Talk:Current events/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Calendar on the top right

Is the calendar on the top right in Current events supposed to be clickable ? Ditto for August 2004. -- PFHLai 04:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

They are, but only for those days which have news stories. -- Arwel 11:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nothing happens when I click on any of the dates, including those in August. I might have typed in the wrong codes for Sep. 1st & 2nd. Or is my browser acting up ? -- PFHLai 08:49, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
Just found out that it only works when I am not logged in. Rather odd and annoying... :-( -- PFHLai 04:34, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Categorization

Hello Current Events people! (I seldom edit this). I think we need to categorize a lot of the events that happen during the year. I know that we already do this (Category:2004 in sports etc), but we are perhaps not doing it consequently. I've created the category Category:Conflicts in 2004 and I wonder what you think of this. I want Category:2004 to cover "What happened in 2004?". Without conflicts and stuff like that, it lacks major parts. Other missing things seem to be the US Presidential campaign, which I can't find from the 2004 category. Thus we might need Category:2004 in politics etc. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RSS feed

What will it take to have a web feed for the current events page or for the wikipedia home page?

Lot of people use RSS to stay updated with the latest news. The latest version of Firefox has enhanced support for syndication! Sridev 20:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A RSS feed would be great! Maybe someone can host it on a mirror as it would substanstially increase traffic if it were hosted on wikipedia. -- Dejitarob 00:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It would be difficult to keep the feed updated, since everyone is constantly updating the news articles when events come up, you'd have to set up some kind of staggered update (once a day, or maybe even once every 12 hours) Ambush Commander 02:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sports policy?

I realize there is a Current sports events page, but not everyone is a sport nut and would be going there. Does anything qualify as important enough a sports event to be listed on main Current Events?

e.g., the 2004 World Cup of Hockey final is Ice Hockey's biggest story of the year, excepting perhaps the Stanley Cup final. Is two lines on CE too much?

Radagast 03:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think that some sports events deserve to be listed here, and so do some others, but generally speaking they tend to be removed with the comment "Don't you know that current sports events exists?" or similar. Opponents argue that the current events page would be "flooded" with sports events if we even so much as whisper the word "golf major". Positions are entrenched, so I've given up trying to argue the case. -- Avaragado 11:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I was overzealous in removing the World Cup story. For my part, I'll try to be more selective in the future. - Mateo SA 14:54, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Bias favoring rebel POV in Iraq

Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories slants the coverage even more in favor of the rebels than those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop.

Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction.

Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides.

The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.

The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.

News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wantonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that the US is wrong. Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument.

If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is more than one group of rebels, and more than one Viewpoint. Don't forget there are those who ant to stoke up a civil war, and those who want a union of three states who are actively fighting each other as well as anti-US and Collaberating Iraqi activists.
If the U.S kills dozens of civilians, the U.S kills dozens of civilians. Suggesting otherwise is maintaining a US POV. As it is, The cities of Fallujah, to name one, is not under U.S occupation. If local Doctors say they are treating Civilians their position is more believable because they are actually there. The U.S is not there, so for them to say absolutely that no Civilians were killed suggests they are in control of a God-Like omnipresence.
"US kills dozens of civilians" - just a simple statement like that alone is evidence of bias in favor of ignorance, and fully intended to provoke anti-US feelings. I don't know what incident you are referring to, but most likely there are very good reasons why those "civilians" were killed, intentionally or not. I am not saying that civilian casualties are good or acceptable, but that sometime they are not practically avoidable, especially when they are civilians in material support of the enemy. In fact, most of the insurgents would properly be classified as civilian, making it inevitable that enemy fighters, and families they may be residing with, be counted as "civilian casualties" by liberal media.
To intentionally kill civilians deemed "in material support of the enemy" is still illegal under international law. If the rebels were to kill the wives and children of US troups it would not be excused because they were "in material support" of their husbands and fathers. Seabhcan 12:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The troops fighting on behalf of the United States *do not* *intentionally* kill innocent civilians (starkly contrasting the rebels they fight). Such action is not and should not be tolerated. When you are fighting a war, however, against a civilian enemy, civilian deaths cannot be avoided. In a combat situation, an American soldier makes every attempt to prevent innocent casualty, but a soldier cannot knock on the door of a house and ask who is innocent while enemy combatants shoot at him from inside. It must be cozy for you to sit comfortably where you are and tap at your computer accusing the US of international war crimes while generally smart & moral people are doing their best to prevent wrong-doing from occurring. Since, the prevention of wrong-doing is, ultimately, the reason for the war in the first place.
While you attack the credibility of the United States, car bombs, roadside bombs, RPG and missile attacks are killing innocent civilians, many of which are not affiliated with either the US or rebel combatants. Certainly, their deaths must be considered violations of international human rights standards. Or should the criminal status of these thugs be ignored because they are affiliated with no nation beyond that of Islam, or their local clan? These militants indiscrimately kill, while the US kills to prevent such murders. Why do you empathize with murderers, while casting criminal status upon the US? Clearly, your position is not consistent with reality, nor is it consistent with the intent of the international law which you obliquely cited.
As for the soldiers families: if they had brought their wives and children along with them on their missions then, yes they would be "excused" as casualties, because they would have brought themselves into the line of fire. Just as militants in Iraq have brought their own families into the line of fire using their homes and mosques as origins of attack.
Amusing...someone with obvious POV crying because the article have a POV.

Anti-Israeli bias

The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:

Two Palestinians are killed by Israeli troops returning fire after an Israeli soldier was killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. The troops have been engaged in that part of the northern Gaza Strip since yesterday, September 29.
  1. It downplays the killing of the Israeli soldier
  2. It does not clarify whether the "Palestinians" who were killed, were armed (although "returned fire" implies this)
  3. It seems designed to give the impression that Israel is conducting a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter.

If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include a comment attributed to that source, like:

  • "This is another example of Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of freedom-loving Palestinians. Those hypocrites say they love democracy, but they don't even respect elementary human rights," said Mustapha al Fahda, leader of the Alliance for Palestinian Democracy.

I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired the first shot, like this:

  • An Israeli soldier is killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops returned fire, killing two Palestinians.

Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try hard to avoid letting bias creep in. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you are returning Fire, it surely means the fire was Coming in both directions. Ireally don't see how it downplays the death of the soldier, perhaps you can further Ellaborate, and it most certainly does not give any impression of Wholescale slaughter. TWO. Not two hundred, not two million.. TWO. How on earth could anyone come to the conclusion that was " a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter."?
The Palestinians did not shoot first. The observation post was in the Northern Gaza Strip. how do you think it got there? Did they magicly appear? Get real!

Are you saying the story is okay because "returned fire" clearly says that the Israeli observation post was attacked first? Or are you saying that the story is okay because it (correctly) gives the impression that the observation post fired the first shot?

Or are you really saying that you want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that Israel is an "aggressor", so that every attack by Palestinian Arabs on Israel soldiers is a "response" (i.e., justified in self-defense) while every atttack by Israli soldiers on Palestinian Arabs (armed or unarmed) is "bad"?

If so, please recall that NPOV forbids the Wikipedia to endorse or reject any controversial view. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Israelis forced their way in, two palestinians (Amoung many) Shot the invading israelis, they were klled but not before killing one Soldier. Thats how it happened, thats not a POV.

The authoritative Lancet medical publication said that more than 100.000 Iraqi were killed, among which half are children and women. How do you categorize this fact??

The line above this was unsigned. Unsigned one: The Lancet "research" was poorly done. See discussion at the bottom.--Silverback 18:01, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, why is this statement in the section on "Anti-Israeli bias"? Mateo SA | talk 18:20, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


How's this for phrasing it without bias (without my knowing anything other than what is posted above):

"Two Palestinians and an Israeli soldier were killed in a firefight near an Israeli observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops have been engaged in in that part of th Gaza strip since September 29."

    1. It takes no sides, it gives the same information, and by using the word "firefight" rather than "returning fire" it doesn't tryo to sort out who started what -- as this is obviously not an isolated incident, these things happen everyday and may be retaliation for a previous incident by either side. --EDR

Not News

Ok, Could someone kindly define 'News'. Apparently the news Networks are completely wrong in their Definitions! The Lead story on Google's news is The reaction to the US debates, but apparently thats not worthy of Wikipedia, and the BBC is leading with Spain approves gay marriage bill, but likewise, apparently, thats not newsworthy enough for Wikipedia either. So what is te definition of News for Wikipedia, because from what I've read both stories are newsworthy.. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm confused; we have both things listed in Current Events, and one of those in In the News. What do you think News is? --Golbez 15:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I deleted those two stories from Current events, saying that they are not "news" (see page history for my exact comments), and the anonymous poster (who is, apparently, 195.7.55.146) restored them. He/she is referring to the Current events page. Mateo SA | talk 16:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ongoing events that lose relevance

This is a two part question:

  • What are the criteria for "ongoing events" to be deleted from the current events page? The Ryanggang explosion is old news, but North Korea's nuke program is an ongoing issue that keeps the explosion "sort of" ongoing but not really. The "do it however you want to" standard seems arbitrary somehow. I'm looking for heuristic, not a hard and fast rule.
  • I don't know if this has been addressed because there are too many F$%^ing archives. What are the rationale for labeling archives as Archive 1... Archive 2? Is the system of labeling archives really the most intuitive? MPS
I think the rationale is that the archives are simply dumps of the page as of a certain date. Apparently, except for a couple of topics, no one has organized those archives by subject. Mateo SA | talk 20:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Going through the Current Events archives and making a version sorted by subject would be quite the daunting (and subjective) task, useful though it would be. Anybody have a couple of weeks they want to spend doing that and defending how they did it? Lord Bob 02:25, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Flu vaccine

The vaccine crisis needs to be listed here, but I think that article needs a lot more detail before we do so. I'm interested in opinions. Pakaran. 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida

The article for Jacques Derrida mentions October 8 as his time of death, while it is October 9 on this page. Which is correct? roozbeh 22:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to News 24-South Africa[1], October 8. (This was the first story I could find that actually listed the specific day he died.) Mateo SA | talk 23:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ordering on the right

I've reversed the order of the "Upcoming elections" section on the right. Now all dated sections are ordered such that the first item is nearest to today. This matches the approach taken on current sports events, and seems more natural to me overall. -- Avaragado 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And I've just been reverted. Ah, splendid. Does anyone else think it's dumb to have to look at the bottom of the list to see which election is next? -- Avaragado 22:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Everything else on the page is listed in reverse chronological order. It seems more natural to me for the list to match that order. — Mateo SA | talk 23:02, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
I knew that would be the explanation, but I don't buy it. Here's the thing. I've been on holiday for a week, away from Wikipedia. On my return I looked at current events to catch up, and was surprised to see upcoming elections shown back-to-front. I honestly thought it was a recent innovation, and wrong. Looking at the history I saw it wasn't recent, but I was still sure it was wrong, so I changed it. Consistency is not always a good enough reason for something. The other lists deal with events that have already happened, and this one deals with events that haven't already happened. That distinction is a big one. As far as my brain works, and I suspect most people's, all ordering pivots around today. Last week is more recent than last month, so last week is "higher" in my mind. Next week is earlier than next month, so next week is "higher" in my mind. I think the lists should reflect that. Be consistent with the brain :-) -- Avaragado 07:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Avaragado. It looks dumb the way it is. - Mark 08:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, Avaragado is completely right!
O.K., I've switched it back to nearest-item-on-top order. — Mateo SA | talk 17:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I've always thought nearest item on bottom was better, but I guess I'm in the minority here.


Formatting bug?

I'm getting a weird formatting problem - square brackets are being replaced by spaces, breaking wikilinks. Is anyone else experiencing this? -- ChrisO 12:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nope -- Dejitarob 00:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ramadan

Why isn't the beginning of Ramadan worthy of a Current events piece? It made news in every Major News Organisation, Surely it's worth of line here.

Ramadan is listed in Ongoing Events; it is also mentioned in two stories on October 14. The beginning of an annual religious holiday is not news; singular events related to that holiday are. If Ramadan is a current event, why weren't Easter, Christmas, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur? — Mateo SA | talk 15:30, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why they shouldn't be. Add them if it makes you happy. How did you know when Ramadan ends? No Muslims I know can put such an exact date on it.

Not news

Cut from article:

    • U.S. war planes strike a house in Fallujah, reportedly killing a family of six, including four children. The U.S. military, however, denies a family was killed and issues a statement saying that "intelligence sources indicate a known Zarqawi propagandist is passing false reports to the media". (Reuters)

Article says that the strike happened. But this is just one POV, even if Reuters is being honest.

The news is not that the event DID happen, but that someone CLAIMED it happened. Wikipedia should not pass on disputed reports uncritically.

This news blurb should neither side with the US (which said no strike occurred) nor with the other source (which said a strike occurred).

Let's revise this capsule story so that it is NEUTRAL. I leave this as an exercise for the student. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The US didn't claim that a strike didn't happen, rather that the house was used by militants and the death of the family was propaganda. It's not exactly clear in that article, but it is in this Reuters article where it says "The U.S. military denied a family of six was killed, saying it launched four strikes against safehouses used by Zarqawi's fighters." So I would say the article is correct in claiming a strike happened, one said (witnesses and Reuters) claimed a family of 6 died, while another side (US military) said the death of the family was propaganda. - Dejitarob 19:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Linking to stubs?

How do people feel about linking to stubs from Current Events? -- ChrisO 16:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it since it would most likely encourage an expansion of the article. What I think needs discussion is the linking to articles with disputed neutrality. - Dejitarob 19:06, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe that some information is better than no information, so stubs are fine with me. Also, stubs linked on Current Events sometimes spur updates. Lord Bob 02:07, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

News, Wikinews poll

See the proposal at m:Wikinews, the discussion at m:Talk:Wikinews, and the vote on the proposal page. +sj+ 09:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Miniature logos?

Perhaps a quick visual cue indicating the source: (fair use images removed) --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk 15px|]] 02:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • It's not a bad idea, but I'm not sure the cool factor is worth the bandwidth load, which, though negligible, might add up for all the people who access CE several times each day. Lord Bob 03:04, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)


  • Some need work; sharpen them up, snip them a bit (Only need AP, not the whole name, and I wager we only need one NBC or BBC logo), but I like the idea. --Golbez 03:05, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • Will do in a few days, forgot the CNN and FOX logo though, though I really don't see a use for the Fox logo:

--[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk 03:17, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Did I miss any other than Newsday, The Wall Street journal, The Times of India, USA Today, new york daily news, new york post, boston herald, los angeles times, and the washington post ? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_buildtalk ]] 03:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Guardian, CBC, and ABC get quoted quite frequently. -- Arwel 10:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good idea. Haaretz gets cited often too. - Dejitarobtalk
I disagree with the miniature logos. They would only distract the reader, waste bandwidth and slow the download of the page. The way it is now is better. Bogdan | Talk 20:03, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the idea, but if you insist on doing it, then please at least give the logos sensible alt text. Stuff like alt="Image:The_Independent.jpg" looks really ugly. —AlanBarrett 20:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I join in the objections to the miniature logos for the same reasons given by Bogdan. They make the page look ugly, too. Sekicho 21:46, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

      • support

        objection

        cool factor

        slow down factor

        easy sources

        ugly

        unique from other sites

        non-matching

        extendable to other items, like national flags

        there are a very large number of news companies covered, so that's a large number of sources, so a lot of logos to keep track of

         

        logos don't link to article/source/page- they link to the image page

         

        wikipedia is not a news site

         

        copywrite issues

         

        its like the google minipicture but in reverse
"logos don't link to article/source/page- they link to the image page"
We have a winner. That's a major reason for not supporting these, because it would be entirely counterintuitive. Why have an image if it has to be followed by a link? "BBC (link)"? (if BBC is an image in that) If we could have the image go directly to the news article, that would definitely be better. Also, the copyright issues are important, but I think fair use applies, as does the fact that ... can't one use the logo of a site one's linking to as the symbol for that link? :P --Golbez 20:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Taking quotations out of context and source

A post about the October 29, 2004 Lancet report which estimated civilian casaulties in Iraq at 100,000 contained quotes which were not from the actual report or linked article.

The Lancet, British medical journal, says that the "political and military failure" of what it terms "democratic imperialism" has astronomicaly increased the civilian death rate in Iraq.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the study, it used a small sample although random. However, besides the quotations not being in the actual study or linked article, they were taken out of context. A seperate commentary publication by the editor stated "democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer." If the study comes to conclusions that are much higher than other unofficial estimates, say so. But I think that taking quotes out of context violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states all sides of a dispute should be represented fairly. - Dejitarob 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and I thought there was something fishy there. I almost guessed that the political comments were from a separate article, but I didn't take the time to check. Good catch. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I can't believe the Lancet published this, poorly done research with obvious political bias in the conclusions. The rediculously high confidence interval is purely mathamatical, based on assuming the statistics are good and doesn't even try to also include estimates of additional error from even the problems and assumptions noted in the article such as displacement, recall bias, etc. And then the article's authors had the hubris to make conclusions are the accuracy of "air attacks", without including any methodology for how they determined what were air attacks. Even experienced war correspondents have a difficult time knowing whether and explosion resulted from some munition fired from the air, from landfall of anti-aircraft shells or from errant motar attacks. It is embarrassing that the Lancet reviewed this for more than a month and didn't know better. It wanted to publish before the US election.--Silverback 20:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I too wish Wikimedia could better accommodate analysis and opinion. Maybe when/if Wikinews comes out. Go vote! - Dejitarob 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arafat illness

Half a mo' while I review the protetected page policy. I might have to undo all my chinges --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Administrators have the ability to "protect" pages such that they cannot be edited, or images so that they can not be overwritten, except by other administrators. This ability is only to be used in limited circumstances as protected pages are considered harmful.

Heck, looks like a gray area to me. Not bad enough to get me de-sysopped, but I guess I better 'unprotect' the current events page before I get into deeper trouble. Sorry, Al. Sorry, Knight. --user:Ed Poor (deep or sour) 15:44, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Antarctic Krill and Firefox launch

<< The journal Nature reports a decline in krill population in the Antarctic since the 1970s, including a reduction of 80% in one area. >>

Is this really all that newsworthy? The story isn't all that informative. Sure it's important to the global environment, but can't we just lump it in with other aspects of global warming? TimothyPilgrim 20:32, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it is not significant enough. Same as announcing product launches like Firefox. - Dejitarob 00:17, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I see your point but it is getting a relatively large amount of press and Firefox is a pretty big supporter of this site (links to it are built into the browser and search feature) and it would be nice just to see a tiny bit of recognition. Nrbelex
Certainly more important than a VP's shortness of breath (hardly surprising given the man's medical hx). Just imagine Wikipedia reporting on another Western nation's deputy leader having SOB. A-giau 11:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iraq stories NPOV once again

Please correct me if I am wrong. If one side is reporting something doesn't the NPOV policy mean that the party and the claim needs to be written as such? I am specifically referring to:

Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing medical staff and patients. A 9 year old boy died because of lack of medical assistance after he was hit by shrapnel in what the parents thought was a seperate airstrike [2]... Iraqi and US forces captured a mosque in Northwest Falluja that was being used as an arms depot [3]

Before it was reverted, I changed this to: Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing staff and patients, and in a seperate airstrike, a 9 year old boy... Iraqi and U.S. forces capture a mosque in northwest Falluja which they say was used as an arms depot and insurgent meeting place.

There have been no confirmations that a boy was hit by a U.S. airstrike or that he even died, or a mosque was used as a insurgent stagging area. Information is extremely difficult to verify during conflict and therefore is usually only reported by one party, especially casaulties. Many times another party has even came out and denied reports, as with the U.S. saying an al-Zarqawi operative was reporting propaganda in Falluja.

How is reporting less information better? The information about the boy came from parents, and that is mentioned in my version. They don't claim he was hit by a bomb, but by shrapnel, during what they thought was an airstrike. Frankly, unless it is clear that the wound or damage was from a munition that only the US had, the civilians on the ground, victims or not are not qualified to say whether it was from motars, bombs, air defense munitions, etc. Even in the well trained professional US military, casualties from friendly fire occur, but this is often only known after an investigation by experts. The US military has a culture of investigating and admitting friendly fire incidents, because the lethality of its weapons have made that a significant source of casualties. The terrorist insurgents do not have such a culture and expertise, so are less credible. How often do they admit unintended casualties among those they consider friendlies or non-combantants. I am trying to produce a more balanced report of what was in the articles that are cited. There is a tendency to just single out the negatives towards the US when these articles are posted. The insurgents are fighting an unjust war, opposing democracy, elections and civil society, unauthorized by legitimate authority and they are compounding it by using unjust means, conscription, inaccurate and indescriminate munitions, underage recruits, etc.--Silverback 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Because reporting more information that favors a particular side is not better. His parents were claiming that he was hit by shrapnel, bled and died and the U.S. forces were claiming the mosque was an arms depot. Even if something was verified by another party (currently there is no formal process to investigate or count civilian deaths), the submission would need to say so also. I think the negative tendency stems from the large loss of human life in war, especially in the current guerrilla fighting where the line is blurred between civilians and hostiles. If you feel casualties takes up more coverage than it should, then start inserting other relevenant stories but please stick to the NPOV policy. Current events is not the place for excess biased analysis, it is here to simply report the events in a neutral point of view by citing claims and labeling them as such. - Dejitarob 17:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mentioning the boy was POV, especially since it was attributed to airstrikes as if it was US fault. While the news sources themselves appear biased in their reporting, I was glean even from these stories, that there were lots of ways to attribute fault. For instance, the shrapnel may have had a different origin than a US air launched munition, a large majority of people evacuated Falluja, so perhaps the parents are at fault, the boy bled to death, so perhaps the parents were unwilling to negotiate dangerous streets to save his life, most doctors had left so little medical assistance was available so perhaps it was the doctors fault, the insurgents failed to defend Falluja, or to make it an attractive place for doctors to stay, so perhaps it is their fault. Even if the post is correctly reporting what the parents or residents attributed the casualties to, if the post reports that attribution, it is legitimate to also report other details to balance that out. You did not just report that the casualties that the residents stated occurred, you also reported what they say the cause was, and this on a subject matter, where in many instances they really can't know what the cause was even if they were stating what they truly believe and not propogandizing. On the other hand if munitions are found in a mosque, much less expertise is needed to make that assessment, they are easily distinguishable from Koran for instance.--Silverback 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Olympic gold medalist arrested for traffic violation

[[4] WBAL Radio]

Michael Phelps was arrested for DUI.

This is hardly earth-shattering news -- how many thousands of other people world-wide have been stopped for drunk-driving in the last 24 hours? Arwel 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My rollback

Sorry about that. I'm tired and I clicked the wrong button when I was checking out vandalism :( my bad. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Current Event vs News Synopsis

There is a minor revert war going in between an anon's version:

Conflict in Iraq: US Troops in Falluja have launched new air strikes and artillery attacks against suspected rebel positions. It is still unknown how many civilians have been killed, however the US military officers say they believe civilian casualties are small because so many people fled the city before the assault began and are still refusing to allow aid workers in. (BBC)

and my version:

Conflict in Iraq: US Troops in Falluja have launched new air strikes and artillery attacks against suspected rebel positions. (BBC)

Let me make this clear: I will not challenge a further revert. I am doing this to ask a question: The latter simply describes the event. What the former does is describes the event, then synopsizes the BBC article. The civilian casualties, or possible lack thereof, does not seem to be a "Current event" and doesn't belong in that entry. It is there only because the BBC article mentions it.

What is the proper format for this? --Golbez 11:08, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

But that is part of the event, and part of the news story! I think this should stay. It's NPOV, because it only states currently known facts, sourced from the BBC article. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not really. Are we going to include "we dunno how many people killed" every time we reference the event? Or perhaps the whole war? What the entry does is not supply an update on a current event, it is attempting to synopsize the article, which isn't what we do, is it? --Golbez 11:13, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The Fact that Aid woirkers are not allowed in and the US troops are refusing to count the civilians leaves us in a position that we do not know the scale of the civilian Casualties. This is important and needs stating. THhe US position is stated, that there are barely any, but this is no way of independently confirming this, so it is stated as such.
Aid workers not being allowed in is not relevant to an air strike event, though. That's my whole point. It's included in the air strike event only because it's included in the BBC summary article. Find perhaps an article on an official protest by Red Crescent, and that would work wonderfully. By the way, please sign all talk entries with ~~~~. --Golbez 11:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Thats fair enough, thats what I'll do. --195.7.55.146 11:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • When I posted this story, I just took the BBC headlins and posted the BBC page link. It originally read:

    Falluja rebels "make last stand" as US forces pound pockets of determined insurgents in the Iraqi city in the second week of fighting. BBC.

    I thought it perfectly NPOV. Anyone who wanted to know more could click the BBC link. There is a lot of information on the site that was either irrelevant or had been covered in previous current event posts (like the prevention of aid workers etc.) --Martin TB 11:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, about that, Looking through the source I could not find that Quote. Who is it attributed to?--195.7.55.146 11:48, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Fair question. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • As I said, That was the BBC headline at the time (about 8.00 UTC), They have since updated the page - which they do to all their news pages. Current BBC page is timed at 9.35 UTC Martin TB 12:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • And it's changed again. Cuurent page timed at 12.00 UTC. New layout. One paragraph heading reads Rebels' Last Stand? BBC Martin TB 12:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No offence, but by putting it in quotes the implication is that is was said by one of the parties involved, either the US troops or the Iraqi insurgents themselves. It's rather misleading. --195.7.55.146 17:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Using other news sources

Why is it that most of the news sources we use are either BBC or CNN? There are plenty of other good, respectable news outlets that don't use initials, and aren't either international media conglomerates or state-hegemonous outlets. Just a grievance of mine (although I admit my guilt on this offense). -- The King Of Gondor (call me Dale) 16:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Because CNN and the Beeb are usually the first with any new story... and by the time other sources get them, no one thinks to add them? --Golbez 17:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Hmm. Very true. -- The KoG | (talk) 22:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Other alternative sources are always welcome in my book, feel free to add them. - Dejitarob 01:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grilled cheese?

Um, am I the only one who thinks that a grilled cheese sandwich with a coincidental likeness of the Virgin Mary is not worthy of current event status? I'll remove it for now, unless others feel a lunch is definitely a good current event. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

It was reported by several major networks, even CNN... Even the big ones put lighthearted stories in from time to time. Why can't wikipedia? PenguiN42 21:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
I too read the CNN story. It really is pretty funny to know some people are actually willing to spend $16,000 on a ten-year-old sandwich. But someone is always coming out saying "My [some household appliance, food item, door, or window] has the face of [Jesus, Mary] and hasn't [broken, sprouted mold, melted, or some other verb] since I discovered the face! And now I want to share it with my fellow [insert nationality]. For profit of course." The fact that news organizations will report it doesn't make it newsworthy. I think Scott Peterson proved that. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:48, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Silly food items on ebay going for high sums of money is nothing new. Just because it is to the major networks does not make it worthy of being posted. Current events is not the place for bizarre news anyways. - Dejitarob 22:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If we don't get our current events from major news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc...) then where will we get them from? This is an event that (though funny) is occurring and making the news at more than just a few sources check all of (Google News') entries. Also, I wasn't aware of this situation occurring frequently, least of all for a bid currently at US $69,107.69 so why not report it when the rest of the world is hearing about it? I say put it back in. - Nrbelex 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying however this still falls under "odd news" and therefore doesn't belong here. See Talk:Current_events#Not_News and Talk:Current_events/Archive_9#Controversial_Item. Try WikiNews for an odd/weird category.-Dejitarob 06:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Running human evolution theory

I removed this entry: Human evolution: Long distance running was crucial in determining the form of the human body according to Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Nature)

This story is about a new theory so I do not believe it should be posted. I could see otherwise maybe if it was detailing the conclusion of a new study under certain circumstances. - Dejitarob 22:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm....new theory in science not a current event? it is true that the Nobel Prize committee is very leary of awarding prizes for theories in science before several decades have elapsed. Einstein got his nobel for photoelectric effect theory published in 1905 (along with special theory of relativity and one other...Nobel committee picked the one of the three papers that was least likely to have issues, ever.;) But should Wikipedia be so chary of reporting the publishing of a theory in Nature. Its not like we are endorsing it or awarding a Nobel Prize ;) Lance6Wins 15:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A theory about the origins of the human form stemming from long distance running is hardly as far reaching as those theories, save for a very few fields (yet still important) like anthropology and narrowly biology. - Dejitarob 20:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Btw, there is now a Current science and technology events created by 84.121.13.171. Seems redundant considering the wikinews science and technology page. --Dejitarob 05:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

JewBacca

Jewbacca, re todays current events;

  1. The Soldiers killed were border guards. Whats your problem with saying that? By stating that they were brder Guards the reader quickly knows (1) Why they were there {They were Border guards} and (2) why they were armed {They were border Guards}. Changing it is silly and wrong.
  2. Terrorist is a POV. Untill such time as a person commits or Aids a terrorist activity they are not a terrorist. your insinuation is that all palestinian Militants are Terrorists - Thats simply not true. Furthermore, using the sources provided, there is a conflict in how Israel describes the events. One Israeli is quoted as saying that they were suspected of planting mines, another that they were suspected of smuggling weapons. To give one israeli suggestion disceditsthe other,so i would suggest giving neither, but if you must, give both.
  3. When the Egyptian government says "We Demand an investigation", it means they are "demanding" an investigation.
Re 2: Jewbacca was correct. If I think someone is a terrorist, someone else doesn't report that as me thinking they were a militant. If I think that car is a beach ball, you don't then write that I thought it was a car. Apparently they thought they were terrorists.
I agree with the other two bits. --Golbez 20:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
There are two conlicting reports from the israeli side. One says 'terrorist plating a mine', the other says 'Militant smuggling weapons'. What unites the two is that is was a militant in the israeli eyes, of one form or another. by using terrorist you are following one Party's POV, and not the other. Militant works for both positions --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 20:31, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Okay; but no scare quotes, please. This isn't Reuters, we're "better" than that. --Golbez 20:55, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Scare quotes? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 22:28, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, a term created by some online commentary sites (Best of the Web comes to mind) for what Reuters (or was the it the AP?) would do; they'd always say "terrorists". Not terrorists; "terrorists", as if they were afraid to use the word, and didn't really want to accuse that people flying planes into buildings of being terrorists. Use words, don't weasel around them, I say. --Golbez 22:50, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
'terrorist' is a POV. If a Palestinian takes to arms, some view them automaticaly a terrorist, which is stupid.

FT article on Ukrainian situation

Dejitarob, in what way is the FT article 'obviously biased'? Is the Financial Times not a journalistic source? It's about the only thing I've seen written that goes beyond "crowds in Kiev", and actually outlines the people and power balances in the current political situation. —Michael Z. 22:25, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)

I apologize for not expanding on why I believe it is biased and saying "obviously". I need to quit my nasty habit of projection bias, but let me explain. First, Financial Times has an inherent bias towards the pro-market Yushchenko since they mainly write about liberal economics. Second, the article is more editorial than reporting in that it lacks sources to back up its claims. Third, it incorrectly calls Russia an authoritarian regime. While Russia is sadly lacking in democratic tendancies, it is somewhat different than the previous single party authoritarian state it once was. I do not necessarily disagree with what the article is generally saying, however it would be against the NPOV policy to link it. If you are looking for analysis or op-ed, try Wikinews. There is a demo page up and currently no material covering this event. --Dejitarob 22:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan Rather

Don't want to be overly critical - but Dan Rather looks a pretty parochial choice as one of the three main news stories on the main page today. A newsreader on a US channel resigning?? Plenty of us have never heard of him (including me). How about one of these? - the Russian scientist convicted of spying for China, Iran's statement on nuclear dismantling, Pakistan leader in talks in Kashmir etc, Chirac making first visit to Libya since 1951. Admittedly, CNN is just as bad and gives this quite a big billing today too. But other channels give a better example (e.g. BBC Online). If wikipedia has ambitions to draw in as wide a possible a range of readers and contributors across the world then I think it sends slightly the wrong signal. What do people think? --Cjnm 11:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Be Bold. --Golbez 22:15, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Rather is a major force in a major media group of a major country, so I don't mind it being there. That said, if Peter Mansbridge retired today, I'd expect that to be there too. Lord Bob 23:00, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Cjnm. I never even heard of this guy's name before. I am not even sure if I ever saw his face on TV. This is quite ridiculous. --Menchi 00:12, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dan Rather is an icon of US national television news. It's only ridiculous because he was a US broadcaster, and whenever something specific to the US is posted, it's because of us evil US-centric people not respecting the rest of the world. Feh. It's better than getting yet more "people died in Israel and Iraq today" pieces. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Don't be so sensitive. If an iconic Indian, Australian, or Italian broadcaster's retirement pre-announcement was posted here, would you find the information significant? —Michael Z.
No, I wouldn't find it signficiant. But if I complained about it, the response would likely be that I'm being parochial and US-centric. I'm just tired of the double standard on complaining. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Double standard? Sounds to me like everyone is exercising their complaining rights equally. —Michael Z.
Cjnm, Michael, Menchi and similar "dissidents" (aka you filthy/ libuhrul/ anti-American/ boring/ foreign/ etc party poopers), this is a very old issue and has been flogged before and reviewed extensively and flogged again, to no avail, at this link. But don't expect any of the intellectually straitjacketed/ geographically challenged here to actually change, just persist till people accuse you of "whining", in the vague hope that someone will enforce a minor degree of broad-mindedness out of, at the least, irritation. -- Simonides 23:03, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Public Lynchings of two police officers in Mexico City

Perhaps this is newsworthy enough. Lynchings of Policemen Ignite Outrage at Violence in Mexico New York Times - 1 hour ago MEXICO CITY, Nov. 24 - This city seemed in a state of shock on Wednesday as people struggled to come to grips with the scenes of lawlessness captured on television as an angry mob lynched two police officers ...

If you think it is newsworthy, go ahead and submit it as it most likely is. --Dejitarob 05:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Aerial hunters to kill wolves in AK

Pretty much Alaskan officials are giving out permits for Teams members of TWO, to practice in Aerial hunting, where one flys a helicopter while the other shoots. This is to address the issue of wolves becoming a threat - yet while in the lower 48 states in America, we are in danger of loosing the wolf population - why can't we capture them north and bring them down south?

Do you think this story is a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and if so, where can if be placed?


PEACE RoboAction 23:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF

Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)