Talk:Current events/Archive 11

message: 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)
thread_title: U.S. pressures against Burma readded

message: 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)
thread_title: Reverting blank current events page

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Current events in..." heading style 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removing news stories w/o sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Categorisation of current events 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Iran's nuclear program 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RSS 

message: According to local newspapers, it happened at 11pm on December 30th (local time). 
See  and  , both in Spanish. Ejrrjs | What? 17:06, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buenos Aires nightclub fire 

message: I thought it reached £1bn yesterday 1 January Rich Farmbrough 14:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aid fund reaches $1bn 

message: 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)
replies: text: I provided some historical context to today's item. Thoughts? -- RyanFreisling @ 05:57, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jan 6th electoral vote certification

message: 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)
thread_title: 1969 v. 1877

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  suggestion: Current events in the European Union 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pictures of Titan

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Censorship on Current Events? 

message: *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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pictures on Current events 

message: :"*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)
thread_title: "Leading scientists report..."

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bold updated articles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Left Margin Tweak