Talk:Man sets himself on fire outside US White House

Simple Article
This is pretty straightforward. I know the NYT article maybe a paywall issue so the only thing from that I used was he is in critical condition. AZOperator (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The entire second sentence of the lede is incorrectly present-tense: we cannot know that those things are true, only that they were true as of some past point in time. The reader ought to know as-of-when those things are known to have been true. --Pi zero (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I think everything has been addressed with the death covered. I don’t think waiting for the autopsy is necessary since most burn patients die from either blood loss or infection like sepsis. The missing persons report is interesting but not worth holding the piece. Also the date of the burn and death were on Wednesday so that is the beginning of the freshness bubble. AZOperator (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Update
The man in this story is now dead. I suggest that this be added to the article somehow. Geolodus (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a rather extreme example of a new development in a story causing loss of freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Honestly I was surprised they released anything about this guy. The Secret Services is known to suppress stories around the White House like people jumping the fence. Those snipers on the roof are for show because of all the college students pleading a fraternity kept jumping the old fence. AZOperator (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

connection
" US President Donald Trump was in the Oval Office but was never in danger." sounds a bit unbalanced. Is it bias or it is just me? --Gryllida (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the concern but the Daily Mail source says, "According to his official schedule, Donald Trump was in the Oval Office at the time for a ceremonial swearing-in of the President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States." the ellipse is outside the fence line. No danger from a guy burning in a publicly accessible park. AZOperator (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is an assessment, so if presented in Wikinews's own voice it is not neutral. If we can source it to someone who is part of the story &mdash;such as the Secret Service&mdash; we might neutrally report it with attribution.  We would not usually attribute a subjective assessment like that to a news source.  Another approach would be to neutrally report some objective facts from which the reader can reasonably deduce the assessment. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are or where you have been, personally I have stood in the place where this guy was burning - years before. It is hundreds of feet to the fence line which is like 7ft tall and then it is another few hundred feet to the rose garden. Then it gets easy, just a bunch of heavily armed secret service and old guard soldiers to get into the Oval Office. Maybe say, "The White House grounds were never breached. According to President Donald Trump's schedule he was inside the Oval Office at the time of the incident." AZOperator (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say 'The White House grounds have not been breached' would be less biased than the two sentences together, but even so this invites the readers to think there was a high risk of breaching these grounds. Instead I would suggest to write 'The incident occurred at XYZ meters or feet from the fence of the White House', leaving the connection conclusion to the reader(s). Gryllida (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since there is no hard numbers on how far way it was, I changed it to "The White House grounds were not breached during the incident." AZOperator (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nice, thanks. If I wanted to inquire about the distance, whom would I need to contact? Gryllida (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well burning man toasted his buns in the ellipse which is under the US Park Service authority, so I guess you would have to go through the Department of the Interior. People have tried this stuff before. Multiple fence jumpers. Throwing things onto the lawns. Gunshots in the direction of the White House. Even an aircraft hit the building. AZOperator (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

"Unaided"
I'm confused. When they say the man was unaided, do they mean no one helped him plan this protest or that no one helped him put out the fire and treat his burns? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I was going for no one helped him self on fire. No second person with a smoking match. AZOperator (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4482917 [Passed]

 * Thank you for the publication stamp. It is definitely was not the greatest of my raw work, and I will work on that. I probably got caught up in the simplicity of the event. AZOperator (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The thanks-worthy thing is the review; but, yeah. The simplicity of the event makes it a good study in Wikinews writing. --Pi zero (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit
editprotected 1. "...in the United States capital city Washington DC," in the lead should be changed to something more like, "in the United States capital city of Washington, D.C." 2. "Once the white extinguisher smoked cleared," should be changed to, "Once the white extinguisher smoke cleared." Heavy Water (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 is ✅ ... DC and D.C. are usually author's choice just like US and U.S. --SVTCobra 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)