Talk:Iraqi vote remains in doubt

Psusen
did all this work but had it in the Iraq counting ballots story so somebody deleted it all. Neutralizer 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

At 23:15, 21 October 2005 Cspurrier edited Iraq Counting ballots --- "(rv do not update old stories write a new one)." Before I saw Neutralizer had started a new story, I did the same. I will wait to edit this story until Neutralizer takes a crack at it. Neutralizer developed the new title. I was surprised Cspurrier deleted all my work today (7 sources or so and a couple hours at least). My question is whether Cspurrier was correct in deleting the material? No media service has seemed to follow this story properly which I why I thought it was important to put it together.

--Psusen 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikinews, current Wikinews policy (What_Wikinews_is_not Wikinews articles are not works in progress.) does not allow for the updating of stories after the story has been published for more then a few hours. I had not yet had a chance to let you know about when Neutralizer did :). --Cspurrier 00:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I had left the article as breaking news for just this reason. I figured that once an article was published it should pretty much be left alone. But at 12:09, 21 October 2005 Cspurrier (remove ) ... The story was still valid as Iraq still is counting ballots 6 days later. Neutralizer has taken the old article and renamed it - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Optimism_over_Iraq%27s_vote_now_in_question --- If an article can not be updated a few hours after being published, and if it should not be considered breaking news, the the only recourse is to create a new story and link to the old stories ... agree?

--Psusen 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen,please finish the story
I know I said I'd work on it, but I am having trouble being objective as I consider the entire "vote while occupied" a flawed process. Neutralizer 14:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OP-ED
This article is nothing more than an opinion-editorial article. Please userify the page, or remove the editorial content. --Mrmiscellanious 16:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree it should be saved to Psusan's page, but there is a tremendous amount of news value in this. In total, it is 3 news articles: the Saturday referendum, the UN early results reports, and now the voting irregularities.

I've a pumpkin patch to visit, but some time later today I'd like more than a cursory look. -Edbrown05 16:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) ---

Psusen
I try to be as balanced as possible. However, the media reports towards the end of the week pretty much all were slanted towards the "fraud" line of thinking, so I needed to include that position. The results were "guaranteed" to be final yesterday (Friday), but now it appears it will be several more days. So ... I will edit this article, delete all the old stuff and publish. We will then need a new story every couple of days until the final vote is known. Then we need a story which says - so what are the implications (if there any which are clear? This was a really strange vote protocol from the view of those of us in the US because of the way it was setup (rejection required a 2/3 no vote in at least 3 provinces) ... and this is editorial for this page only - but the way the rules were setup almost guaranteed passage given the ethnic breakdowns in the various sections of the country. I am also trying hard to reflect the sentiment from the Middle East (all factions if possible for balance). It is clear that the meainstream press in the US does not always clearly represent the views of the overseas press. --Psusen 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
I edited the article (major edit) but the edit did not take for some reason. I rewrote the entire article using the following source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.vote/index.html

The essence of the story was that the election apparently boils down to two provinces, Nineveh and Anbar. If the referendum is defeated by more than 2/3 in these two provinces, the referendum would fail.

As I said I rewrote the entire article, hit save and my story disappeared. Do you want me to redo it? --Psusen 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --Psusen, goodness gracious :| I hope you have a record of your changes. On rare occasions that can happen but in my own experience hardly ever lately. Please do try again. -Edbrown05 00:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
OK, I am reposting my story. Please review, edit and change to publish if it looks good to you. Thanks. --Psusen 00:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Was awaiting your lead on this to see what scope it would encompass, thanks. I think what you report is excellent, and you certainly could have published it yourself. I'll probably add to it. -Edbrown05 00:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
Thanks. How do you change the name of the article, keeping what you have? --Psusen 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * click on the 'Rename' tab. -Edbrown05 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq final results - next stories
Another story hard to follow because Iraq officials keep extending the deadline when results are due. We need to keep looking for as definitive a source as we can find on the real results, not forecasts and projections. There may be two more stories. The penultimate story would be when Nineveh and Diyala are clear. If one or the other vote no, then the referendum would be rejected. If they both vote to support the referendum, then the referendum would pass. Final story on the vote would be the official declaration.

The next set of stories will lead up to December 15 when the official, not draft, charter is voted. The question is the extent to which there is objective evidence that the new constitution, if passed, will help to (a) bring the disparate ethnic groups together and (b) reduce the insurgency.

The reduction of insurgency would presumably lead to more calls to bring the US troops home. Along with the various events occuring in Iran and Syria, the role of the US in Iraq will continue to be a lead story.

Title
I find MrM's title odd and confusing "Preliminary Iraqi vote counts cautioned" I think this is better "Iraqi vote remains in doubt" Neutralizer 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)