Talk:Current events/Archive 2

message: I was under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that Current Events entries were meant to briefly summarise breaking stories (with wikification where possible), and provide a link to the original source. But I've noticed a few stories lately where the "summary" includes editorialising that may or may not be reasonable, but is definitely not based on the linked news source. I would think that in an area as potentially contentious as news, selection bias would pose sufficient risk of POV without allowing editorials.
Oh, and while I'm at it: is there are policy on archiving old comments on this rather large page? -- Roger, 15:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger, these are all good questions. I'm not sure myself what the policy is. So, why don't you suggest a policy? That's what we usually do around here. If others like your policy suggestions, they'll adopt them -- which is the nearest thing to "official policy" a collaborative group like this ever gets. (I'd love to see someone step up and become responsible for the current events page, keeping it trimmed and tidy, etc.) --Uncle Ed 16:13, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Well, I think if you want to volunteer to carry out suggestions #1 and #2, all will applaud you. Anyone who's willing to do the heavy lifting around here quickly earns a lot of respect from the WikiCommunity. As for editorialising, it's going to be just as hard to ensure that POV is properly attributing in current events as it is any of the several controversies which are always simmering at Wikipedia. Can you suggest some specific guidelines that would make it easier? Could you come up with a template of sorts? For example, how would you write about the Israeli PM's threat to kick out Arafat? "Israeli PM vows to exile Arafat for allegedly doing X. Arafat supporters deny any X-doing and vow to do Y." Or what? (I've been looking almost 2 years for a simple NPOV formula. "Help me, Obi-wan, you're our only hope!") --Uncle Ed 18:53, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've made a start at archiving discussion. There was so much to start with, I'm afraid I didn't check really thoroughly that everything went to the right month. As for editorialising, I think the summary on Current Events should be restricted to points actually included in the references. This is simple to understand, unambiguous, and NPOV. If you wish to editorialise (whether because you wish to correct perceived bias in the original source, or to expand on obscure points), the appropriate thing is to wikify and have your discussion on a fuller page - where there is room to thrash things out in detail, and experts from all POVs are more likely to review it. For example in one recent three line news summary, only the first 11 words were supported by the linked reference; all the rest may well be fair comment, but a news summary is not an appropriate place to put it IMHO. --Roger 02:30, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Anything about Arafat and the "Palestinian" cause is automatically controversial, as far as I'm concerned. We shouldn't assume ANYTHING is common knowledge or "universally acknowledged". Like, who's the real head of the PA? The prime minister guy, Abbas or something that Bush wants to deal with? Or Arafat? It makes the "one China policy" look simple... --Uncle Ed 15:42, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: How much editorialising is ok?

message: (moved from Village pump)
Maybe a dumb question from a newcomer, but why add wiki links to entries on the Current events pages when the articles that are linked to are so often not relevant to the news item in question?
:We like links. :-) Just look around to confirm that. Excessive linking does make the text hard to read so anything more than a link every three words is bad. So we all should prioritize what we link in that respect. --mav 08:48, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikis in Current events 

message: The Prince William information is entirely too long for this page, and makes no sense.  Can someone summarize it? RickK 04:08, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: What Prince William information? Maybe it has been deleted but I can't see anything about Prince William. -- Popsracer 04:19, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: If non-UK news sources (CNN, TASS, Zeit, Le Monde, whatever) were reporting the "supressed" information then so should wikipedia (you're quite right that the "unspecified" business is annoying).  I don't believe this is the case (yet), so we'd be reporting nothing more than whispered gossip.  Even the german page to which you refer is written in the form of a question ("did this or that happen?").  Given that wikipedia is merely a regurgitator of other people's news stories (and this is utterly unable to check sources in a journalistic manner) I think we should stick to reporting what fairly major news outlets do. -- Finlay McWalter 15:36, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Prince Charles (was: Prince William)