Portal talk:Current events/April 2005
See also: Wikipedia:How the Current events page works
For instructions on how to archive Current events at the start of a new month, see: Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events
Previous discussions:
- General Archives:
- /Vote on tense (archived)
- /Setting the context
- /Too much analysis
- /Ongoing events (various)
Calendar on the top right
Is the calendar on the top right in Current events supposed to be clickable ? Ditto for August 2004. -- PFHLai 04:37, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)
- They are, but only for those days which have news stories. -- Arwel 11:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Nothing happens when I click on any of the dates, including those in August. I might have typed in the wrong codes for Sep. 1st & 2nd. Or is my browser acting up ? -- PFHLai 08:49, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
- Just found out that it only works when I am not logged in. Rather odd and annoying... :-( -- PFHLai 04:34, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
- Nothing happens when I click on any of the dates, including those in August. I might have typed in the wrong codes for Sep. 1st & 2nd. Or is my browser acting up ? -- PFHLai 08:49, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)
Categorization
Hello Current Events people! (I seldom edit this). I think we need to categorize a lot of the events that happen during the year. I know that we already do this (Category:2004 in sports etc), but we are perhaps not doing it consequently. I've created the category Category:Conflicts in 2004 and I wonder what you think of this. I want Category:2004 to cover "What happened in 2004?". Without conflicts and stuff like that, it lacks major parts. Other missing things seem to be the US Presidential campaign, which I can't find from the 2004 category. Thus we might need Category:2004 in politics etc. [[User:Sverdrup|User:Sverdrup]] 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
RSS feed
What will it take to have a web feed for the current events page or for the wikipedia home page?
Lot of people use RSS to stay updated with the latest news. The latest version of Firefox has enhanced support for syndication! Sridev 20:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Sports policy?
I realize there is a Current sports events page, but not everyone is a sport nut and would be going there. Does anything qualify as important enough a sports event to be listed on main Current Events?
e.g., the 2004 World Cup of Hockey final is Ice Hockey's biggest story of the year, excepting perhaps the Stanley Cup final. Is two lines on CE too much?
Radagast 03:39, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I think that some sports events deserve to be listed here, and so do some others, but generally speaking they tend to be removed with the comment "Don't you know that current sports events exists?" or similar. Opponents argue that the current events page would be "flooded" with sports events if we even so much as whisper the word "golf major". Positions are entrenched, so I've given up trying to argue the case. -- Avaragado 11:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe I was overzealous in removing the World Cup story. For my part, I'll try to be more selective in the future. - Mateo SA 14:54, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Bias favoring rebel POV in Iraq
Much Wikipedian rewriting of AP, Guardian and other news stories slants the coverage even more in favor of the rebels than those anti-US sources had already slanted the stories. This has got to stop.
Wikipedia news coverage should not be slanted in ANY direction.
Don't argue your points in news stories. Don't omit one side and emphasize another side, especially when the source you are quoting includes both sides.
The US point of view is that they are liberating an oppressed Iraqi populace from a bloodthirsty, power-mad dictator. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
The rebels' point of view as that they are fighting against an imperial takeover aimed at subjugating an independent Iraqi populace for selfish and nationalistic purposes. We should neither endorse nor oppose this POV.
News stories tend to play up the "rebels vs. US" angle. They are quick to quote local witnesses who insinuate that the US is killing civilians wantonly in a war of aggression; this bolsters the argument that the US is wrong. Please note that Wikipedia must not endorse or oppose this argument.
If you want to argue that the US is guilty of war crimes, start a blog. Or write a general article which QUOTES prominent sources as making this argument. But don't sneak it into news stories. I'm asking you, please. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- There is more than one group of rebels, and more than one Viewpoint. Don't forget there are those who ant to stoke up a civil war, and those who want a union of three states who are actively fighting each other as well as anti-US and Collaberating Iraqi activists.
- If the U.S kills dozens of civilians, the U.S kills dozens of civilians. Suggesting otherwise is maintaining a US POV. As it is, The cities of Fallujah, to name one, is not under U.S occupation. If local Doctors say they are treating Civilians their position is more believable because they are actually there. The U.S is not there, so for them to say absolutely that no Civilians were killed suggests they are in control of a God-Like omnipresence.
Anti-Israeli bias
The following news story has an anti-Israeli bias:
- Two Palestinians are killed by Israeli troops returning fire after an Israeli soldier was killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. The troops have been engaged in that part of the northern Gaza Strip since yesterday, September 29.
- It downplays the killing of the Israeli soldier
- It does not clarify whether the "Palestinians" who were killed, were armed (although "returned fire" implies this)
- It seems designed to give the impression that Israel is conducting a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter.
If some advocate believes that Israel is killing "Palestinians" without concern for international law or moral considerations, we should include a comment attributed to that source, like:
- "This is another example of Israel's indiscriminate slaughter of freedom-loving Palestinians. Those hypocrites say they love democracy, but they don't even respect elementary human rights," said Mustapha al Fahda, leader of the Alliance for Palestinian Democracy.
I think the best way to describe armed violence is to mention who fired the first shot, like this:
- An Israeli soldier is killed at an observation post in the northern Gaza strip. Israeli troops returned fire, killing two Palestinians.
Please think carefully about the impression your writing makes, and try hard to avoid letting bias creep in. --Uncle Ed 14:02, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? If you are returning Fire, it surely means the fire was Coming in both directions. Ireally don't see how it downplays the death of the soldier, perhaps you can further Ellaborate, and it most certainly does not give any impression of Wholescale slaughter. TWO. Not two hundred, not two million.. TWO. How on earth could anyone come to the conclusion that was " a campaign of indiscriminate slaughter."?
- The Palestinians did not shoot first. The observation post was in the Northern Gaza Strip. how do you think it got there? Did they magicly appear? Get real!
Are you saying the story is okay because "returned fire" clearly says that the Israeli observation post was attacked first? Or are you saying that the story is okay because it (correctly) gives the impression that the observation post fired the first shot?
Or are you really saying that you want Wikipedia to endorse the POV that Israel is an "aggressor", so that every attack by Palestinian Arabs on Israel soldiers is a "response" (i.e., justified in self-defense) while every atttack by Israli soldiers on Palestinian Arabs (armed or unarmed) is "bad"?
If so, please recall that NPOV forbids the Wikipedia to endorse or reject any controversial view. --Uncle Ed 17:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The Israelis forced their way in, two palestinians (Amoung many) Shot the invading israelis, they were klled but not before killing one Soldier. Thats how it happened, thats not a POV.
Not News
Ok, Could someone kindly define 'News'. Apparently the news Networks are completely wrong in their Definitions! The Lead story on Google's news is The reaction to the US debates, but apparently thats not worthy of Wikipedia, and the BBC is leading with Spain approves gay marriage bill, but likewise, apparently, thats not newsworthy enough for Wikipedia either. So what is te definition of News for Wikipedia, because from what I've read both stories are newsworthy.. Maybe I'm wrong.
- I'm confused; we have both things listed in Current Events, and one of those in In the News. What do you think News is? --Golbez 15:55, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- I deleted those two stories from Current events, saying that they are not "news" (see page history for my exact comments), and the anonymous poster (who is, apparently, 195.7.55.146) restored them. He/she is referring to the Current events page. Mateo SA | talk 16:23, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
Ongoing events that lose relevance
This is a two part question:
- What are the criteria for "ongoing events" to be deleted from the current events page? The Ryanggang explosion is old news, but North Korea's nuke program is an ongoing issue that keeps the explosion "sort of" ongoing but not really. The "do it however you want to" standard seems arbitrary somehow. I'm looking for heuristic, not a hard and fast rule.
- I don't know if this has been addressed because there are too many F$%^ing archives. What are the rationale for labeling archives as Archive 1... Archive 2? Is the system of labeling archives really the most intuitive? MPS
- I think the rationale is that the archives are simply dumps of the page as of a certain date. Apparently, except for a couple of topics, no one has organized those archives by subject. Mateo SA | talk 20:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Going through the Current Events archives and making a version sorted by subject would be quite the daunting (and subjective) task, useful though it would be. Anybody have a couple of weeks they want to spend doing that and defending how they did it? Lord Bob 02:25, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I think the rationale is that the archives are simply dumps of the page as of a certain date. Apparently, except for a couple of topics, no one has organized those archives by subject. Mateo SA | talk 20:49, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
What constitutes NPOV?
OK, after looking at the archives, apparently my story on the anti-Bush heckler a while back caused quite a bit of controversy. So someone please tell me, how should I phrase a story so that it isn't biased? Because I am inclined to believe that a story will always bias one side or the other; the truth tends to be very unfair. So someone help me out on this. -- The King Of Gondor 01:38, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The vaccine crisis needs to be listed here, but I think that article needs a lot more detail before we do so. I'm interested in opinions. Pakaran. 18:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jacques Derrida
The article for Jacques Derrida mentions October 8 as his time of death, while it is October 9 on this page. Which is correct? roozbeh 22:12, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
- According to News 24-South Africa[1], October 8. (This was the first story I could find that actually listed the specific day he died.) Mateo SA | talk 23:13, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Ordering on the right
I've reversed the order of the "Upcoming elections" section on the right. Now all dated sections are ordered such that the first item is nearest to today. This matches the approach taken on current sports events, and seems more natural to me overall. -- Avaragado 22:34, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- And I've just been reverted. Ah, splendid. Does anyone else think it's dumb to have to look at the bottom of the list to see which election is next? -- Avaragado 22:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Everything else on the page is listed in reverse chronological order. It seems more natural to me for the list to match that order. — Mateo SA | talk 23:02, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I knew that would be the explanation, but I don't buy it. Here's the thing. I've been on holiday for a week, away from Wikipedia. On my return I looked at current events to catch up, and was surprised to see upcoming elections shown back-to-front. I honestly thought it was a recent innovation, and wrong. Looking at the history I saw it wasn't recent, but I was still sure it was wrong, so I changed it. Consistency is not always a good enough reason for something. The other lists deal with events that have already happened, and this one deals with events that haven't already happened. That distinction is a big one. As far as my brain works, and I suspect most people's, all ordering pivots around today. Last week is more recent than last month, so last week is "higher" in my mind. Next week is earlier than next month, so next week is "higher" in my mind. I think the lists should reflect that. Be consistent with the brain :-) -- Avaragado 07:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Avaragado. It looks dumb the way it is. - Mark 08:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Yeah, Avaragado is completely right!
- O.K., I've switched it back to nearest-item-on-top order. — Mateo SA | talk 17:30, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- I've always thought nearest item on bottom was better, but I guess I'm in the minority here.
Um...
- Um...is it just me or did some ****er just mess with this page?