Portal talk:Current events/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Portal:Current events. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Tony Blair's departure

I think we should have a current events article to cover the ongoing discussion about Tony Blair's departure and the succession to him - this issue dominates the british media at the moment. Am not sure if there is any particualr protocol for starting a current event article and/or getting it linked to from the portal. Can anyone advise me? The Land 22:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can start an article, an the criteria are the same as for any other article. I notice we already have an article for Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007 and I suggest this is the place to put info about the current media frenzy. AndrewRT - Talk 15:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Earthquake criteria

What is the criteria for earthquake news worthyness? The M4.4 in the middle east made today's news but the M4.8 [1] [2] just south of Tokyo on Aug. 31 didn't. Should the Japanese earthquake be included in August's events or the one in the middle east excluded from September's? Amadeust 19:46, 9 September 2005(UTC)

Although I can't answer your question I'm afraid, I don't think that the magnitude of an earthquake should be the sole criterion of newsworthiness. A large earthquake in a desert can cause less death and destruction that a smaller earthquake in a shanty town.AndrewRT - Talk 15:24, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Use your best judgment. What was the impact? Was it disruptive? How many people were affected? If both the impact and the numbers of people are great, then it would probably be notable. -Wisekwai 19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sidebar Relationships

I'm a bit unsure about the intended relationship between sections in the sidebar and the related full articles Deaths in 2006, Ongoing wars, Electoral calendar 2006. Should the sidebar list all (within a certain time period) or only the most important and if the latter then what is the threshold. Can anyone help? AndrewRT - Talk 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The deaths section should only list the most important deaths. Normally, that just shows the deaths from the current calendar month, but often times near the beginning of the month, some of the ones from the previous month will still be present. All of the rest of the sections should, theoretically, contain the most important events of the upcoming thirty days or so. -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Month Pages

Prior to July 2006, the month pages (e.g. June 2006) were the archives for the current events page. However, now those pages are under the portal (e.g. Portal:Current events/August 2006). Would it be a violation of the encyclopedia's overall formal style to move those pages to their respective months (like what is already present at August 2006). Otherwise, should we keep just the most important items on the monthly pages (e.g. September 2006, although it doesn't currently have the most important items). Or yet another option is to redirect from the month pages to the portal archive pages (e.g. July 2006) although cross-namespace redirects are normally discouraged. -- tariqabjotu 22:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Archival Automation

Is there a reason why the updating & archiving has to be done manually? For example, strings such as {{#time:Y F j|{{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}} -3 days}} (yields 2024 November 7) can be used to generate the dates for the latest 7 daily subpages. The calendar is slightly more complicated, but is also automatable. Most of the daily & even monthly updating can be automated. -- The imp 05:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps something could be done to cut down on the human labor, but one issue is that the new date doesn't show up at the same time. For instance, if the first notable event for September 13 occurs early in Australia, the new date should be added around 14:00 UTC September 12. However, the first major event of the day could occur in the Western Hemisphere, in which case the new date would be added past 00:00 September 13. -- tariqabjotu 10:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Possibly true, at least for the listing of the most recent dates. Still, the maintenance could be easier, and this is largely due to the calendar box. Why are only the most recent 7 dates linked? Couldn't all dates (including future ones) be linked, with the current date highlighted? -- The imp 11:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed this change would be a good first step in automation. It, admitably, doesn't save much time, but often times people would just add the new link to the top, without removing the one at the bottom or put a lot of white space between the dates and the "more events" template. This is easily reversible, of course, if people don't like it. -- tariqabjotu 11:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont know how many users are working in this case. But I thik thate this page must be like the title.:Current events and not the Current events before one day. I have traied in sq:Wiki (but we dont have so much news) and I thing thate is gut if we make a central news page. Arkiving must be sepereted and like "World events" must be arkived the news that hase to do with international news. I meane this must be a display page of the daily news and be used like a brige to the WikiNews in witch the news are in minut. (sorry about my english)--Hipi Zhdripi 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Highlights" - "A shooting incident...."

Somewhat bad taste to juxtapose the Quebec shooting incident with the word "Highlight". Are we any closer to changing this to "Headlines" any time soon? doktorb _words^deeds 04:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to Headlines from Highlights, per your suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 11:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this portal exist?

I came across this portal when viewing a Wikinews article, which had a link to a Wikipedia article in this portal. Why should Wikipedia document recent events, when Wikinews is doing just that? Athough this will certainly be disagreed with, I think that these articles should be moved to Wikinews. Could somebody tell me why this protal has been created? I know that for older news it may be useful, but I don't think recent news is necessary as it is being covered elsewhere. Thanks for any replies. 0L1 20:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As Template:Events by month links/Portal:Current events/Events by month point out, the portal may be relatively new, but keeping a daily list of articles that had current events isn't new... from January 1999 to June 2006, these were stored in article space. *shrug* Each item isn't a full article in the least, so this isn't exactly like wikinews (one could say it's a subset of wikinews, since wikinews generally links to the relevant wikipedia articles, but still it's different...). --Interiot 00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This portal should probably be permanently semi-protected, per all the other sidebar links. Based on the page-history (lots of vandalism reversion), and the code (complex), too. --Quiddity 21:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to bring it up myself. While it's possible that some tweaking needs to be done from time to time, usually there's just a single edit made every day. And it's pure templates, no text. Anyhow, it's now semi-protected. --Interiot 23:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this why the [edit] link on the sidebar is missing ? The sidebar itself is still available for editing but it cannot be edited from this page. Can this be fixed ? -- 199.71.174.100 22:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

RSS Feed?

Has anyone thought about creating an RSS Feed for this page? Using something similar to Signposter could work, I'd think. It should be easy since now every day has a seperate article, no? jaco♫plane 06:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ramadan

It is a little bit sad that the Ramadan, which is an important event for hundreds of millions worldwide, is not mentioned on this page. --zeno 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be sad, zeno. The beginning of Ramadan was on the sidebar in the 'Holidays and observances' section. It simply scrolled off as time goes by, with newer observances appearing at the bottom. It's still on the sidebar in Portal:Current events/2006 September. --PFHLai 20:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Seems that I just looked at the wrong page. Thanks for the quick reply ;-). --zeno 20:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

UN Security Council Resolutions

I have added Template:Current to List of UN Security Council Resolutions 1701 to 1800 as more will be adopted at anytime. Please add information when available. That template is not for any earlier resolution lists.--Jusjih 15:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

FIX IT

fix the september 4 shit

The issue has been fixed, although please be more civil next time. -- tariqabjotu 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley Scandal: Ongoing event?

As the investigation nears completion and this story continues to unfold, more and more updates will be making the current events portal. Due to this, and the fact that major political fallout may result, does this article qualify as an "Ongoing event" in the sidebar? Asarkees 18:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lesotho getting a new flag is news?

If the UK got a new flag, it would hardly be worthy of being a top story. This is trivia and of absolutely no consequence.

If the UK got a new flag, I'm sure it would be a top story. What makes you think otherwise? -- tariqabjotu 07:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, we ran the Venezuela flag change on this very page a few months ago. So, I have no problems with this being put on ITN. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the first poster would agree with the sentence: "If the USA got a new flag, it would hardly be worthy of being a top story. This is trivia and of absolutely no consequence." Somehow I doubt it. Of course a nation declaring a new official flag is newsworthy. We really need to try and ensure these news pages aren't so biased in favour of US and European stories, and away from other regions of the world, where surprisingly, a significant proportion of the world's population live! If some obscure email scandal in the US involving a politician few outside of that country have even heard of is considered newsworthy, then Lesotho's flag is too, IMO. ;) - 82.153.140.56 00:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is news. Wiki had the Venezuela flag change on the first page many months ago, as the person says above. And I agree with our anon IP friend above - if the US added a star or two onto thier banner it would be all over the news. Lesotho may not be the country at the centre of the media's eye, but it is still a nation, and this is still a genuine and important story. doktorb _words^deeds 08:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I can't imagine 5 more important events in the world than a small country altering it's official textile. Sure it's "news" in the trivia sense - the problem is that it affects people in Lesotho about as little as it affects people in Lagos or America. Are you saying the importance of a congressional scandal that may throw the upcoming election in the most militarily in economically powerful country in the world, and the changing of a flag for ceremonial purposes - an act of no political significance even in it's own country - that these two events are of even comparable significance? Has anyone here anything resembling sanity? This has nothing to do with bias. This has to do with the significance and consequence of events. But you all are so "international" I'm sure you know best. My short interest in this page has ended.

Ban Ki-moon/UN Secretary-General candidacy

I'm curious as why I continue to see this event being added and removed in the headlines section. -DavisLee 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Europe

At the moment, Portal:Current events/Europe isn't listed on the Current events news browser, presumably because the European portal is not active. I'm willing to bring it back to life, but I won't be able to do it on my own. Is anyone willing to join me? A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 14:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this airplane crash a headline?

Why isn't the airplane crash a headline on the front page? Seems like pretty big news. I mean, it's not hundreds dead or anything, but it's first thing like that in NYC since 9/11. But then again, I am just a stupid American, maybe this seems more important to me than it would to someone out of country. PS Yes, I do see the suggustion page, this is a question, not a suggustion. Vint 21:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's on the front page now. I couldn't tell you why it wasn't there earlier, but I can assure you that it has nothing to do with the way people might view the US. A ecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's about time this be added into the Ongoing Events

Suspension of habeas corpus in the United States Seawolf12 14:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Especially with the Military Commissions Act of 2006 being signed into law today. 24.186.215.182 00:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

i think this is really big news. A plane crash it should already been on the front cover. i dont get it that is big stuff

Hawaii Eathquake

There has been a 6.7 in Hawaii, with significent damage. This happened on 10/15/06, and should be updated ASAP.--Lionheart Omega 18:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Global Warming report

Antarctic ice collapse linked to greenhouse gases

"The first direct evidence linking the collapse of an ice shelf in Antarctica to global warming widely blamed on human activities" sounds newsworthy. 24.186.215.182 16:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"leftist rival Rafael Correa"

Why does the word "leftist" appear on the front page? It's a propaganda term. --61.214.155.14 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

copied to Template talk:In the news. Bolivian Unicyclist 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

"The US has adopted a tough new policy aimed at protecting its interests in space and denying "adversaries" access there."

How about we say what the policy is, instead? Instead of saying blatant generalizations, and from my POV as an American, INCREDIBLY POVed statement. Fephisto 17:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I changed it to "The US has adopted a document that rejects any proposals to ban space weapons. (BBC)", I think this is a lot more unbiased and allows the reader to come to their own conclusion, than the previous line. Fephisto 17:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Idea

A cloak of invisibility has been created. After copyright issues are resolved on that article, could it be listed? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 01:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Doubt on classification

Are the sub portals (Current events/India)of the Current events eligible to considered as individual portals?? I was thinking of listing it in the portals directory but I thought I'd better make sure. Since each sub portals have the capability to act as a full fledged dynamic portal, I feel, these sub portals can be considered as full-fledged portals as well.-- Ch e z ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Secretary General" Nasrallah

That's cute. I assume we're going to start referring to Usama Bin Laden as "the Prince" or "the Samaritan? KazakhPol 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's his title/position. What's wrong with that? Describing him as militant leader is POV.-gadfium 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

John Kerry... where are you?

This is a particularly ongoing event. John Kerry appeared at the Pasadena University in California some time yesterday and made several statements regarding the war in Iraq and the President (read as the "kerfluffle"). However, there has been no mention of this story on the WikiPedia current events (and I even heard it in the news today). What's the idea?--WaltCip 14:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly worthy of mention. It's more political spin and idiocy than anything, and really only merits an edit on Kerry's page, nothing more. There are far more important things that have been suggested here that have not yet been given mention... heh, kind of microcosm reflective of the state of politics in America, if you will. 129.49.5.120 14:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to split sports page into two

I would like to propose a split of the Current Events Sports page into two seperate yet equal pages. One would deal with Sports in North America (The USA, Canada and Mexico) while the other would deal with International Sports (Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceana.) In some cases, such as the Olympics, both pages would contain the same information. What do you think? NoseNuggets 12:03 AM US EST Nov 5 2006.

saddam to be executed

At NYT [3] __earth ^(Talk) 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good God!

Britney Spears and Kevin Federline file for divorce, according to court officials in Los Angeles. (BBC News)

...Do we really need this? Compared to the other news, this seems...uh...gossipy and tabloid-y.

Associated Press's article about Vietnam's trade relations

This article - which was mentioned on current events as the BBC reported it, is full of flat out lies to support this manufactured news event. Specifically this article is flat out lying when it says "it is still waiting for the U.S. Congress to normalize trade between the two countries, which would lift restrictions on trade between them." I was at the Senate hearings months ago when the Senate approved PNTR status for Vietnam. KazakhPol 03:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The news topic linked to the BBC, not to Yahoo. If you can find a better article, you're more than welcome to add that one. But don't remove the news event altogether, because that is not fabricated. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 10:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it is fabricated. The WTO link you provide only says that Vietnam was formally asked to join. It was a foregone conclusion that they would join months ago when the U.S. became the final nation to negotiate PNTR trade status with Vietnam. This vote was a formality. The AP reported, in the link I provided above, that the U.S. Congress still has not approved Vietnam's entry, when in reality this is completely untrue. Neither report is both factually accurate and newsworthy. KazakhPol 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify:

Has the U.S. Congress granted or rejected normalized trade relations (NTR) with Vietnam?
Does the BBC story agree or disagree with this?
What's the difference between PNTR and NTR?
Why is this such a big deal for you? What does it matter? --Uncle Ed 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Ths U.S. Congress has granted PNTR (Permanent Normal Trade Relations) status for Vietnam. It did so months ago. 2. The BBC story does not deal with this issue at all. When the U.S. granted PNTR status for Vietnam, and the U.S. was the last country to do so, Vietnam had then negotiated trade agreements with all WTO members, making its status and entry into the WTO de facto. 3. The difference between PNTR and NTR is that the phrase "Normal Trade Relations" is no longer used. 4. This is a big deal for me because Wikipedia is pretending this pseudo-event is newsworthy when half of the reports, like the AP one I linked to above, are full of flat out lies. KazakhPol 20:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please further clarify, KP: you say first that the AP/BBC story is incomplete/noncomprehensive. Then you end with saying that these reliable sources have published news stories which are "full of flat out lies". I'm trying to understand how you are getting from the former to the latter. And please, everyone, cease the editwar until consensus is reached. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Mediation Committee member (and therefore looking for the good first of all!) I'd venture to suppose that KP is arguing that (1) Vietnam already has NTR and that (2) announcing its "entry" into WTO as if this would actually mean anything is "fake news".

KP also makes the point that a lot of political "news" is really empty posturing or press release nonsense. Like restating a position, as if it represented a change (Hamas says, we are against Israel!).

I'm trying to be utterly neutral here, even though prior to writing this I had undone 2 of KP's deletions. I will comply with FSO's request to cease the editwar, of course. We need to figure out the best approach to this. Will it result in a new policy, perhaps? --Uncle Ed 20:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt really call this an editwar... We have (or perhaps only I have) been communicating poorly. Just about everything the AP report says is untrue. The article makes the assertion that Vietnam has not yet "drop[ped] its high tariffs on foreign imports and eliminate[d] subsidies for state-owned companies" when in reality Vietnam did so months ago in order to get PNTR status. It also makes a very significant, flat out lie when it asserts that "it is still waiting for the U.S. Congress to normalize trade between the two countries, which would lift restrictions on trade between them." The Senate already granted Vietnam PNTR status. Despite what the article says, the U.S. already lifted "quotas on Vietnamese exports." I dont like the BBC because of a separate issue - the story is not newsworthy. When the Senate granted Vietnam PNTR status Vietnam had de facto joined the WTO. As the AP report notes near the introduction, one of the few accurate statements in the report, Vietnam only just formally joined the WTO. KazakhPol 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

KazakhPol, has the WTO issued an official invitation to Vietnam to join its ranks, or not? It has, and that makes it newsworthy. Regardless of whether that will mean a change in the relations between Vietnam and the current WTO members or not. A ecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 23:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, WTO officials "invited" Vietnam to join long ago. The only obstacle was the U.S. trade status. Vietnam's relations have not changed at all. This is about as notable as one country congratulating Montenegro for joining the U.N. after the U.N. vote, when Montenegran membership was a certainty upon declaring independence. KazakhPol 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Or we might compare this to Donald Rumsfeld resigning. When exactly does Gates become the new defense secretary? His Senate confirmation is likely, but has yet to occur.

It sounds like the distinction is between (1) Vietnam having certain trade relations and imposing certain tariff levels and (2) formally being included in the WTO. Like a country "declaring independence" vs. being "recognized" by many or most countries.

Here's a nice example: is Taiwan an independent country, or a province of Communist China? The ROC thinks they're an independent country, but the "legal fiction" of One China says that they're still a province. Go figure. --Uncle Ed 19:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree with the second comparison - in this case Vietnamese Government officials promised to lower their tariffs as part of the PNTR deal with U.S. The first however, is right on target. I do not believe Wikipedia should be saying Rumsfeld has resigned because he has not. Saying so is imprecise and inaccurate. That statement on the Portal should be altered to say he has announced plans to resign and Bush plans to nominate Gates, as neither of those events has actually taken place. KazakhPol 04:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like "timing" is an issue here. Rumsfield has 'resigned' but not 'quit'. Bush has 'nominated' Gates and is waiting for Senate confirmation. Is this correct? If so, Rumsfeld remains Def Secretary until the Senate gets around to confirming Gates: on that day, Gates will replace Rumsfeld.

There are other cases where a presidential appointment takes place immediately but is considered temporary until confirmed. The president can use a recess appointment, which is legally effective but not permanent. Bush did this with Bolton. Sometimes opponents will not put a matter to a vote, if the split is between 40-60 and 50-50; they can use a filibuster to prevent the vote, but the president can "sneak" his appointment when Congress is out of session.

Anyway, the WTO/PNTR issue for Vietnam doesn't sound like a current events dispute, but seems to me more like material for an article on Trade relations of Vietnam, or a section of Economy of Vietnam and/or Foreign relation of Vietnam. --Uncle Ed 14:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing 'Headlines'

How does one edit the 'Headlines' as there does not appear to be a suitable 'Edit' link?

Two Things

First of all, I'm pretty sure today is Wednesday, not Thursday. I can't figure out how to edit that, though. Second, the Senate isn't tied. The dems have 50 and the GOP has 49. Virgina will determine if there will be no controlling majority in the senate for the next two years or if it will be the democrats. I can't edit that one either. 207.172.129.153 20:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. All of the dates are off. Here's a headline for Wikipedia, EARTH ENTERS WORMHOLE, ALL OF REALITY OFF BY ONE DAY. 71.232.25.117 21:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New volcanic island

I'd like to make a news post for this new volcanic island found in the South Pacific, but I'm unsure as to where I should redlink. Unnamed South Pacific volcanic island? Unnamed volcanic island in the South Pacific? Something else? —Nightst a llion (?) 21:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already got a paragraph at Tonga#Geography.-gadfium 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Gaza town stunned by shelling

Whould you please add this news in the main page:[4].--Sa.vakilian 04:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Election surprise

Greetings all. I just wrote the page Election surprise, and was wondering if some of you could pop in, and tweak the page up some. I've listed Current Events as one of its categories. If you feel that is not appropriate, please tell me so on the election surprise talk page. I'm looking for maybe:

a bit more clarification,
more incidents worldwide which would qualify as election surprises
categories

Thanks! samwaltz 08:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

playstation 3

playstation 3 is released today (11/11) in Japan, 17th November in USA --147.197.190.40 01:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, add it to Portal:Current events/Video gaming, a page which seems to be sadly neglected.-gadfium 02:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage in South Africa

The reference to the law-making process in South Africa is erroneous.

The Bill should also be approved by the National Council of Provinces (the South African legaslative "upper house"), signed by the President and be approved or checked by the Constitutional Court before it comes law.

All this is expected to take place before December 1, 2006.