| Revision as of 21:50, 15 July 2005 editZachsMind (talk | contribs)321 editsm →Where is it inaccurate?← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:48, 16 July 2005 edit undo209.6.203.244 (talk) →Where is it inaccurate?Next edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| Perhaps if specific quotes from the entry in question could be repeated here in the discussion page and a rebuttal, making reference to links, would be helpful. I didn't write the article, but I don't see anything in it that's inaccurate or 'spun.' Perhaps if specific examples were cited, I could see what you mean..? | Perhaps if specific quotes from the entry in question could be repeated here in the discussion page and a rebuttal, making reference to links, would be helpful. I didn't write the article, but I don't see anything in it that's inaccurate or 'spun.' Perhaps if specific examples were cited, I could see what you mean..? | ||
| ] 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | ] 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ---- | |||
| Well.... | |||
| The piece repeats an annoyingly common mistake of confusing the | |||
| Wilson-smearing comments made by Republicans Senators Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, and Christopher Bond with the actual bipartisan report itself. | |||
| If you bring up the PDF copy of the full , you'll see that the section in the main report dealing with Wilson's assignment to Niger begins on page 49 (by Adobe's count; 39 in the report itself.) Note also how here he is carefully referred to only as "the former ambassador." | |||
| But the comments about Wilson lying and being rebuted are actually in a supplemental "Additional Views" section starting on page 451 (by | |||
| Adobe's count; page 441 in the report itself) that was written solely by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond. Note how here they casually bandy about Wilson's name and make charges totally unsupported by the main report itself. | |||
| Hardly "bipartisan" in any case. | |||
Revision as of 20:48, 16 July 2005
I'd actually like to see some more about Joseph Wilson's diplomatic career before the current kerfuffle. He seems to have led a fascinating career.
NPOV must be maintained
Let’s revert this article to a less POV revision. It is like watching news speak in action.
-QuestioningAuthority
→ This MUST be an Armstrong Williams Entry! →
Look, my apologies for being so blunt, I realize that I'm very, VERY new here. No expert am I - regarding NPOV policy. ...but, I mean... ...SERIOUSLY !
The emerging FACTS on this story should be directed to the original author, so that they will have an opportunity to correct themselves, examine their own research methods, adjust any medication dosages and seek some much-needed reality-discernment training.
If I had ever written something this far-fetched and myth-based, something published online for all the world to see, I KNOW that I would DEFINITELY want the chance to make a full, public retraction.
I'm rather certain this particular page will become a target for partisan polemics. If it is not yet locked out, it may be a good plan to do so.
As far as the article is concerned, there is no question there is subjective content.
I believe Rok has a good solution so far which is to allow the original author the opportunity to include a comprehensive and objective time line of Joe Wilson's career.
All subjective references should be linked rather than asserted... In which case the author should certainly be prepared to include a great deal of depth in this entry.
My apologies if any of these are dealt with by policy, I am not fully acquainted with Wiki policies yet.
-Dr. E
Where is it inaccurate?
Perhaps if specific quotes from the entry in question could be repeated here in the discussion page and a rebuttal, making reference to links, would be helpful. I didn't write the article, but I don't see anything in it that's inaccurate or 'spun.' Perhaps if specific examples were cited, I could see what you mean..? ZachsMind 21:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Well....
The piece repeats an annoyingly common mistake of confusing the Wilson-smearing comments made by Republicans Senators Pat Roberts, Orrin Hatch, and Christopher Bond with the actual bipartisan report itself.
If you bring up the PDF copy of the full report, you'll see that the section in the main report dealing with Wilson's assignment to Niger begins on page 49 (by Adobe's count; 39 in the report itself.) Note also how here he is carefully referred to only as "the former ambassador."
But the comments about Wilson lying and being rebuted are actually in a supplemental "Additional Views" section starting on page 451 (by Adobe's count; page 441 in the report itself) that was written solely by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond. Note how here they casually bandy about Wilson's name and make charges totally unsupported by the main report itself.
Hardly "bipartisan" in any case.