Talk:Advocate poll: GLAAD support not unanimous in U.S. gay commmunity

! This news story is nonsense, only two persons responded to the poll. -Edbrown05 23:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, now it's 4 respondents about the papal election. -Edbrown05 00:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

new source info
Seeing now this is about GLAAD, and not papal poll, -Edbrown05 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a little URL rot because it now appears The Advocate conducts a new poll pretty often. Sorry for the confusion. The URL has been adjusted to point to the appropriate content. -genpic

Dispute tags
Ok, what's the problem now?

The content of this article consists of VERBATIM QUOTES of poll comments posted by a host of respondents.

Explain objections ... or drop them.
 * If you will pause, I will do so. - Amgine 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Genpic: Please feel free to respond... I'm interested in getting this article cleaned up and published. - Amgine 01:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is unabashedly negative toward GLAAD. Wikinews does not present articles which express a single POV. Define the argument and ascribe the opinion, but do not fail to present balance counter arguments. - Amgine 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Accuracy
The many points of contention listed in the article are not necessarily accurate, either to the messages left by poll participants or measurable from the data gathered by the poll. The ability to make a statement factually is not always easy to determine, but as a news source Wikinews does need to strive for accuracy.

I would suggest a major overhaul of the story outline, with the list of grievances minimized at best and the focus being on the taking of the poll and not the probably skewed results. - Amgine 01:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: balance. The article says (twice) that some respondents are happy with GLAAD, but that this is not news. What is news, it says, is that the organization needs to address a large host of negative perceptions among its constituency.

There was an effort to report these results as *perceptions* and not as statements of established fact. If this goal is not met, perhaps editing can improve it.

As for rebutting each point: (a) the poll comments do not provide a comprehensive list of rebuttals for all the complaints; (b) rebutting each point would result in extreme length; and (c) the point of the article is describe the spectrum of complaints -- having reported on the phenomenon, I'm unclear about a reporter's ethical obligation to act as a volunteer spin doctor, responding to critics.

Do you need actual screenshots of the morning and evening bar charts mentioned in the article? I can upload these, if necessary.


 * Please sign your posts GenPic by using 4 ~'s -Edbrown05 02:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Your point is heard... but... that is a splatter-shot report. -Edbrown05 02:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to shape the report to your requirements, if you'll give me a numbered list of the things you want. - Genpic

Extreme makover
I copyedited this with a hatchet. I also removed the comments, which were one-sided and little more than a cut-and-paste list from the original website. I also changed the title/headline to be less slanted and more focused to its U.S. focus. I also removed the dispute tags being that the issues raised were addressed. -- Davodd | Talk 01:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is just fine with me. Thanks. -- genpic