Talk:Current events/Archive 11

U.S. pressures against Burma readded

I've readded:

• The United States pressures the Burmese government to release opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi after the recent announcement that her house arrest will be extended. (BBC)

That's still news! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting blank current events page

Hi I came to current events at 6:43(EST) and there was nothing on it (see history) so i copied and pasted the most recent version, but that didn't go as planned.

Simple newbie blanking vandalism. See Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version for instructions on the proper way to fix such things. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Too many red links nowadays

There's far too many links to nonexistent articles on Current events nowadays. People, if a subject isn't important enough to write an article about, why are you listing it? -- Cyrius|✎ 05:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Err.. maybe to encourage someone wo write an article about it? --195.7.55.146 16:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A better way to encourage someone to write an article would be to post on requested articles. I agree Cyrius that subjects without articles shouldn't be linked. Carrp 16:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's that important, write the article yourself, then link it here. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy be included in ongoing events?

I don't think so, but let's have a discussion so a consensus can form.

(feel free to expand this list) Reasons for leaving it in:

1. New information is being added frequently so it can be classified as 'ongoing'.

2. It's a subject which interests many people

...

Reasons against leaving it in:

1. It's not actively pursued in the news so it's not 'ongoing' in the media

2. Having it in the ongoing events section will attract POV-editors that will disrupt the current initiative to clean up the article

3. There is a vote for deletion on this article ongoing.

...

Anyways, please comment here so we see what the community thinks. --Jpkoester1 14:51, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, I believe you mean "Should the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy be removed from ongoing events", since its previous removals were by an anon without an edit summary.

In regards to your reasons against leaving it:

1. The vast majority of what appears on Current events isn't actively pursued in the media (at least in the US), which is largely why I find the page as a whole so useful.

2. It can go either way; it's my opinion that more eyes on it will reduce POV issues, since there aren't that many people actively working on it.

3. The vote for deletion is (or rather, should be, since it's been more five days) closed.

In any event, I'm putting it back in until its removal is properly resolved here, since I don't think it appropriate for an anonymous vandal to determine what it should be in the meantime. --Korath 16:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia-policy there is not really a big difference between anonymous users and people with a username. Obviously the person in question was of the opinion that the Link doesn't belong in that section. I don't think that the term vandalism covers such an expression of opinion. Also I am quite sure that the Link has been added/removed numerous times (haven't looked at the history, so correct me if I'm wrong). If that's correct (which I'll assume for now) there is obviously a difference of opinion be it anonymous users or people that are signed in. Now about your answers to my reasons:

1. I do see the use of the page and would never suggest that it should be deleted. However the result of the election (who won, I don't mean the exact results here) seems to be quite clear. So I see the controversy more as a scientific study of the election and it's flaws and not an ongoing event. Not sure if I manage to express that point adequately (english is not my native language). To illustrate my point (and make it more clear) I would like to compare it to the search for an AIDS vaccine (which has after all been 'going on' for a long time). I admit this is an extreme example, but it's just there to clarify my point. I do agree that the election controversy is at least closer to being ongoing. The question however is when does something stop to be an ongoing event and start be merely something that's going on?

2. I agree that many eyes looking at it could also have that effect.

3. Yes, the vote for deletion has failed (and rightly so in my opinion). However it does show that the existance of the article is not uncontroversial. I wonder if in such a case an all or nothing approach (having the article and putting a link to it on one of the most prominent pages) is better than a sort of compromise (only having the article without linking it from one of the main pages). This is especially so considering that the article is still being cleaned up currently (let me know if I'm wrong in that regart too).

It's ok that you put it back in, but I believe your reasoning for it is flawed. First of all anonymous users also have the right to express their opinion (If I understand correctly that's one of the basic principles of wikipedia). And secondly I was the one that removed it, not some anonymous "vandal". Anyways I'll leave it in for now until it's resolved.

Cheers, --Jpkoester1 18:11, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

If the first two blankings were you, then I apologize for calling you a vandal; bringing the issue here shows you are anything but. However, when an anonymous user deletes part of a page without leaving an edit summary, it certainly looks like vandalism. Cases like this are even worse than replacing the whole page with "U R H4X0RR3D!!1!", since it's much more likely to go unnoticed (as the two anonymous edits were, for a significant amount of time). --Korath 00:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the election controversy weren't being actively discussed in the media, then there wouldn't be a massively growing news summary section at the bottom of the mentioned article. Yeah, maybe it hasn't usurped the prominence of the Scott Peterson case on 24 hour cable news, but people don't seem to come to Wikipedia for that type of news anyway.

It's clearly an ongoing event, it's clearly still being covered, and it's clearly still a topic of high interest, high activity, and high controversy (this being a reason to keep it there). So let the Wikipedia process work, and the extra eyes will improve the article.

This second deletion attempt is just an attempt at debasing the article, as it has clearly passed a deletion vote overwhemlingly twice in a row. So the deletion attempt should not be taken as a valuation of the article, especially considering the votes in opposition to its deletion and in support of it being a topic of high interest. --Cortonin 19:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Rolls eyes) Please don't let this become another POV-motivated VfD-like discussion. There's an overwhelming majority for keep, and if you really want to set a vote on this, you're going to get the same thing, and the same kind of arguments (or pseudo-arguments) on both sides. Kevin Baas | talk 20:42, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Well, guess those comments are aimed at me so I'll comment. Please note that I never questioned the article's existence. I only questioned whether it is an 'ongoing event' in the current events sense or just something that is being investigated. So far it seems like the consensus is that it is and I'm perfectly ok with that. --Jpkoester1 21:31, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

On another note (and taking the discussion away from the voting controversy), are there already established is the criteria for something being an 'ongoing event'? Is there any standard that can be applied to things that are/should be included in the ongoing events and how long they should be included? --Jpkoester1 21:25, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Forgive me, that comment was not aimed at you, I was expecting a flock of POV-pushers/obstructionists from the VfD page, and it was aimed at them, it was also somewhat cathartic. I hope you can understand my accumulated annoyance from being in the thick of the fray that you are not associated with. I regret my misplaced remark regarding your legitimate and objective question(s). Please ignore it. Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

In general, I'm not aware of any standard for including ongoing events and how long they should be included. I think examination on a case-by-case basis might be just, as the issues are bound to be rather complex and variegated, making a standard unaviodably arbitrary in unpredictable respects. With regard the particular item: u.s. election controversy, my current rough estimate of an endpoint is the presidential inauguration, provided there is no significant controversy or media attention at/past that point. I would expect there to be discussion in due time, as this issue is controversial. (reds are defensive, feeling attacked, while blues value the security of democracy and justice over expediance.) Kevin Baas | talk 21:56, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

I shouldn't say that, really, judging by the VfD votes, a large percentage of reds are genuinely interested in learning about the political world around them. Kevin Baas | talk 22:01, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

The fact that a small number of people in one-fiftieth of one country continue to dispute an election that has been conceded is not particularly relevant or interesting. There's no real justification for continuing to pretend that this is mainstream. Some media outlets may report it - just as they report an "and finally" section - but let's keep things in perspective: a small number of people disputing an election in a Siberian city would not be news - nor is this. jguk 22:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The electoral ballots were cast today (and will be counted on January 6, 2005). The election is over (one way or another) unless the ballots cast are a tie. You can sue all you want, you can't change this election any more. And to User:Korath, your abusive edit summary is uncalled for: "Ongoing events - Discuss on talk page, or leave it the fuck alone, please." Jewbacca 22:18, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Technically, the election is not over. The election ends on Janurary 6th. But that is all completely irrelevant. The question is not "is the election over?" or "who won the election?". The question is "what happened and is happening now that is interesting and important"?

Regarding jguk's invective: This is not a matter of your emotion. If you would actually read the article, and become informed about the subject that you are talking about, you might be able to express yourself in a more credible manner. Kevin Baas | talk 22:30, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

There's no invective there - so no need to be on the defensive. I have no emotion over this. Why should I? I have better things to care about than who governs a country other than my own. I am only offering an outside opinion (although I was somewhat annoyed by Korath's offensive edit summary directed at those who had edited the page before him). What I am suggesting is that those who wish the section to remain on "current events" as a major item to stand back. Where is this issue being discussed in the world? OK, some Ohio courts cannot but take notice of it - but we don't report every court case in Ohio. The issue is certainly not discussed here in the UK (or at least not as anything other than as an insignificant sideline). I'm only suggesting putting this in true perspective: a minor parochial dispute that will not have any effect on anyone. jguk 22:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where it is or is not being reported is a non-issue, except in the respect that it being over or under reported may itself be newsworthy. The criteria for inclusion is not "are other people doing it?". If news actually operated that way, then nothing would get reported.

A little research into the subject reveals that neither the people and organizations involved, which include U.S. government agencies, are minor, nor are the issues and extent (such as vote suppression minor, nor are the events minor, typical, normal, or insignificant. On the contrary, everything is rather abnormal and improbable, and hence newsworthy. If you really look at the empirical data, anecdotal evidence, decisions made, etc, without prejudice, bias, or predisposition (such as "the major media is not reporting it, so it must not be significant" - which does not logically follow.), I would fully expect most people to develop the impression that this is something rather news-worthy. And indeed, the comments and discussions of two VfD's of the article reveal an overwhelming interest in the subject. (while, by the fact of their existence, also revealing that there are radicals who actively resist information -or at least particular types of information- that elucidates real facts and events, for whatever reason) Kevin Baas | talk 23:12, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Even if there was any kind of consensus, Kevin Baas would come back another day, and spam CurrentEvents with his POV and a link to his unprofessional self-research (contrary to WP charter) article on "The Controvesy". Kevin Baas only engages people in the talk page after his 2 allowed reverts per day are used up. Then he posts 'alerts' and 'requests' asking others to act as his proxy on CurrentEvents [1]. --68.107.102.129 03:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, just like that Ukraine "controversy"... what a bunch of crock, huh guys? --kizzle 10:11, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The ongoing event is not the "U.S. Presidential Election". The ongoing event is the "U.S. Presidential Election Controversy", which will probably continue for a bit longer. Congress is launching an investigation into numerous allegations, and there are a large number of civil rights groups speaking out about problems with the election. And of course, I don't think it needs explicitely stated that the state of democracy and political future of the U.S. is a significant news event. So it should definitely stay listed as an ongoing event while there is an ongoing controversy and active investigations. --Cortonin 04:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. The "controversy" is not a noteworthy ongoing event. Many Wikipedians may wish it were otherwise, but including it in our line-up is simply exposing our bias. It once again just shows how far we are from being neutral and objective. If there are individual events relating to the "controversy", by all means add them to Current Events if they are reasonably significant. I think though that it is unlikely there will be many such stories. zoney ♣ talk 10:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, The "controversy" is not a noteworthy ongoing event, it just happens to be the constant subject on a primetime news show on a major mainstream cable news network... but regardless I agree that the page itself should not be included as a current event, as it itself is not a current event but rather a collection of multiple events...however we should add the individual events which are noteworthy, such as make mention of the Ohio recount and the denial of public access to vote records evaluated during the recount despite prior denial of such by Blackwell... and then we can simply reference somehow to this article, as it in itself is a good primer on the material if someone isn't familliar with the subject. It's not like you guys would want to hide this page, right? Especially after an overwhelming majority to not delete twice. --kizzle 10:45, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I'm from Europe. I would have loved to see Bush lose. But nevertheless, it's important to approach the area without allowing our bias to influence decisions on how (and when/where) to present the issue. I think the "2004 U.S. Presidential Election Controversy" should be removed from the list of ongoing events. zoney ♣ talk 11:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in Current Events. And if people are upset that it's an American election we're giving coverage too? Next time there's election controversy somewhere in the world, put it on Current Events too. That's right. Even that Ukrainian election (which has come up one or two times in CE's history). The United States is a big country, with lots of people in it, and information on their fate is newsworthy. Lord Bob 10:57, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Get away. You can't possibly compare the reasonably sane (well, relatively speaking) democratic process in the US with the Ukrainian débacle. zoney ♣ talk 11:00, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah so poisoning your opponent is the minimum threshold for newsworthiness? What about a statistical predicator for one type of machine to churn out republican overvotes regardless of county, whose owner happened to promise votes to Bush? Have you even read the article in question (be truthful!)?

I'm aware of the allegations and have read the article (and do not forget, I'm not suggesting some individual noteworthy events shouldn't be noted in Current Events). I should point out that despite my bias for Kerry, I'm suspicious of some of the allegations (or that they all are valid). Let us not forget that the OSCE observers found the US election to be reasonably fair (unlike the Ukrainian one - which was much more obviously fraudulent by all accounts - well, apart from the Russian one :-). I mean for one thing, the observers weren't subjected to intimidation. After all, if the US election was such a nonsense, where were the protests? I'm just pointing out that apart from Wikipedia, there is no mainstream suggestion that the "US Election Controversy" is an ongoing event. And I do take exception to comparisons with the Ukrainian election. zoney ♣ talk 11:30, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm ok with linking to individual events that have to do with it, as the page itself is not an event...however if you have suspicions about certain information in the article, please help contribute and say which sources are faulty or which information is not credible rather than denying people access to the page from the current events portal. --kizzle 20:02, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

I believe ideally it should be, but the allegations and claims that have come out have not yet resulted in action that has changed the process of the election. Should the OH Electoral votes be challenged, or the OH Supreme Court respond in a noteworthy way to the recent lawsuit, or other significant issues arise that are more than testimony and affidavits, etc., then absolutely imho it should be. One can also argue that the filing of the Arnebeck suit, the meetings of the Congressional Forum, etc., are newsworthy events independently of the controversy. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:11, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's time to take 2004 US Presidential election controversy out of the outgoing events section. The electors have cast their votes and thus the election is over, for all intents and purposes. There will be discussion of controversy and irregularities, but it certainly doesn't warrant being included in "ongoing events". However, important articles pertaining to the controversy should still be included provided they're linked to credible sources. Carrp 02:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Carrp. Unlike the Ukranian election which is still in limbo, this election is now officially over and the result will not change. Kevin and others are still dragging their feet over the 2000 election and I'm sure if it were up to them they would have 2000 U.S. presidential election controversy in ongoing events. We can't poison our pages over a couple of users who refuse to accept this reality. Jewbacca 02:37, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

The controversy is not an ongoing event because a Wikipedia page is going to change the election. It's an ongoing event because there are several active investigations about serious threats to the U.S. democratic process. Please reexamine the article with this viewpoint in mind, because these events extends to far more meaning than a single election. There are clearly many here who are interested in watching the events of these investigations unfold, so let's leave the information available so that those who are interested can access it. --Cortonin 07:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The information is available to all who wish to read it at 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, where it belongs. Do you see me asking anywhere for that page to be deleted? It's just not an ongoing event in nearly the same significance as the Ukranian controversy, since the election is decided. The outcome of this controversy will have no effect in the near future. Hell this controversy could go on until 2008, I suppose we should leave the link there for the next four years? The election is over, buddy. Jewbacca 07:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it's not officially over until Jan 6., when the votes are delivered and counted in Washington, D.C. [2]. Currently (heh) on the page are 3 bullets, for the hearing, electoral vote/recount/lawsuit and the 'Minnesota mis-vote'. And there are ways in which the outcome of the vote could indeed change between now and then, however insanely unlikely they may be or seem. And after the election is over, stories about possible fraud or irregularities in the 2004 Election may and likely will continue to be newsworthy from time to time, don't you think? -- RyanFreisling @ 07:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Ryan, it is over. An election is over when the ballots are cast (this past Monday), not when they are counted UNLESS there is no candidate with at least 271 votes and the election is thrown to the House. We know there is no tie in the electoral vote this year as each state counted the results of the votes (as in Minnesota) before sending them to Congress for counting in January. There are no procedures for changing these votes once cast, so these votes are final and as you'll see in a few weeks (as the rest of the world has seen for the past month), George W. Bush is the victor. Jewbacca 07:35, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

You needn't console me, as I'm not disconsolate nor inconsolable, it is for all intents and purposes 'a done deal'. However, as a point of fact you're incorrect. Jan. 6 is the 'official' end of the election. And there are indeed ways in which the election's outcome could change, as there are ways in which the universe could implode before I click 'save'. Regardless, the great unlikelihood of a reversal of the outcome does not mean invalidating stories of irregularities and/or fraud that are newsworthy is acceptable. -- RyanFreisling @ 07:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Ryan, you win. The election is not over, since the universe could be on the verge of implosion.  :) So, we're in agreement then that if Congress confirms the electoral vote went to George Bush on January 6, then at that point the controversy link should be removed. That's fair, I assumed this past Monday would be the appropriate date. Fair enough. Jewbacca 07:43, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

We almost agree. :) If further events warrant coverage (like Court cases being heard, other developments, etc.), those events could be newsworthy. And since the news cycles off the page at the end of the month or so, I expect it would be thru January before the current content slid away into virtuality... -- RyanFreisling @ 07:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I dissent. ONLY if decisions in those cases in favor of those parties seeking to invalidate a Bush win would actually impact the chances of Bush being inaugurated on January 20, are they then pertinent to be listed in Ongoing Events. Otherwise they're just legal exercises to remedy problems for future elections. I am aware of no court challenges currently that would actually stop Bush from being sworn in on January 20. I assume the challenges would have to reach the Supreme Court first for that to even be a possibility? (I may be wrong on that last statement, though I'm sure it would quickly be elevated there if some lower court made some injunction). Jewbacca 07:48, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

There are two possibilities:

• OH's Electoral votes are thrown out and an alternate set of Electors convened on the grounds that the Electors' votes do not represent the 'will of the people' (it's in the OH State Constitution, but this is astronomically unlikely). Nonetheless, a case was brought Monday before the Electoral vote and is in OH Supreme Court.
• or, more likely but still un-, It's in the hands of the GOP-majority House and Senate. If a Senator and Congressman contest the OH results, then the Senate (I think, or maybe the entire House, I'll check) votes on the eligibility of the OH Electoral votes, and if a majority votes (unlikely in the GOP-majority) they can either choose an alternate set of electors from OH or invalidate OH's Electoral votes (which would leave Bush at 261, less than 270 but still enough to win the Presidency under these special circumstances).

I didn't know that the Senate or House could vote to invalidate certain electoral votes. I thought they only played a roll in the case of someone not having a majority of the EVs in which case the House votes (one vote per State) and if that's tied, the Senate votes. Please provide a source for this claim if you can. Jewbacca 08:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In case of a challenge in the House and Senate (gotta be both) as above, that's the process as I understand it. I'll look for the appropriate text and fill it in as I can. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most appreciated if you can find it. That bit of law is entirely new to me. Jewbacca 08:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yep found it - it's laid out in the Electoral Count Act of 1887. If a simple majority in the House and Senate vote to reject any Electoral Vote, they may. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I found the corresponding section in U.S. Code. It's a bit dense, but here is a link [3]. It seems a bit disconcerting that it only takes a simple majority to nullify electors. It seems to leave the door open for any Congress to meddle with the election of a President from the minority party with no proof of elector impropriety necessary. Jewbacca 08:51, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

"Irregularly given" is a most intriguing, powerful phrase. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another slightly off topic question. Do you know what happens if a state delegation in the House (when voting if the EVs are tied) is tied (possible for states with even number of Representatives)? Jewbacca 08:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

In that case, the case you mention is relevant - the House votes for President, 1 state per vote (not per delegate), until a majority of votes. And the Senate chooses the VP similarly. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought the House casts ballots for President and ballots for Vice President and the Senate only casts ballots if either of the House results are a tie. ? Jewbacca 08:56, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Nope. In case of tie, President is decided by majority of the House, VP by majority of the Senate.-- RyanFreisling @ 09:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess you were right. From U.S. Electoral college: If no candidate receives an absolute electoral majority for President, then the new House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President. In this case, the top three electoral vote getters for President are the candidates for the House of Representatives to select from, and the House votes en-bloc by state for this purpose (that is, one vote per state, which is determined by the majority decision of the delegation from that state; if a state delegation is evenly split that state is considered as abstaining). This vote would be repeated if necessary until one candidate receives the votes of more than half the state delegations -- at least 26 state votes, given the current number, 50, of states in the union.

If no candidate receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for Vice President, then the United States Senate must do the same, with the top two vote getters for that office as candidates. The Senate votes in the normal manner in this case, not by States. It is unclear if the sitting Vice President would be entitled to cast his usual tie-breaking vote if the Senate should be evenly split on the matter. Jewbacca 09:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think he would. And if it was under debate, he would likely cast a deciding vote. -- RyanFreisling @ 09:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Note that during the 2000 Election, it 'came down' to the U.S. Supreme Court not to decide the winnr or the Florida EV, but because they heard a request to stop the FL recount, thereby permitting certification of the prior results, which indicated a Bush win (interesting to note that later counts indicated otherwise). -- RyanFreisling @ 08:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read U.S. presidential election, 2000 -- where a table is provided on the page showing the results of various recount scenarios had they played out -- best case for Gore was a win by a little more than 100 votes, and a bunch of others showing Bush by 500+ votes. But let's not turn this into a discussion of 2000. Jewbacca 08:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Been there. A-men. What's done is done. And that would be a most unpleasant exhumation. :) -- RyanFreisling @ 08:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In general, I'm referring to the link on the right side in Ongoing Events, not basic news coverage of individual events in the main body. That I don't mind at all as that is news. Jewbacca 07:50, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Then we're agreed. However, a few possible exceptions in my mind:

• If the suit in OH Supreme Court continues past the Jan. 6 count of Electoral votes, that will be an interesting debate. I can see both sides of that one already.
• If criminal charges are brought that indict significant participants in the election
• If civil action (peaceful demonstrations, etc.) occurs

Seems to me that only the 1st of these 3 scenarios could possibly affect the chances of Bush being inaugurated on Jan. 20. The 2nd only if Bush is indicted (which I hope you agree is beyond the realm any likelihood). The 3rd won't affect anything in terms of who will be president come Jan. 20 12:01pm ET. Jewbacca 08:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely that all 3 would be greatly unlikely (nigh impossible) to change the outcome. I was stating that those scenarios could warrant ongoing coverage/presence on Current Events. -- RyanFreisling @ 08:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If these things occur, I can see some kind of continuing discussion that could warrant an ongoing presence. What do other folks think? -- RyanFreisling @ 08:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. The issue of interest and the ongoing event is precisely that there are important ongoing investigations, including a court case, a house investigation, and quite likely criminal charges. The above discussion about whether or not the controversy can affect Bush's reelection ignores the significance of all of these other components as important ongoing events in and of themselves. — Cortonin | Talk 13:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It also bears mention, since the '(im)mutability' of the outcome is an issue - if it should be proven that there was election fraud in OH decisive and significant enough to indicate a Kerry win rigged for Bush, then Kerry is by default the valid President-Elect. As we've seen from previous citations, fraud, unlike uncounted ballots, etc., is a disqualifying crime in the OH election context. -- RyanFreisling @ 09:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just added a link to video of the Congressional hearing of Dec 13. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've read through this whole section and I think it would be beneficial to have a vote on when the 2004 US Presidential election controversy should be removed from "ongoing events". Although I believe it's already reached that point, it's obvious from yesterday's backlash that certain users vehemently oppose its removal. I propose that January 6th, 2005 be the last date that the election controversy is included in ongoing events. On this date the electoral vote is certfied by Congress. After January 6th, important news could still be listed and the existing election controversy pages provide ample space. Carrp 13:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree in principle that Jan 6th should be the last day it is in the Ongoing Events section. However I believe RyanFreisling has a valid point when he sais:

Then we're agreed. However, a few possible exceptions in my mind:

* If the suit in OH Supreme Court continues past the Jan. 6 count of Electoral votes, that will be an interesting debate. I can see both sides of that one already.

* If criminal charges are brought that indict significant participants in the election

* If civil action (peaceful demonstrations, etc.) occurs

If these things occur, I can see some kind of continuing discussion that could warrant an ongoing presence. What do other folks think?

So to sum it up I vote for Jan 6th unless one of the three points above comes true as that would indicate an ongoing event. Whether that event has the possibility to actually effect the election or not doesn't matter. --Jpkoester1 14:11, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Any controversy ended when Kerry conceded. So that would be 3 November 2004. jguk 13:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't deny that there is still controversy concerning the 2004 election. They'll always be people who believe that fraud, voter suppression, Diebold, the vast right wing conspiracy, or whatever led to George Bush winning the election. It's now almost a month and a half after the election and there are few people who really believe that the 2004 election was "controversial". In 2000, the election was decided by a few hundred votes. In 2004 it wasn't even close. I support pages that examine or catalog any irregularities or discrepencies, but it isn't an "ongoing event". I think that January 6th, 2005 would be a good compromise date for removing it from "ongoing events". Carrp 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If by January 6th the lawsuits are no longer active events, there are no longer active investigations, no criminal charges have been filed, and there are no significant protests, then yes this would be a suitable date (although January 7th would be more sensible since there will likely be some coverage of it on that specific day). However, if any of the above mentioned things are active events at that time, then either the controversy should still be listed as an ongoing event, or a subcategory could be listed in its place as an ongoing event for any significant related substories. It's difficult to predict precisely what will occur over the next month, so the vote must have a few caveats of this form. — Cortonin | Talk 18:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No. It should not be removed. I'm surprised you would consider doing so.

Wikinews ads/lks on Main Page

I realize that Wikinews is new, and don't mind them advertising within reason, but is it really necessary to have them linked twice on the Main Page and twice here? For what time frame are these links intended to stay in place? --Korath 00:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind any of the Wikinews links. The links on the main page are in the relevant secions ("In the news" and "Sister Projects"). And the links on the Current events page are quite subtle and don't distract me from the rest of the page at all. For a bad example you might want to take a look at de:Aktuelle_Ereignisse where there is a huge block of text about wikinews at the top of the page. Anyways, I think those links can stay as they are. Cheers, --Jpkoester1 10:16, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

I actually just changed the Layout at de:Aktuelle_Ereignisse a little so it's not as bad any more. If you want to check it take a look at a version from yesterday. --Jpkoester1 11:20, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

· --> comma in 'date heading'

The · between "sports" and "science and technology" seems a little hard to read, and (unrelated to the legibility issue) doesn't really work too well as a delimiter, I think, so I replaced it with a plain 'good old' comma. Any comments? --Wernher 15:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just in case you wonder why noone replies to this. I guess my comment is either way is fine with me. ;) Cheers, --Jpkoester1 12:28, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

electoral college election

What is this nonsense about the meeting of the electoral college not being newsworthy? D'uh! It is the formal meeting of the electoral body that chooses the US president. It is reported on every four years, here and everywhere. It features in world media coverage, etc etc etc. If the election of George W. Bush (god damnit. I hate the git!) isn't newsworthy, what the heck is???? This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, right??? FearÉIREANN 20:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We're talking about the meeting of the electoral college, not the election of George W. Bush. This has never been newsworthy before. No other election has wikipedia reported this. Never has mainstream media, or any media reported this, for that matter. It's like reporting "Today I got up and took a shower." It's standard operating procedure. Kevin Baas | talk 20:11, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

The electoral college elects the President of the United States. When they meet once every four years, this is newsworthy. Please stop editing the news from December 13th. If you'd like to add information on any electoral controversy, there are several pages for this. Carrp 20:41, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next time there's a lawsuit in Ukraine challenging the results of the election, please don't add it to the current events section. I will be compelled to remove it in order to mantain consistency of selection criteria among nations. Kevin Baas | talk 20:57, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

"No other election has wikipedia reported this." This is the first US Presidential election since Wikipedia was started, and nobody else elects their head of government like this (afaik). You also seem to misunderstand how electing the US President works. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please enlighten me, Cyrius. Kevin Baas | talk 22:34, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

U.S. Electoral College would be a good place to start. The short of it is that under the US Constitution, the Presidential "election" back in November means squat from a federal standpoint. It's the result of the Electoral College's vote that actually matters. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was being sarcastic. The electoral college votes are counted on Jan. 6. There is a resolution to change it to Jan. 5, but that has not passed. The electoral votes have not been counted yet, the winner has not been officially declared. The winner cannot be officially declared before the votes are counted. Kevin Baas | talk 00:54, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

It's noteworthy that the electoral college meets, because the electoral college in the U.S. has the power to completely change the election. For example, the person who voted for John Edwards this time around. While it didn't change the final result, it is a news event which brings to light important points about the U.S. democratic process. In addition, it is noteworthy that the electoral college is meeting in the midst of ongoing recounts, the result of which in theory should direct the electoral college how to vote. Last time the electoral college chose a candidate before the recount was finished, we found out later that the other candidate had actually been selected by that state's voters. This itself makes it a newsworthy event. --Cortonin 00:03, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not a big issue for me. I agree with those reasons for it to be noteworthy. I'd rather it be noteworthy for interesting irregularities that may occur, not as an arbitrary legitimization in spite of irregularities. And this, btw, applies, in my reasoning, to all events, political and apolitical. Something is interesting to the extent that it is not expected. Kevin Baas | talk 05:51, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

RFC

This page has been added to RFC, regarding 2004 U.S. election controversy. Kevin Baas | talk 20:11, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

User:Carrp has also been listed on WP:RFC here. Kevin Baas | talk 21:00, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with being added to RFC page and believe that your vindictiveness is entirely uncalled for. Disagree all you want, but do not try to intimidate me in an attempt to push your agenda. Carrp 21:03, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Since it is impossible to push an agenda by speaking the truth, you have nothing to worry about. For your future security, I feel compelled to inform you that agenda are pushed by deception; by suppression and distortion of information. (see, for instance, the recent NYT event regarding the DoD and media) Kevin Baas | talk 21:06, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

It's very possible to push an agenda by speaking the truth. Overplaying, giving something too much prominence and lack of proper perspective all come from overemphasising something that is true. Keep this on the US presidential controversy page itself, where it belongs. But regardless of your feelings this is not big news. Read the international press, look at international online media. See how seriously the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards campaign take this. And bear in mind that in a democracy of 120m+ voters there are bound to be a few irregularities. jguk 20:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are quite a bit more than "a few" irregularities, as anyone who puts this in "proper perspective" can clearly see. But regardless of your feelings, this is big news. Read the New York Times, the Washington Post, watch ABC, C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, etc. See how seriously the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards campaign take this. And read Ryan's post below. Kevin Baas | talk 21:07, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Ongoing events in need to removal

There's already a discussion of if/when to remove the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy link in ongoing events. There are two other pages that may be candidates for removal:

Nigerian oil crisis - This page is rarely updated and most updates are by one user.

2004 Pacific typhoon season - This page also is rarely updated. The last storm listed occurred two months ago. Carrp 18:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In re the typhoon season - it'll go when 2005 starts. :) Surely two weeks is not too much to ask. It's on my list of pages to get back to pronto the moment I have a few minutes of free time. Though honestly, yeah, the likelihood of further storms in that basin this year is extremely low. The problem with the typhoon season is, it's year-round. No nice boundary dates like the Atlantic. --Golbez 19:46, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hang on - you're saying the Pacific typhoon season should always be on there? If it always is ongoing, it shouldn't be on there. Sounds like Nigerian oil crisis should go too. Also the Ukrainian controversy should be replaced by the Ukranian run-off election. jguk 20:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let me clarify for Golbez: he said that "it'll go when 2005 starts." And let me correct your logic: If it always is ongoing, then it should always be on there. Also, the Ukrainian controversy should present material related to the Ukrainian controversy, while the Ukranian run-off election should present material related to the Ukranian run-off election. Each one should be or should not be listed as an ongoing event according to it's own merits. Kevin Baas | talk 21:13, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Jguk's outright deletion of FBI request news item from page

jguk commented in his edit summary: "(I'm sorry - this sounds like it is big news that could change who the next US leader is - it's not, it's a minor court case so has to go - no major news outlet is reporting this as being major)"

Is that an acceptable justification allowing one to unilaterally delete this from Current Events? I don't believe that's appropriate. It may not be as high-profile as the FBI's response, but it is news regardless of whether it will affect the election. And it has been covered by the New York Times, The Washington Post, and others... -- RyanFreisling @ 20:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On reflection, and as now noted on RyanFreisling's talk page, I think it was more the way the news was written up to imply that it could have an effect on this year's US presidential election that concerned me. I have redrafted it in a way that keeps the news and (I think) puts it in proper perspective. I have no objection to this story being in current events, as long as its importance is not overplayed. jguk 21:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Keep in mind, jguk, that, as you said yourself, importance is a POV. Therefore, it behooves us all to be carefull not to emphasize or denigrate a simple straight-forward description in order to make it more "the amount of importance it deserves" in our own minds. Rather, to avoid unconsciously intoducing our own bias, the best thing to do is to make it as concise, straightforward, and matter-of-fact as possible. Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:RyanFreisling): OK. Let's deal with this quickly. The House of Reps has not launched an investigation that will lead to the overturning of the results of the presidential election. So we shouldn't have wording in current events that implies that it may have as significant event such as that. I don't know how important the House Commission decision is (I'm British, so I wouldn't). But I can see how any House Commission may be relatively significant - particularly where it affects voting rules. I think both my concerns at the overplaying of the importance and your view that it is noteworthy news can both be accommodated. The lead in "US presidential controversy" should go. The news remain. And a note that it will not overturn the election result is added. I'll add this to current events. Hope this is ok. (As you may have guessed before, I want to keep things in perspective, not suppress noteworthy news.) jguk 21:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jguk: Before, no mention, implication, or suggestion was made regarding "overturning of the election" whatsoever. In fact, neither the election's outcomre nor election was mentioned, just "voting problems". What you just did is change this so that the entry does make, not just a statement, but a POV statement (one that in no way is ascertainable fact), regarding these matters which are outside of the scope of the event, i.e. irrelevant. Kevin Baas | talk 21:29, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Which bit of what I added is POV? If I've got something wrong, I'm happy to correct it, but don't know which bit is meant to be POV? jguk 21:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"The move will not change the result of the election, [but] may have implications for future polls." It is not yet known whether the result of the election will change. And it is not know that, in the off chance that it does, this would not have played some direct or indirect role. It may be true that it is not expected to change the result. But it is POV to say with certainty that it "will" (to state neccessary logical causation). It is also POV because it is not relevant. It implies, incorrectly, that the point of the investigation is to change the result, whereas the "problem" that the investigation seeks to address in not "the outcome", as *the outcome is not a problem*, but the *irregularities*, which *are* problems. That is, not only is the outcome of the election irrelevant, but that juxtaposing that sentence implies *falsely* that it is and therefore that the investigation is part of a partisan agenda, which it is not. That false implication unjustly denigrates the issue, and invites, in fact inspires, misperceptions. Kevin Baas | talk 21:49, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

How about "While this move is not expected to change the result of the election, it may well have implications for future polls." as a compromise? --Jpkoester1 21:53, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Top-of-my-head, I agree with that summary except perhaps 'it may well have implications for future elections and elected officials'. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with "expected". Though I must admit, having seen how the section reads without the last sentence appearing at all, as per this diff [4], I don't have any issue with keeping the section as is (ie as per outlined in that diff). jguk 22:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am fine with this too, provided that, to make the page more useful for readers, we should follow established policy, and note the relevant ongoing event in the standard way. Kevin Baas | talk 22:04, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

That addresses my first argument, but not my second. And in any case, I don't think commentary is appropriate on the current events page. Kevin Baas | talk 22:00, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

In the interest of the compromise I would propose we just leave it as it is right now then. --Jpkoester1 22:09, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed! -- RyanFreisling @ 22:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I kinda don't have a choice ;-), and in any case I think it reasonable to accept & respect a) the status quo, which b) is a compromise that c) was suggested by a third party. In sum, agreed. Kevin Baas | talk 22:13, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

"Current events in..." heading style

I just changed the style of said heading from "Current events in: sports, science and technology, Britain and Ireland" to "Current events in: Sports, Sci-Tech, Britain and Ireland". My reason for doing this was an aestetic one, but I of course respect other people's views regarding that. If anyone disapproves of the "Sci-Tech" abbreviation of "Science and Technology", feel free to say so / change it back at will; no problem at all (just thought I'd see how it looked, and get people's reactions, if any). --Wernher 00:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By country

So far there are only 2 'by country' sections - so it seems ok to list them out for now. If and when there are loads of them, then a 'by country' link may need to be reinstated. jguk 15:27, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do we really need "loads of them"? Or any of them? I not convinced we need to split even as much as we currently have—the only Current Events fork that I'm currently be in favor of is the Sports one, but then, I've always loathed professional sports. (I might be convinced otherwise if my taxes didn't subsidize the stadiums and/or tickets didn't cost $60 per and/or the athletes didn't earn more in a month than I expect to in my lifetime, but never mind that.)

• The primary reasons Current Events is tolerated despite being non-encyclopedic, as I understand it, are 1. to have a permanent record of what happened on such-and-such a date, and 2. to draw attention to our articles. (See archived discussions on its removal from the sidebar in favor of the Wikipedia:Community Portal.) A split works against both these goals.
• I'm of a general inclusionist bent with regards to this page, and wouldn't mind seeing quirky British events listed, but probably won't see them if they're only sequestered on the subpage.
• I don't think Current Events is too large to be useable. (Yet.)
• The timing is unfortunate, what with Wikinews recently going beta.
• Should the truly significant events get listed both in their country of origin and on the "main" Current Events page? If so, the duplicate information will quickly become impossible to maintain. If not, well, the current edit wars are bad enough (I'm guilty too) without adding in an excuse to banish it to a rarely-read, infrequently-updated country-specific page. Especially if the folks on that subpage are just as convinced it belongs on the worldwide page instead.
• I'm somewhat alarmed that all of the splits - or at least the recent ones - happened without any apparent discussion.

What are everyone else's thoughts? --Korath^会話 04:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the country-specific pages are good. Give them time, and interest will fill until they are complete. If you go back a year or two in the current events archive, it was a pretty different phenomenon. It looked more like an events archive and less like a news portal. Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, it's a self-redefining community, and it evolves. The wikinews project seems to have been started because of what the Current Events page has become, and because of what Current Events is missing. So I think it's okay to have things branching off, their mutual relationships will become clearer with time. — Cortonin | Talk 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the size of the current events page, if the number of events listed were to double from its current size, it might start to be a bit prohibitive. After a point, it becomes too cumbersome to search through too much text for the important headlines, and that's where categories come in. Personally, I'd rather know the 10-20 most important things that happened in each of the world, the US, and in science and technology, rather than try to find these things in a pile of 100 events. And I'm sure each person has their own such preferences. I think the main pages can include the stories that are in the subcategories when those stories are within, say, the 20 most important news events of that day. — Cortonin | Talk 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for "alarm" over the splits, we don't need to be alarmed as long as we don't let the splits detract from the main page. We need to avoid using to arguments like, "Oh, that happened in Canada, so it shouldn't be on the main page it should be on the Canada page." The same things that would have gone on the main page should still go there. The Canada page can just be an "extra" page that covers more Canadian material. — Cortonin | Talk 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And fourthly, just yesterday I was thinking that we might need to reorganize the country-specific pages into some sort of list along the right side, maybe under the header "National News" with an alphabetical listing of the countries for which there are separate pages. This will become more important if that list grows. — Cortonin | Talk 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moss v Bush

I don't believe this should be included on the current events page. The election controversy page, sure, but not here. It's barely being covered in the media and certainly isn't important to the world at this point. Carrp 21:06, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. Google news, in the US news section, currently has it as the 17th story, with just one link actually referring to the refiling of the case. To put this in perspective, 9 places above it on google news is a story on San Antonio's city council requiring strippers to have and wear permits. I don't think there's any convincing argument that it's important enough for a world news page. jguk 21:11, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, it is clear that there are no arguments against it. Whether or not it is being reported in other news sources is irrelevant; is not an argument against the event having sufficient merit to be listed in the current events article.

Now let me list it's merits:

• It is a Supreme Court Case.
• It concerns an election.
• It concerns, specifically, a presidential election.
• It concerns, specifically, a presidential election, in specifically, the most powerful & influential country in the world.
• It concerns fraud in that election.
• It concerns hard evidence of such fraud.
• It concerns such hard evidence of such fraud that is allegedly sufficient to overturn the result of the election.

Now tell me why a Supreme Court Case that has the potential to overturn a presidential election in the most powerfull country in the world, based on hard evidence of election fraud, is not important, on a world scale? That must be the basis for counter-claims. Counter-arguments must show the claims of merit that I have made to be false. I welcome debate that does not involve non-sequitor. Kevin Baas | talk 21:21, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Ummm, no. It's unimportant - as evidenced by the lack of interest in it by any news organisations. The small number that are reporting it have it very very low down the list. Nor is it a Supreme Court filing. In response to your comments:

• 1. It is an Ohio Supreme Court filing. (How many of those should we report here?)
• 2. So what? There are many many elections in the world, as it is we report fewer than 0.1% of them.
• 3. It's actually an election to appoint electoral voters who have already cast their votes. Nor do we report every bit of news of any presidential election anyway.
• 4. See 3.
• 5. Of course the plaintiffs outline a case. That's what a lawsuit involves. It does not mean we report every lawsuit.
• 6. The Ohio Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn the election now the electoral votes have been cast. Only Congress does. Even if Congress decided the electoral votes from Ohio should not be counted, that would not change the result of the election. As no candidate would have 271 votes, the election would go to the House of Representatives, which would vote for Bush.

Clearly if there was any real potential for this to change the election, there would be more media interest. The media are canny like that - and report snippets of seemingly small stories when they know/think the story will become big. This is not happening here.

The election is over! Get over it! This is not news. By way of comparison, look at what's going over in Washington State. That is news (albeit clearly not a world issue for this page either, but one which would be suitable for a US only current events page). Oh, and by the way, you even put it under the wrong date - as your own Moss v Bush page shows, it happened yesterday:) jguk 21:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, first, let me repeat myself at the risk of being boring: "Whether or not it is being reported in other news sources is irrelevant; is not an argument against the event having sufficient merit to be listed in the current events article."

That's in response to both your first and last paragraphs. Now that we got that out of the way (I hope!),

• 1. It is an Ohio Supreme Court filing. (How many of those should we report here?)
  • Very few, ofcourse.
• 2. So what? There are many many elections in the world, as it is we report fewer than 0.1% of them.
  • Are you saying that you don't think we should report the U.S. presidential election? That's another issue altogether, and I don't think you'll get much agreement on it.
• 3. It's actually an election to appoint electoral voters who have already cast their votes. Nor do we report every bit of news of any presidential election anyway.
  • 3.1: The Ohio Supreme Court has the power to overturn Ohio's electoral votes, even if they have already been cast.
  • 3.2: Non-sequitur.
• 4. See 3.
  • See 3.
• 5. Of course the plaintiffs outline a case. That's what a lawsuit involves. It does not mean we report every lawsuit.
  • I never implied that it meant we report every lawsuit. Not every lawsuit claims hard and sufficient evidence of fraud. The point is what the lawsuit claims, not how the claims are outlined.
• 6. The Ohio Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn the election now the electoral votes have been cast. Only Congress does. Even if Congress decided the electoral votes from Ohio should not be counted, that would not change the result of the election. As no candidate would have 271 votes, the election would go to the House of Representatives, which would vote for Bush.
  • As mentioned in 3.1, the Ohio Supreme Court does have the authority to overturn the election now [that] the electoral votes have been cast.

Oh, and I put it under the date that the news report reported it. That's the common protocol. Kevin Baas | talk 21:44, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Let me restate the main counterargument once more "An article should be judged on the basis of its own innate & inherent merits, not on the basis of who does or does not report it." Is that clear enough? Kevin Baas | talk 21:55, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

jguk, the "brick wall" that you are talking to has magically spoken back, and addressed all of your counterarguments. Do you have a rebuttle (not a restatement of arguments that have already been invalidated, but new ones, that address the current points of discussion), or do you concede? Kevin Baas | talk 21:52, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

First, I understand and have respect for the amount of work you're doing on the election controversy. However, I don't agree with this information being on the current events page unless it truly is news of global importance. To respond to your merits:

It's an Ohio Supreme Court Case, not the United States Supreme Court. Yes, it concerns a presidential election, but that doesn't automatically make it eligible as a current event. Just a few days ago I believe you were involved in a discussion over whether the Electoral College meeting was worthy of being on the page. If there's discussion about the actual election of the President, there's certainly some questions about a state lawsuit. Anyone can bring a lawsuit against anyone else, so the fact that lawsuit was filed isn't very newsworthy. Also, contrary to your logic, it is relevant whether other news sources carry this story. These major news sources have more resources and expertise than you or I. They spend every second of the day deciding what stories should be carried and they decided this wasn't important enough to run. Carrp 22:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do not disagree with most of your premise, but I would like to point out that the 'inadequate' coverage (in some peoples' opinions is indeed a major aspect of the 'controversy'. I do not think that in and of itself should lead us to leave it on the Current Events page, but it's important to also acknowledge that the MSM (mainstream media) is increasingly less and less independent (corporate conglomeration) and the degree of MSM coverage is no longer an objective litmus test for 'important news'. At this point, I believe the community is a better judge than the MSM as to what is relevant news. The list of important 'undercovered' or 'nevercovered' stories now fills volumes. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:04, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amen to that. The dependence on whether MSM reports a certain story should not factor in the debate for inclusion here... I didn't see nearly any reports on the Electoral College meeting and yet you guys wanted to include it here. A state Supreme Court case concerning the U.S. Election while not as important as Jacko and Scott Peterson, is still newsworthy IMHO despite it not being one of Bill O'Reilly's talking points. Jesus, I seriously don't understand the absolute suppression you guys want to drape over these events. I agree that the entire election controversy article is a bit too controversial and possibly biased for a feature or current events link, but individual events that surround it that are concrete such as Warren County's terrorist alert at 10 out of 10 and this Ohio Supreme Court Case deserve some mention at the very least. Are you saying that one of the most serious terror alerts our country has had in the last 2 years should not go reported? Regardless, that remains my opinion, however reliance upon MSM coverage is a weak reason at best to determine possibility of inclusion, given Ryan's reasoning on MSM's dependence of corporate funding and thus susceptibility to corporate interests. --kizzle 23:42, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Precisely, the MSM under-reports many events, partly out of perceived audience preference, partly out of owner interest, and partly out of journalist interests. For example:

• The US MSM itself has pretty much unanimously agreed that its coverage of the pre-iraq war was inadequate, partly because its audience didn't want the US questioned, and partly because everyone in the government was telling them there was nothing to question so they didn't. There is of course no reason to aim for reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator they demonstrated during this period.
• The US MSM mostly refers to internet journalism as fake and irresponsible, and ridicules bloggers for not being professional journalists. Many stories are ignored by the MSM because they don't want to cover the same things as the bloggers, and they don't want to source any of their information from the research done by bloggers. I've watched and read enough MSM in my life to not buy any arguments about the professionals somehow being higher quality than the amateurs.
• The MSM almost never covers stories about a small number of media companies dominating the MSM, you can't question the boss. Similarly, serious stories about bias and propaganda in the MSM are rarely done, except for occasional blasting of other rival companies.

So in conclusion, I don't come here to get a summary of cnn.com or foxnews.com, I come here for my news so I can get greater depth and scope than the MSM is covering that day. — Cortonin | Talk 12:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ongoing events

Now that we have separate pages for the UK and US, I propose moving the David Blunkett scandal to the UK one, and the US presidential one to the US one. To be honest, and bearing in mind the comments noted above, and that the Ukrainian election is already listed in the "Elections" section - I'm going to propose removing all current contents of this section. jguk 23:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The US election controversy has already been discussed at extensive length above. The consensus was to leave it until at least January 6th (or 7th), and then evaluate whether or not there have been any significant developments in the investigations to warrant calling it "ongoing". — Cortonin | Talk 02:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The earlier discussion was before we had a US specific current events page. jguk 09:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for the Blunkett link, it was deleted a few times but has reappeared. It seems to just be a link to the David Blunkett page, which lists only that David Blunkett resigned over questions about his honesty, and provides very little news information or information about any actual scandal. You'll have to excuse me here, as I'm not British, but is there much of a scandal here? What are its potential international impacts? Is it "ongoing"? Without more information available it seems to me like it doesn't qualify to be listed. — Cortonin | Talk 02:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Its potential international impacts are the same as the US presidential controversy. The Blunkett case is about how British ministers should act. The US presidential controversy is about how elections should be conducted in the US to reduce the opportunities for fraud and malpractice. So both are about standards and avoiding malpractice, and both are relevant only to one country. That's why I'm suggesting moving them from this international page, and leaving them only on the country-specific page. jguk 09:30, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think most people would agree that the democratic process in the US is of international interest. I don't think creating country-specific pages should take significant news from those countries OFF of the main page. I like being able to get a quick summary of what's going on in the world, including the U.S., Britain, and Canada from the one main page. The country-specific pages just open up the opportunity to add more news which is primarilly of local interest, but not as significant as the stories on the main page. — Cortonin | Talk 11:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As for Blunkett, if you understand the matter perhaps you could add some material to the Blunkett page which makes it more clear what the scandal is about, what its significance is, and what is ongoing about it. It seems to me that anything listed as an ongoing event should probably have a separate page, something like "David Blunkett scandal", which would focus more on the ongoing event rather than his biography. — Cortonin | Talk 11:46, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think most people would say that the details of the US democratic process, such as the efficacy of voting systems, voter registration laws, how counts are performed, etc., which are all dealt with on a state by state basis, are of little or no interest to people outside the US. I don't understand why you think otherwise. jguk 21:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then don't read it.  :) It's of interest to other people for the same reason stories detailing the negotiations between Turkey and the EU are of interest to people (myself included) who are neither from Turkey nor the EU. I personally happen to not be concerned about the sale of tobacco in Bhutan, as posted the other day, but I'm sure someone is. Everybody has their own things they care about, so we shouldn't expect each person to care about each news item. — Cortonin | Talk 22:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We try not to put parochial things on this page. That applies to matters from all countries. They should have potential for being interesting outside the country where they happen. Recently we have started having country specific current events pages. For me, this is a good development. More of the parochial stories can be added, and they are easy enough for anyone with an interest in that country to find them.

Someone has recently added a US-specific current events page: the less internationally-interesting stuff should go there. Anyone with an interest in US affairs will have easy access to it there. Similarly, readers with a greater than average interest in British, Irish or Canadian current events can go to those sites. jguk 22:44, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Electors and Protest

Readded, with 'news' source. Is the idea behind the initial removal that a press release is not valid? I'd like to understand the thinking so we can shore up our newsgathering process. Jewbacca, others - your thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 03:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Pretty much. They were press releases from action groups. The story is interesting and I would imagine others would want to read on for more information. Directing readers to news sources (whether it's MSM, wire stories from AP or Reuters, or local papers) directs the reader to hopefully a somewhat NPOV source (as opposed to press releases from either side of the debate). It looks like the sources you found, Ryan, are just what I would hope for. Thanks! I'm not sure if a press release is ever/never valid, but if there are news articles out there I think we should desire to use those first. Jewbacca 03:26, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. -- RyanFreisling @ 03:27, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I am wary about using press releases, though sometimes it's the only source available. As soon as a news source reports it, I'll use that article. Philosophical point: we are the "press", aren't we, in a sense? We choose what to report. Perhaps Wikinews would more appropriately be "the press", being able to write their own articles? I would imagine it would be more appropriate for "them" to use press releases than "us". Kevin Baas | talk 03:43, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

On the point, however, of removing an event because it is only cited by a press release: Removal of content from an article, appropriately, is under more stringent restrictions than editing of content. I think that if it is reasonable to expect a news source to report the event soon, then it is just as reasonable to leave the event there, tentatively, with the press release cited, and wait for a report, and when a report comes, add the source. Kevin Baas | talk 03:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I would agree only in the case of truly breaking news. It seems that when then entry was posted on Current Events the news stories were already written, but the poster did not include them. Jewbacca 04:06, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

That's because the poster (myself) could not locate them, so I went with what was available. I did expect that someone else could probably find other sources of information. That's how wiki is supposed to work, and it did that job. Thanks for finding the other sources, RyanFreisling. — Cortonin | Talk 11:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the philosophical note, I don't think we need to rush to erase things just because some of us don't like the source. Did you question the accuracy of the event, or did you just not like the source? It appears the event description was accurate, as it has been reported in the other sources as well, so I think it would be reasonable to improve by replacing sources rather than delete. — Cortonin | Talk 11:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By Current Events page policy, entries are not to be listed without sources. A press release by one of the involved parties is not to be taken as a source as its accuracy will be tainted by that party's POV. The AP story that Ryan posted soon after was available for hours it seems on Google News, so I don't buy that you "could not locate them". If you couldn't, add http://news.google.com/ to your Bookmarks. I believe instead you wanted to link to POV press releases at POV sites like indymedia.org Jewbacca 20:26, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Policy is clear. Sources must be provided, and they must represent more than opinionated rant sites of whatever ilk. However, let's be careful to assume good faith, and in this case accept that Cortonin posted the only article he knew about, not that he was 'proselytizing' or intentionally pushing POV. I think despite a lot of political polarization, and strong opinion, we can all agree that extending kindness to one another (and ruthlessness to the truth) is the best approach. This community is capable of great things. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A press release by an interested party does not ipso facto make it POV. That is ad hominem logical fallacy. We have all had practice on Wikipedia in using reading comprehension and critical thinking to distinguish POV, both blatent and subtle. We even have a tutorial. These skills can be used for assessing a press release, and are infinitely more reliable than prejudice. Kevin Baas | talk 21:16, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

I checked google news. There were no articles on the topic indexed by "electoral college". Even today I can't find any by that. After trying a few terms, I do find one now under "electors", but the article I find is one of the ones you didn't approve of. So if it's on Google News, I don't see it by searching. *shrug* The initial post was made in good faith. — Cortonin | Talk 22:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Kevin Baas | talk 04:21, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

So long as a press release source is clearly labelled as such, I don't see what the problem is. If a source is blatantly POV, label it so instead of deleting the entire news item - just like we do for entries in WP as a whole. --Korath^会話 21:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think what Korath said is sensible. For example if the pentagon releases a statement about something important, we don't need to wait for the AP to pick it up and write their own perspective about it. If the pentagon puts it online, we could just link straight to the pentagon press release and say that they wrote it. It should be clear to everyone that a pentagon press release represents the pentagon's POV if appropriately labelled. — Cortonin | Talk 22:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Press releases by definition are one group's side of the story. Rather than simply disallowing all future references to press releases we should attribute, just as official press releases from the white house would not be interpreted as truth in itself but rather attributed to its source, hence Korath's suggestion. --kizzle 22:26, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sidebar

(moved to #Deaths in sidebar)

Removing news stories w/o sources

If a news story is unsourced, please spend the 2-5 seconds finding it w/something like google news, and source it, rather than removing it. Kevin Baas | talk 23:55, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

Indeed. Always try to fix before deleting. On a page with this activity level, leaving something for a few more minutes can sometimes allow someone else to come along who can find a source. Now if a story doesn't have a source anywhere out there, then that's another matter. — Cortonin | Talk 04:13, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delisted from RfC

This page is no longer listed on RfC. I have removed it becuase the issue has apparently been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 00:56, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Categorisation of current events

I have created a news category in an effort to categorise items of news and other current events. My proposal is that articles listed on the current events page could be added to one of a few different categories, for example one of:

• Category:December 2004 news or Category:2004 news
• Category:2004 deaths
• Category:2004 meteorology
• Category:2004 in politics
• Category:Terrorist incidents in 2004
• Category:Conflicts in 2004

I'd appreciate any feedback about this at Category talk:News. violet/riga (t) 19:19, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Iran's nuclear program

Unless protest arises, I'm going to remove Iran's nuclear program from the list of ongoing events. From the page itself, there have been no additions to the timeline since November 28th, which is nearly a month ago, so I think it is no longer an active ongoing event. — Cortonin | Talk 04:07, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RSS

Is there a RSS feed for this page? If no, how do I track the Current Events page? - Sridhar 12:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Err... your watch list? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 19:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

• Hmmm... RSS of the wikipedia news page would be nifty, if possible. I wonder if the mediawiki people could get something like that working... PenguiN42 01:50, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not so much a strictly technical problem. The thing about RSS is deciding when to "push" a change. Do you push every time someone edits the current events page (in which case there will be dozens of events per day)? Other content management systems, such as the one the BBC use, have a concept of an editorial chain, whereby a story is reviewed before it is "finished". That doesn't map very well to the small-change incremental way wiki works (never mind edit wars). So really the mediawiki people could implement RSS syndication of any page you liked tomorrow (mediawiki has the basic infrastructure) if only someone could describe the semantics of when to perform an RSS syndication event in wiki markup in a sensible way. -- John Fader 02:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calender

Make the calender like it used to be! Not that I'm old or stuck in my ancient ways, you see, but I don't know how to change the date on it. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 19:51, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

US presidential election controversy

Does anyone who isn't American think this is worthy of remaining as an ongoing current event on this page rather than just the American current events page? (All earlier discussion was before we had the localised page.) jguk 16:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do. I think it exceeds the threshold that turns a local news item into a global news item, since any doubt over the election has wider ramifications: in worldwide markets, politics, etc. -- Avaragado 17:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no real doubt over the election - the only effect remaining discussions may have is in the details of how future American elections (or more specifically how future elections in certain American states) will be conducted. As there is no real doubt over the election, there will be no global effect. jguk 09:16, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This was already discussed here, and the decision of those who contributed was that barring an ongoing lawsuit of note, civil action, or arrests, etc., it would not be listed as a sidebar after Jan 6. The consensus was that the controversy around whether the OH Electoral College votes will go through a formal objection (based on the large volume of evidence and testimony presented to Congress by the House Judiciary Committee) is controversial enough to keep it there until Jan 6.

And, there are MANY more remaining discussions to be had about the kinds of abuses and criminal behavior seen in the 2004 Election. And perhaps some will be with Grand Juries. In any case, I think there is a compelling reason this belongs here, as it's possibly among the most important American political events surrounding the Presidency, of interest to a lot of international readers. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Definitely remove after W's coronation, er, I mean inauguration ceremony. --mav 16:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's going on January 6, per the agreement reached last month -- that is the date Congress declares a winner. Conditions for it to stay past January 6th are in the archived talk. Jewbacca 04:56, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused by your comments. Is it going on January 6, per agreement reached last month, or was agreement reached last month that after january 6 certain conditions have to be met for it to stay, and its going when those conditions are no longer met? Kevin Baas^talk 18:11, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

As far as I know, if there are no current conditions along the lines we discussed previously, we'll remove it after Bush's Electoral Vote certification on Jan 6, after which, as we American former civics students all know, only impeachment and removal/ resignation could 'undo'. However, the reason this 'controversy' is listed is not because it can or cannot affect the confirmation of a Bush second term, but the level of 'current-ness' of the news it reflects. So, if Bush's certification is challenged and a Constitution-Level Event (CLE) :) takes place 6 Jan. , if the current lawsuits remain unresolved, if there are significant arrests or protests, etc. we will keep it. That is my read on the collective agreement we all made in good faith. Other views? -- RyanFreisling @ 19:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds about right. One example (not yet mentioned here) of a thing which might make it reasonable to keep a little beyond this date would be if on January 6th a senator protests and congressional hearings begin. If something like that occurred (and it very rarely does), then it would be surprising and newsworthy. There has been mention in the news that some senators are preparing to protest, but it remains to be seen if any actually do. — Cortonin | Talk 16:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd give it a 60% chance. I've heard of multiple senators seriously considering it, and two close and reliable sources saying there's a high probability. One would expect that probability to increase as there's more discussion and the Senators become more informed. Kevin Baas^talk 18:02, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

I don't think it has more than a 1% chance. The 2000 election was much more controversial and decided by only a few hundred votes. Still, no senator formally protested. The margin was much wider in 2004 and, despite some irregularities, isn't generally considered by the public to be controversial. Unless some "smoking gun" is uncovered in the next few days, the certification will likely be uneventful. Carrp 18:17, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In light of new information, I'm changing my estimate to an 85% chance. Kevin Baas^talk 21:46, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Update: 92% Kevin Baas^talk 23:12, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)

Update: 95% Kevin Baas^talk 07:35, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Update: 100.00% Kevin Baas^talk 16:18, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

:) -- RyanFreisling @ 05:55, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buenos Aires nightclub fire

According to local newspapers, it happened at 11pm on December 30th (local time).

See [5] and [6] , both in Spanish. Ejrrjs | What? 17:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Use of calendar variables to make month table

Template:JanuaryCalendar2005Source and so on for each month this year is set-up to accept variables. I've already used this to create the calendars at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2005 and Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January as well as all the day articels (see January 1 and template:Calendar). This template system could also be used for current events. Here is an example:

This code:

{{JanuaryCalendar2005Source|1a=|1=#|2=Current events for |3= 2005|4=, 2005|5=2005|float=right|color=lightgrey|color2=|EndNote=}}

creates:

{{JanuaryCalendar2005Source|1a=|1=#|2=Current events for |3= 2005|4=, 2005|5=2005|float=right|color=lightgrey|color2=|EndNote=}}

The only downside that I see is that the reader will see active # links for days that have not arrived yet. For me that is a minor issue and is negated by the neatness of having an easy to call upon real calendar with correct day arrangement (thus you folks won't have to create a new one each month). But what does everybody else think about all this? --mav 04:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That downside isn't so important, and it ends having to update the calendar daily as each passing day is bluelinked. -- Curps 04:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good point. We could also edit MediaWiki:Currentevents-url to be {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} so that the 'current events' link in the sidebar takes one to the current month page. Then we would not have to move/archive all this stuff each month - we would just need to make sure the the next month's page is set-up before the date arrives. --mav 04:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of this, so long as this talk page stays put. Seems to me that the vast majority of its traffic isn't about specific events or entries. (I presume you meant {{CURRENTYEAR}} instead of day, though?) —Korath (Talk) 07:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fixed. :) --mav

To be honest I prefer the current archive-based approach for a couple of reasons. First, notice that this talk page doesn't get moved each month, so discussions remain in one place: with a month-by-month approach discussions would be split (sadly a few of the more-specific events pages are moving talk pages with the article pages each month, which is IMHO a bad idea). Also, at the moment I only need current events on my watchlist; with a month-by-month approach I'd need to remember to re-add the current month to my watchlist. It seems to me that the archive-based approach isn't broken enough to need fixing in this way. Perhaps a better solution would be to improve Mediawiki support for the "regular archive" model; after all, it is used extensively in talk pages. -- Avaragado 18:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One problem: all the links use the MMM DD, YYYY format. As of yesterday, current events and current sports events started using the DD MMM, YYYY format (an initiative by Jguk apparently), as does the current calendar. -- Avaragado 14:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not too late to fix this. After all, the idea's to make things easier. —Korath (Talk) 14:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The new date format will not work with the templates since all the other calendars are in MONTH DAY format. So that would need to be changed back to work. -- mav 16:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reason it was changed to DAY MONTH YEAR was because those who tend to start the page off each day (invariably those outside North America, for obvious reasons), tend to use that format. Only for someone else, every so often, to change the format back. It just seems easier to stick with the date format that is most likely to be first used. jguk 16:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aid fund reaches $1bn

I thought it reached £1bn yesterday 1 January Rich Farmbrough 14:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why I'm going to revert this again

• Currently: Palestinian militants misfire a Qassam rocket and kill a Palestinian girl in Jabalia. (Haaretz)
  • What I'm going to revert it to: A young Palestinian girl was killed in Jabalia under disputed circumstances. (Haaretz) (Al Bawaba)
    • Why ?: The Current Version only uses Ha'Aretz, but when we bother to use other sources, (in this instance I am using Al Bawaba, altough I could use Al Jazeera or Al Manar - but they are written in Arabic) we discover that the circumstances are in dispute, and as such this should be stated.

• Currently: [IDF]] soldiers kill 9 Palestinian militants and 2 civilians in Khan Yunis. (Haaretz)
  • What I'm going to revert it to: [[[IDF]] soldiers kill 11 Palestinians, including 2 known civilians in Khan Yunis. (Haaretz)
    • Why ?: There is a dispute again, Al Jazeera claims only 5 of the dead were Militants. What we do know is that two of the dead were definetly known to be civilians, and that is to be stated.

• Currently: IDF soldiers kill 3 Palestinians who were allegedly planting explosives near the border with Egypt in Rafah. (Haaretz)
  • What I'm going to revert it to: IDF soldiers kill 3 Palestinians who were alledgedly planting explosives near the border with Egypt in Rafah, altough Palestinian sources claim they appeared to be unarmed later. (Haaretz)
    • Why ?: That palestinian Soures claim the men were unarmed needs stating, otherwise is nothing but an Israeli POV.

--Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 15:57, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think those sentences need to be reverted. They've been tweaked by several people and are about as NPOV as we're going to get. Here's my comments on your proposed wording:

• "A young Palestinian girl was killed in Jabalia under disputed circumstances."

• There's no need to state that she's young. It already states that she's a girl, so we know she's not an adult. "Young" only adds unneeded emotion. The Al Bawaba link doesn't seem to be describing the same girl. Without better evidence I think we need to stick with the current version.

So, would you suggest another statement based solely on the Al Bawaba/Al Jazeera sources? --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 18:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• "IDF soldiers kill 11 Palestinians, including 2 known civilians in Khan Yunis."

• The sentence already states that two civilians were killed. It's not necessary to use the word "known". The Haaretz article does clearly states that it was "Eleven Palestinians - nine armed militants and two civilians". If you have other sources, please post them so we can read the article.

• Its on the Arabic Al-Jazeera website and Al Manar one too. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 18:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• "IDF soldiers kill 3 Palestinians who were alledgedly planting explosives near the border with Egypt in Rafah, altough Palestinian sources claim they appeared to be unarmed later."

• "Allegedly" already conveys that it's not 100% proven that they were planting explosives.

Perhaps, but it does not point out that Palestinian sources say they were unarmed, which is something that needs stating. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 18:30, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

In an effort to avoid a revert war, let's leave the sentences as they are until further sources or information are linked/posted. Carrp 16:49, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we need a Current events in Israel and Palestine article, so mentions of a girl being killed (A girl was probably killed in Detroit yesterday, but that wasn't mentioned) and mentions of minor military actions (Anyone heard of Congo?) can be taken off CE, since they clearly have only local significance. --Golbez 18:30, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Shame about the italicized coda to your message, because it kind of prevents one from coming out and supporting something that could be either a sound idea or an utter troll. Sluj 18:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What coda? :) --Golbez 20:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

I coda sworn I saw something... Sluj 21:01, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jan 6th electoral vote certification

After several edits, the sentence read: "A small group of Democrats will force House and Senate debates on election problems in Ohio before voting on the certification of President Bush for his second term".

This is close to what ABC's story reads: "A small group of Democrats agreed Thursday to force House and Senate debates on Election Day problems in Ohio before letting Congress certify President Bush's win over Sen. John Kerry in November."

However, after Kevin Baas's edit it now reads: "A group of Representatives and Senators will object to the counting of Ohio's electoral votes, forcing a debates on election problems in Ohio. At most, this will reduce Bush's electoral vote count to 263, less than a majority, and thus force congress to vote on the president."

I believe that Kevin's version ignores the fact that it is only Democrats that are objecting and only a small number of them. I am reverting to the version that had been edited by myself and RyanFreisling. Carrp 18:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I provided some historical context to today's item. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 05:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1969 v. 1877

Please stop reverting the date of the reference to 1969.

The 1969 Nixon/Kennedy 'faithless elector' was a completely different situation, much like the 'Edwards for president' vote that occured in this Electoral vote. The 1876-1877 Hayes-Tilden affair is the true precedent. It's inaccurate to compare this event to the Hawaii rogue vote for Wallace. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:17, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deaths in Sidebar

There are two issues that need discussed. The first is the size of the death section, and the second is the positioning of the deaths in the sidebar. — Cortonin | Talk 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The death section was created in March 2004, with the following comment by its poster, ``If this is allowed to stand, we'll need a guideline. I tentatively propose "no more than 3 or 4 at a time; truly significant international figures only; within the past week"``. Clearly it has expanded well beyond this size, to the rate of two or three a day. How many of the people listed have most people even heard of? For it to have a prominent location on the main news page (remembering that we have a Recent deaths for people wanting more detail) I would think it would need to have a bit of selectivity in who goes on the list. — Cortonin | Talk 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The second issue has to do with the positioning of the deaths. It was created beneath ongoing events, but was later moved up to the top and then fluctuated in position quite a few times in the past couple months. This was discussed before, but apparently we need to finish the discussion to come up with a consensus. I think the most significant things that provide quick links to the most information should go at the top. I don't understand why a long list of people, some of whose articles are only stubs, should be listed above things like the Indian Ocean earthquake or the Arab-Israeli conflict, which both have frequent updates and large amounts of information. — Cortonin | Talk 03:01, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(moved from #sidebar): Re: the recent reorganization of the sidebar elements (recent deaths pushed down) -- The edit summary comment about newspapers not leading with the obituaries is quite true. But maybe the newspaper analogy isn't entirely applicable to this page. The recent deaths listings can be relied on to change every couple of days, whereas 'ongoing events' is a lot less dynamic and (as noted above) some of the articles aren't that frequently updated. Does anyone else miss having the deaths at the top of the column? I put it back once but got summarily reverted in a matter of minutes. Sluj 23:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I prefer them at the top of the column too.-gadfium (talk) 23:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me too. It changes most frequently of the lists. Jewbacca 00:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think frequency of change is the wrong litmus test to use here. Clearly the calendar at the top of the sidebar does not change very frequently, yet we still have it at the top. The things at the top should be quick links to accessing the most information of interest. This should include news from other categories (sci/tech, sports, countries, etc), old news, ongoing events (as these are essentially specialized categories), and then subgroups of ongoing events. Obituaries of high significance are still listed as news items on their corresponding days, so there is no reason to lead with the list of all of them as the most important links to information. — Cortonin | Talk 11:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree w/Cortonin. Most interesting and important on top. Kevin Baas | talk 21:06, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that what's most interesting and important is not necessarily most interest and important to me. And no doubt a third and fourth person would have different answers on what is most interesting and important. To me, it makes sense to have the items most prone to change at the top. Those interested in other items will get used to them being on the sidebar, and can easily scroll down from them. But new events/info deserve more highlighting (and are more likely to encourage readers to click on them and learn more about them). jguk 00:03, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't see how the variety of people's interests poses any kind of problem that in any way undermines the principle that the most interesting and important news stories should be on top in the side bar. A news agency always has to determine the prominence of news articles based on "significance" which is ultimately a rather subjective criteria. However, the subjectivity of the criteria in no way undermines or logically affects the validity of it; variety and validity are disparate issues.

• One of the beauties of a wiki is that we can do an even better job than a news source of gauging "significance", by consensus, which has been working just fine so far, and can be expected to continue doing so.

• Regardless of how well the subjective gauging of significance works by whatever process is employed, that only affects the placement of items within the ongoing events section, and does not affect nor is affected by the placement of the ongoing events section w/in the sidebar.

• How quickly things change, on the other hand, is an arbitrary criteria; although it is a factor in "flow of information"; which is arguably the penultimate criteria in determining prominence, it is a subsidiary factor to more complete measures of "flow of information", such as "interest", "significance", and "importance", which multiplies this factor by factors such as "informational complexity" and "social impact". That is, it is wrong to assume that each signifier (event/word/etc.) carries the same amount of information, and that therefore that channel which carries the most signifiers also carries the most information. Kevin Baas | talk 00:23, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

"per discussion". Have I not addressed all arguments made for the obituaries, antithetically to any other news source, to be the most prominent? Have the arguments to the contrary been addressed? "per talk" or "per discussion" would seem to refer to these issues. Kevin Baas | talk 21:32, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

It is true we have discussed it, but not true that everyone has agreed with you. I for one don't - indeed I don't think any of the "ongoing events" currently listed are worth keeping on here. They are either too minor, or would be better on the country-specific pages. jguk 21:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am aware of your opinion regarding the placement of topics on the sidebar. However, the discussion is not about opinion, but about reasoning. That's why it is the logic of the arguments that determine the proper course of action. Currently, the are no standing arguments in support of having the obituaries on top, and there are standing arguments against it.

I am also, now, aware of your opinion regarding the items listed in the ongoing events, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, i.e. is a non-sequitur. If you would like to discuss such issues, you may want to start another thread on the talk page, discussing the benefits and disadvantages of having an "ongoing events" section with absolutely no items listed in it. Kevin Baas | talk 23:27, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Nothing you have said has made me disagree with what the first three comments in the section are, and am unpersuaded by your reasoning. Most frequent to change should be at the top as they are more likely to attract the eye. =

You don't appear to know what a non sequitur is (literally "it does not follow"). The word "follow" is important here, it does not mean "it is irrelevant". Since I was not putting together a precise logical argument, it's unlikely I would have made a non sequitur. Now, of course, the fact I think the current "ongoing events" list should be purged is relevant. Empty sections are neither important nor should be given precedence. jguk 23:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, a brief perusal of the non sequitur article might lead to the discovery of this sentence "Non sequitur can also be used to mean a seemingly disconnected or random comment that is not particularly relevant to the discussion". Now the fact that you were not making a logical argument is itself a problem, and would imply that what you said is not neccessary logical. However, the fact that you did not consciously use logic in making your argument does not preclude the legitimacy of examining the argument logically, and likewise does not preclude the possibility of an logical implication that you made either wittingly or unwittingly being a non-sequitur. The logical statement you implied, and have now reiterated is: "i do not like the particular events that are in the ongoing events section" therefore (notice, the innate logical nature of this conjunction) "the ongoing events section should be elsewhere". This does not logically follow, and is thus a non-sequitur in this sense. I already addressed this in the first bulleted argument. This is now the second time I've reiterated it.

Now you have made more logical errors. You have implied that the fact you think the current "ongoing events" list should be purged makes it empty. That does not follow logically and is evidently not true, as you think this, and the section is indeed not empty. Furthermore, I reiterate the first bullet point (yet again). Kevin Baas | talk 23:54, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Self-correction: the first and third bullets are the relevant ones. I originally meant to refer to the third. Kevin Baas | talk 23:58, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

On re-reading, I've realized that I did not address your first paragraph. The fourth bullet point addresses the first three comments in the section.

Regarding "more likely to attract the eye" is a very aesthetic criteria, and I do not see how it dominates the criteria of being "interesting and important". I do not think that the point of current events is to "attract the eye". That is more appropriately for commercial art; advertising, which is antithetical to any form of academic information such as news. Kevin Baas | talk 00:16, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Here's why I think the obits go better at the top:

• They're far more dynamic than the other sections; the most frequently changed part of the sidebar, far surpassing 'ongoing'. Frequency of change might not be a criterion in itself, but it helps tip the balance.

  It does help to tip the balance, and to measure exactly how much; to put it in perspective, that consideration should be put in scope of the larger picture, which is what I attempted to address in bullet 4.

• Ongoing Events would be worth showcasing if the articles it contains covered more topics, covered them in more depth, and were more frequently updated. As they stand, it's not a section we should be drawing too much attention to.

  I think the proper solution to this is to improve the quality of the articles in the respects that you mentioned. Their prominent placing would provide impetus to do this. However, I feel that their placement should be determined not by how well we've addressed these matters or elucidated the topics in the articles, but by the innate merits of the topics themselves, irrespective of the content in the articles; it should be judged on the basis of the empirical events, not the textual simulation of them presented in this wiki.

  And in point of fact, I disagree with your assesment of Ongoing Events articles. From my experience, the articles have been rather discursive, in-depth, and up-to-date. These articles (and more usually groups thereof) are a unique feature of Wikipedia that I find rather useful and impressive.

• Some of the items listed there perhaps even don't belong: Blunkett, where all that is to be said has been said; typhoons, which hasn't been updated for two weeks. "Ongoing Events" could be a good and useful section, but as it stands, it seems bogus.

  See bullet 3. That issue pertains to what is or is not in the section, not where the section belongs in the sidebar.

• Having the obits in the most visible position at the top should serve to dissuade people from listing deaths in the main column, which was standard practice until this month, until the Carnatic lady and the Indian PM managed to sneak their way in.

  I think it is evident that people are sufficiently dissuaded from doing so, regardless of the placement of the obits in the sidebar. I don't expect it to become a problem, and if a contributor makes this mistake, it is quickly resolved, and the contributor will most likely learn immediately where to place these events, with little or no complaint.

• Articles dealing with the recently deceased tend to get a great deal of attention (see today's P. V. Narasimha Rao, or Dimebag Darrell): these articles deserve showing off more than some of the "Ongoing Events".

  This is a good point. The degree of attention an article gets is de facto indicative of how interesting it is.

  I would like to join Sluj in wishing everyone a Merry Christmas happy holiday. Kevin Baas | talk 04:09, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

Oh, and a Merry Christmas to you all, too. Sluj 02:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• What makes the obituaries considered to be "frequently changing" is that more people die than there are significant ongoing events in the world. This of course just means that people are added to the list, but the ones added of course do not change significantly. In a few cases of highly significant people, there can actually be ongoing events about them, such as there could have been an ongoing event for a short time about the Reagan funeral, or for the Yasser Arafat funeral. But frequency of addition is certainly not itself a meaningful criteria for ranking order of the sidebar. We can adjust the number of people in the obituary from a few a week up to two a second, based on how many people who die that we want to include in the list. But that ability to add an arbitrary number of people doesn't automatically increase the significance of that section, nor does it raise the complexity or depth of information available from that section.
• The reasoning for putting ongoing events at the top above obituaries is the same as the reasoning for putting "United States" and "Canada" above each of those. Clearly the list of countries does not change very often, yet the information LINKED to by those links is of high depth, significance, and relevance, even if to a particular person, Dimebag Darrell is more important than, say, Canada.
• I don't think we need to dissuade people from listing deaths in the main column if those deaths are of high prominence, or of similar importance to the other stories in the main section.
• If there are complaints about a particular ongoing event, say the Blunkett story that you mentioned, then that deserves mentioning elsewhere as a debate about whether or not the Blunkett story is still an ongoing event. That is not really a part of the debate between whether ongoing events should be above obituaries. The debate is about whether the best ongoing events can present more meaningful and relevant information to readers than a list of recent deaths. I think that given the depth and complexity of information available for ongoing events, and the continued activity surrounding ongoing events, that it is pretty clear that they do present more such information, and thus should be at the top. — Cortonin | Talk 04:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree with Cortonin about the placement, but I'm with him on the size of the section. At this rate, we could have 50 people listed there by the end of the month. Which would, of course, be a Bad Thing -- unwieldy & unnecessary duplication of Recent Deaths) As a start, some of the USA/Canada politicans (and Eisner, and Freas) could be relocated to American Current Events; Cyril Fletcher should (I think) be confined to the UK+Irl page; and, if we were really ruthless, we might be left with only Kennedy, Mandela, Dixit, and Chisholm. (Hmmm... I can almost hear the roar of the flames licking around my heels.)

Oh -- and w/r/t what I said above about the "Ongoing Events" section being bogus, the recent removal of the dead wood has done it a lot of good. It's still true, however, that the stories listed there are also listed in the main column with a reasonable frequency -- daily in the case of the tsunami. That's not true of the deaths. Sluj 18:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This does make sense, though don't forget about Recent deaths as well - I have little interest in USA events per sé, but I woudln't want to miss all mention of the deaths of certain 'mericans (Eisner springs to mind). Oh, and don't forget that due to things like the World Service, what seems a local broadcaster actually has an international audience (thinking of John Peel here. sheridan 19:58, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

Best to keep the deaths in the sidebar to deaths occurring in the last week, methinks, jguk 19:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like the "last week" idea. It seems a little more controlled and current that way. I also like the current compromise ordering of "Ongoing Events" followed by a more reasonably sized "Deaths" column of 8, followed by "Ongoing armed conflicts". — Cortonin | Talk 00:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with (a) "deaths" in the No. 2 slot and (b) limiting them to those of the past week so long as (i) the title gets changed to something that doesn't imply they cover the whole month and (ii) we're careful that "Ongoing" doesn't get clogged with too many "perennial" stories. Someone will have to go through Recent deaths at the end of the month and list the most important ones for the archive version of the page (MM YYYY), but that'll just be another part of the end-of-month bureaucracy.

I'm looking forward to reading the opinions of the other players in this sidebar spat.

Now, how about limiting "Upcoming holidays" and "Upcoming events" to a reasonable limit: say, events happening within the following 30 days only? (or 60? 30 for hols & 60 for elections?) Sluj 00:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's sensible to keep "upcoming holidays" to the next 30 days. I would say "Upcoming Elections" should have a little more luxury in posting things ahead of time, because elections are an event with intensive campaigning sometimes as much as a year before they occur. Particularly important elections are sensible to cover a bit ahead of time. There should probably be some criteria to keep "upcoming elections" from covering the mayoral elections of every village, but at this point I don't know what that is. I think its current size (9 + electoral calender link) is okay. — Cortonin | Talk 08:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, perhaps we don't need to be so draconian with the elections, particularly (as I have just checked) most of the listings for distant/uncertain elections are very good articles. The Norway listing (no article yet) should be removed, though, I think -- the electoral calendar shows that it's only one of many upcoming elections without an article. Let's just keep an eye on the holidays listings, make sure that things don't get too silly. A calendar month? Sluj 13:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

suggestion: Current events in the European Union

In my humble opinion, there's certainly enough regular news to warrant this subsite. Any objections or comments? Nightstallion 22:57, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since noone shouted 'no' up to now, I went ahead and created it. Feel free to improve, I'm afraid that'll most likely be necessary. Nightstallion 23:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Err, Britan and Ireland are part of the EU. We should purge them to it? --195.7.55.146 15:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's probably best to ask in the respective talk pages first, and if someone has a heavy edit history in the pages you wish to merge, ask them in their talk pages for their opinion. Personally, I'd rather there was one well maintained article than a dozen half empty ones, but merging a full article in and deleting half the events because they're not appropriate in 2005 in the EU but are in, say, 2005 in Wales would be at least unpopular with the Welsh, if not an overall bad step. Average Earthman 16:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

IBM and the Open Source Community

I was surprised not to find mention of IBM's release of patents to the open source community. I image it must be an interesting topic for the wiki community as well. The news is headlined on the google news site.

I believe it merits mention. I put it in. Kevin Baas^talk 17:02, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Pictures of Titan

Hmm, are you sure that link to ABC has anymore information than the CNN link I posted? The point was to show the first (and only) photo. The only problem is ESA is withholding any high resolution pictures or anything else until a half-hour from now. However, JPL has low resolution pics now. This would be more indepth. Riffsyphon1024 21:39, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I can see this is already taken care of. Riffsyphon1024 23:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Toulouse, France

And not Toulouse, Kentucky, presumably. See Main Page, by the way. mat_x 11:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Censorship on Current Events?

On January 19 I added the following sentences to the current events of January 17:

• This inquiry was set up by the Railway Minister [Laloo Prasad Yadav], who has been accused to have set up the inquiry for his personal political gains as well as jurisdiction of the ministry is questioned. (Rediff), (The Hindu) On the other hand, the investigate office of the criminal case has stated that there are terrorist links to this fire (Rediff).

The whole text was this:

• An Indian train fire that killed up to 60 Hindus and sparked deadly religious riots in 2002 was started by accident - not firebombs thrown by Muslims as had been reported, an Indian Railways inquiry headed by a retired Judge Bannerjee has said. (BBC) This inquiry was set up by the Railway Minister [Laloo Prasad Yadav], who has been accused to have set up the inquiry for his personal political gains as well as jurisdiction of the ministry is questioned. (Rediff), (The Hindu) On the other hand, the investigate office of the criminal case has stated that there are terrorist links to this fire (Rediff).

On January 19 this was deleted by User:195.7.55.146 , with the comment: "remove POV, besides, its Not CE."

(BTW, I don't know what CE means in this context, Common Era?)

This was my first edit in Current News. I saw the related information by chance in wikipedia [7] (the related information has been changed now by the same User:195.7.55.146) and copy and pasted it more or less into Current News.

Now apparently there IS a debate going on about this topic, and it IS disputed. Without my addition it read like it WOULD BE an undisputed fact. It IS relevant that this report is being questioned and I consider it censorship if such information is deleted.

That this case is disputed is shown for example in the following news:

Indian Express

• The Hindu
• Rediff
• Rediff
• Rediff
• BBC
• Sify.com

--Kdlb 19:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why it was deleted. To me CE means "Church of England". That interpretation would be true in this instance, but not particularly relevant. I wouldn't get worked up too much when an anonymous editor amends your text for reasons you don't understand. Reinstate them, but add in the edit summary that if anyone disagrees with you, they should say why on the talk page. Kind regards, jguk 20:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. --Kdlb 22:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"CE" here means "Current Event". -- Avaragado 22:31, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this context, I'd read CE as "a Current Event"; the anonymous editor was wrong in saying this wasn't, but I suppose a quick read of the item might lead them to think it was referring to the 2002 event rather than the enquiry report. In any case, don't be too offended if someone amends your text for length or readability. Jguk's advice above is good. Regards, Arwel 22:35, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In this case, the deletion of my additional sentences (without the deletion of the original news article) was done by the same person who wrote the original news article, so he must have known the context, i.e. that it was referring to 2004, not 2002. Regards, --Kdlb 23:06, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The additional sentences were again being deleted, this time by User talk:Irishpunktom, with the comment "irrelevent, not a Current event". Of course, the original article was left as it was (how can only one part of the same news not be "a current event"?) Now, IF it is not possible to write a NPOV news article on a topic, then I propose to future "editors" to delete the whole (not just part of) the news article. --Kdlb 00:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:195.7.55.146 alias User talk:Irishpunktom are the same person. Please don't take it too personally, some of your edits may be good and all, but clearly we need all to to take care of NPOV in wikipedia. --Kdlb 01:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again deleted by User:195.7.55.146 alias User talk:Irishpunktom. (Besides, they are "cooking tea and food" in almost every long distance train in India.) Regarding the comments by Nvinen, if they were related to this case: These two topics can not be compared in this way. A more correct comparison would be, if a news report said that the Madrid bombings or the school killings in Russia or some suicide bombings in Tel Aviv were not terrorist acts, but only "an accident". This has to do with Negationism: Islam's conquest of India has been described by Will Durant as "the bloodiest story in history", and even this bloody record is sometimes negated by some "historians". It is not correct to only negate the past, it should be discussed, solutions should be found etc. and not exploited by politicians etc. I'm not saying, that in the present case only the Moslems or only the Hindus are correct, I'm saying that we need a fair and truthful approach in the news, and that this has to be done by all sides. This has to do with correct, npov, balanced, fair and serious news reporting. Anyway, I won't alter the relevant article anymore. --Kdlb 10:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Muslim conquest of India, as described by Will Durrant, is not relevent on a page which is deals specificly with Current events. There is a discussion and page concerning the 2002 Gujarat violence, where you can edit away to your hearts content. The Current event is, or rather was, that the investigation set up by the railroads commisson investigating the incidents at Godhra, not Gujarat, concluded that the Fire was an accident, almost certainly from within the carraiges, and not from a Muslim Mob as had been reported, and thats what it says. Previous conclusions, including that by the BJP (Who were condemned by the Supreme Court as being the main instigator for the violence, with the BJP governer continuosly appearing on TV blaming Muslims and terrorists for the Violence, arresting 60 Muslims for the "attack" in Godhra, and not punishing a single individual for the thousand dead Muslims in Gujarat, former home of Ghandi) were mentioned here.. previously. --195.7.55.146 11:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

• Palestinian militants explode a truck laden with explosives in the Karni crossing in the eastern Gaza Strip. At least 6 Israelis were killed, as well as three of the attackers, and about 10-20 were wounded in the attack.
• Israeli troops kill two Palestinians in the Gaza strip, one of whom was driving a pregnant neighbour to hospital.

What were the six Israelis who were killed and the 10-20 who were wounded doing? Going to school? Going shopping? Why do these kind of articles or news exerpts humanise the Palestinians and dehumanise the Israelis? Why do they always make it sound like it's the Israeli's fault? For example:

• Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon instructs the army to take action against terrorism and Palestinian rocket attacks following an attack by militants at a Gaza crossing that killed 6 Israelis, which followed several Israeli raids into the West Bank and Gaza which killed dozens of Palestinians.

If you wanted to play this game you could go on forwever. ", which followed Palestinian attacks on Israelis, which followed an Israeli raid, which followed...." going back a few millenia. This sort of writing is insidiously biased and greatly detracted from credibility. Please stop taking sides in these issues and simply report the news. Nvinen 02:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pictures on Current events

I actually meant to bring this up several months ago, but was even more timid then, so never got around to it and eventually forgot. The French Wikipedia's Current Events article regularly includes pictures, and I think it livens the page up nicely. I'm currently reminded of this, of course, by the Jimmy Carson picture that was here earlier. Before I start on a wholesale Illustrate-Current-Events spree, what are other people's thoughts? Is there any precedent against or objections to this? Any obvious drawbacks that I'm not seeing? —Korath (Talk) 06:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The page has too much stuff on it as it is. -- Cyrius|✎ 14:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I think it's bad idea because it could lead to a lot of other problems. EG - Should the news page show the Abu Ghraib photos? Yes they are news, but they are also obscene. --195.7.55.146 15:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews and Current Events

Why dosen't the Current Events section become merged with Wikinews? It makes sence, because why have people do twice the work by having both, and what is the perpose of having Wikinews if you have Wikipedia's Current Events section and vice-versa. Cafzal

Because wikipedia and wikinews have different editorial standards. Currently, wikinews allows "original reporting", but wikipedia insists that everything here, even stuff in current events, be sourced externally. So if aliens land outside your house, report it on wikinews. When you see a report about it on CNN, report it here. -- John Fader 22:27, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Technically, that is not true. In Wikinews the news has to be factual and must be in the writers own words. It may also be edited and distributed. I am just saying that it makes no sence to have double the work for writing up news. Cafzal 25 Jan 2005

It makes sense to have two because if there were one it isn't yet clear how to effectively merge them. Maybe someday this will be clearer, and it will make sense to merge, but I haven't seen anyone yet propose how to do this meaningfully. How do you effectively integrate news summaries of news from other sources with originally generated news summaries? It might be interesting if breaking news stories on Wikinews were at some point listed on current events right along with other sources. But this relationship is less clear for the more longterm articles on Wikinews which describe more longterm trends, such as "U.S. dollar drops in value", which don't exactly fit into a daily event format. If you have ideas for how you think these two could be coherently integrated, please present them and it just might spark a discussion. — Cortonin | Talk 21:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cafzal is right. I'm guessing you haven't visited Wikinews recently, John; Wikinews has editorial standards as high (if not higher) than Wikipedia. If you're doing original reporting - which basically people aren't - you have to provide evidence. If you're writing an article, you have to give your references, unlike Wikipedia. Dan100 21:58, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

There are specific differences between the policies of Wikipedia and Wikinews which should mean the Wikipedia Current Events block is not producing "news", but instead reporting events which have affected Wikipedia articles. This is not what is happening, of course, and Wikipedia is now hosting news articles, some of them very good! but not encyclopedia articles. It is a duplication of effort. - n:User:Amgine

A way to merge Current events with Wikinews?

Here's a suggestion for replacing the box on the front page of Wikipedia. On Wikinews, all new articles are listed on a special page, one for every day, eg. n:Wikinews:2005/January/27. This is used to build the 'Latest news' box you see at Wikinews. I suggest that - somehow, I know of no automatic way - that the WP box is formed from the same content as the daily newspage, ie a list of links (with subtitling, when someone's done it) for all new stories that day. Dan100 22:15, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

eg:

In the Wikinews New York radio station apologises after 'humorous' tsunami song Row intensifies between Sinn Féin & the Irish Government Saskatchewan town asks for return of "accidental" tsunami donation One hundred dead after air raid in Darfur, Sudan British serial killer murdered 250 Driver who caused Los Angeles train crash charged with murder The 2005 World Social Forum begins in Porto Alegre News briefs

Although, as I said, I know of no way to generate this box automatically, it would be very easy to maintain manually. Dan100 22:20, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

"Leading scientists report..."

"*Leading scientists warn that Lobby groups funded by the oil industry are trying to draw off public attention from climate change and to derail action to cut greenhouse gas emissions. (The Guardian)"

Can you really say that an article in The Guardian reporting on another article in The Guardian is news? This needs to be either deleted or edited.

It is reporting on that day's print edition of an article detailing oil companies UK lobbying efforts, authored by the president of the Royal Society. -Dejitarob 23:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bold updated articles

Just like ITN has the updated article bolded should we do this here? This would make it easier for people to scan current events and look for items that could be used to update ITN (particularly important now it is protected). violet/riga (t) 16:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think people should add items here whether or not articles have been updated. When an article is updated - that articles is then bolded here. That would be a good indicator for ITN editors. zoney ♣ talk 15:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Left Margin Tweak

Hello,

I reduced the left margin in the template to 1em for current events to be more 800x600 friendly. I had already changed it in Canadian current events and found it to be an improvement. I hope others will agree, and forgive my boldness. Keep up the good work, and I hope to improve the Canadian current events soon. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hidden instructions

I don't think the hidden instructions at the top of Current events are actually read. They are only visible when someone click on 'edit this page' at the top of the page, but they are not shown when we click on '[edit]' to the right of the date. How to solve this ? Should the instructions be displayed at the top of the page at all times ? -- PFHLai 02:48, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Only stories of INTERNATIONAL INTEREST should be added here. Consider whether each story would be better placed on the USA CURRENT EVENTS, CANADIAN CURRENT EVENTS or BRITISH AND IRISH CURRENT EVENTS pages before adding it here.

Um, where are the links to these pages? RickK 23:37, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)

Below the calendar on Current events. -- PFHLai 12:22, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)