Talk:Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force

It still presents a non-neutral point of view. It would also be helpful if we observed the Insurrection Act which allows the president to legally employ federal troops in such a way. --99.139.235.202 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not sure this article presents a NPOV. The article from ArmyTimes.com is straight-forward, but bulk of the article is based on a youtube video of a 30 minute radio interview with a political activist, clearly not neutral, ther's nothing else to balance it out. Kamnet (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be wild factual inaccuracies that seem to prevent a simple "bring this within WN:NPOV"-type of fix. The whole premise seems in violation of WN:NPOV as it considers an exercise to be a troop deployment. If I am misreading something, please enlighten me. --SVTCobra 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Review
I'm going to try and fix this up, it's interesting but there's very little on it, would appreciate it if someone more experienced could help. :) --Poisonous (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay
Basically finished, if someone could read it over for me before I set it to review tommorrow (waiting for kamnet's military friend to give some info on it, which should make it more neutral) and let me know how it is? --Poisonous (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
I was the one who originally posted this article. A copy of my original can be found at my livejournal on Oct 9th. This was the first article I tried pushing on Wikinews. Thank you to all the people who finally got this posted. I'm sorry if the article had a biased point of view, if you feel that way: I did not intentionally write the article that way, I did the best I could. I also understand there was a bit of direct copying from the original article from ArmyTimes: I'm a novice writer, perhaps if I put it into quotation marks we could avoid copyright infringement?

Again, thank you to everyone who got this article posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)