Ed Poor

Hello! I see you do not agree with the article 16,000 protest School of the Americas. I have put the page at the Wikinews:Deletion requests list. I suggest you take a look. Thanks. carlosar ~ Dez 4 11:37:48 UTC 2004

• You have been against the article: Aljazeera says United States have used napalm in Fallujah. I see your point and I think your objections are right. I am trying to fix the article now. I would apreciate your participation.---Carlosar 21:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please, take a look:"16,000 protest School of the Americas".Is it better now? I need help to fix it --Carlosar 01:52, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Please, look again:"16,000 protest School of the Americas". Carlosar 22:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Ed Poor!

No, I screwed up... I was only meaning to revert the edit deleting the term "unrelated", but turns out I reverted all your edits... I apologize.

A relationship is the element which must be "proven". Claiming a relationship where none exists is POV, but point out there is no relationship is not inherently POV. I happen to think the statement is redundant, in that particular paragraph at least, since the para after gives that view quite nicely. But deleting it is probably POV in the context. - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 00:11 (UTC)

I would say that if Bush (or somebody almost as famous ;-) claimed that two things were related, it would be worthwhile to attribute that POV to him.

Saying that two things are, or are not related -- particularly in politics -- is tricky. Wouldn't it be better for WikiNews to say something like Bush said / implied that Iraq and 9-11 were related than baldly to assert that they are unrelated; we, the reporters, know this for a fact, and we are telling you: Bush is wrong.

Anyway, I didn't come here to stir up trouble. I just looked at the first news story that caught my eye, and I thought I saw a mistake or two. I'll be good. I have to. I just wrote w:object consciousness. Ed Poor 30 June 2005 00:17 (UTC)

<grin> Actually, I think one source does specifically mention the events are unrelated. On Wikinews each article is supposed to source all factual statements, such as whether the events are unrelated. I will double check now.

Well <sheepish grin> after I read that wp article... - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 00:21 (UTC)

Speaking of sheep, yesterday's article on the sheep study cited a discredited study by LeVay on the brain size hypothesis. Has anyone bothered to read what Simon LeVay said at Wikipedia:Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Conclusions_2?

He stated, "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. ...Since I look at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth or if they appeared later." [1]

WikiNews writing guidelines

I dug these two quotes up.

News is factual. Opinions should be sourced from qualified sources, and the fact that those people express those opinions becomes the fact that is reported. [2]

It is of utmost importance that we cite sources for any factual claim we make -- either in reputable online and offline media, or our own original reporting. Try to track down the first source that makes a particular claim. [3]

Opposition

It appears you are right, Ed. I remember trying to edit out the "commented" language, but only got halfway through the paragraph! :| -Stevertigo