Talk:April 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

See also: Wikipedia:How the Current events page works
For instructions on how to archive Current events at the start of a new month, see: Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events

Previous discussions:

  • General Archives:
    • Old: 1 | 2 | 3
    • 2004: 4 (Apr 26) | 5 (Jul 26) | 6 (Jul 26) | 7 (Aug 19) | 8 (Aug 19) | 9 (Oct 1) | 10 (Nov 29)
    • 2005: 11 (Mar 21)
  • /Vote on tense (archived)
  • /Setting the context
  • /Too much analysis
  • /Ongoing events (various)

Contents

[edit] Article needed

I've cut down the shooting incident to a (hopefully uncontentious) news item. An article is needed for the following content (two versions):

  • A ten-year-old Palestinian girl dies after being shot in the head as she played in her school playground in Rafah. Palestinian witnesses allege she was shot by Israeli fire from the nearby military position, but Israel said an initial investigation suggested they were not responsible, as its troops had not opened fire in that area and a Reuters correspondent stated that Israeli soldiers some 600 meters (yards) away could not have seen into the compound from their position behind high walls. An anonymous Israeli military official says Palestinians nearby had been shooting into the air to celebrate their return from the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, but Palestinian residents said no such celebrations had taken place. Hamas launches mortar shells in retaliation, damaging a house in an Israeli settlement. A spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, said U.N. officials weren't able to definitively identify the source of the gunfire, but did say "Everything is pointing to the fact that it was the Israelis. There were a number of shots, and the way they were scattered gives us an indication of the direction where they came from, and that corresponds with witness reports that the firing came from an [Israeli] APC or tank in the area". The Jerusalem Post maintains that the Palestinian Authority later arrested a Palestinian man who had "reportedly fired shots into the air", however no such charge has been brought in this case by the Palestinian Police.(Al Jazeera)(Reuters) (Jerusalem Post) (BBC) (CBS)(Haaretz)
  • Arab-Israeli Conflict: A ten-year-old Palestinian girl dies after being shot in the head as she played in her school playground in Rafah. Palestinian witnesses allege she was shot by Israeli fire from the nearby military position, but Israel said an initial investigation suggested they were not responsible, as its troops had not opened fire in that area and a Reuters correspondent stated that Israeli soldiers some 600 meters (yards) away could not have seen into the compound from their position behind high walls. An anonymous Israeli military official says Palestinians nearby had been shooting into the air to celebrate their return from the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, but Palestinian residents said no such celebrations had taken place. Hamas launches mortar shells in retaliation, damaging a house in an Israeli settlement. A spokesman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, said U.N. officials weren't able to definitively identify the source of the gunfire, but did say "Everything is pointing to the fact that it was the Israelis. There were a number of shots, and the way they were scattered gives us an indication of the direction where they came from, and that corresponds with witness reports that the firing came from an [Israeli] APC or tank in the area". The Jerusalem Post maintains that the Palestinian Authority later arrested a Palestinian man who had "reportedly fired shots into the air", however no such charge has been brought in this case by the Palestinian Police.(Al Jazeera)(Reuters) (Jerusalem Post) (BBC) (CBS)(Haaretz)

People seem to have been getting carried away with things. zoney ♣ talk 14:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Call me heartless if you like—you'd hardly be the first—but I don't see why this is here at all. If it happened in the US, it'd be immediately removed to United States current events due to being of no international importance whatsoever, and then immediately removed from there due to being of no national importance whatsoever. An article wouldn't be encyclopedic; I don't think Wikinews, where it would fit better, would want it either. The month-long edit war is just ridiculous. (For anyone wondering, btw, this is on January 2005, not Current events; the talk page redirects here.) —Korath (Talk) 00:12, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
You're not heartless, and it wasn't of international importance. But you are faced with an editor who is hell-bent on putting certain kinds of items into current events, and trying to skew them to present one un-named country in as poor a light as possible. I'd prefer deleting this kind of nonsense, but I so far haven't gotten support when I attempt to do so. Jayjg (talk) 21:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Some of the people killed in Tel Aviv bombing are soldiers - trivia?

Irishpunktom, in one of his anonymous IP incarnations, keeps trying to insert this this item onto the page for March 1.

In my view, aside from the fact that this is trivia (the news of the bombing has already been reported, the identities of the victims don't particularly matter), I think it is clearly being inserted in an attempt to create a justification for the bombing - that is, the victims deserved it because they were an elite group that served in the West Bank. In fact, the victims were attending a surprise birthday party, and there is no indication the bomber knew they were there, or targetted them specifically. How do others feel? Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be a separate entry, and should either be combined with the previous item or removed entirely. We're also in definite need of a Middle East current events page; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict headers alone have a much larger presence on Current events than events for any of the other splits (even US) did. —Korath (Talk) 03:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's important, and clearly the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera have too. I am on using my IP because, as I have told you before, I can't log in when I'm in work. As for a 'Middle East Current Events section', I'm not sure it's the best idea, but it's worth a try. --195.7.55.146 17:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Newspapers have hundreds of stories in them every day; that is no indication that all these stories belong in the Current events pages of Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Omission of definite articles

Omitting definite articles like the and a in news entries does nothing to add to the entries, and makes them sound like they're written by someone who barely speaks English as a second language. Who decided that it was a good idea to omit the? I understand that probably at least part of the decision was to reduce the length of the entries and maybe make them more like newspaper headlines. However, these entries are not merely headlines, nor should they be. And a the or a here and there only adds marginally to the length of the entry. So... Can we stop doing that? Mr. Billion 09:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it is right to take out the articles as has been done. This news is more presented in headline form instead of the body of a story, and hence has been presented in a sort of condensed headline form. If you want to know who wanted to omit the the you can ask newspaper editors from years past. If you want more info you can check out the entry on Headlinese. I think it is just a convention started a long time ago and we're all used to it. Just think about a newspaper headline with "the" and "a" added to it.--Theloniouszen 02:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Like pretty much everywhere else in Wikipedia, Current events has used complete grammatical sentences for at least as long as I've been watching it. Since Wikipedia is not paper, there is no need to omit words or punctuation just so that we can make the font larger, as newspapers must. I hope you're not suggesting that we put every entry in <big> tags also. —Korath (Talk) 03:05, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Did I say anything of the sort? Anyone reading this that is fluent in english can tell that the writing style of the news items on the Current Events page are written in a fashion based off of newspaper headlines, notably, the use of the present tense for nearly all items, even for those that have already passed and finished.--Theloniouszen 03:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New items

I just noticed an anon moving items to the bottom of a date section. Aren't new items supposed to go on top? Mgm|(talk) 11:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

They should go on top. If they go on the bottom, then the overall structure of the page is reverse chronological while the day's events are chronological. That seems less than ideal to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The anon in this case is Irishpunktom, and he likes to put things in the order of what he finds most important. For example, any negative articles about Israel are moved to the top immediately. He also like to publish a lot of trivia about Israel as well; for example, in his view an internal report alleging Israeli government misspending is as important on "Current events" as 19 people being killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Jayjg (talk) 18:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Err.. Maybe not. Jayjg. I have noticed that you have done exactly that though, nice way to be critical of someone for something you do. Anyway, there are times when I edit, or try to correct a page and another edit has occoured in the meantime, in such instances i try and fix the other persons edit in after mine. --195.7.55.146

[edit] Anti-Syrian Lebanese protests?

I'm just wondering why there was no headline on this today, unless I missed something. J. Parker Stone 08:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Err.. if you don't see a headline for something that should be there.. make one --195.7.55.146 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why was the death of John DeLorean repeatedly removed ?

Why was the death of John DeLorean repeatedly removed ?

Because deaths don't go on current events, they go on Recent deaths, where you'll see DeLorean is mentioned. A very few deaths to go onto current events, mostly those where that person's death will have repercussions one would expect to see in current events (so deaths current presidents of countries should, but of past presidents probably shouldn't). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

I am surprised there is no mention of all the events listed in Current events regarding the Terri Schiavo case. I'd do it myself, but right now my Wikipedia time is very limited. Kingturtle 17:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

News section disapeared. Any suggestions why? --Cool Cat My Talk 17:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

who removed what ? Check the history.

Kingturtle I added it to ongoing events. It took less than 30 seconds. User:MPS 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Better Communication

There needs to be better communication here as to how people can get involved with writing articles if you want to take on new users. There is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever. Take this edit as a case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&oldid=11702438

It was reverted as vandalism. The content of the picture notwithstanding, (because I'm sure several of you will flip out) the current events page would look much better with a picture of a current event on the front page.

This edit was reverted as vandalism, and the person reverting requested a ban. Innovation is not vandalism. Communicate, don't persecute. --Dbsanfte 23:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the charge of vandalism stemmed from the one guy holding a sign saying "We are idiots". -- Cyrius|✎ 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, so what's the point of this exactly, that a picture of demonstrators is fine, as long as their signs don't conflict with one another? That picture is real -- is it 'vandalism' because that 'idiots' sign expresses a viewpoint? Don't all the other ones, too? Is that guy's right to protest any less newsworthy or accurate than the other demonstrators? This reeks of persecution, if not outright censorship. --Dbsanfte 04:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Dbsanfte, I'll assume good faith and try to be charitable since you seem to be new. The Wikipedia guidelines are a central part of what you need to read. There, you will note that one of the key guidelines is the NPOV policy, described as "representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically." You would have us believe that the two balanced views fairly represented in that photo are (1) Some Christians believe euthanasia is murder, balances with (2) Anti-euthanasia Christians are idiots. This is a patently unbalanced and inflammatory representation of the views surrounding the case, which makes the photo inappropriate. Even you recognized the possibility that some people seeing the picture might "flip out." I agree that pictures in the news section ares something we should consider, but that particular picture was clearly inflammatory. Every edit box has the following message underneath it that says "You're encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed. This one was removed, and rightly so. MPS 15:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ridvan ?

When is Ridvan ? The article says it begins at sunset on March 20. On Current events, under 'Upcoming holidays', it's April 21. At least one of these two dates is wrong ??? -- 09:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI: User: Dremo fixed the Ridvan page a few days ago. Accordingly, Ridvan begins on April 21. -- PFHLai 02:38, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Added a Picture to the April 11th. Added it as a Thumbnail. Should It stay, or go.. what do you all think ? --Irishpunktom\talk 23:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It should go. I don't think that images should be on the current events page. Leave them for the article proper. TimothyPilgrim 11:48, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Why not.. do you think it's too messy? --195.7.55.146 15:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe so. I like the text-only approach for the current events page. If I want more, I'll got to WikiNews. I'm not saying that images aren't nice, but it's also nice to have just text. TimothyPilgrim 17:54, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I concur. No pictures on Current events at all, or the page will rather cluttered in a flash. The pictures we could add here (like those we add in Template:Itn) generally aren't informative, just decorative. Also, keep im mind that with the navigation box on the left-hand side, folks with narrower or windows or smaller display sizes will only see a cluttered mess. I've removed the pics for now. For those who are interested in comparing and/or continuing the discussion, the version before I removed the pics looked like this. -- Seth Ilys 20:23, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, thats a consensus then. I just thought I'd try it. --195.7.55.146 09:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having just seen this discussion (and noting that 2 people v 1 person does not a consensus make), I would beg to differ. Some piccis are ok. Probably no more than 1 a day, perhaps 1 every other day, otherwise it really will get cluttered. But every article can be enhanced by a useful picci, and this one is no exception, jguk 19:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it further - why not restrict it to piccis taken by WPians and released by them into the Public Domain? That would encourage beneficial expansion of Wikipedia, without risking us getting bombarded with lots and lots of pics (and the edit wars that could create), jguk 19:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't object to a picture per-se, but every case where someone has, to date, added one has turned into a layout catastrophe. Left aligned thumbnails totally break the format. Right aligned ones should work in theory, but in practice seem to get muddled up with >edit< markers or to make the page flow very badly. We should insist that they be included by means of a specific template (say template:current_events_thumbnail) which we've spent some considerable effort to validate works okay on a full range of browsers (floaty CSS is far from consistent), page-widths, and on a collection of some of our archived current events. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If we're counting, then I object to pictures on current anything events pages. I pointed Jguk here after he added a photo to Current sports events, which I removed (and he reinstated). In this particular instance I object to the picture both on layout grounds and on suitability (IMHO a photo of a, frankly not very important, university cricket match is setting the threshold very low). -- Avaragado 09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please, write clearer

Please, write like that :

* USA, Washington : 2 people were running after a dog.
* UN, Beijing : Bush declare than everyone is free to run if he want, and added " That's good for health ".

that's a better way for everybody ;)Yug 15:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese-Indian talks of April 12, 2005

have you some news about the Chinese-Indian talks ? They want make a definitive peace to improve their relationship, cooperate in computer and hight-tech industry and were talking about a Chinese-Indian free-market, so something like 2,5 billion people. There is the french summary of this talk:

  • 12 avril, New Delhi : un accord Sino-Indien a été signé afin de définir les « grands principes » d'une réconciliation entre ces 2 pays. L'Inde et la Chine espèrent améliorer leurs relations afin de favoriser leurs échanges et leur développement. L'idée d'une immense zone de libre-échange a aussi été évoquée. Cela concernerait 2,5 milliards d'hommes.

that's the main international news in Wikipedia.fr, and it seem haven't any information there, on wikipedia.en Yug 11:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Current Events

I realized yesterday that there was no Australian Current Events page in the English-speaking wikipedia. Now there is. No Barn Star necessary. I just wanted everyone to know it's there and ready for editing. MPS 16:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drudge Report?

From the current version of the page:

The story, if true, is important. But is the Drudge Report really a reputable source for this page? I would argue not. -- Avaragado 09:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just pick one of the dozens of similar stories at news.google.com "North Korea" to replace it. Pcb21| Pete 11:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Laotian Rock Rat

The dating on the new rodent family, Laonastidae, is weird. The journal issue is considered December, 2004. The date that the journal was issued (and accessible to the public) is 18 April, 2005. So it is current. --Aranae 19:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Days of the week on current events

I propose a that from now on, the dates of current events be pegged to days of the week. for instance, "April 24" would be "April 24 (Sunday)." I got this idea from foreign current events sites. MPS 01:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't the UK general election in curent events??

Why is Expo 2005 in the current events list, but United Kingdom general election, 2005 (happening in 10 days, final campaigning underway) isn't??

It's in "Upcoming Elections", that's the only place it needs to be. --Golbez 13:50, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What the heck am i doing removing sources?

I was recently blasted for removing sources from this page in an attempt to reduce the page size. Here's what happened on my talk page:

[edit] What the heck are you doing?

What the heck are you doing to April 2005 Trevor? Month pages always have links to stop people adding in phoney unsourced stories. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't start doing something like that without putting something up on the talk page first to see if anyone has any objections. Average Earthman 12:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, ok, I guess I touched a nerve here. I thought I was doing right by paring down an oversized, bloated page. I suppose sources are good for verifying facts on a page but this is certainly not the standard. If you look to previous months, the further back you go the less individual items are sourced. Does that mean that everything on April 2003 should be removed as unproven hearsay? I don't think so. Does that mean that we need to go back and find external web pages that show that everything on April, 2005, 2000s, and 21st century is proven fact. No. The way wikipedia works is: people post whatever they want and the edits either stays or is changed/removed if someone finds a problem. I think the reason these month pages look the way they do is because they were original the Current events page, and people treat that page as a "Breaking news" repository. Thats what Wikinews is for!

Take these sourced events for example:

April 29

April 28

April 27

April 26

April 25

Five sourced items for the same event! And if you look at the souce it's 26 lines long (on my screen). I can barely read it if I want to edit it. I didn't even look into May 2005 but I bet there are more there.

Or how about this:

April 28

A lot of leader visit a lot of countries, why is this noteworthy?. Does the source say?

Or:

April 26

Is this the first time this has happened? The last? Did the outside world even notice?

April 22

Rumors abound? This is a fact is it. Well, rumors abound that this page is way too big and it needs a reduction.

My proposal:

1. Remove sources from the page (after it is no longer the current events page, I'll leave you news junkies that much).

2. Remove multiple enteries from the page. The event is notable. The slow increase in casualty counts is not. Put the final count at the originating entry when its final, or update it accordingly.

Start with this and the page may get down to a reasonable size (135 KBs! Come on!).


Right. Now discuss.

Trevor macinnis 14:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion from Parker Whittle

Can you show some edits where other editors have been paring down current event pages once they are moved to the page for a given month? If it's not the conventional practice, I would argue that you should achieve consensus beforehand. I think your best case is the Amagasaki rail crash stories, but if another editor really wants to see all the versions there, I don't see that it should be a showstopper. Parker Whittle 19:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article format

As of 2006-04-12, the article has a completely different format to all the other months. Unless someone can explain why this should be so, I'll revert it back to the standard format. However I don't want to start an edit/revert war, so I'll leave it a few days first. -- SGBailey 23:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Several Aprils and Augusts have this format - I'm not sure why either. — sjorford++ 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 25 April and 26 April

The entries about 25 April and 26 April are identical so there must have gone something wrong. Could someone check out the right version and fix it? --Proofreader 16:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/p/r/Talk%7EApril_2005_cdea.html"