Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 2

message: The aircraft has not been built, thus should not be "launched". Add link to wikinews? - Amgine 06:55, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airbus A380 

message: I've added a request on the village pump suggesting that policy for this box be revised following the introduction of wikinews. If you could read and give feedback there, It would be very much appreciated. --BesigedB (talk) 20:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for new policy 

message: Hello. I would like to ask what the policy on old suggestions is.  Is it okay to clean up and remove old stuffs ?  Or, are we archiving discussion on the 'candidates' ? -- PFHLai 16:42, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
:I don't think archival is necessary, since the template itself isn't archived. —Korath (Talk) 18:01, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
::I think we should leave them there for the moment - we can decide what to do better when we see how it's used. violet/riga (t) 18:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates]] 

message: I don't know how to phrase this, but we clearly can't declare that the Al-Aqsa Intifada has ended. It remains to be seen whether the militant groups will respect the truce. Rhobite 06:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
:How about "Mahmud Abbas (or the Palestinian Authority) declares an end to the intifada"? Mark1 07:33, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually for the moment I've changed it to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian leader, and the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, declare a truce in the Al-Aqsa Intifada, since I haven't found a statement from MA that the intifada is over.   I'm not wedded to this wording, but if we're going to have an item on this we do need an updated article to include and bold, so we shouldn't just remove the reference to the intifada. Mark1 08:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Aqsa 

message: The word ought not to be "admits" they have weapons, but "claims" they have weapons. It's a different valence and it reflects the suspicion that has long been circulated about their claims being bluffs. --Fastfission 17:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. "Admits" is very POV. Doops 20:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree and changed. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:58, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: States is more balanced since it doesn't reflect anythingGeni 01:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: North Korea

message: The candidates page is getting a bit long, and I was thinking of removing the old stuff, since I don't think it needs archiving - ITN items are not archived, so these shouldn't be either. I've mentioned it here first to see if anyone disagrees. — Dan | Talk 02:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure.  The page contains discussion not just news entries and may therefore be worthwhile archiving. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: why? there is always the page history. plus, we have current events. Not that I mind archiving, if someone volunteers to do it, but it's just another task added to those piling up already. dab (ᛏ) 07:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN candidate archive? 

message: Shows a 20, ALT tag says 10... Kiand 03:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern note 

message: The In The News section of the front page read: "An earthquake...hits the city of Zarand...leaving at least 546 dead and more than 1000 dead" (emphasis added).  I assume this is a typo, and should read "1000 injured".  Since I'm not an admin, could someone else please correct?  Eric Herboso  01:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind -- it was corrected shortly before I made this comment.  I should have refreshed my browser.  Eric Herboso  01:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo 

message: Since when is this protected? Oh well - at the moment, we have a 'pictured right' text about a suspected killer, while the actual picture on the right is about a book. I suggest fixin'. -- Kizor 15:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong picture / text 

message: Bless you, would someone be to kind as to replace the image on the main page with this one.  
	
Pope on a Rope 19:26, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kasporov Picture 

message: The wording here is really awkward and unclear. The Anti-Secession Law of the People's Republic of China, a law aimed at resolving the issue of Taiwan, is passed and enters into force. Not only is it passive voice, it's needlessly wordy and falls over itself avoiding controversy. Putting it the way it is now sounds like an embassy press release. The law itself isn't going to resolve this -- it's actually raising the stakes and complicating the political situation for Taiwan. Why not just China ratifies an Anti-Secession Law aimed at preventing Taiwan from declaring independence. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. I'll try to find a better wording. Kosebamse 20:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Anti-Secession Law 

message: Why does Private Johnson Beharry look uncannily like Paul Wolfowitz, and why is a British soldier posing in front of the US flag?. 
Yes, if you read 'In the news' carefully you will see what has happened, but surely the image should be better aligned with its headline. -- Chris j wood 14:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline/Image mismatch 

message: Nothing wrong with an April Fool's Joke, but can we have an image that relates to some real news? Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 05:22, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
:Oh, c'mon! That's funny. One day won't hurt anyone, and it just generates interest in the project. Besides, you should have seen what they were going to use for the main article, till it got scotched by Raul654! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate images 

message: ok, it's 11:25 UTC now; I suggest we leave the takeover story up for another 35 minutes, and then change back to normal (see Talk:Main Page). Deal? dab (ᛏ) 11:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: takeover

message: Um...exactly why is an image showing the earth's internal composition the best illustration we have for a report on ecosystem health? While not entirely pointless, surely there must be something more relevant. Doops 17:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image chosen in desperate haste? 

message: Please remove the false news item. --Pjacobi 18:41, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
:That was never claimed and it would appear that italian news agencies are repoting that he is (I know there have been a lot of rumors though). we won't know one way or the other untill the vatican says anythingGeni 18:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pope isn't dead 

message: Any chance of a line on the Zimbabwe elections? — Matt Crypto 23:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been sitting on the Candidates' page for so long ... probably too late now .... -- 199.71.174.100 01:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zimbabwe

message: Pope John Paul II#Recent health problems to Pope John Paul II#Serious health problems. – Kpalion (talk) 07:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link that should be changed 

message: It should say 21:37, not 9:37PM, because that common in CET timezone. Gerritholl 20:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should use 24-hour clock, 

message: Are we allowed to use AP photos, such as :Image:Jalal Talabani.jpg, on ITN ? Cool...  :-) Maybe we should show the Iraqi flag for the time being. -- 199.71.174.100 02:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nicely done.  Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 03:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ITN Picture 

message: "In the news" should link to the separate article about the Funeral of Pope John Paul II. – Kpalion (talk) 12:04, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funeral of Pope John Paul II 

message: With regard to Camilla, please change the word "mistress" to "lover" or "companion" some other less POV term. "Mistress" has negative connotations; moreover, it is sexist and out-of-date in the 21st century. Thanks. Doops 12:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "mistress" 

message: The problem is wider than just "In the news" page and concerns Wikipedia practice as a whole -- when we don't even use the words "Mr" or "Ms" to refer to normal citizens, (or for that matter when we don't use PBUH to talk about Muhammad) I find it annoying and POVed in the extreme to use the various honorifics in front of the names of kings -- and for that matter especially in front of British kings.
I wonder if there were a newspiece about Osama Bin Laden -- would people accept to refer him by whatever honorifics he or Al Qaeda may use to refer to him? 
The purpose of any honorifics are to honor the people they are referring to. The purpose of Wikipedia is to neither honour nor to dishonour said people, it's merely to report facts about them. I'd have no problem at all to say that now Camilla Parker Bowles is knows as "HRH The Duchess of Cornwall", because that's an actual factual newspiece, the change in her title, and how she'll now be referred to by the British followers of protocol. But since when has the British royal protocol become Wikipedia's own protocol to be used when simply referring to people? 
I don't accept as NPOV the holiness of the Pope, the eminence of Cardinal Ratzinger, the serenity of Prince Albert, or the highness of Charles. I don't think that wikipedia should refer to them with such honorifics. Mention that they're *called* such by some people, yes ofcourse, but not call them such ourselves.
Does anyone know if a discussion concerning Wikipedia's usage of such honorifics has already taken place? This issue is important enough, widespread across enough articles, that I think a specific policy should be instituted about this if one hasn't already. I'd like a poll on the issue if one hasn't already taken place. Aris Katsaris 14:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, there have been plenty of discussions. Essentially usage of honorifics is quite natural in certain contexts - to have a policy to avoid them all would certainly be POV. Similarly, honorifics are not always used - to have a policy to always use them would also be POV. So we end up sometimes using them, sometimes not - very much like real life - which is pretty much what we want to mimic, jguk 22:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We'd be better off saying "HRH The Prince of Wales". He doesn't really tend to get called "Charles, Prince of Wales" - we only use that formulation in WP to distinguish him from past Princes of Wales, jguk 19:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorifics