Wikinews talk:Examples/Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy

Archive 1

Replace dispute tag
Since this article will continue to come up for deletion repeatedly unless some form of compromise can be reached to have it off the disputed categories, may I suggest the dispute tag be replaced with text stating the article is inaccurate, was never published (afaik), and will never be published? - Amgine/talk 04:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, since we already have an accurate version, just revert to it and be done already. - TalkHard 05:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An edit to the article more than a month after the last previous edit; iow rewriting the article's history and destroying its value as an historical document. It would certainly be more accurate, but it would not be representative of the moment. - Amgine/talk 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * What historical value is there in an unfinished, inaccurate article? So what if it took a month to get around to cleaning it up? It was never finished in the first place, and was clearly marked as being in dispute the whole time. Now let's please stop wasting time on this and revert it. - TalkHard 06:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No. First, it was published, though then withdrawn. Second, you disputed one point, then disputed a second point after it was published. Finally, the historic value is in the very discussions on this page which, in many respects, reflect the development of knowledge of the incident as it was known at the time by Wikinews contributors. - Amgine/talk 22:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It was "published" (if there is such a thing with Wikinews) before I agreed it was ready. But whatever, we're clearly never going to agree, and I'm out of patience, so I'm reverting until you can point me to the official policy that supports your point of view. - TalkHard 01:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Initial stages on Meta, and WN Archive conventions. This is your first warning for removing a dispute tag without consensus. - Amgine/talk 06:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Once again, the article was abandonded in an unfinished state. It was never finished, and therefore was never "frozen." And spare me your B.S. warnings. You don't get to take a side and be a mod, so get another mod to "warn" me. Your warnings will be ignored, especially when you have basically threatened to keep putting this up for deletion until it finally goes through. - TalkHard 07:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If it were abandoned in an unfinished state, then you should have no problem with it being removed along with the dozens of others I have been putting up for deletion. I don't have a "side" in this edit war; I'm only a gnome trying to follow the policies of this site as best I understand them. Therefore I will revert your edit warring, and archive the article as per the policies of this site. - Amgine/talk 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's it. As much as I hate wasting even more time on this, you leave no choice. I've take this the dispute resolution page. I've stated my case. Feel free to state yours. - TalkHard 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert to the accurate version referred to above and publish this well written and important news story ASAP
Paulrevere2005 03:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's six months old. It's never going to see the light of day. Sorry. Dan100 (Talk) 11:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

TalkHard's edits
TalkHard wants to remove two paragraphs from this article. I don't know why, both are legitamate and relevant to the story. Dan100 (Talk) 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why we need to go over this yet again, as Amgine (I think) has conceded that the paragraphs are inaccurate. The issue at this point is about whether or not policy allows the change to be made. But I will explain the problem yet again anyway.


 * The article is about a lawsuit, filed by David Qualls and 7 anonymous John Does, filed in December 2004. Paragraph 7 starts with the line "Joshua Sondheimer, an attorney with the San Francisco-based law offices of Michael S. Sorgen, who is representing one of the plaintiffs identified as "John Doe"", but this refers to a different lawsuit, filed by 1 John Doe on August 17, 2004. They are two separate lawsuits, and the article confuses them as if they are the same one. The quick fix was simply to remove those two paragraphs. - TalkHard 22:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Thankyou! I couldn't find a date on the pdf text of what was filed, but I'm going to take your word for it. I feel that, personally, your edit should stand now it is clearly justified. Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was a subtle error, which is why it it passed over many eyes without being caught. Some of the other errors early in development were also pretty subtle, which is the reason for the edit warring back then. Anyway, the dispute tag can be removed now as well. Thanks. - TalkHard 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What and Why, but not archive
I understand what was edited, and why, but I will oppose this article being listed in any archive or the Category:Published because it was edited long after the time frame and therefore does not reflect the knowledge known at that time by Wikinews editors. It should not be used as an historical document because it is now inaccurate for that purpose. - Amgine/talk 21:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)