Talk:Current events/Too much analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

too much analysis

Entries in this Current Events page are becoming too cumbersome. Please leave out detailed analysis - such analysis should appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Please limit your entries to one or two sentences. Kingturtle 04:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I started chopping the Nader story down and people went and added stuff back (it's been really trimmed now). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I made this suggestion on the Talk page of User:Mateo SA, and User:Kevin baas replied on that page that such a belief does not represent Wikipedia consensus. OK, let's discuss that here, then. What is the consensus of the community concerning the use of the Current events page? My understanding was that it was a place to add maybe two or three sentences, which linked to Wikipedia articles in which more information could be included (where appropriate), and an off-site link to a news article with all the details. On the article about the mother of the dead soldier from Iraq being arrested for her protest at a Laura Bush rally, do we really need two extra sentences in which a third person, not directly involved in the dispute, talks about how she's trained to deal with protesters? I think the use of excessive prose on Current events is an attempt at an end-around to include POV. RickK 18:22, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say that I've been misrepresented by RickK: I said they do not necessarily represent the consensus. Now that that correction is out of the way... I think that we should not have more than a brief paragraph. We should write just enough to give the reader an accurate and neutral view. The amount of text necessary to do this varies depending on the complexity and intensity of the issue, but I don't think we would ever need more than a brief paragraph. For example, in the Laura Bush rally issue cited above by RickK, we do need the fact that she bought a ticket. The first impression is important, it's quintessential that it be neutral and contain information that is critical. Kevin Baas | talk 18:33, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Why is the fact that the lady bought the ticket worth including in our article, when it can be found in the article that's linked to? Please note: My politics has nothing to do with my concerns about this article. And others. RickK 19:25, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

As formerly mentioned: first impression. Without it being mentioned, people will form the opinion (prejudice) that she was trespassing; that she did not buy a ticket. With it being mentioned, people will know that she did buy a ticket and therefore was not trespassing, and furthermore that she was wrongfully arrested. That's a pretty big difference. That's what I meant when I said "information that is critical". Kevin Baas | talk 19:35, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of having a Current Events section is to provide a convenient set of links to topics and persons in the news, in order for users to gain background and context to the news. Note that this is not the same as trying to report or analyze the news itself. We have looked silly in the past trying to report "breaking news" on the main page (for example back in April and the Ryongchon disaster); professional news sources (of which there are many on the web) utilize extensive fact-checking, vetting, and weasel words when reporting on breaking events, for good reason. The collaborative approach that works well for reference material is simply unsuitable for news reporting, IMO. Given this, I'd prefer to see the Current Events section be as unadorned a list of links as possible. Jgm 18:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this; simply say what happened, with as many internal links and a few external links (but for pete's sake, one or two is sufficient - at one point the Nader story had five links!). No extra details that should go in an article, and no minor news stories like that rally one. Sorry, but I don't really see why it was no CE to begin with. --Golbez 21:09, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez's above statement. Kevin Baas | talk 00:53, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Regarding external links, would it be worth just linking to a Google News search on the topic? That way the use gets a range of articles, constantly updated, and from different POV. -- Chuq 01:59, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think there should be two or three new sources (one is too susceptible to POV and incompleteness, four is too many), and then a google search link sounds like a good idea. But I don't thing the link should replace the direct news links. Kevin Baas | talk 13:51, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)