Talk:August 2003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Hitler's penis

It's not like we're wasting paper here, and someone offering Hitler's penis for sale seems newsworthy to me. There are actually sources of DNA that can be used to confirm (or probably more likely, disprove) that an accurate identification has occurred. -- Someone else 10:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but this does not come from a reputable source. Ananova (itself known for republishing bogus stories) cites the Express daily, which is a medium circulation German tabloid. These tabloids are known for completely inventing stories. Without independent confirmation I think this should be removed.—Eloquence 10:34, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
Yes, evidently you do. Well, if the story offends you, so be it. -- Someone else 10:45, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Super-long entries

That Michael Johnston entry is so long and stands out so much that it should have its own article. --Menchi 03:49, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Go for it. I'm currently working on ex-gay.—Eloquence 03:53, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
Did the move and tiny articlizing. But somebody else with knowledge on his history (his-his!) can better that article. --Menchi 04:04, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
well done, all of you! --Ruhrjung 07:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] The disapproval of newsworthiness

Is "expressing disapproval" really newsworthy? RickK 07:32, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes, when a governmental body does it, especially in an international dispute. It's diplomatic for "You suck".—Eloquence 07:36, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorism?

Is the incidence where two kids got killed near Pec newsworthy? It seems a bit long to me, and I don't think that terrorism (more like civil war) is the right headline. -- till we *) 13:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] List of section titles

If the sections are going to become a permanent feature, we should agree on which sections to use. The following list contains top-level sections, and examples for each of them. The examples themselves are also in the form of section titles -- I'll leave it open for now whether we should use generic or specialized section titles. Let's just come up with a well structured list:

  • Events
    • Terrorism
    • Conflicts
    • Disaster
    • Climate events
    • ...
  • Politics
    • Election
    • Political scandal
    • Political meeting
    • ...
  • Law and Crime
    • Legal proposal
    • Court case
    • Lawsuit
    • ...
  • Business
    • Business scandal
    • Company failure
    • Mergers and acquisitions
    • IPO
    • ...
  • Science
    • Medicine
    • Astronomy
    • Computer science
    • ...
  • Culture
    • Religion
    • Music
    • History
    • Internet
    • ...

Please edit this list.—Eloquence 03:20, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)

I like the idea, but what happens if something fits into more than one list? Where is it put then? Fr example, former Irish Prime Minister is being investigated for financial 'irregularities' by a Tribunal of Inquiry under a judge, set up by an Act of Parliament. Should the Moriarty Tribunal be under Politics or Law and Crime? FearÉIREANN 03:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I like it too the idea ... as jtdir's Q, sound like the main point is the curruption ... it's political [2 features) and one criminal ... but the story sounda like would be about the criminal endeavors ...
Also ... could this list be place somewhere where it's accessible easier? ... and, for what it's worth which isn't much, I'd just categorize things on heavy days ... reddi 04:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The complicating factor is that though presided over by a judge and most people think of it as being a judicial inquiry, it is technically a parliamentary inquiry presided over by a judge. Plus while many of the central issues are legal, the reaction of people focuses on Haughey the politician. My gut feeling is that for the above reasons it belongs under politics. But the danger is we could have relocation wars, as people say 'x' should be in this category, not that one. (eg, re Israel: some people describe violent acts by Palestinians as political murder, others as political murder (ie, giving different emphasis to its political or criminal aspect. Could this provoke categorisation rows between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli users?) And users moving lines and fighting over categories. Much as though I like the heading idea, I can't help wondering if the longterm effect could be more disputes over location of stories. FearÉIREANN 04:33, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Then mabey a NPOV label like conflicts would be good (atleast for you palestinian - isreali thing)? mabey not .... I'll add it to the events items. Are there more anymore NPOV labels?
As to your hypothetical Q .... Politics would be good too [as I said, it has 2 politics to one crime element) ... reddi 04:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
If certain event is particularly difficult to categorize, we can combine the subheading and use "Politics/Crime". --Menchi 04:55, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
Isn't Politics and Crime the same thing? =-D
How about a special category bloody alkward things to categorise!!! :-) FearÉIREANN 04:59, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would advice against the headlines in this particular case. Not only do I think that the same information better fit as a first word of the notice, followed by a colon, when there is a use for it, I do also find (and this is of course a matter of taste) it harder to read when there are headings for 1/ date, 2/ kind of notice and then 3/ bullets. Then of course, the concerns raised above about categorization are fully valid.
--Ruhrjung 15:46, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Categorization subheads might be a good idea if we routinely had a dozen or more entries per day, but as it is now they serve no useful purpose. Mkweise 23:20, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How add that deleting the stilly headlines without disucssion is somehow in violation of Wikietiquette, but putting them in without discussion isn't. Anyway, the reason I deleted them is because they're excessive. How many items do we get in a day, three or four? How large do you think the Table of Contents is going to get into just two or three days? And as you can see from the above, there's no agreement as to what to call headings. And what purpose do they serve at all? That hasn't been addressed. RickK 23:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is certainly rude to ignore an ongoing discussion and to force your own opinion instead; even worse so, in the form of a minor edit without an edit comment. The idea, which would have become clear if you had not hastily removed the categories, was to make those entries which are very long readable. Others added section titles for days with only 2 or 3 news items as well, this may fairly be considered too much. But if you look at the page, you have days with seven or more items, and these are simply not readable -- any usability expert will tell you that at this length, you will need additional structuring elements for the information to be in a digestible format, especially when the news are about very different subjects. As for the TOC -- there is none. It is disabled for this page using the __NOTOC__ tag.
I propose that entries with 6 or more items will be structured using headlines (with the categories initially being the one proposed above), and entries with less headlines than that will not. This should be a reasonable compromise.—Eloquence 15:35, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with your intention, but not with your proposed realization.

I would instead propose that a classification according to your above proposed categories is made "mandatory" (in the sence that its usage is not dependent on number of entries per day) but that the classification is annoted:

  • after the bullet
  • emphasized by three apostophes
  • followed by a colon.

I agree very much that usability à la http://www.useit.com/ must be given increased attention and observance, and I agree that Current events probably is one very good place to start to set a good standard, but given the organic way this page grows (and given the way I use it, i.e. by several checks per day) I just think the categorization through headlines will make the appearance too messy (as shown the last days), and based on my personal experience it would make fewer people view the page without the intention to add a particular event.

--Ruhrjung 18:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have considered your classification style, but the problem I have with it is that it's not very easy to scan by category. The classification looks just too much like any other link. Furthermore, by not having spaces and subheadings between the events, you get a very cluttered page when you have lots of news items for the day. Whitespace is considered very useful in good design to make sure the eye can separate different semantic blocks on a page. With long paragraphs that are stacked upon each other without space between them, this becomes difficult.
I think your criticism of the alternative, that the page was "messy" in the last few days, is flawed, because we added different types of headlines all over the place even if they were not necessary. I think we should give each proposal a chance (for a week or so) and wait how it works out. Fair? —Eloquence 19:40, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

Please note that white space can be added by blank lines too. You don't neccessarily have to insert headings.

It's obvious that your wish to scan by category and my wish to see instantly what is new since my last peek are conflicting.

No, I don't think my main criticism is that the page was "messy" - rather that it can be foreseen to lead to a diminished interest for the page in that aspect of it which I myself used the most, i.e. as a sort of equivalent to http://news.google.com/ (due to a prognosticised messiness) which in turn might get the consequence that fewer wikipedians consider to contribute to the page. Also the rules for when and how to add headings might discourage some wikipedians.

But I don't really know if that is good or bad. Actually, a too broad selection of contributors might make the contributions more diverse and stylistically less coherent, and in some respects complicate the perception of the page. ;->>

Anyway, I've aired my opinion, contributed with a suggestion. What more can I demand? That you should follow me too? That would be too presumtuous! :-)
--Ruhrjung 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)


I second Ruhrjungs proposal of using emphasizing for the categorizes instead of headlines. I think current event entries should be short and prezise, and I dislike headlines for two or at last three sentences. -- till we *) 10:52, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Canadians

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appoints Hermenegilde Chiasson lieutenant governor of New Brunswick.

Am I the one one who thinks Wiki' has a tendency to be a bit Canadian-centric? (there are a LOT of us here, aren't there ;)
I can understand a new GG being important news, but a new LG is barely of provincial importance, let alone national or international. Maybe country-specific news pages might be a good idea? -- stewacide 10:32, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Oh well, I guess it's up to other countries to match our inability to see which news is international, and let them add "So-and-on is the new head of So-and-So Town". :o) --Menchi 18:10, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Casualty/injury #

For major accidents and terrorist activities (even if they're no where as big as 9-11), the casualty/injury report with accurate # doesn't come in days...weeks later.

  1. So, when they do days later, do we go back to the original entry and add #?
  2. How about other updates about the situation? How it's getting better and worse and what happens to the culprit (that are alone relatively inconsequential or meaningless), where do we put them?

--Menchi 18:10, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Should we add to this page dead people who died naturally or diseased (thereby stirring up no other response than mourning sadness (unlike murders)? Because there's already a part on the Main Page dedicated to them, and also an entirely separate page: Recent deaths. --Menchi 17:24 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Fugitive Texas democrats

  • Fugitive Texas Democrats, having fled Texas (violating the Texas Constitution according to Republican Texas Senate leaders) to avoid a legislative quorum which would enable voting redistricting, are being helped by internet group MoveOn.org. The Texas Constitution says lawmakers can compel attendance "under such penalties as each house may provide." [1] [2] [3]
This was news on the day they fled, but is the fact that some web site is requesting donations for them really newsworthy? Seems more like an ad than "real news". Mkweise 07:01, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Reuters is covering it .... and yahoo has it as thier top item right note in thier "Technology - Reuters Internet Report" ... pretty newsworthy to those 2 scources ... (aslo Washington Post is carrying it) reddi 07:09, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
BTW, this is as newsworthy as say the circus of the California recall is. It's all political news.

Current events shouldn't include things that haven't happened yet. Thispagemade me check the date on the calendar. I'm removing the thing about mars. Put it back on that date. Mintguy 07:06, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Some other editor changed the original line "Astronomy: Mars is coming close to Earth. [4]" ... that news was reported the day it was listed. (atleast the day I saw it 1st; .au is 1 day ahead of me sometimes) reddi 07:24, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The upcoming mars proximity has been in the news for at least 6 months, but the night of its closest proximity will be Aug 27. Mkweise 14:33, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Removed story

I've removed the following story from the section for the 28th of August:

  • Microsoft uses Linux-based network after recent cracker attacks. [5]

... for two reasons: firstly, the attack that the switch was to avoid was to start on the 16th, and the switch occurred the day beforehand (and was widely reported then), so this doesn't belong on the 28th of August, and, secondly, that it's not really ground-breaking that a large website (Microsoft's Windows Update) switched to a ultra-scaleable hosting company (Akami), nor that such companies use Linux.

James F. 15:41, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Bombings

Why is the neologism of suicide bombing in preferences to Homicide bombing? Both are coined terms to describe the act ... and, when I attemted to NPOV it, simply by puttin in bombing, I was called a vandal by Wik? [which wik as done before erroneously, over a pervious attempt to state correct facts (ala. the homicide bombing in jerusalem a bit ago)] ... these are links to the history of both words ...

homicide bombing
suicide bomber
  • The reason "homicide bombing" is idiotic is not because it's a neologism. There's nothing wrong with neologisms. There's something wrong with propaganda terms. By changing "suicide bombing" to "homicide bombing" (or just "bombing") you're removing relevant information, which is typical vandalism. --Wik 17:23, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)
By using the term homicide bombing you are giving more information ... unlike the "suicide" [which leaves out the victims of the act]. Look up the terms in the above links. "Suicide bombing" is as propagandaistic as homicide bombing (giving the bomber a level of status that he/she niether deserves nor warrants). And as to removing relevant information, which is typical vandalism, you are removing the information that the bomber is killing other people (so could that mean that you are a vandal wik?). reddi 17:32, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The homicide part is evident from the word bombing and from the context. "Homicide bombing" is redundant. And I don't see what "undeserved status" is given to the bomber by the factual statement that he killed himself in the act. --Wik 17:53, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)
The homicide part is not evident from the word bombing. Bombing can imply that no one got hurt. "Homicide bombing" is redundant IYO, YMMV. Homicide bombing" can impart his/her death from the context, also. Don't see what "undeserved status"? Mabey that's half the problem ... the "factual statement" is similiar to the "suicide burning" of the monks that killed themselves in protests of vietnam ... Homicide bombing is as much as a factual statement reddi

The reason it is better for us to use "suicide bomber" than "homicide bomber" has little to do with perceived merits or otherwise of the terms, per se - it's just that "suicide bomber" is used far more commonly by people in general (compare Google search results for each). Not everybody is going to know what a "homicide bomber" is, whereas everybody will know what a "suicide bomber" is, even if they personally would use some other term (personally, I'd never heard of the phrase "homicide bomber/ing" before I came to the Wikipedia). "Bombing" alone gets round the whole problem, but lacks precision. --Camembert

"Bomber" (3,510,000)is used far more commonly by people in general than either "homicide bomber" (3,290) or "suicide bomber" (180,000), should we use that instead? and as to the everybody know what "homicide bomber", "suicide bomber", or "bomber" isn't that why there is a wikilink? reddi 17:53, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A bomber is an airplane. - Hephaestos 17:56, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
well that probably needs a disambigious part added to it ... reddi
"Suicide bombing" was created because on the contrary of what append for centuries (at least in Greek-judeo-roman-christian-muslim world) the attacker planed to die in the attack. In fact suicide is even the very key part of the plan.
  • First point: It's a new war tactics. A new concept. A neologism is needed. (Previous exemples: guerilla, blitzkrieg...)
  • Second and very important point: By committing suicide, the attacker breaks centuries-old traditions. The attack is against the Greek-judeo-roman-christian-muslim civilisation! (May be why "kamikaze" wasn't reused...) Therefore "suicide bombing".
Do a google search for "bombing" and "suicide bombing" and you'll have confirmation that "suicide bombing" is more informative.
Look for "bombing" in WWII. No need for "homicide". Bombing and especially "suicide bombing" is about killing people, everybody got it.
"Suicide bombing" is prefered to "homicide bombing" because it's older and widely used: "about 181,000" google hits to "about 3,300".
Redefining vocabulary is not NPOV. It is not information. It a well-known propaganda strategy. It is vandalism.
--Ann O'nyme 19:26, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
prefered because it's older? Should alchemy be used instead of chemistry then? p[robably not ... and widely used? sure is ... but it's less informative and less accurate (see definitions; wordspy links have them).
Redefining vocabulary? Check a dictionary ... they are defining it.
It is move informative (conveying the killing of others that the original one leaves out). Well-known propaganda strategy? I guess word spy and many other dictionaries are in on the strategy. Vandalism is using the correct definitions? hmmm that's odd ... reddi 20:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Homocide bombing is a nonsensical term. Apart from anything else, homocide is a term largely associated with the US and rarely used outside it. Suicide bombing is the correct and universally understood term. FearÉIREANN 19:52, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Homocide bombing is a nonsensical term as much as Suicide bombing. Suicide bombing is the correct and universally understood term? you tell that to those that call this a Martyrdom operation. Also, I gues the dictionaries are all wrong ... reddi 20:03, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vandalism is where one user removes a universally understood term and replaces it with their own made up term, simply because they don't like using the universally understood term. It is called suicide bombing and that is the term internationally used. Wiki policy is to use the most widely understood term. Suicide bombing is a clear and precise term; it means the deliberate bombing of a group of people by a bomber who himself knowingly opts, often amid religious concepts of 'martyrdom', to include himself among the fatalities. Bombing simply means placing a bomb to kill others, with the bomber excluding himself from the carnage. Bombing is also a psychological game, with 'tip offs' to avoid casualities but which is intended to cause terror and fear, as well as environmental destruction; users of that 'technique' include ETA, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, etc. Suicide bombing' is about the deliberate and intentional killing, never psychological games involving tip offs. And because the bomber is willing to die in the process, it requires a fundamentally different police and army response. So the correct term mis suicide bombing on wiki and nothing else. FearÉIREANN 20:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Discussion continues into September)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/g/Talk%7EAugust_2003_7308.html"