort of claim that wants attributing.
Thanks. I've added more text, noting that the hearing was not well advertised and support for the DA started to materialize after the publication of the op ed opposing the DA's position.
I stopped, this time around, after looking at the first four paragraphs. I'm supposing you can see how these principles apply to the remainder of the article.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
One question: I do not recall having heard of Marsy's Law before I saw it discussed in the DA's comments in the Agenda Packet from Nov. 7, 2012 (http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=2064 -- pp., 97 - 101), and I do not recall having heard it mentioned elsewhere. Should I delete the mention of Marsy's Law?
Beyond this, I had difficulty understanding the DA's logic. He claimed his proposal would save money and provided figures, but they didn't make any sense to me and were contradicted in comments by others. Another senior public official -- see an email from me to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org -- said that the DA was incorrect in claiming a savings in the cost of probation. Also, if someone is detained by ICE, they may not consume Santa Clara County money for that detention, which seems central to the DA's argument. However, they definitely consume taxpayer money, and I heard someone say they didn't care if it came out of the federal or county budget -- their taxes still paid for it. That's my view, but I'm sure I'm not alone in that. The current text is my best attempt to summarize the DA's memo in a few words. I'm keeping the comment about Marsy's Law, because that was one of the major points he tried to make in that memo.
I've also added comments in line in the article in addition to emails sent to scoop .a.t. ... .
I just deleted 4 of the last 5 paragraphs. By my count, this leaved only the new second to last paragraph that has not been fact checked by a reviewer. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, the earlier ones were looked at by a reviewer. Not necessarily cleared altogether. But still.
I find myself wanting to split into four right now, so one of me can catch xyr breath from the review I just finished while the others review the three articles now on the queue. (But I suppose I'd really want five of me, since I suspect another article may be submitted soon.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate your dilemma, but I'm facing a similar one: It's now over 6 days since I first submitted this article for review. There's a hearing this afternoon at 2 PM at which this issue may or may not be discussed. I plan to attend that hearing, and I may revise the article after that hearing. Your comments are valuable, but I have to ask myself if it's worth my time to submit such a revision.
Would you object if I submitted essentially same story to es.wikinews.org (in Spanish translation, of course), indybay.org or indymedia.org? If I did, I'd also comments here and with es.wikinews.org about the dual posting. To my knowledge, I don't think indybay.org or indymedia.org object to duplicate posting. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Other than freshness, which can be resolved by refreshing with new developments, I believe all the issues raised here can be addressed reasonably easily. I have completely reviewed the article, and I maintain these are the only issues with the current version of the article. I see just three non-freshness issues with the article, one of which is very tiny, plus a fourth point on which I'll request feedback from the reporter.
The omission of the reimbursement issue presents a neutrality problem. I hope to make the underlying principle clear, as well as the particulars of this instance.
Wikinews neutrality is partly balance, but also partly avoiding judgements on the reader's behalf.
Generically, in a situation like this one has to either not omit the information, or recast the article so the omission does not mislead. I doubt the latter is possible, and if possible it would probably be more difficult and awkward than the former. Non-omission doesn't require an in-depth discussion of it. It should be possible to smoothly acknowledge the issue without getting bogged down in it.
The issue of this omission was raised in an earlier review, and in response was described as a simplification. But the judgement that it isn't important appears not a call we should make. The current policy, as I understand, would allow these detainments if reimbursed. There is apparently no chance of reimbursement, but, reading between the lines, that may not have been obvious to everyone when the policy was put in place. The provided documentation indicates the current policy was motivated partly by concerns of funding. It seems the reconsideration of the policy may have been partly because some people became aware reimbursement was not going to happen. Whether that's really how things happened isn't material: awareness of the reimbursement seems to me significant in trying to understand the situation, so I don't think we should be making a call to suppress it on the reader's behalf.
This omission has apparently led to an inaccurate statement in the current draft, saying the current policy was because of the trust concern. Granted, if not for my position on other grounds that reimbursement should be mentioned, this particular inaccuracy could be easily fixed by simply saying trust was a partial motivation rather than the whole motivation.
A general principle here is that we should be making true statements — that's a crucial part of WN:NPOV (accuracy fosters NPOV). Sticking to true statements doesn't have to be onerous; for example, after reviewing the provided sourcing information about the number of attendees, I inserted the word "about". In most situations where claims of fact disagree with each other, it isn't our place to pick one of them and present it as fact, but it's sometimes really easy to allow for all of them.
I'll add some comments on that, as you request -- later today.
The passage quoted from the Mercury Sun is too long imho. That op-ed is under copyright by the Mercury Sun. Short quotes are fair game I think since it's an op-ed and here what is said is part of our story, but for something that long paraphrase should be used.
Please explain your use of the date "January 31" for the op-ed. I'm asking because the article itself explicitly says it was posted on the 29th and updated on the 30th.
Added in the "Sources": "Appeared in print January 31." My wife couldn't find it in the paper edition for January 30 but did find in in the January 31 edition. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
What is your relation to this story? I'd like your thoughts on how you stand relative to WN:COI, such as the paragraph on Campaigning, and whether some form of disclosure may be in order.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Other than freshness, which can be resolved by refreshing with new developments, I believe all the issues raised here can be addressed reasonably easily. I have completely reviewed the article, and I maintain these are the only issues with the current version of the article. I see just three non-freshness issues with the article, one of which is very tiny, plus a fourth point on which I'll request feedback from the reporter.
The omission of the reimbursement issue presents a neutrality problem. I hope to make the underlying principle clear, as well as the particulars of this instance.
Wikinews neutrality is partly balance, but also partly avoiding judgements on the reader's behalf.
Generically, in a situation like this one has to either not omit the information, or recast the article so the omission does not mislead. I doubt the latter is possible, and if possible it would probably be more difficult and awkward than the former. Non-omission doesn't require an in-depth discussion of it. It should be possible to smoothly acknowledge the issue without getting bogged down in it.
The issue of this omission was raised in an earlier review, and in response was described as a simplification. But the judgement that it isn't important appears not a call we should make. The current policy, as I understand, would allow these detainments if reimbursed. There is apparently no chance of reimbursement, but, reading between the lines, that may not have been obvious to everyone when the policy was put in place. The provided documentation indicates the current policy was motivated partly by concerns of funding. It seems the reconsideration of the policy may have been partly because some people became aware reimbursement was not going to happen. Whether that's really how things happened isn't material: awareness of the reimbursement seems to me significant in trying to understand the situation, so I don't think we should be making a call to suppress it on the reader's behalf.
This omission has apparently led to an inaccurate statement in the current draft, saying the current policy was because of the trust concern. Granted, if not for my position on other grounds that reimbursement should be mentioned, this particular inaccuracy could be easily fixed by simply saying trust was a partial motivation rather than the whole motivation.
A general principle here is that we should be making true statements — that's a crucial part of WN:NPOV (accuracy fosters NPOV). Sticking to true statements doesn't have to be onerous; for example, after reviewing the provided sourcing information about the number of attendees, I inserted the word "about". In most situations where claims of fact disagree with each other, it isn't our place to pick one of them and present it as fact, but it's sometimes really easy to allow for all of them.
I'll add some comments on that, as you request -- later today.
The passage quoted from the Mercury Sun is too long imho. That op-ed is under copyright by the Mercury Sun. Short quotes are fair game I think since it's an op-ed and here what is said is part of our story, but for something that long paraphrase should be used.
Please explain your use of the date "January 31" for the op-ed. I'm asking because the article itself explicitly says it was posted on the 29th and updated on the 30th.
Added in the "Sources": "Appeared in print January 31." My wife couldn't find it in the paper edition for January 30 but did find in in the January 31 edition. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
What is your relation to this story? I'd like your thoughts on how you stand relative to WN:COI, such as the paragraph on Campaigning, and whether some form of disclosure may be in order.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Absolutely: As should be obvious from some of the email I forwarded to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org, I've been involved in the campaign to retain the current policy. I'm also keenly aware of the need to "exercise great caution" to mitigate any appearance of bias in the story. You may also note that one of the emails I forwarded to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org came from the media contact in the District Attorney's office, who I assume should represent the other side: That was a reply to an attempt from me to solicit comments from the other side to reduce the chances that I'm presenting a one-sided view of the issue. I've done this kind of thing almost instinctively for 35 years: I got paper published 35 years ago in a refereed academic journal refuting a previous article. When I submitted my article to the journal, I also sent it to the author of the previous article. He replied, and I modified the article to reflect fairly, I think, his concerns. Also, you may recall that in "California judge disqualified" article, I attempted to contact the law firm for the other side to get their comments, and I did that also with a different article on that case that I published via indybay.org. In the case of the California judge, I'm not a party to that suit. I only met the plaintiff last year, because I was looking for people who were challenging the banks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another comment: I was a follower of W. Edwards Deming. At a seminar I attended, he described serving as an expert witness about a sample survey. He identified for the court all the limitations of the survey as well as its strengths: What could be inferred from the results and what could not. After attorneys for his client finished questioning him, attorneys for the other side had no questions. There were no weaknesses left to expose in his evaluation. The group I'm working with is discussing doing a survey. I suggested consulting with a professor at UCLA who is an expert in why people obey the law. I said the prof might say that our proposed method is only good for propaganda. Or she might recommend a few tweaks that could make it valuable for an article in a refereed scientific journal -- and if the latter, it could have an impact far beyond Santa Clara County. Someone said that we should do it even if only for propaganda purposes. I'm not sure I agree: If it's only for propaganda, we could be exposed and it could damage our credibility for other issues -- and I'd rather spend my time working on other things. Moreover, I respect the reputation of Wikinews, and I don't want to jeopardize that by failing to present a balanced view of the issue. I'm not going to join the Conservative Forum of the Silicon Valley, but I may send an email to them inviting comments on this article (president .a.t. theconservativeforum.com). DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I hope to review this tomorrow morning (assuming someone else doesn't beat me to it, of course). The reporter has a three-hour advantage on me; it's after 9pm where I am, and I feel I'm not quite sharp enough for the decisions involved. --Pi zero (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I received the following reply to my email to president .a.t. theconservativeforum.com:
Hello:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I expect to reply this evening. At first glance the article looks as fair-handed as any I have read in a long time. Don't want you to get too excited about that, keeping in mind the main stream media set the bar rather low.
Thanks again. I have sent your request for comment to an individual that is closely involved with this issue, Mr. Don Barich.
Best regards,
Howard Myers
This is quoted from an email forwarded to scoop .a.t. wikinewsie.org, subj: Fwd: RE: ICE detainers?, 10:33 PM Pacific time Feb. 7, 2013 (Feb. 8, 2013 6:33 AM).
I'll be interested to hear what Barich says, if anything. If he replies with something I don't understand, I'll ask him for clarification and documentation. Otherwise, if he has a concern, I will endeavor to ensure that his perspective is appropriately reflected in the article. I hope you will agree that I have satisfactorily complied with the admonition to "exercise great caution" in writing on a subject where I have a conflict of interest. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Note: Wikipedia cannot be used as a source under any circumstances. I'm seeing a Wikipedia article cited in the embedded notes; that's a non-starter. --Pi zero (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I've been struggling for some time to express this point. I'll try again.
There is a problem of approach to neutrality here. Any time you find yourself asking something like "is this a fair summary of the arguments for both sides", you have already made a mistake, because you shouldn't have been trying to do that in the first place. The Wikipedian approach to "neutrality" involves making subjective judgements like this; ours should not, by and large. I observe you sent an email to a group on the opposite side of this from the one you're on, asking for their opinion about the balance here — the balance of your summary of the positions. Which means you'd already made this serious mistake. This sort of Wikipedia-style debate over presentation of opinions is anathema to the expression of objective truth we aspire to at Wikinews. We aren't here to present opinions, we're here to present facts — including, sometimes, facts about what opinions others have expressed. Summarizing opinions is hazardous at best, and for someone with a strong bias —such as, admittedly, yourself— it's well nigh impossible to do in a "balanaced" way even in the Wikipedian sense. News has to be something that can be written neutrally, even by someone with a strong opinion on the matter, in a short time; if it requires a committee to decide how it should be written, there is already something wrong with the approach.
That said, the response to the email did point out a serious problem that I'd somehow failed to pick up on last time around — though I believe I did specifically flag it out as a problem in an earlier review. With luck I would have picked up on it again during a last-minute sanity check before publishing. But I note that your "fix", in response to the criticism, is inadequate. And the root problem is, indeed, that you're trying to "summarize" the arguments. I'm going to have to give the matter some careful thought, with an eye toward the article as a whole as well as the specific passage. --Pi zero (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I'm still not satisfied with the above attempt to express this. There are of course circumstances in which we do "summarize" in a sense of the word; the difference here is qualitative, and I'm still not sure how to articulate it. Perhaps something to do with oversipmlification? --Pi zero (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I"m making this harder than it has to be. Summarizing in the abstract the arguments for and against is analysis, not allowed. Summarizing what was actually said at a meeting is good; it's what we're here for. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
This article has had a neutrality problem from the start. I should, in an ideal world, have recognized the exact nature of the problem from the start and explained it clearly. Whyever that didn't happen, I believe I've got my eye back on the ball now.
The problem: Although parts of this report facts about what occurred, parts are presented as analysis of the issues. That's op-ed. (I gather this article started life as based on an op-ed.)
A news article might report that somebody said this, and somebody else said that, etc. It would of course summarize these events rather than describe them in excrutiating detail. But the news article would stick to summarizing events, not summarizing issues. Some problem passages:
"Some who support this controversial position want to deport immediately all illegal aliens. Some who oppose it believe that our system of jurisprudence should be blind to both ethnicity and immigration status."
This was reworded somewhat in response to email feedback, but the problem can't be fixed that way: it's analysis. Wikipedia might address this problem by spending years seeking consensus on how to word the analysis. Wikinews addresses the problem by not doing analysis — that's how to regularly achieve neutrality on a news schedule.
"One point of contention is the impact of the policy on public safety: Supporters of Secure Communities claim ..." (the whole paragraph)
This is presented as analysis of issues. Were these issues brought up at the meeting? (Or in one of the sources?)
Yes. All the speakers spoke against the DA's proposal. The Sheriff spoke supporting the DA's proposal. The paragraph has been reworded to hopefully remove the analysis and be more clear about what actually happened -- news not analysis, as you say. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Another reason for asking the ICE for reimbursement is ..."
Again: presented as analysis. The fact of the lawsuit could be presented as fact, and along the way the issue could be explained — but that isn't how the paragraph is now presented.
I'm torn about freshness. Would it make sense to whip this into shape, then wait for the meeting on the 12th and —using the whipped-into-shape article as a model— turn it into an article about both the Jan 31 and Feb 12 meetings? The result of this should, presumably, have a lede, probably quite short, that presents the two meetings as a single phenomenon.
An astute question. If we're going to wait for it, we'd better have a model for what to do if it fizzles. I'll see if I can't set my back brain to working on that overnight. --Pi zero (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is a small sourcing problem: since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, we need a different source for the ICE two-day limit. If Wikipedia cites a trust-worthy source for the information, it's fine to use the source they cite.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
This article has had a neutrality problem from the start. I should, in an ideal world, have recognized the exact nature of the problem from the start and explained it clearly. Whyever that didn't happen, I believe I've got my eye back on the ball now.
The problem: Although parts of this report facts about what occurred, parts are presented as analysis of the issues. That's op-ed. (I gather this article started life as based on an op-ed.)
A news article might report that somebody said this, and somebody else said that, etc. It would of course summarize these events rather than describe them in excrutiating detail. But the news article would stick to summarizing events, not summarizing issues. Some problem passages:
"Some who support this controversial position want to deport immediately all illegal aliens. Some who oppose it believe that our system of jurisprudence should be blind to both ethnicity and immigration status."
This was reworded somewhat in response to email feedback, but the problem can't be fixed that way: it's analysis. Wikipedia might address this problem by spending years seeking consensus on how to word the analysis. Wikinews addresses the problem by not doing analysis — that's how to regularly achieve neutrality on a news schedule.
"One point of contention is the impact of the policy on public safety: Supporters of Secure Communities claim ..." (the whole paragraph)
This is presented as analysis of issues. Were these issues brought up at the meeting? (Or in one of the sources?)
Yes. All the speakers spoke against the DA's proposal. The Sheriff spoke supporting the DA's proposal. The paragraph has been reworded to hopefully remove the analysis and be more clear about what actually happened -- news not analysis, as you say. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Another reason for asking the ICE for reimbursement is ..."
Again: presented as analysis. The fact of the lawsuit could be presented as fact, and along the way the issue could be explained — but that isn't how the paragraph is now presented.
I'm torn about freshness. Would it make sense to whip this into shape, then wait for the meeting on the 12th and —using the whipped-into-shape article as a model— turn it into an article about both the Jan 31 and Feb 12 meetings? The result of this should, presumably, have a lede, probably quite short, that presents the two meetings as a single phenomenon.
An astute question. If we're going to wait for it, we'd better have a model for what to do if it fizzles. I'll see if I can't set my back brain to working on that overnight. --Pi zero (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
There is a small sourcing problem: since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, we need a different source for the ICE two-day limit. If Wikipedia cites a trust-worthy source for the information, it's fine to use the source they cite.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Did some careful rearrangement of text of the first two paragraphs, to put more of the most important information in the lede and details in the second paragraph. Didn't see how to achieve any higher concentration of most-important stuff in the lede without much more intrusive changes.
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.
Did some careful rearrangement of text of the first two paragraphs, to put more of the most important information in the lede and details in the second paragraph. Didn't see how to achieve any higher concentration of most-important stuff in the lede without much more intrusive changes.
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.
I attended initial "Public Comments" portion of the County Board of Supervisors meeting this morning. The room was packed and roughly 60 people spoke, but I heard zero comments about ICE detainers: A labor union is not happy with the status of contract negotiations with the County. That might make a story with some local interest -- but hardly anything of national importance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
