Jump to content

Talk:Current events/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

For Dec 22 and Dec 21, the Edit link is found in the middle of Dec 21. Please Correct this.

RSS/Extensible Markup Language (XML)?

Is there any discussion of making this page capable of being downloaded and viewed as an XML file? RSS readers are built into so many browsers now, and this page would make a great feed to track. Has there even been any discussion of this? Thanks :). -Asarkees (talk)

Any word, guys?

Just wanted to give my compliments to whoever made it, looks very nice. -GregNorc (talk) 18:29, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

days of the week in the headers

Just wanna point out that the introduction of days of the week to each section heading on the Current events page has to be expanded to the calendar on the right side of the page (actually in Template:Current events box). Otherwise, the page doesn't scroll/jump properly when we click on the links in the calendar. -- PFHLai 16:32, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

Again with the too much analysis

We're going to have to hammer out just how long these entries should be. In this discussion, I thought it had been established that we ought to try to keep these things fairly short, maybe two or three sentences. For more details, there's Wikinews. But there's an entry here today about the Quran desecration-related protests that's five sentences long, totaling 83 words. When I cut it down, I got reverted. Now there's also a piece about a battle between Israel and Hezbollah over a border dispute that's four sentences, 63 words. Overall, the entries for today are pretty long. Too long, I think. Minor details and quotations from multiple sources make them too cumbersome. Golbez has also commented that the entries are too long.

So what's it going to be? Long paragraphs or short entries? I think that these things should be like the first two or three sentences of an in-depth news article following the "inverted pyramid" style of journalism. They should tell what happened, and to find out why it happened or what people have said about it, there's the linked articles. Current Events should be sort of like the short summaries of articles found on the front page of the Wall Street Journal.

What does everybody else think? Mr. Billion 01:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

  • i would agree, But it's hard. Everything regarding israel is generally pushed by people to suit their POV. I'm much rather it say something simple, like "Israel and Hizb Allah exchange fire within the disputed Shebaa Farms", or something like that. But whe you start putting in one sides justifications, NPOV obliges us to put in the other. I'd rather there was none, and that the Wikinews takes care of the POV's of either side. I'd also like it if there was a Wikinews link to each headline, but there is not. I went back, and I liked your edit of the Quran "desecration" (I don't know the full meaning of the word desecrate perhaps, because I don't really think that flushing paper down a toliet is desecration - I do it daily.) However, it ignores the Demands of the Sauds, which I thought were extremely important, at the time there was no mention of the Protests on Wikinews (there is now) and this was the only place (on the entire web from what I could see at the time, there is now.) where all the evens linked together... which is strange really. The Indonesian Papers did not mention Pakistan, and gave a passing reference to the Sauds and Afghans. No other paper (at least that I read) mentioned the Indonesians... und so weiter.
  • Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, every time an event is mentioned here, and not on Wikinews, I'll put it on Wikinews as a Stub and let the experts complete it? --Irishpunktom\talk

I put in the alleged Koran desecration, because I didn't see a mention of it. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship of Newsweek Koran story

Any particular reason one of the top U.S. / International news stories of the week was deleted from Current events?

Everyone's talking about it over here... how Newsweek published an unconfirmed story about a guard or interrogator flushing a Qu'ran (or Koran) down the toilet. This sparked riots in Islamic countries which killed 15 or more people.

Why is this not newsworthy for Wikipedia? Because it expose the liberal bias and agenda of the liberal media?? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 14:28, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

If you're referring to the one I deleted, because it did not meet submission guidelines. It stated that Newsweek caused riots - which happened several days before the story was dated. It had no source, which is required for CE. It was in general a poorly formatted story. If you'll look back, you'll see at least two stories that reference the Qu'ran flushing allegations, though not as explicitly as they could. The only reasonable recent story is that Newsweek has retracted it, and as of last night, such a story had not yet been submitted. Certainly we could use an entry that Newsweek retracted it. --Golbez 15:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Current Events in non-english speaking countries

Why is it that the English wikipedia has current events pages only for English speaking countries? Why not have a page for each country in the world, such as Current events in China and link them all by [Category: Current Events], which already exists. If you think that's too much we could do it by continent such as Current Events in Africa. I realize that wikinews is out there, but the format used at wikinews does not segment stories by day, and does not have the sidebar to add subjects like ongoing events and upcoming elections MPS 15:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to maintain them if created? -- Cyrius|✎ 16:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
No. I am volunteering to create them, but not maintain them. I don't see anything in Wikipedia guidelines that says a person who creates an article has to ensure that it will hereafter and forevermore remain up to date. Perhaps I'll start with the continents and regions then if people get ambitious, they can make articles for specific countries. It just seems non-encyclopedic to include countries like (Hong Kong, and Canada) but not China, Iraq or Russia. Maybe the a happy medium would be that we should at least start to include large countries and countries that are of interest to English-speakers. Another issue is what happens to countries when they undergo political upheaval? Perhaps it would be best to stick to regions like North America, Western Europe, Eastern Asia. PS I made the Australia page about a month ago and people just started to update it. If you build it they will come. MPS 16:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Wikis don't work that way. They work more on an "If they come, they will build it" basis. You can't do the easy part (setting the page up) then expect someone else to take care of the hard part (keeping it up to date). --

Cyrius|✎ 06:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(a)yes I can. (b) it's not as easy as you think. (c)this disagreement -- over whether people should start things they don't intend to finish -- is why some people hate stubs and others think wikipedia wouldn't be what it is without them. MPS 21:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


isn't this what Wikinews is for? Rmhermen 05:29, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
If wikinews tracked current events as well as wikipedia there would be no need for wikipedia current events. The Wikiepdia Current Events sidebar template provides the ability to track the "zeitgeist" of a region over time. The Wikinews main page doesn't provide this tracking ability; it merely generates an automatic list of top stories by category like google news. What is the alternative -- a Wikizeitgeist project? MPS 21:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Languages

The language selection on the left has duplicates of most of the languages. I don't have the time right now to check each of them, but I'm sure someone here does. Kaiser Matias 03:51 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much the whole article was duplicated. Fixed now.-gadfium 04:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Current events by region

What happedned to the Current Events for other countries? It turn into a link to "current events by region". Was it taking up too much space? I realize that some were not being maintained but hiding them will not encourage people to participate in them. -maclean25 06:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon

The Anglo Saxon link points to a blank page. Is it mispelled or is there just no such page on that wiki? Thanx 68.39.174.150 11:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too specific in West Bank play by play

I think that the play by play counts and death tolls by qassam rocket should be Current events in Cisjordan. I deleted the play by play and left "Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A day of violence erupts in the Gaza Strip and West Bank." with source. I realize this is inadequate and sorry to whomever this edit offends, but what was there was too long and, it seems to me, too specific considering all the other violence going on in the world. If you want to add back some of the meat go ahead but not all of it please. MPS 21:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why does this page concentrate so heavily on one conflict?

This page (like Wikipedia itself) is heavily slanted towards events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - does it really need a news article every time there is one death or a foiled suicide attack in the region? I find it a bid odd how we have individual articles on both terrorism in the region for every year, such as, Terrorism_against_Israel_in_2001 and Violence_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_2001 and also a whole category on the subject [1].

Today, for example, 13 people were killed in a Suicide bomb attaack in Irbil, Iraq; five were killed in Nepal, and 125 have died in in an Indian heatwave, yet (as of writing) two minor incidents in a long-running conflict occupy a third of the entire entry. In terms of current events, this page may as well be re-titled 'current events of interest to the US media'.illWill 11:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It focusses so heavily on this conflict because User:Irishpunktom has, for many months, been promoting any item which shows Israel in a negative light, and spends most of his time on Wikipedia doing so; in response User:MathKnight has focussed on presenting stories which show Palestinians in a bad light. Thus we end up with this nonsensically imbalanced Current Events page. I suppose if there were enough editors who got pissed of about it, they could simply delete all the trivia, and we'd end up with a story on the conflict/area once every week or two; it depends on the will of the editors here. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see. It's a shame though, as this is probably the worst place on Wikipedia for tit-for-tat disputes. It's not like there's a shortage of pages where one could argue about these issues. I think mediation is necessary if it really is just two users, but Irishpunktom is apparently away for a week or so, so it will have to wait til he returns.illWill 15:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of mediation would be required; Irishpunktom puts in anti-Israel stuff, MathKnight puts in pro-Israel stuff, and in the end 1/4 of the stories here end up begin about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It's not like they're involved in a dispute, it's just that their collective efforts massively distort the page. Jayjg (talk) 16:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would characterise that as a dispute, although I see your point that it's hard to call. I have left a note on Mathknight's user page, and will leave one on Irishpunktom's page too.illWill 16:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In the interests of fairness, I should observe that it's not like current events editors relentlessly delete information on other conflicts, it's just that nobody puts it up. Perhaps we need to have CE editors from all sides of every major world conflict, then we'll have everything! Lord Bob 18:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not trying to suggest either user has deleted anything, and I'm sure all the additions are made in good faith. It's just that there's too much material included here that isn't unusual enough to warrant inclusion.illWill 18:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you aren't suggesting that, then I will. User:Irishpunktom deleted my addition of Israel unilateral disengagement plan to the Current events, claiming that it had already started two days prior -- when the first actual pullout of settlers only started today. This deletion (revert, if you may; which I will also add, was not mentioned as a revert in the Edit summary) was obviously inappropriate -- if it's big enough to hit all the major news networks, then it's obviously important enough to be considered a new Current event.brozen 19:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to corrupt this message, somebody may go and purge later if they chose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.80.101 (talk • contribs)

Seth Ilys - Dissenting opinion relevance to SCOTUS Jan 23 decision item

I think reporting the decision of SCOTUS, and the opinion, IS sticking to the facts. Please help me understand why you think the deletion of the dissenting opinion to accompany the decision is in the interests of informativeness - as I see it, the dissenting opinion is not part of the facts of the decision. Is it in the interests of brevity? Thanks -- RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Brevity was my main inspiration; keeping the item roughly the same size as other Current events items; the other was balance; we don't include a parallel quote from the supporting opinion. There are lots of facts we could report, but we don't report every fact on this page; it's really a pointer to articles on the subjects (and Kelo v. New London contains more and better detail than we can include here). Finally, the quote was, when you boil things down, analysis and speculation intended to advance a particular political perspective (the fact that I agree with that perspective is really irrelevant here). I just had a gut sense that it didn't belong. -- Seth Ilys 02:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree overall, in that imho, the dissent is the closest thing to a (contrastable) POV for the rationale behind the 5-4 decision. But you do have a valid point about this and re: brevity, and your gut has no worse insight than mine... so I'll go along with your edit without further contest. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Attn: Ill Bill and Concerned Parties

I notice somebody keeps linking duplicates of news sources posted under "Ill Bill" on a message board. Either Bill himself or somebody who wants to promote this message board keeps linking it. Please don't do that: A message board isn't a news source, and Wikipedia is not intended as an advertising tool. I just removed a link to the message board in an entry that had the exact same article linked on CNN's page. If the very same article is linked from the primary source, there is certainly no reason to link a duplicate. --Mr. Billion 28 June 2005 08:55 (UTC)

Archiving June

I finished archiving the June 2005 in science page and was contemplating to do the same for Current events. But I do not see the "move" button to follow the instructions correctly. Anybody else out there (like an admin) that can do that? Awolf002 1 July 2005 21:48 (UTC)

Whats with the hi thing?

Just wanted to know why there is a box at the top of the page that says HI!!!!!!!(it doesnt show up when editing for some reason)....--Windsamurai 3 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

nvm, its gone now....--Windsamurai 3 July 2005 21:40 (UTC)

It was vandalism on the template, already reverted. --cesarb 3 July 2005 21:44 (UTC)

o ok--Windsamurai 3 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)

software patents victory

So, is there a place where we can celebrate our victory? -- Natalinasmpf 6 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

To 64.142.37.103: Please stop deleting the link to Wikinews. One might as well make the same judgement on the Wikipedia itself. This page will be watched. Any further deletions may be considered vandalism. (Val11214)

Malta ratification of EC treaty already on July 6th

The ratification of Malta of the European constitution was *definitely* on July 6th, not 7th. I'd change this, if everyone is ok with this. -andy 80.129.117.220 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

Canadian news

I am not sure this is the place to report, but here I go:

On July 7th, the Governor General of Canada reported to the Canadian Press that David Ahenakew, former head of the Assembly of First Nations, is being removed from the Order of Canada. Ahenakew is being removed due to his anti-Semetic comments over two years ago.

My source is http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/20050707/ca_pr_on_na/crime_ahenakew_hate_1 Zscout370 (Sound Off) 9 July 2005 07:57 (UTC)

Documentary film

I'd like to say more about the July 9 entry on the documentary, because I see that news outlets usually used here haven't picked the news. I have made the entry about the film mainly because I see that people here are interested in such news, as similar news about a video showing execution of six Bosniak males was even featured on the main page for four days ([2], [3]), and I think that the movie is even more important news than the video because:

  • It is a movie, lasting much longer than the video
  • It shows a large number of various warcrimes across a large timespan, whereas the video shows a single execution.
  • Its first showing was in front of a much bigger audience.

For this reasons I made a suggestion on Template:In the news/Candidate and expect it to be put on the front page too, for at least as long, but who knows, maybe someone will disagree. Nikola 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I've seen the movie (not the whole, I hadn't the stomach for it). Grown men were crying while watching the movie! It was horrible!! Since the video showing execution of six Bosniak muslims got such an attention, I feel that it would be only fair to at least mention this (1 hour long) movie showing atrocities committed against Serbs. This is important, because this way, people could see that every side committed war crimes during the Yugoslav wars (which is probably the case for every single war in history). -- Obradović Goran (talk 23:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Netiv Ha'asara

Netiv Ha'asara is in Israel, not the Gaza Strip. According to The Jerusalem Post, the village was occupied by Egypt in 1949 but exchanged for land Israel was holding in that year's armistice. Apparently, some Palestinians have demanded Israel withdraw from that village, too, but it's currently governed as part of Israel, not part of the Gaza Strip. Mwalcoff 19:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The Netiv Ha'asara area is disputed, some say it is inside the Green Line and part of Israel and others say it is part of the Gaza Strip. It is located just north of Erez Crossing. The Jewish settlement there was relocated from Sinai when that territory was returned to Egypt. Also, your use of the adjective "terrorist" to describe Hamas is POV. Some people consider the Jewish settlers to be terrorists. We don't use those POV terms in Wikipedia, if we can avoid them. --Jablonski 19:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Firstly, regarding "terrorist," I was just undoing your edit. I don't know what the official Wikipedia policy is on this, if there is one. But if we're going to say that Netiv Ha'asara is in the Gaza Strip because it was held by Egypt in 1949, then should we say that the southern bulge of the Gaza Strip is really part of Israel, because it was Israeli-held in 1949? I think it's fair to say that this moshav is part of Israel. And if it's in Israel, I think the word "settlement" is misleading. I'll try to finagle something appropriate on the article page, and I hope other users will help us work this out. Mwalcoff 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Do not repeat news items

On Thursday 7/14 we have a story about a Palestinian barrage of missiles on Israeli settlers. Do not repeat it on Friday 7/15 story about the Israeli missile attack on Palestinians. --Jablonski 18:02, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are different accounts of the death toll from the israeli attacks. "The Israeli army said its airstrike in the West Bank targeted a car carrying two Hamas militants in the village of Wadi Shifra near Nablus. Palestinian security sources reported three Hamas militants were killed.

Hamas, a Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, has been labeled by the U.S. State Department as a terrorist organization. The group's military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, has admitted responsibility for terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians as well as attacks against the Israeli military.

In the Gaza incident, an Israeli airstrike on a van targeted four senior militants, who were known manufacturers of Qassam rockets and mortars, the Israeli army said. It said they were on their way to fire the weapons.

Palestinian security sources reported four Hamas militants were killed in the explosion, including a nephew of Ismail Haniya, a Hamas leader in Gaza.

The Israeli army did not confirm any deaths." (CNN)


"Israeli air strikes on Friday killed five Palestinians, four of them Hamas militants. " (BBC)--Jablonski 22:04, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

BBC has apperntly made a mistake here. Other news sources (such as Reuters) stick with CNN account. Earlier version by me, specifying the difference was deleted by you as well. MathKnight 22:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Excuse me if I choose to trust BBC. This page reports CURRENT EVENTS and reports the news from all legitimate sources. If there are discrepancies, those can be described, if it is really relevant. Thursday's news should be reported under Thursday's header. Stop trying to insert it under Friday's news. --Jablonski 00:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Jablonski, your insistence on touting fabricated pro-Palestinian outcomes to the legitimate self-defense tactics of the IDF reeks with agenda and does nothing for your personal integrity. The source drawn upon for the Current Events entry CLEARLY notes that seven "militants" were killed and not hapless passer-bys. Whatever you may have against Israeli babies and their desire to live without fear of dying right out of the womb, please take it elsewhere.

Furthermore, with regards to your previous entry, it is perhaps in your fanciful Hamas-hugging world that "terrorists" are considered POV -- but be sure that "terrorism" is most certainly not a POV term, and is strictly defined as follows: 1. attacks targeting civilians 2. with the purpose of generating fear 3. for a distinct political end Now, as far as I can tell, Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Fatah, the Tanzim, and all other so-euphemized "militants" fit this profile to a T. For you to suggest that Jewish settlers could likewise be considered terrorists is not only profoundly asinine, it is profoundly incorrect as well. Following from this, constantly referring to Hamas et al. as "militants," as if they are somehow less than pure evil, is both an insult to those thousands of innocents who have been slaughtered needlessly by their hand, and to their families, who continue to suffer to this day. Neetzan 20:14, 16 July 2005 (EST)

You are the one with the obvious POV problem. Just stick to the objective facts, quit with your histrionic accusations, and stop trying to ram your pro-Israel POV into the news. Thanks. --Jablonski 00:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How about you check what the sources you use say before you misrepresent them? To claim that 2 civilians were killed when none of your sources support it is clear POV. (CNN): "...strikes that Palestinian sources said killed seven militants." How can you say I'm not sticking to the facts, when you're the one who is making them up? --Neetzan 20:34, 16 July 2005 (EST)

You need to learn how to read English before making false accusations.

"Israeli air strikes on Friday killed five Palestinians, four of them Hamas militants" (BBC) "Palestinian security sources reported that two civilians were killed and more than a dozen people wounded in the airstrikes, apparently conducted by drone aircraft and helicopter gunships." (BBC).

Thanks for your interest. --Jablonski 01:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The second quotation you brought does not exist in the BBC article. It is clearly states that
In what observers say was an effort to rein in the militants, Palestinian Authority police fought a gun battle with Hamas members on the streets of Gaza City on Friday, which left two teenage bystanders dead and 25 others wounded. [4]
So either you have misread what it says, or either you are intentionally inserting balant lies. I advise you to stop now, such behavour is unaccpetable. MathKnight 09:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Inserting Thursday news under Friday news is duplicative and unacceptable and will be reverted if you continue. Also, you should learn how to write in the English language before defacing the English Wikipedia. --Jablonski 12:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
After being caught lying it is natural you'll try to change the subject. MathKnight 18:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

So somehow you've come to the conclusion that the notoriously biased BBC's recounting of information supplied to them by anonymous "Palestinian security sources" is a more accurate source than both CNN and Reuters? Manipulating data to make it seem as if you're in the right doesn't actually put you in the right. It only serves to make you look foolish. Whatever you're attempting to achieve by skewering facts to make the IDF look like the cause rather than the effect, I can only wonder; but to be sure, I find it upsetting and unfortunate that you've chosen to side with those who purposely set out to kill 22-year-old girls. -- Neetzan 21:48, 16 July 2005 (EST)

If you consider BBC to be notoriously biased, you should not be editing news articles. --Jablonski 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

The point was not the neutrality of the BBC (though, that is indeed arguable), but the fact that two other widely respected sources say otherwise. If you rely on a single source to justify your bias, then you, my friend, should not be editing news articles. -- Neetzan 13:54, 17 July 2005 (EST)


An example of NPOV

Irishpunkton, I'd like to commend you for putting all the Isr-Pal articles into an easily viewable, non-POV riddled bulletin. 20:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool, cheers, thanks! Na Abair É!--Irishpunktom\talk 23:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

better image for July 21 event

Image:London bombing 21 july 05 newspaper.jpg seems like a better image than the British flag for the lead story today. slambo 17:57, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

About the virus in China...

The name of the virus is Streptococcosis II (not streptococosis II, which is how it has incorrectly appeared in the news article as well as numerous documents online). According to Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary the correct spelling has a double "c" near the end. ALSO it is not a virus, as it is said to be in the article, but is caused by the bacteria streptococci. Yeah not too important, but I thought it might be if an article were added about the illness or the pathogen... --thereverendeg 18:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


All I have to say is this: why isn't the deaths of 4 scout leaders at the Jamboree on here at Ft ap Hill? --user:steven

Are we going to include every unfortunate accident in which 4+ people die, none of which are renowned? Sure, it happened at a large organized event, and it is sad, but it's not really relevant compared to the other things we mention here, as unfortunate as it may be. bob rulz 09:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

I suggest that news that makes to the Main page should be bolden in the Current events page. CG 09:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the amount of time it is on the Main page, or always?--Irishpunktom\talk 23:21, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that it not be, because it's jarring and detracts from the rest of the articles. Lord Bob 23:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Whoopee. Alltheweb has had audio search for years. John Barleycorn 19:41, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Err

i thought we didn't list the "ordinary deaths of prominent people", or something? --Irishpunktom\talk 19:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

What's an "ordinary death"?

Heart Attack, Stroke, Not being assasinated or crasshing in a plane --Irishpunktom\talk 17:10, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Heathrow Airport in London... strike

Shouldn't something this disruptive to the worlds transportation be of notice? After all, this is 75,000 thousand travelers stranded... 100,000 if counting those around the globe that are effected. Also what's striking is the vast amount of money involved and thus lost for no-flights...

If Google News [5] is any measure of what's going on in the world, maybe the 1,800+ articles written on this event should strike an interest. ~ RoboAction 08:04, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(couple articles:)

Aug 1 and Aug 2 have dedicated links to Wikinews at the end of their days. Other days don't, neither do any in July. Should all days have this link or none? -- SGBailey 20:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


Newsfeed of current events items?

Has an RSS feed been considered for this page? Is that a feature available in Wikinews? Amadeust 17:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You might check with User:Dze27. See also Wikipedia:Syndication. Mamawrites 21:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Peace Mission

Peace Mission currently links to an article about father devine. It should link to an article about the latest war games between the US and former reds. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Democratic election?

We say former rebel leader Pierre Nkurunziza was elected unopposed as new President of Burundi, but then say he the first president chosen through democratic means since the start of the civil war in 1993. If there was only one candidate, was it a truly democratic election, or a ritual election? Moriori 20:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

He was elected by members of parliament, but those members of parliament were democratically elected in multi-candidate elections. User:Ordinary Person

I really should hesitate to bang on about this -- but! He wasn't elected through a decision making process by voters who had choices at an election. Also, the MPs didn't have a choice. That doesn't fit "democratic" IMHO. Moriori 20:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
There has been more than one Irish president elected unopposed. That in itself does not make it an undemocratic process. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Conflict in Iraq didn't go anywhere. So I got rid of the em-dash in the dates. Redirect to Post-invasion Iraq, 2003-2005. Uncle Ed 03:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Chinese railway in Tibet

It say that Lhasa is over ten thousand meters up, and over sixteen thousand feet up. Mount Everest is around eight thousand meters, or twenty-nine thousand feet... The math is very bad!

No, it says that Lhasa is 5,068 meters above sea level, and then specifies the equivalent in feet (16,627 ft). Mamawrites 21:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Someone had changed it to 10,068 meters, which I reverted.--Pharos 21:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What date do we use for events?

User:Irishpunktom seems to be working under the delusion that all events have to be listed by UTC. I contend that events should be listed by the date on which they ocurred at the place they occurred. Which of us is correct? Zoe 21:37, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I had edits removed and other placed into the previous date, owing to the difference in Time zones. Since then I've understood that things which go here, on the International Current Events page, should follow the UTC time zone. --Irishpunktom\talk 21:43, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Current events vs. Wikinews

I thought the creation of Wikinews was a great idea. Why are we spreading thin our efforts between Current events and Wikinews? What is the best place to discuss the existence of this page? VFD? It's not an encyclopedic article and increasingly reminds a POV blog. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Current Events is an encyclopedic page; we have articles on the 3rd millennium; 21st century; the 2100s; 2005; and August 2005, which is where this article will be moved when September begins. It's a log of the notable events; Wikinews is a news source, not a log of events. --Golbez 02:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Then it shouldn't have weblinks where people can go read about a "news" story. Replace weblinks with offline sources if you want sources. --MateoP 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Take a closer look: they practically duplicate each other, including logs: [6]. Oh, and there is also Template:In the news off the main page. I am sure we can be more efficient and up-to-date if we transclude. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Little League World Series

This belongs in Sports surely. Lisiate 00:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Was there a formal date format change?

Was a decision reached, as of a few days ago, to add all dates to the Current Events page in the day-month format and not the previous month-day-comma format? I couldn't find anything discussing this on a talk page, and the inconsistency annoys me a little... Morypcaina 21:08, August 30th, 2005 (UTC)

How?

Entry re New Orleans floods today says Gas leaks pollute the floodwaters. How? Moriori 21:43, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps by "gas" they meant gasoline? DSatz 17:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
That occurred to me after I had posted the query. Very ambiguous, but as I wasn't sure and no-one commentd I let it ride. People who don't use the word gasoline will probably always wonder. Moriori 21:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

August 30, removed reference to martial law in New Orleans

I deleted this statement because I read somewhere online that LA state law makes no provision for a declaration of martial law; rather, it was a state of emergency which was declared. As soon as I track down the reference, I will post it here. Mamawrites 20:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's the source backing up my clarification: http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html#075262

Bush First Interview Since Hurricane

"President Bush in an early morning interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer at the White House said: "I fully understand people wanting things to have happened yesterday. I want people to know there is a lot of help coming." Asked about gas price increases he said: "Is this a time to call on Americans simply to pull back and not use the gas?". The President will tour the Katrina hit areas on Friday"

Was deleted by Mr. Billion. He says it is not news worthy. I suggest it is, since it is the President's first inteview after the Hurricane, gives his reaction, indicates state of mind, and announces plans for Friday visit.

As to whether it is weighty, that is what the media commentators are debating at the moment. There are several issues going on behind the words. A reader may consider them frivolous, but that does not mean they are without meaning and impact. I suggest this interview has and will have considerable impact.

Media commentators describe this as a "rare" interview. I did not include that as it is opinion and not appropriate in a summary. But it SHAPES the opinion of the President and of events.Kyle Andrew Brown 20:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Added China story, loger switch off error/208.58.74.59 Kyle Andrew Brown 22:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that deleting the story is inappropriate, the lack of comment from Bush in the early stages of the crisis is turning into a major story. If the quotes are not the most notable from the interview they should be replaced. But this is the first interview for many months, it is news.

--Gorgonzilla 05:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Go Qatar!

Gosh, our nation suffers and here we actually have a nation coming to our aid. Kyle Andrew Brown 04:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a very long list of countries who offered help. The US turned most of them down. Even Sri Lanka gave $25,000 to the American Red Cross, and they're a poor country still recovering from the tsunami. Fidel Castro offered to send 100 doctors last Friday and 500 more on Saturday and Sunday. No response from Washington to most of the offers (although they did accept the EUs oil). -- Arwel 12:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Clinton Blurb

Love her or hate her, isn't she more important as a Senator, than as a former first lady?Dsol 16:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think both roles are at least equally important, so I added the link to the United States Senate for her elected title. (It's possible that whoever originally added the blurb assumed that everyone would know what a senator is, but that readers outside the US might not be familiar with the phrase "first lady". Still, I think both titles should be wikilinked.) Mamawrites 17:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Israel bias

As it has been noted earlier #Why does this page concentrate so heavily on one conflict?, user:Irishpunktom actively promotes his anti-Israel agenda here (and if you think this is a pro-Palestinian position, think again: the latest news update at Portal:Palestine was on July 20). So, what are our choices:

  • just give up and let it be POV: in many eyes this will damage Wikipedia more than Israel
  • edit/revert war: so far IPT was more than willing to revert anything that is not up to his taste
  • neutralize this stream of dirt with an equal one towards the other side of the conflict: for example, if remarks of Israeli minister of education is a news item, then our news should include calls to wage violent jihad by Palestinian, Egyptian, Saudi and Syrian ministers and state-appointed clerics. I'm not even talking about Hamas & Co. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 21:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Humus sapiens, this Attack is nice, but gibberish. Wikipedia is not a battleground you know. Firstly my additions have overwhelmingly been NPOV. You are trying to censor items that do not fit your agenda. The piece you are attempting to hide contains a statement made by a member of the Government of israel concerning the very outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Of course it should stay. I have never added statements made by clerics, but I could (Jewish Rabbi: Hurricane Katrina is Punishment for the American support for Gaza pullout). If you have statements made by government ministers in Arab nations concerning the conflict, go ahead and add them, i won't remove them. --Irishpunktom\talk 08:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a "Current Events in Israel and Palestine article. MPS 19:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI

Humus sapiens, do you have any source besides MEMRI that this interview actually took place. I'd much rather have it taken from the source. Further, your comparrison is crude. members of Ezzedeen-al-qassam are unelected and self-appointed and represent themselves. The Government of Israel is elected to represent the people of israel. I would never have added IRA quotes from An Poblacht, but thats me. I won't remove this, but still want another source. --Irishpunktom\talk 09:49, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

MEMRI is a reliable source. Jayjg (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I, and a significant amount of other people would dispute that, and as such, another source should be added. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Problems in Opera browser

On Opera 7, the city names in the time-date box (in fact any content at all) is too small to be readable. Font size needs to be increased. Also the date-time table, calendar table and "Other current events" table doesn't have the right-side border. Jay 13:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

vandal

Who keeps vandalising this page? --Wonderfool t(c) 19:44, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

My guess would be that it's vandalised because it is a direct permenant fixed link from the front page, so it's the closest vandals can get to vandalising the front page itself. Just a thought. Mallocks 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
WP:VAND, and specifically Wikipedia:Revert should provide all the info you need on that particular topic :) Also, in general, comments in talk pages are staggered with the colon character, not with asterisks. Happy editing :) Mallocks 19:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing Events Cleanup Sep 2005

A lot of the events in the Ongoing events template are no longer ongoing. Can people take the time to delete irrelevant ones? I will but I don't tknow what all of these are. Also, it doesn't seem like anyone is editing the current events by region. Should I just change the template back to the way it used to be? MPS 19:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Harriet Miers

The fact that Ms. Miers has no prior judicial experience does not appear to me to be the most important fact about this nominee. If you visit either Harriet Miers or Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings, you will see that quite a body of information is being compiled. The current events article as it stands gives the bare bones: her current office and the office for which she has been nominated. Adding anything further (pro or con) unnecessarily lengthens the current events page. The interested reader can easily click through if he or she wants more. Brandon39 04:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Order of Maritine Service

I do not believe this Russian Order exists, but I will make sure that it will at least get a stub page. Zach (Sound Off) 02:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Official decree: http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/text/news/2005/09/93311.shtml. Zach (Sound Off) 02:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No more deaths?

It looks to me as if this section of the page has been removed without comment. Are the current month's deaths now listed somewhere else? DSatz 14:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It was removed by a vandal. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Evil Monkey, thank you for the reply, and thank you to whoever (possibly yourself) restored the missing section. DSatz 02:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sunni Arab

Someone changed "Sunni Arab" to "Sunni Islam" in my entry on the Proposed Iraqi Constitution. I'm changing it back. The "Arab" part since it is important, for the purpose of the article, to distinguish between Sunni Arabs and the Kurdish groups. The great bulk of Iraqi Kurds are Sunnis. The agreement has been made mainly between groups representing 1/ Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds on one hand and 2/ Sunni Arabs on the other. Ordinary Person

Reactors at US colleges: Wikipedia should not endorse or promote advocacy journalism

I object to the way yesterday's news story was described at Current events. It was completely one-sided. It was sensationalistic. It conveyed ABC's slant and omitted the other side. It gave the impression that terrorists could easily do, what? Blow up a plant and devestate an entire city? That U.S. federal officials and the academic community don't give a shit?

This is like ABC's "Food Lion" investigation.

They spent 4 months "proving" that there are serious lapses? It wouldn't take that long to test security, if that was their object. I mean, if they were trying to help. Was there goal to ensure that security was improved, or were they trying to score a political point?

Anyway, getting back to our one-sentence summary. I changed it, adding the word "controversial" since they way the conducted it, as well as their conclusions, have come under fire. Also, MIT says that their facility could withstand a large truck bomb.

We also should have distinguished between commercial power generating reactors which have large amounts of radioactive material and really pose a risk (though slight) of a Chernobyl type disaster - and research facilities. ABC's report mentions, buried deep in the middle of an inside page, that the amount of radioactive material at campus nuclear facilities is minimal.

ABC's slant is that they spent 4 months "discovering" these lapses. I think they spent 4 months "building a case" to prove that officials in the government and academia aren't doing enough for security. This is advocacy journalism, not investigative journalism.

And Wikipedia should not endorse or promote advocacy journalism. It should rather adhere to NPOV. Uncle Ed 12:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Guardian article

I have twice removed the link to the Guardian article about West Bank land. The event mentioned in the blurb on our page took place in July, not since July. Therefore, it's not a "current event." The subhead on the Guardian story was misleading (but then, what do you expect from that publication?).

Mwalcoff 00:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne time

The time listed for Melbourne is UTC+11, when in fact it is currently +10. Anyone know how to fix this? Remy B 10:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it... it was at Template:Current events box. Mamawrites & listens 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Fred Phelps

Why is it that every time Fred Phelps says something stuped he gets international air time for it? This is not a rant; rather it is a question of whether wikipedia current events should consider Fred Phelps' comments to be notable. All this guy has to do to get attention is say something like "god hates fags" or "the London bombs were great" and he gets featured. What next, "hitler was right" ... this guy has no religious authority except for the few family members that constitute his little independent church.


He was the subject of a major Sky News report over his rant. When a supposedly Christian leader, with a considerable name recognition factor, calls for mass murder and hides behind the American constitution to claim the right to do so that is most definitely newsworthy. PS sign your comments please. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I saw "Fred Phelps" in a Talk:Current events edit summary from my watchlist, and came here figuring that the news was that he had dropped dead. It's a shame that it was Rosa Parks instead. 172 | Talk 22:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not current-event-worthy really, there is no real-world impact on what he said. From Fred Phelps article, he does not have many followers. Leinart 22:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Only disasters on Wikinews?

When I look at the Wikipedia main page I see a lot of bad news in the news section. I propose that whoever is responsible for the news section, should give a higher priority into delivering mixed news, and not as bashing as american television shows them. A good example is Oct 30th (today) which does *not* mention anything about the world event of the "Dresden Frauenkirche" being reinaugurated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.250.2 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the suggestions. If you think a story should be on Current events then add it to the page, and if you think it has international interest suggest it for being on the Main Page. Wikipedians only edit what they know and for most of us, the news only shows the disasters. Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

What goes under Current Events?

I started moving stories to respective sections, which should be done. But then I noticed some are in both. Should they be moved? Falphin 00:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest most stories on the main Current events page should also go on a regional events page if we have one that covers the region. Some stories which are of only regional interest should only go on the regional page, but it's a judgement call.-gadfium 03:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Robinson's speech

Gene Robinson gave a speech. How is this globally significant? If he actually does something, or if he gives a speech that causes a significant international reaction, then it can go here. Otherwise, listing it in Current Events, quoting it twice, and for some reason mentioning that the speech got a standing ovation, serves no purpose other than to promote the speech. Mr. Billion 03:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is important enough to be quoted in newspapers in Europe, America and elsewhere, and to have made it onto some news bulletins, it is important enough to be carried here. An attack by a prominent member of one of the major world Christian denominations, who claims authority based on the apostolic succession on the head of another major world denomination who also claims apostolic succession is a big story. Deciding not to carry a story judged worldwide to be important enough to carry is POV. Reflecting an international story is NPOV. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There are literally thousands of stories every day that are "important enough to be quoted in newspapers in Europe, America and elsewhere, and to have made it onto some news bulletins." Open up Google news and you can start picking these things up and never run out. Simply because it's reported on more than one continent doesn't make enough of an influential event to be noted here. If we included every story reported on more than one continent, Current Events would be thousands of entries long. All this guy did was give a speech against his political/ideological opponents. I suspect you put it in because you like what he said, not because of its significance on the global scene. Mr. Billion 07:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: is it common to hear a Bishop bashing the Pope? It seems like this man (or the controversy surrounding him) could split the Anglican communion. --Vsion 07:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The personal attack on a writer by Mr Billion is inappropriate and actually is not sound news judgement, but does fit a pattern in his deletions. 205.222.241.175 15:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know who this anonymous editor is (random bypasser? Someone's sockpuppet?), but that doesn't make any sense. I haven't attacked anybody. But I do think that this piece about a guy giving a speech is a very poor item for Current Events. User:Kyle Andrew Brown removed the superfluous mention of the standing ovation, so that's at least a step towards NPOV. But I've yet to see why this is newsworthy enough to be placed alongside a major new archaeological discovery, the arrest of a Peruvian president, and the like. If this speech's newsworthiness is the unusualness of this Bishop disagreeing with the Pope, then the item should reflect that. I don't think that's unusual either, though, because Robinson's position on gay rights is not a new development.
As it is, all the item says is, "Hey, look what Gene Robinson said." --Mr. Billion 21:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Consensus rules Mr. Billion. Please respect it. Just because a "anon" pops updoes does not follow your conclusion. In fact, it showed up that way because the system did not maintian MY login. I'm not putting any more energy into responding to you sense you appear to thrieve on the negative attention. Also your deletions should not be marked minor, since a deltion is not minor.Kyle Andrew Brown 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Two people is hardly a significant majority.
Kyle, I don't know why you've adopted this negative attitude, pretending I'm attacking you or somebody else. But please, stop. I have nothing against you, the Catholic church, Robinson, jtdirl or any other party involved.
All I'm trying to do is maintain standards for Current Events. I've also erased an item about a politician promising a dairy cow in every shed if he's elected. That doesn't belong here, even though it was reported in Fox News and at least one other source in the politician's own country so it meets your "international" and "reported in more than one source" criteria. I've erased other items from Current Events in the past, and so have other people. Current Events is for major world events of global significance. Some guy just giving his opinion is not globally significant and doesn't belong here. Especially not an item that just mainly says "Look what Robinson said, look how great it is, he got a standing ovation." That's not NPOV. That's one reason why I erased it. I haven't seen any defense of the piece other than that you and jtdirl want it, and that it's been reported in more than one source so it must belong here.
Vsion asked a good question. But Robinson's position in the controversy has existed for a long time so it is not news, and the item does not focus on his potential to split the Anglican communion. The item's focus is that Robinson said something. The mention of the broader controversy is an afterthought.
Also, you said that "the personal attack" fits a pattern in my deletions. What personal attack are you talking about? What pattern are you talking about? And lastly, what minor edit are you talking about? You said that I marked an erasure of the Robinson item as a minor edit. These are all the minor edits on Current Events I've done recently: [7] [8] [9]. You're accusing me of things I haven't done. I don't understand why you're behaving this way. --Mr. Billion 19:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note: "Only stories of international interest should be added here. Consider whether each story would be better placed on a national Current Events page before adding it here." As I've said, the only new thing the item reports is that Robinson said something. The fact that he's at the center of a controversy is not a new development. Be reasonable.

I really think it's POV to repeat this man's opinion and treat it as globally significant news. --Mr. Billion 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment How does this fit on a national Current Events page? This is an American making a speech in England attacking the Pope, which (if anything) has implications for the entire Anglican Communion. If there was a 2005 in religion page, I'd say move it there, but there isn't. I'm not convinced that this speech has particularly stoked the flames of the controversy, though (and wasn't aware it had been made), so I wouldn't consider it for the main news page myself. Average Earthman 08:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think it goes on a national news page either; I was just quoting that because it's a message stressing that Current events is for important happenings. This isn't one. --Mr. Billion 00:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree and have reinserted what is a piece of news that got international coverage. Whether you like it or not is immaterial. It is news. It has got international coverage. It is in. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 03:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is a repetition of the guy's opinion and it is POV. It's out. --Mr. Billion 08:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Kyle, falsely accusing another editor of vandalism is A) extremely rude and B) a serious offense. Please don't do that. --Mr. Billion 01:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose it would be too much to ask for you to provide an argument for why this is significant enough for a global news page other than that you want it and have websites in more than one country to link to? Or to show the courtesy to summarize your edits? Or explain how it's not POV to repeat this man's opinion as if it's as important as a major archaeological discovery or the affairs of nations? I've already pointed out that simply being reported on more than one continent doesn't mean it's fit for Current Events (so was a politician's wild promise and a fish story), so that argument doesn't fly. I've recieved no logical reasons why this item should be included, only personal attacks ("since you seem to thrive on the negative attention") and false accusations. --Mr. Billion 00:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

People have been giving arguments frequently. You just ignore them and delete the reference, pushing your own agenda no matter what anyone says. Since you have shown so little courtesy to other people's views on the issue, in your repeated deletion of a link though there was no consensus behind your deletion, it is a bit rich for you to ask other people for courtesy. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 01:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

As said repeatedly before, the reason why it is newsorthy is elementary.

  1. While attacks on the pope (certainly) this pope, are ten-a-penny, attacks by bishops on the pope are rare and are in themselves newsworthy.
  2. Attacks by an Anglican bishop on the pope are doubly newsworthy because
    • Anglican bishops do not as a courtesy rule since Vatican II publicly attack the head of the Roman Catholic Bishops.
    • Anglican bishops are believed by many Christians to be part of the Apostolic Succession. So are Catholic bishops, cardinals and popes. High Church Anglicans, of which Robinson is one, believe that Anglicanism is part of Catholicism (ie, the Universal Christian church based on the Apostolic Succession). They regard Roman Catholicism as part of the broad Catholic Church (or Catholic Communion) also. As such, attacks by one branch of the broad Catholic Communion on the head of the another sister church in that communion, are extremely rare. Such attacks are one of the thou must not rules bishops across the mainstream churches follow. (Even when they detest each other they out of a formal politeness do not say so, dressing it up in twee words like "unhappiness", " unease" and "express disappointment", not full scale no-holes-barred criticism.
    • The attack is not just notable in itself. It is notable for the exceptional bluntness of the language.
  3. This is not just any Anglican bishop. It is one of the most controverial in the entire church, a man whose appointment pushed the Anglican Communion to the point of schism. And his attack is dealing with the very issue, orientation, that almost caused the that schism.
  4. The attack occured in one of the most famous Anglican churches, and far from causing consternation, the attack was applauded by the Anglicans there.
  5. Many Roman Catholics are also highly critical of the pope on the issue of his comments on sexual orientation. One highly respected former Vatican diplomat-turned Archbishop of a large archdiocese, while the pope was insisting that homosexuality was intrinsically disordered, urged his country to legislate to recognise same-sex unions, clearly implying that he did not share the pope's view as to their alleged disorderedness.

An attack by that person, on that topic, in that venue, on that person, given the criticism that second person is already subjected to within his own church, is newsworthy and was unambiguously a current event. In addition, Wikipedia can't have it both ways. It cannot treat a polite letter from one set of primates to another whose leadership role is largely symbolic, as newsworthy, and then insist that another attack between churches, on a geniunely powerful figure by a highly controversial figure using strong language, is not newsworthy. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 01:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no agenda to push, and I wish you wouldn't get so worked up about this. You probably think I'm an anti-gay crusader or something. I've tried not to be rude (note I haven't called anybody a vandal for disagreeing with me, nor said that you thrive on negative attention, or anything like that), but I do find the repetition of this person's statement of opinion to be POV, and the simple fact that he said something to be not extraordinarily global.
I think you're inflating the importance of this and other news items you like, such as the item about Fred Phelps saying something bigoted. That is not unusual. This bishop responding to an attack on a group with which he sympathizes is not unexpected.
Actions are noteworthy. "Look what he said!" is gossip. --Mr. Billion 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Your last line is untrue. 80% of all news coverage is based on comment, not actions. Gary Glitter, for example, has not been arrested. The police commented on media allegations about him by saying that a review of those reports meant they now wanted to speak to him, but he has disappeared. This page is full of comments, reactions to comments, criticisms made of comments, etc. Your idea that comments don't belong on this page is not evidenced by what the page and its archives contains. And no newspaper would be published if they only covered actions. Was George Bush's (facile) claim or "mission accomplished" ignored on the basis that it was just someone commenting? Was it just "gossip"? Of course not. The comment was the news. Similarly Robinson's comment was the news. Pope Paul VI's comments on contraception was news. Winston Churchill's comments about Hitler were news. JFK's inauguration address, which was words, not actions, was news. Comments are central to news coverage and current events. I think the problem is simply that you are imagining a distinction that does not actually exist in news stories. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This whole thing is silly, though. Here's an edit that should satisfy us both. I think that the action should come before the reaction.--Mr. Billion 05:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Your statement about Gary Glitter doesn't make any sense to me. Vietnamese police announced that they're after him; they didn't just give their opinions about him.
You're acting like I've said that no speech, statement, declaration, announcement, or other communication can go in Wikinews, but I haven't. You're trying to rebut an argument I'm not making. I'm saying that a simple statement of opinion from Gene Robinson is not in itself important enough to go in Wikinews as a standalone. Your attempt to equate Robinson's opinion with the American president's statement prematurely declaring an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq lacks proportion.
I think the problem is that you're failing to see a key distinction. Gene Robinson isn't a household name in most places. Robinson isn't Pope and he isn't a President or Prime Minister who will be a household name for decades to come. Your attempt to equate his attack on Benedict with historic speeches from well-known heads of state is senseless.
Regardless, I've attempted a compromise by noting the action to which Robinson is reacting first, then adding his comment. That should be fine.
I hope that the compromise is acceptable and we can put this behind us? --Mr. Billion 05:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

US news and the rest of the world

I dislike the separation into Current Events and US Current Events -- I only found out about it today. One reason is the importance of US events for the rest of the world -- looking at United States current events, in the last days entries I easily find one or two news events important enough for all of us. The second reason is something like a dislike for region-centrism: a separate US Current Events makes it easy for inhabitants of said country to look only at their domestic news. I want them to find out -- even if by accident -- about what is going on in the world as a whole. The strict separation between Non-US Current Events and US Current Events is problematic. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 14:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

BIAS

What is this?

  • The fighting in Fallujah, Iraq has led to a number of widespread myths including false charges that the United States is using chemical weapons such napalm and poison gas. None of these allegations are true. (USINFO.STATE.GOV)

1. Why is an official US government denial considered current news? 2. Why is the US State Depaartment privileged as the source of truth? The current news is a report that phosphorus weapons were used against civilians in Fallujah. It is not a myth. It is a report. The US government denial is not the truth. It is a statement by the US government. This "news article" is US government propaganda. --PigsFly 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

White phosphorus is a chemical weapon? Might as well call gun powder a chemical weapon. According to the wikipedia article, it is an ingredient in conventional incendiary bombs. In fact it is also used in smoke screens. Maybe it looked like poison gas?

See also: White phosphorus and look at the arms control status section.

Of course white phosphorus is a chemical weapon, even our military admits it. Have a look at this U.S. Armed Forces website that reports on Saddam Hussein's use of "white phosphorus chemical weapons" against the Kurds. But I understand how it works ... when Saddam Hussein used it against Iraqi citizens, we called it chemical weapons. When we used it against Iraqi citizens, it's not a chemical weapon. Nice double standards. --Cyde 02:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I see PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL, not white phosphorus mentioned in that paper. Once again, you clearly show your bias as there was no mention of the conventional weapon (white phosphorus) in that report. Before accusing anyone of anything, I advise to to read your sources more carefully. In addition I refer you to this source [10] which states

"White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty to which the United States is a signatory. Smokes and obscurants comprise a category of materials that are not used militarily as direct chemical agents. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects. " 205.188.116.66 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Olympic bid story

This story appeared under Monday's date with no source link. Don't know if it

  • a) should be here at all, it is a "crystal ball" case in my opinion;
  • b) should be moved to Sports when a source can be found.

Here for consensus vote on the matter


doktorb 07:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't find anything on it. NSLE (讨论) \<extra> 07:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
It's already Monday afternoon in East Asia. Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-11/14/content_3777787.htm . Although, some rewording is needed. --Vsion 07:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Item on Elections in Burkina Faso

In my edit summary, I put in something nonsensical about the 60% figure. Sorry, I misread.

I trimmed the item down because it's twice as long as almost every other item on Current Events. Does it really need to be that long? Details are in the article. --Mr. Billion 04:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Gary Glitter

Convicted paedophile, ex-pop star Gary Glitter

Bit POV, surely? Chris talk back 21:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Lets see. Um. He was judged in a psychological assessment in his trial to be a paedophile. He was referred to in the court records as 'convicted paedophile'. He used to be a pop star. He is not any more so he is an ex-pop star. So yes he is a convicted paedophile, ex-pop star Garry Glitter. Factual reportage is NPOV. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Convicted paedophile" as a term is POV no matter which way you look at it. If he was convicted of sex offences, then "convicted sex offender" would be less POV. But he wasn't convicted of child sex offences, but posession of obsceme material. Chris talk back 09:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I realise that this has now changed, but - certainly in the UK - you can't actually be convicted of being a paedophile (somebody sexually attracted to prepubsecent children, according to the article on paedophilia), as it's not a crime. Child sex abuse, or possessing indecent images of children, however, is an offence and therefore you can be convicted of them. Whether the court describes him as a paedophile or not doesn't mean he's a "convicted paedophile", since the court could never convict somebody of something that is not, in itself, an offence. --Sanguinus 14:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

David Irving

IMHO David Irving is a historical revisionist. However not everyone accepts that definition. Qualifying in any way that he is a historian by adding a definition of category is POV. It is best to let the reader when they read his page decide for themselves. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 01:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Haiti Election

Under the "Upcoming Elections" section it says that the Haiti general elections will take place on November the 20th but according to Reuters it has since been delayed to "mid-December at the earliest." Just a heads up. -- Pyro19 12:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Angela Merkel

From the front page:

"Dr. Angela Merkel of the Christian Democratic Union is elected the new Chancellor of Germany, as the first woman ever."

This reads rather like she is the first woman ever, which would be a bold claim indeed, although definitely good reason to elect her to a position of authority. Could it be recast perhaps? Soo 12:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Heehee. I agree it should be reworded, and thanks for the giggle. --Sanguinus 14:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
On a similar note, a BBC programme recently commented on the relative gender parity in the National Assembly for Wales by opening a report with "Did you know that almost half of the women in the Assembly are women?" Chris talk back 08:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

High School Football

Surely this page is not intended for items about high school football results (see Nov 24).

I'm inclined to agree, so I be'd bold and removed it. Lord Bob 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Moon gets praise and applause

I removed this item:

* Taiwan's vice president praises Rev. Moon's peace initiative. [11] Annette Lu sat raptly among 3,000 people including Neil Bush, and aftwerwards supported Moon's efforts to promote world harmony.

I did so because Wikipedia isn't a PR firm for Sun Myung Moon to announce every time he recieves praise and flattery. The item was added by User:Moon Man. The presence of Annette Lu and Neil Bush and is sort of interesting, but not really a current event. --Mr. Billion 18:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested current event

Someone should really write at least a stub on Kazakhstan's elections today. It's a pretty big country, after all.--Pharos 17:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

syndey suburb unrest

I want to make an article about it. Has anyone else started? The only thing I could find was at Cronulla, New South Wales, and obviously needs work. I'm going to start December 2005 Sydney Suburb Unrest, as news sources have already mentioned a spread to at least 3 areas. Dsol 17:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Williams's execution

Is the execution of Stanley Williams really newsworthy enough to be the lead article for the news of the entire world? Theshibboleth 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's been the first or second story on the BBC's domestic news broadcasts all day, although it's been pushed down a bit since the Peter Falconio verdict. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It has been condemned by the EU parliament. Seabhcán 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
How often does the EU parliament condemn US executions? Theshibboleth 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Not on a regular schedule, if you meant that. This was definitely a special occasion. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Bush "admits" responsibility

Yes, yes, the headlines say he admitted responsibility, but if you look at what he said, it's not much of an admission: "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

Now, yes, he accepts responsibility for the decision. And responsible for "reforming our intelligence capabilities". But where does he admit responsibility for it? To paraphrase: "I'm responsible for the war, which was justified by bad intelligence. I'm responsible for fixing the source of that intelligence."

That does not accept responsibility for the bad intelligence.

65.166.218.250 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I agree with your gist, but this section isn't for discussing "current events" per se, it's for discussing the article called Current events, ways to make it better, and such. --Mr. Billion 00:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought I was discussing the article called Current events and making it better by editing it to reflect reality. Ok, that sounds snotty, but as it stands the entry on Bush accepting responsibility is wrong. 65.166.218.250 15:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Current_events/Archive_13&oldid=1136645004"