Talk:Current events/Archive 10

message: 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. ❝Sverdrup❞ 15:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Flu vaccine]] 

message: I'm getting a weird formatting problem - square brackets are being replaced by spaces, breaking wikilinks. Is anyone else experiencing this? -- ChrisO 12:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope -- Dejitarob 00:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting bug?

message: Cut from article:
** U.S. war planes strike a house in Fallujah, reportedly killing a family of six, including four children. The U.S. military, however, denies a family was killed and issues a statement saying that "intelligence sources indicate a known Zarqawi propagandist is passing false reports to the media". (Reuters)
Article says that the strike happened. But this is just one POV, even if Reuters is being honest.
The news is not that the event DID happen, but that someone CLAIMED it happened. Wikipedia should not pass on disputed reports uncritically.
This news blurb should neither side with the US (which said no strike occurred) nor with the other source (which said a strike occurred).
Let's revise this capsule story so that it is NEUTRAL. I leave this as an exercise for the student. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 15:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The US didn't claim that a strike didn't happen, rather that the house was used by militants and the death of the family was propaganda. It's not exactly clear in that article, but it is in this  Reuters article where it says "The U.S. military denied a family of six was killed, saying it launched four strikes against safehouses used by Zarqawi's fighters." So I would say the article is correct in claiming a strike happened, one said (witnesses and Reuters) claimed a family of 6 died, while another side (US military) said the death of the family was propaganda. - Dejitarob 19:14, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not news

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

message: A post about the October 29, 2004 Lancet report which estimated civilian casaulties in Iraq at 100,000 contained quotes which were not from the actual report or linked article. 
The Lancet, British medical journal, says that the "political and military failure" of what it terms "democratic imperialism" has astronomicaly increased the civilian death rate in Iraq. 
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the study, it used a small sample although random. However, besides the quotations not being in the actual study or linked article, they were taken out of context. A seperate commentary publication by the editor stated "democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer." If the study comes to conclusions that are much higher than other unofficial estimates, say so. But I think that taking quotes out of context violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy which states all sides of a dispute should be represented fairly. - Dejitarob 19:40, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I thought there was something fishy there. I almost guessed that the political comments were from a separate article, but I didn't take the time to check. Good catch. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 19:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe the Lancet published this, poorly done research with obvious political bias in the conclusions. The rediculously high confidence interval is purely mathamatical, based on assuming the statistics are good and doesn't even try to also include estimates of additional error from even the problems and assumptions noted in the article such as displacement, recall bias, etc.  And then the article's authors had the hubris to make conclusions are the accuracy of "air attacks", without including any methodology for how they determined what were air attacks.  Even experienced war correspondents have a difficult time knowing whether and explosion resulted from some munition fired from the air, from landfall of anti-aircraft shells or from errant motar attacks.  It is embarrassing that the Lancet reviewed this for more than a month and didn't know better.  It wanted to publish before the US election.--Silverback 20:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I too wish Wikimedia could better accommodate analysis and opinion. Maybe when/if Wikinews comes out. Go vote! - Dejitarob 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking quotations out of context and source 

message: Please correct me if I am wrong. If one side is reporting something doesn't the NPOV policy mean that the party and the claim needs to be written as such? I am specifically referring to:
Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing medical staff and patients. A 9 year old boy died because of lack of medical assistance after he was hit by shrapnel in what the parents thought was a seperate airstrike ... Iraqi and US forces captured a mosque in Northwest Falluja that was being used as an arms depot 
Before it was reverted, I changed this to:
Residents say a U.S. airstrike hit a clinic killing staff and patients, and in a seperate airstrike, a 9 year old boy... Iraqi and U.S. forces capture a mosque in northwest Falluja which they say was used as an arms depot and insurgent meeting place.
There have been no confirmations that a boy was hit by a U.S. airstrike or that he even died, or a mosque was used as a insurgent stagging area. Information is extremely difficult to verify during conflict and therefore is usually only reported by one party, especially casaulties. Many times another party has even came out and denied reports, as with the U.S. saying an al-Zarqawi operative was reporting propaganda in Falluja.
:How is reporting less information better?  The information about the boy came from parents, and that is mentioned in my version.  They don't claim he was hit by a bomb, but by shrapnel, during what they thought was an airstrike.  Frankly, unless it is clear that the wound or damage was from a munition that only the US had, the civilians on the ground, victims or not are not qualified to say whether it was from motars, bombs, air defense munitions, etc.  Even in the well trained professional US military, casualties from friendly fire occur, but this is often only known after an  investigation by experts.  The US military has a culture of investigating and admitting friendly fire incidents, because the lethality of its weapons have made that a significant source of casualties.  The terrorist insurgents do not have such a culture and expertise, so are less credible.  How often do they admit unintended casualties among those they consider friendlies or non-combantants.  I am trying to produce a more balanced report of what was in the articles that are cited.  There is a tendency to just single out the negatives towards the US when these articles are posted.   The insurgents are fighting an unjust war, opposing democracy, elections and civil society, unauthorized by legitimate authority and they are compounding it by using unjust means, conscription, inaccurate and indescriminate munitions, underage recruits, etc.--Silverback 08:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Because reporting more information that favors a particular side is not better. His parents were claiming that he was hit by shrapnel, bled and died and the U.S. forces were claiming the mosque was an arms depot. Even if something was verified by another party (currently there is no formal process to investigate or count civilian deaths), the submission would need to say so also. I think the negative tendency stems from the large loss of human life in war, especially in the current guerrilla fighting where the line is blurred between civilians and hostiles. If you feel casualties takes up more coverage than it should, then start inserting other relevenant stories but please stick to the NPOV policy. Current events is not the place for excess biased analysis, it is here to simply report the events in a neutral point of view by citing claims and labeling them as such. - Dejitarob 17:21, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning the boy was POV, especially since it was attributed to airstrikes as if it was US fault.  While the news sources themselves appear biased in their reporting, I was glean even from these stories, that there were lots of ways to attribute fault.  For instance, the shrapnel may have had a different origin than a US air launched munition, a large majority of people evacuated Falluja, so perhaps the parents are at fault, the boy bled to death, so perhaps the parents were unwilling to negotiate dangerous streets to save his life, most doctors had left so little medical assistance was available so perhaps it was the doctors fault, the insurgents failed to defend Falluja, or to make it an attractive place for doctors to stay, so perhaps it is their fault.  Even if the post is correctly reporting what the parents or residents attributed the casualties to, if the post reports that attribution, it is legitimate to also report other details to balance that out.  You did not just report that the casualties that the residents stated occurred, you also reported what they say the cause was, and this on a subject matter, where in many instances they really can't know what the cause was even if they were stating what they truly believe and not propogandizing.  On the other hand if munitions are found in a mosque, much less expertise is needed to make that assessment, they are easily distinguishable from Koran for instance.--Silverback 22:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq stories NPOV once again 

message: [ WBAL Radio]
Michael Phelps was arrested for DUI.
:This is hardly earth-shattering news -- how many thousands of other people world-wide have been stopped for drunk-driving in the last 24 hours? Arwel 15:28, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic gold medalist arrested for traffic violation 

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

message: Why is it that most of the news sources we use are either BBC or CNN?  There are plenty of other good, respectable news outlets that don't use initials, and aren't either international media conglomerates or state-hegemonous outlets.  Just a grievance of mine (although I admit my guilt on this offense). -- The King Of Gondor (call me Dale) 16:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Because CNN and the Beeb are usually the first with any new story... and by the time other sources get them, no one thinks to add them? --Golbez 17:24, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Hmm.  Very true. -- The KoG | (talk) 22:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
::Other alternative sources are always welcome in my book, feel free to add them. - Dejitarob 01:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Using other news sources

message: Um, am I the only one who thinks that a grilled cheese sandwich with a coincidental likeness of the Virgin Mary is not worthy of current event status?  I'll remove it for now, unless others feel a lunch is definitely a good current event. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
:It was reported by several major networks, even CNN... Even the big ones put lighthearted stories in from time to time. Why can't wikipedia? PenguiN42 21:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
::I too read the CNN story.  It really is pretty funny to know some people are actually willing to spend $16,000 on a ten-year-old sandwich.  But someone is always coming out saying "My [some household appliance, food item, door, or window] has the face of [Jesus, Mary] and hasn't [broken, sprouted mold, melted, or some other verb] since I discovered the face!  And now I want to share it with my fellow [insert nationality].  For profit of course."  The fact that news organizations will report it doesn't make it newsworthy.  I think Scott Peterson proved that. -- The KoG | (talk) 21:48, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
:::Silly food items on ebay going for high sums of money is nothing new. Just because it is to the major networks does not make it worthy of being posted. Current events is not the place for bizarre news anyways. - Dejitarob 22:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If we don't get our current events from major news outlets (CNN, BBC, etc...) then where will we get them from? This is an event that (though funny) is occurring and making the news at more than just a few sources check all of (Google News') entries. Also, I wasn't aware of this situation occurring frequently, least of all for a bid currently at US $69,107.69 so why not report it when the rest of the world is hearing about it? I say put it back in. - Nrbelex 03:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you are saying however this still falls under "odd news" and therefore doesn't belong here. See Talk:Current_events#Not_News and Talk:Current_events/Archive_9#Controversial_Item. Try WikiNews for an odd/weird category.-Dejitarob 06:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Grilled cheese?

message: I removed this entry: Human evolution: Long distance running was crucial in determining the form of the human body according to Dennis Bramble of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, and Daniel Lieberman of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Nature)
This story is about a new theory so I do not believe it should be posted. I could see otherwise maybe if it was detailing the conclusion of a new study under certain circumstances. - Dejitarob 22:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm....new theory in science not a current event?  it is true that the Nobel Prize committee is very leary of awarding prizes for theories in science before several decades have elapsed.  Einstein got his nobel for photoelectric effect theory published in 1905 (along with special theory of relativity and one other...Nobel committee picked the one of the three papers that was least likely to have issues, ever.;)   But should Wikipedia be so chary of reporting the publishing of a theory in Nature.  Its not like we are endorsing it or awarding a Nobel Prize ;) Lance6Wins 15:47, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A theory about the origins of the human form stemming from long distance running  is hardly as far reaching as those theories, save for a very few fields (yet still important) like anthropology and narrowly biology. - Dejitarob 20:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, there is now a Current science and technology events created by 84.121.13.171. Seems redundant considering the wikinews science and technology page. --Dejitarob 05:40, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running human evolution theory 

message: Dejitarob, in what way is the FT article 'obviously biased'?  Is the Financial Times not a journalistic source?  It's about the only thing I've seen written that goes beyond "crowds in Kiev", and actually outlines the people and power balances in the current political situation.  —Michael Z. 22:25, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
:I apologize for not expanding on why I believe it is biased and saying "obviously". I need to quit my nasty habit of projection bias, but let me explain. First, Financial Times has an inherent bias towards the pro-market Yushchenko since they mainly write about liberal economics. Second, the article is more editorial than reporting in that it lacks sources to back up its claims. Third, it incorrectly calls Russia an authoritarian regime. While Russia is sadly lacking in democratic tendancies, it is somewhat different than the previous single party authoritarian state it once was. I do not necessarily disagree with what the article is generally saying, however it would be against the NPOV policy to link it. If you are looking for analysis or op-ed, try Wikinews. There is a demo page up and currently no material covering this event. --Dejitarob 22:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT article on Ukrainian situation 

message: Perhaps this is newsworthy enough.
Lynchings of Policemen Ignite Outrage at Violence in Mexico
New York Times - 1 hour ago
MEXICO CITY, Nov. 24 - This city seemed in a state of shock on Wednesday as people struggled to come to grips with the scenes of lawlessness captured on television as an angry mob lynched two police officers ...
:If you think it is newsworthy, go ahead and submit it as it most likely is.  --Dejitarob 05:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Lynchings of two police officers in Mexico City 

message: Pretty much Alaskan officials are giving out permits for Teams members of TWO, to practice in Aerial hunting, where one flys a helicopter while the other shoots.  This is to address the issue of wolves becoming a threat - yet while in the lower 48 states in America, we are in danger of loosing the wolf population - why can't we capture them north and bring them down south? 
Do you think this story is a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and if so, where can if be placed? 
* Story from Newsday/AP
* Information from Defenders.org
PEACE RoboAction 23:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial hunters to kill wolves in AK 

message: :Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF