Talk:Current events/Archive 2

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

New discussions

An important reason to put some effort into this section is that people at the search engines will be searching on current events stories. Probably a very significant percentage of searches on Yahoo, Google, etc., on any given day, are on topics that are big at the moment. If we make an effort of adding relevent links to the Current events page, and then make an effort to create good articles for whatever that page is linking to, we will be able to get lots of traffic from the search engines. We will also establish a reputation for being a place where people can come to find information on stuff that is happening right now.

So be bold in adding new topics to Current events, and feel free to improve the organization of the page.

- Tim

Instructions for archiving Current events

Each month, we archive this by moving the page to a month page (e.g. December 2002), and then create a new "Current events" page. This has the effect of archiving the "Older versions" with the month, and giving us a fresh history every month (and keeps the log of older versions managably small)

Procedure in a nutshell:

  1. move this page to "month year" of last month
  2. edit this page to copy the header text (and any events from this month)
  3. go back to "Current events"
  4. edit it to remove the redirect & paste the header text

(feel free to refine these instructions - RobLa 07:13 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC))

After brief discussion with Uncle Ed, I have started also archiving content from this page to the Talk pages of the relevant months. Please date stamp your comments to facilitate this. --Roger 02:24, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To increase the visibility of the above information, I created the page How to archive Current Events and included the text there. -- Viajero 12:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

(Discussion continued from Talk:August 2003)

Vandalism is where one user removes a universally understood term? Homocide bombing is simple to understand (it's a compound of meanings).
Replaces it with their own "made up" term? Homocide bombing is not "made up" any more than "suicide bombeing" (look up the fricken history of them) ... sorry to inform you ... [snip they ... ]
the term internationally used? Well Homocide bombing is being used internationally ... but it's just been around 5 yr and the use isn't as regular as to the 20 for the other one ...
Wiki policy is to use the most widely understood term? So ... when speaking of crackers wiki should use the term hacker? prior term accurately describes one person and the other doesn't ... but the prior term is more accurate to certian ppl and the other isn't [though the general press uses it much more frequently and inappropriately (I'll let you figure out the differrence if you don't know).
"Suicide bombing is a clear and precise term"? Suicide bombing obsucres the victims of the attacks ... not very clear.
[snip Fear's defintion]
The correct term is suicide bombing on wiki and nothing else? So wiki want to be inaccurate nad misleading? ok ... reddi 14:03, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)
reddi, please read what is written make arguments.
Dictionaries don't define the vocabulary. To be accepted as such they give generally accepted definitions.
--Ann O'nyme 21:37, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Ann, Dictionaries define the vocabulary from generally accepted definitions. (BTW, I am reading the comments, sorry if you can't follow) reddi 14:03, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Has Reddi read anything anyone else has written? His comments suggest he hasn't read a word. For the last time, suicide bombing means the deliberate MURDER of people, carried out by a person who kills THEMSELVES as part of the process. Its meaning could not be clearer. Homocide bombing is a politically manufactured term created to obscure the methodology of the murder. As such it is POV and not in any way wiki-suitable. But then going by Reddi's comments up to now, he won't pay the slightest heed to what is written, will deliberately misrepresent everything said and keep pushing his POV agenda. He can try all he wants. But wiki policy is to use clearly understood, internationally recognised NPOV terminology, not POV spin terms. So the correct term is suicide bomber, nothing else. FearÉIREANN 21:24, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[snip 'avoid points of the discussion and attack me personally']
suicide bombing means the deliberate MURDER of people, carried out by a person who kills THEMSELVES as part of the process? THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S DEFINED AS!!! [1] [2]
Its meaning could not be clearer? hmmm ok ... sure it does ...
Homocide bombing is a politically manufactured term created to obscure the methodology of the murder? to yours [and others] POV ... YMMV on that ...
As such it is POV and not in any way wiki-suitable.
[snip attack on me personally again and disreguard the points]
I'm not misrepresent anything ... my "agenda" is to be correct in the statements of facts ... apearantly it's nice to avofd the facts, they get in the way of the truth. (see the links @ the top of the page and refer to the misapplication of the terms hacker and cracker )which is very similiar to this discussion))
Wiki can go on an be incorrect (if everyone want it to be) ...
Wiki policy is to use clearly understood, internationally recognised NPOV terminology? better start using "Martyrdom operation" because BOTH "Homicide bombing" and "Suicide bombing" is not NPOV internationally (BTW, as a side note, each term of the three is a "spin" ... you just spin it one way that you prefer (incorrectly from the definitions, also)).
Echo JT. --mav 01:19, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How much editorialising is ok?

I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Current Events entries were meant to briefly summarise breaking stories (with wikification where possible), and provide a link to the original source. But I've noticed a few stories lately where the "summary" includes editorialising that may or may not be reasonable, but is definitely not based on the linked news source. I would think that in an area as potentially contentious as news, selection bias would pose sufficient risk of POV without allowing editorials.

Oh, and while I'm at it: is there are policy on archiving old comments on this rather large page? -- Roger, 15:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Roger, these are all good questions. I'm not sure myself what the policy is. So, why don't you suggest a policy? That's what we usually do around here. If others like your policy suggestions, they'll adopt them -- which is the nearest thing to "official policy" a collaborative group like this ever gets. (I'd love to see someone step up and become responsible for the current events page, keeping it trimmed and tidy, etc.) --Uncle Ed 16:13, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

OK, suggested policies:

  1. comments in here, referring to particular stories, should be archived at the same time as the actual Current Events page by moving them to the Talk page for the particular month.
  2. perhaps an effort should be made to move rambling discussions to the Village Pump
  3. Editorialism here should be strongly discouraged; everything in the summary should be justified by the linked news sources. If you think you have a good reason to editorialise, wikify the summary and do it on the detailed page.

The reason for the latter is that news is by its nature controversial, and selection bias alone will tend to make it POV. Editorialising will greatly increase that risk. What do you all think of these points? --Roger 16:29, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I think if you want to volunteer to carry out suggestions #1 and #2, all will applaud you. Anyone who's willing to do the heavy lifting around here quickly earns a lot of respect from the WikiCommunity. As for editorialising, it's going to be just as hard to ensure that POV is properly attributing in current events as it is any of the several controversies which are always simmering at Wikipedia. Can you suggest some specific guidelines that would make it easier? Could you come up with a template of sorts? For example, how would you write about the Israeli PM's threat to kick out Arafat? "Israeli PM vows to exile Arafat for allegedly doing X. Arafat supporters deny any X-doing and vow to do Y." Or what? (I've been looking almost 2 years for a simple NPOV formula. "Help me, Obi-wan, you're our only hope!") --Uncle Ed 18:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start at archiving discussion. There was so much to start with, I'm afraid I didn't check really thoroughly that everything went to the right month. As for editorialising, I think the summary on Current Events should be restricted to points actually included in the references. This is simple to understand, unambiguous, and NPOV. If you wish to editorialise (whether because you wish to correct perceived bias in the original source, or to expand on obscure points), the appropriate thing is to wikify and have your discussion on a fuller page - where there is room to thrash things out in detail, and experts from all POVs are more likely to review it. For example in one recent three line news summary, only the first 11 words were supported by the linked reference; all the rest may well be fair comment, but a news summary is not an appropriate place to put it IMHO. --Roger 02:30, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

For a start, Arafat is internationally recognised as the head of the Palestinian Authority. So in the interests of NPOV, if one talks about the Israeli PM, then you have to call Arafat by his title too. (I am forever having to NPOV Israeli-Palestinian entries. Pro-Palestinians use blatently POV anti-Israel language, and pro-Israelis use blatently anti-Palestinian language - eg, one side says they are responding to 'x' by doing 'y'. The other side say they are doing 'z' in response to 'y'. You cannot then say such and such a side' actions is reactive, the other side's active, as both claim to be reacting, not initiating. Thus it is important to say in both cases that so and so did such and such, allegedly in reaction to such and such an earlier action. Leave it to the reader to decide if either or both sides are bullshitting. NPOV requires parity of language, which means all entries use balanced terminology. FearÉIREANN 20:02, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Anything about Arafat and the "Palestinian" cause is automatically controversial, as far as I'm concerned. We shouldn't assume ANYTHING is common knowledge or "universally acknowledged". Like, who's the real head of the PA? The prime minister guy, Abbas or something that Bush wants to deal with? Or Arafat? It makes the "one China policy" look simple... --Uncle Ed 15:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Technically Arafat is the head. Abbas is his prime minister, just as the Jean-Pierre Raffarin is Jacques Chirac's prime minister. Much of the diplomatic community calls him President Arafat, describing him as "President of the Palestinian Authority", Abbas is the Authority's Prime Minister. Frankly Bush is simply one leader of one country, albeit one which likes to think that it is the only one that counts. Most of the countries in the world disagree with him. The European Union, for example refuses point blank to deal exclusively with Abbas and insists on meeting with Arafat, even where the result, as happened during a recent Foreign ministers Troika visit, is that Israel refuses to meet visiting EU dignatories. It isn't wiki's job to push Bush's agenda, or anyone else's. It is a matter of fact that Arafat is head of the authority, Abbas a prime minister answerable to the Palestinian parliament and the president, with either possessing the power to remove him, as the parliament considered today but avoided making a decision. FearÉIREANN 20:15, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

1 september?

What timezone is used for events?

I noticed that the Hokkaido earthquake is listed as occuring on 25 September. It occured on the 26 September local time, but the 25 September UTC. In the past I have noticed some events seem to be listed by their local time instead of UTC. -- Popsracer 23:16, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've listed a few things a day ahead on the prior day .... but mostly becacuse the news is ahead (like a aussie paper story on a thing happening one the other side of the world). reddi 23:58, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Do we have a policy on this? I imagine in articles themselves, we should always give local time. But this list is a digest of world events, and it could be confusing if they end up out of sequence because they are all at local times. So I would suggest this page (and other almanac pages eg May 2003 etc) use UTC if available. We should add a note to that effect, and individually mark local times as such. -- Tarquin 23:28, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
use UTC? is there a nice UTC ref to check? (mabey puttin' in the 18:22 UTC [ i.e., {{CURRENTTIME}} UTC ] at the top of the page?) like I said above, a few stories I've posted a day before (mainly because the timeline make the downunder and southeast asia 1 day ahead of some things I post) ... It'd be nice to get a standard on this (it's bothered me before, but I didn't say anything) .... reddi 23:58, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)
There used to be a (semi-informal) policy of putting events under the local date (it's probably in the archives, somewhere); however, I agree that putting them all under UTC might be a bit more sensible...
James F. 12:58, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I've done some software and database work for a shipping company (giving me reason to think long and hard about time zones. My favorite when reading a news article is when it gives the time in local time and something I understand (like UTC). Local time is often important for news. Did that tornado strike during rush hour or while people were sleeping? On the other hand, I might want to know when it happened local time. Consider - when did man first set foot upon the moon? July 20 or 21, 1969? It just depends on where you were. It was 1969-07-20 21:56 CDT (GMT-5 where mission control was), which translates to 1969-07-21 2:56 GMT. User:Ke4roh 14:37, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not a single mention of the CIA leak for both this and last month? Amazing! -- 212.127.214.105 12:17, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

question on Laura Bush poem

I dont really understand this poem. Maybe because English is not my mother tongue. But, what does it mean Barney's still mad you dropped him? dropped him as left him? Pls, can someone clarify this for me?

Wikis in Current events

(moved from Village pump)

Maybe a dumb question from a newcomer, but why add wiki links to entries on the Current events pages when the articles that are linked to are so often not relevant to the news item in question?

We like links. :-) Just look around to confirm that. Excessive linking does make the text hard to read so anything more than a link every three words is bad. So we all should prioritize what we link in that respect. --mav 08:48, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Middle East: New audio tapes, allegedly from Osama Bin Laden, air on the Al Jazeera network.. Interesting. The Reuters report cited says that the tapes were broadcast. A CBS radio report I just heard said that they had not been broadcast, but that Al Jazeera had released text copies of the tapes. RickK 21:49, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Current Events as a redirect page?

I guess it makes a certain amount of sense, and makes archiving much easier. It just kinda surprised me. What's the deal with it? Ed Cormany 00:25, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like this... --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 01:14, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I suppose what I like least is that it seems to have been done suddenly and unilaterally. I know that it is appropriate to be bold in updating pages, but I don't think that applies to moving and redirecting one of the most trafficked pages on the Wiki. Other input? Ed Cormany 01:50, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. I liked it as it was, beforehand.
James F. 12:36, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Hi all, I was the one who started a new page for November 2003 when I noticed that several people had added material for November 1 on October 2003. I renamed the page to November and deleted the October entries, which I copied to October 2003 since it already existed as a redirect to Current events. If this was not the correct procedure, please accept my profound apologies; I had no intention of changing the way things work here. I wasn't aware of a problem until I saw the postings here. If someone wants to copy November 2003 to Current events or whatever be my guest. For my part, I would be curious to know what exactly is the correct procedure for starting a new month. -- Viajero 13:37, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Ah, sweet irony. Not to place any blame upon you, Viajero, I understand your mistake, but the instructions for archiving the page are at the top of this very talk page. Maybe I'll have to make that more pronounced by adding a header... Ed Cormany 19:54, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
whoops, hadn't thought to look there... Sorry about that. In any case, I see someone has fixed the redirect issue so I hope no permanent damage done. Thanks for your patience. -- Viajero 20:14, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

POV?

  • People's Republic of China: China's influence surges relative to that of Japan but Chinese diplomacy is also increasingly sophisticated and working with international organisations. [3]

I wonder if we should have a policy that the news page contain only actual breaking news, not editorials? There's nothing that happened today that would make this article or its mention news (as interesting as it is, and as much as it may be relevent to several articles). I've noticed a few of these poping up recently.

I agree that such things should not be on Current events, but perhaps we could have a page on Current trends? It could turn out to be interesting :) Nikola 12:33, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are also NPOV issues. -- stewacide 06:30, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Wik ... it's from the story "U.N.'s Castro 'Propaganda Forum' Demands End to U.S. Embargo of Cuba" : reddi

Just because a source uses POV language does not mean that that language should be replicated in the article. That publication may be able to use POV language, we cannot. Wik's removal of the references was correct. FearÉIREANN 21:22, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So you can't call it what it is (as it fit the defintion of propaganda, [ala., information that serves a particular agenda (cuba's), is one-sided, and fails to paint a complete picture; not to mention that supports a political cause [again cuba's])? Hmm ok ... I'll keep that in mind. reddi
"call it what it is" -> call it what you say it is. That isn't NPOV. That is POV. The fact that no major state, and only a tiny number of minor ones on the planet supported the US shows just how lacking in neutrality your comments are. If 99% of the planet express one view, and you another, to add in your preferred loaded terms breaks every single rule and guideline on wikipedia about NPOV. This is not the first time you have POVed Current events with clumsy, opinionated language. NPOV involves careful use of language, attribution of comments and POVs, not adding in loaded language that expresses an opinion. As for the article you linked above, could you not find a better source of information than that shoddily written, agenda-driven bit of tabloid-ese? Any attempts to add editorial lines to the Current events will be removed and Wik was 100% to remove that bit of poorly written, agenda-driven tripe. Try learning about NPOV before you begin lecturing on it. FearÉIREANN 00:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
call it what MANY say it is AND what it is in it's nature ...
That is NPOV, not POV ...
LOL@99% ... (lie, lies, and staticstics ... really it's only 98 let's not quibble on math BECAUSE it's irrelevant; see below)
Alot of nations helped promote Cuba's propagada? ... ok
I expressed america'a view of the situation (which is the main view ... the poiint of which is conviently ignored and not expressed [see bilateral dispute])
I didn't "'add" in any preferred loaded terms ... it is what it is ... and the view of many american officals (which didn't participate in the propaganda forum) ...
not the first time i've POV'ed Current events? sure, whatever, that is IYO ...
LOL@ÉIREANN n Breaks every... which guideline on wikipedia? mabey the "ignore all rules" guideline? mabey not ...
The fact it's a bilateral dispute and it's not a matter of the UN (among the others i mentioned previously) ... that show that it is propaganda piece driven by mainly 3rd worlders and European (both o' which are biased; mainly from thier already biased press) ...
Other nations's views are irrelevant to this ... and their input is a use of propaganda (pretty plain to see, sorry you can't see it (though I don't expect you to ÉIREANN (nor some other individuals on wiki) to see it)) ...
This is not the first time you've made allegations of POV Current events @ me and attacked me (ala. clumsy, opinionated) ... but that does nothing for you points (and detracts from them)
NPOV involves careful use of language? why don't you look up propaganda in a dictionary and take out your POV and "try" to see (though I doubt you will, nor can) ....
Attribution of comments and POVs? It was facts from the article ...
Adding in "loaded" language? IYO ...
"shoddily written, agenda-driven bit of tabloid-ese"? again IYO ...
So ANY editorial lines to the Current events should be removed? I'll then make sure I to remove the editorial lines of europeans and 3rd world nations ....
[snip rest o' ÉIREANN's POV / personal attack]
I really don't care and it's largely irrelevant though, because ppl can see it for what it is ... a non-binding and non-enforceable piece of propaganda ...
Sincerely, reddi

Where do you draw the line? should use of terms be avoided if others see them as POV [though they fit the descriptioon of the word)? What's the policy on news page editorials? Feedback please? reddi

Lead Item? (or Don't confuse context for other things)

Maveric149, why make context links only whenthere is a chance that the event should be included in that article? it's easier to see each article when they are categorized ... it's distracting? It's more info and really easier to see (each news item) .. context links have been thjis way for the last month or 2. It was discussed and that was the general consensus (IIRC) [since there is alot of new item] ... I'll look to see if I can find the discussion ... reddi

---


Come on people, context headers are for specific events and subjects that relate to the article in question.

Context headers are for only specific events and subjects? They should be used generally ... less confusing and esier to read ....

Things like:

  • Jessica Lynch : Book reveals details of capture and captivity. She was treated brutally (resulting in Lynch's shattered body) and, says medical records, confirm she was anally raped. Book says some Iraqi doctors said Lynch was virtually dead.

"Jessica Lynch" is the subject of the entry, not the context! " Book reveals details of capture and captivity." is not a complete sentence. Why? Because the subject has been ripped from it and is posing as a context link. Bad form.

"Jessica Lynch" is the context .. the subject is the book.

Another example:

The Solar system is a place, not the context!

The Solar system is the context (mabey science would be better though) ... solar flare is the subject.

Yet another example:

  • Space: After 26 years, and at a distance from Earth of over 8 billion miles, Voyager 1 exits the solar system. It is expected to keep on transmitting into the 2020s.

Same as above. Before this had a "context" of Voyager 1 and then mentioned and linked to Voyager one again. Very bad form and very distracting.

see above [btw, I replaces Voyager 1 with space] ... mabey another cat would be good ... but the context is about space (ala, the investigation of)] ...

Good example of correct context link:

The subject of the entry directly relates to the context link. This is how context links should work.

Most of them do relate about the context link
I'd like to get a consensus on it ... so is that what everyone else thinks? The last time it was discussed, it was to be used on multiple news items (which has been most days) ... If it generally thought your way is how context links should work, so be it ... but that was not what was arrived @ IIRC ...

If you want to establish that something happened in a particular place, then simply write "In the Place name..." But a place is not the context! --mav

Umm ... place and time is all important to context, really ... and it's simplier to read / find articles with a context lead in ...
Sincerely, reddi
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." - Einstien
Place establishes place, not context. --mav
Place is important to and can establish context ... --reddi
It seems the previous concensus is being "willly-nilly" disreguarded ... hmm ok ... another revelation of wiki's ... reddi

Reddi - please never ever revert a page and then mark it as a minor edit. Perhaps you didn't intend it but that creates the impression that you are sneaking through major changes by pretending you are making only minor changes. And please stop writing entries in a form of pidgin english without definite and indefinite articles, verbs, etc. FearÉIREANN 23:40, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"never ever revert a page and then mark it as a minor edit" ... sorry ... didn't mean to (it's marked by defualt)
Perhaps you didn't intend it? no I did not, sorry again ..
I was not trying to sneak it (forgot to uncheck it)
"form of pidgin english without definite and indefinite articles, verbs,"? first why the "attck"? (are personal attacks here in talk ok?) second ... my americanish can be corrected (though I endeavor to write "proper" english; I didn't think being an "english major" is a prerequistite to write here) [as a side note, attacking my writing skill does NOTHINIG for you, it generally known that it's "red herring" during discussions and attempt to distract from the real point] ... reddi


Islamic conference in Malaysia (6 Nov)

Hang on -- wasn't that all over about three weeks ago? I'm assuming the reference is to the summit of the OIC (= Org of Islamic Conference, not "Countries"). Or is this a different event? Hjr 01:55, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

your right, it was only a select band of foreign ministers gathered in Damascus to confer on Iraq. --- will make the change reddi
stout work! Hjr 05:21, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Prince Charles (was: Prince William)

The Prince William information is entirely too long for this page, and makes no sense. Can someone summarize it? RickK 04:08, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What Prince William information? Maybe it has been deleted but I can't see anything about Prince William. -- Popsracer 04:19, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If you mean this:

# In the United Kingdom, the Prince of Wales issues a denial of an unspecified allegation whose publication has been prohibited by court injunction granted against the Mail on Sunday tabloid newspaper. The injunction had been granted to one former Royal Aide, but earlier today The Guardian newspaper had been granted permission to name a person who had sought an injunction. Sir Michael Peat, the Prince's Private Secretary who issued the Prince's statement, attacked the person who had made the original allegation now subject to a court injunction, describing him as someone "who, unfortunately, has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and has previously suffered from alcoholism following active service in the Falklands" and who has a history of making wild allegations which when investigated by police were found to be untrue. Peat justified the Prince's statement by saying that the United Kingdom has been awash with rumours on the issue for the last week and that the Prince's unprecedented statement was intended to kill off the unfounded speculation. The Prince's Household was previously embroiled in allegations of homosexual rape involving a member staff, amid the allegation that the Prince failed to take appropriate action against the person who allegedly committed the offence. [4] [5]

.....

It relates to Prince Charles, not William. Background: Royal footman George Smith stated in 1996 that he had been raped by another male member of the Royal staff in 1989. It has been alleged that that person was Michael Fawcett, an aide to Prince Charles - charges were never brought. It has been further alleged that George Smith, in a tape-recorded interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, stated that he had once discovered a "high-ranking royal" in bed with "a member of the staff". It has been speculated that this was Prince Charles with Michael Fawcett. The British press is forbidden to publish Michael Fawcett's name in connection with these allegations, and Prince Charles has just denied "the allegation that dare not speak its name". How to summarize? Perhaps "Prince Charles denies George Smith discovered him in bed with former aide Michael Fawcett"? -- Someone else 04:26, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Whoops, my eyes glazed over at all that text.  :) It was Prince Charles. RickK 04:29, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think it's obvious that there's enough info available for anyone to connect the dots. Maybe an American with the 1st Amendment supporting him or her could connect the dots on current events for us... (though I expect the allegation is in fact false (it's far too fantastic), but this business with "unspecified allegations" is really stupid and annoying.) Oh, and it's been reported that the allegations have been published on a Swiss website; Google brings up http://www.gay.ch/family/charlesgay.html - in German, the Babelfish translation is appropriately awful, but vaguely readable... Anonymouse 15:07, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If non-UK news sources (CNN, TASS, Zeit, Le Monde, whatever) were reporting the "supressed" information then so should wikipedia (you're quite right that the "unspecified" business is annoying). I don't believe this is the case (yet), so we'd be reporting nothing more than whispered gossip. Even the german page to which you refer is written in the form of a question ("did this or that happen?"). Given that wikipedia is merely a regurgitator of other people's news stories (and this is utterly unable to check sources in a journalistic manner) I think we should stick to reporting what fairly major news outlets do. -- Finlay McWalter 15:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is written very carefully to avoid any legal complications. That is why it is so long. I knew the details through through media contacts but at the time could not say anything more as I could not find a reliable secondary and tertiary source of the story that I could credit and so justify reporting it. All the story that day could say is that a denial had been issued of a topic that could not in British law be discussed because of a legal injunction, repeat what Sir Michael Peat said, and in true journalistic style hint at what the topic was about in neutral newstyle language. (When these issues arise, they have to be covered in a very word-specific manner that usually requires considerable length.) The allegation, BTW, is not simply that the former servant in question (who has a history of making allegations which in one case were investigated by the police who dismissed it) claims he saw the Prince of Wales in bed with a male staff member (two of his uncles on his mother's side were bisexual) but that, to put it sensitively, the relationship with the Prince of Wales may have protected that employee from prosecution over a rape allegation. However it must be stressed that (a) no prosecution has ever taken place; (b) no evidence of the alleged homosexual rape has ever been provided; (c) the 'witness' of the POW's supposed antics with this aide happens also to be the person who claimed he was raped, so is hardly a neutral source; (d) there is not a shred of evidence that the POV is in any way bisexual, (e) the supposed homosexual rapist and 'lover' of the POW has never been known to show any homosexual inclinations and is in fact married with kids, and (f) the 'accuser' in the rape, and the supposed witness in the POW sex act, is viewed by those close to him, including family members, as a 'serial fantasist' who has made other wild allegations later disproven and is thought by those closest to him to suffer from medical problems.

Thus the issue resolves around the reputations of three people; two are generally seen as innocent and the victims of a serial fantasist and a tabloid newspaper with its own 'Bash Charles' agenda, and the third may be a mentally unstable man who needs help and for whom the exposure of his claims may well prove emotionally harmful and embarrassing both to him and his family. So while there is a story here, it does have to be handled with care because, apart from anything else members of the accused's family are worried as to whether it might push him over the edge (ie, attempt to take his own life). There are also children of both men accused who may be hurt. If there is truth in the allegations, then they can and should be exposed. But if as is widely believed they are the delusions of a sick man they do have to be handled with care. The determination of one tabloid to publish them, when the only evidence is a legal claim by a potentially unstable man, is not seen as justifiable journalism within mainstream journalism. Wikipedia thus has to be careful not to simply repeat as of yet unpublished tabloid claims that may be the work of a mentally unstable fantasist with a history of far-fetched claims. NPOV sets higher standards than British tabloids, where fact takes second place to circulation. FearÉIREANN 20:41, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Putting US TV shows on Current events

Reddi opted to put references to the launch of a US cartoon series on a US TV channel on the Ce page. I have removed it. The premiering of a US cartoon series on a US cartoon channel is by no stretch of the imagination news. It is of minimal interest to most US wikipedians (except people in the broadcasting business who live, eat and breath TV schedules) and of no interest to non-US wikipedians. That sort of stuff belongs in a TV guide, not advertised on our Current events page. Nor is a bit of US show-biz gossip about something called The Partridge Family of any relevance to the page, not unless we are prepared to be swamped by similar notes about programmes on British, Irish, Canadian, Australian, French, German, Saudi, South African, Tanzanian, Zimbabwian etc TV. TV schedules are rarely of interest to anyone other than a minority of people in their own country and almost 0% elsewhere. Put that sort of entertainment stuff on here and you might as well put on info on David Beckham's latest haircut, etc as well, for it has the same news value. FearÉIREANN 21:49, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So entertainment premiers are not CE worthy? must not be ...
The cartoon channel isn't international? I thought it was ... [it is international ]
"minimal interest"? YMMV ... it was SW ...
OK ... entertainment premier info from now on will be avoided [from me @least] ...
Another entertainment item was put on here ... but mabey it should not have been ...
reddi

Well since the page is reporting news items of world significance/interest, I would say what appears on a minor US TV channel doesn't particularly rate since no-one outside the US has any possibility of seeing it in any reasonable timescale. As to The Matrix Revolutions, at least that did have a simultaneous release in large parts of the world, so it's more justifiable to include that (even if it does seem to have had a bit of a critical panning). -- Arwel 22:21, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ok ... The Partridge Family mabey wasn't needed ... but the cartoon one was international. But, anyways, I'll try to refrain from entertainment premier info in general ... sincerely, reddi
How in ainm Dé does a cartoon belong on a page about current events? Even if it is international, it might just be relevant in a page on international broadcasting or international media. But has 0% relevance on a page on current events, which covers the sort of things that are likely to feature in the international pages of a newspaper or a news bulletin. FearÉIREANN 22:56, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
How? mabey in the same way as the premier of a fictional story about a computer sytem that controls humans does ... reddi

hardly NPOV

moved from 4 November:

-- Viajero 14:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well spotted Bmills 14:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Current events items information needs to be NPOV? =-\ (the working of the listing is NPOV, just the article it appears to be "POV'ed" [by some)) ... many of the news items are from a POV ... reddi

That item was by no possible stretch of the imagination a news item; it was simply an editorial, This page is called Current events, not Recent OpEds. -- Viajero 12:47, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's a news item of how AFP photographers and European media coverage that consistently distorts the Mideast conflict. It's also about the poll from the European Commission and how media biases the audience. reddi
Nonsense. It is not news because it does not concern an event. It is the interpretation of how events are presented. As for the poll, it in and of itself may be news, but the explanation this site gives for it -- media bias -- is OPINION. Granted everyone has their own POV, but you aren't even trying to be neutral. Grrrrrr.... -- Viajero 13:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"not concern an event"? it about the distortion events (ala. negative interpretation by the media) of reports of the Mideast conflict.
The poll is explaned by media bias. This is an example of that ... I tried to be neutral in the description of the item (the reader can look @ the page and decide; but it's removed, now so ppl won't be seeing that) ... =-| =-\ ...reddi
No, the results of the poll are NOT "explained" by media bias. That is simply that website's analysis of the poll. I live in Europe; I could offer other opinions as to why the results are the way they are. But that is ENTIRELY beside the point. There is a difference between FACT and OPINION. That the European Commission took a poll is a fact. That the results of the poll can be explained by media bias is an OPINION. What is it so difficult for you to recognize this distinction? -- Viajero 14:31, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
yes, the results of the poll are "explained" by media bias (among other things).
It's a analysis statement of what drove the poll's data.
[snip 'Europe']
[snip 'FACT and OPINION']
=-\ reddi 14:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Can't see how you can suggest that the article linked to was anything other than a highly subjective and inflamed editorial/comment piece, with phrases like EUROPEAN VILIFICATION OF ISRAEL scattered 'liberally'. As for the poll, as Viajero says, there are as many ways of explaining it as there are agendas to sell. Meanwhile, HonestReporting.com expressing an opinion is not a Current Event! Bmills 15:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)