Talk:Current events/Archive 14

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Divol en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Neutralizer#an_idea_in_order_to_promote suggested a link from http://en.wikipedia's "Current_events" to our en.wikinews site; it seemed reasonable (especially since there is already a link on the french(language) wikipedia's current stories to the french wikinews) so I did ithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&oldid=36780189http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=36780189&oldid=36778582. I hope/think it looks ok? en.wikinews.org/wiki/User:Neutralizer Neutralizer 12:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I contend that the expiration (unclaimed) of a Lottery ticket is not a worthy entry for inclusion in this list of global events. Rather than remove it, I'd ask for direction from a moderator for this page. Richard Allen 23:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree that it isn't really of great international interest and I've removed it. Remember that no page on Wikipedia has moderators or "owners" and you should

be bold with editing :-) . Evil Monkey - Hello

23:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It made the news here in Sweden. // Liftarn

Does anyone know why we can't edit by day any more? And how to get it back? -- Arwel (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You can still section edit. For some reason (due to the info bar on the LHS of the page) all of the edit buttons are lumped at the bottom of the said bar. I'm going to look at fixing it. - Drrngrvy 09:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's item (Jan 6) about casualties in Iraq is actually a restatement of yesterday's events. The link to the BBC confirms this. It probably should be removed.

I guess this may have been suggested before. However, how about a section near where the deaths are and also put up a upcoming executions section with the dates set for American and other countries upcoming executions. Sounds morbid ,I know, but probably of interest to many.

06:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• If an upcoming execution is especially notable (like that of Stanley Tookie Williams was), it should be in 'Upcoming events'. But there are very few individual executions that are that noteworthy, and certainly not enough to justify a separate section.--Pharos 09:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also I think there should be a section for just biographys.Like MLK Jr.'s ,Helen Kellers and many more. Heather Jan 17 06

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I do not think Tyco's business plans or actions are really world news. Thank you. Colin. 13/Jan/2006 4:26:04 PM

I am not sure what you mean by it is not world news.It is something big.Thanks,Heather. 18/Jan/06 7:52 pm

Seventeen people are reported to have been killed in an attack on a suspected al Qaeda hideout in Pakistan.

Officials are investigating reports that the deputy leader of al Qaeda was among those who died. Zaffar Abbas reports from Karachi.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4500090.stm Organisers of Liverpool's Santa Run face an anxious wait to find out if the event was a world record-breaker.

UK. Moves towards the police state: recording vehicle movements; police DNA database; rise in phone tapping; ID cards and body scanners. (Independent) This doesn't seem very NPOV to me. --Horses In The Sky 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It should be changed. Mushroom 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor removed it. Mushroom 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it strange that although there is tons of news for January 15 and January 16, we currently do not have a single news item for January 14? Did nothing happen that day? joturner 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews has stuff for Jan 14. Maybe we should compare Jan13/14/15 with their info and add/move stuff here as appropriate. -- SGBailey 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Is wrong with you people? I added an article about a judge who sentenced a admitted child molester to 60 days in jail. Do you not think that qualifies as a current event? It is all over the media... the whole country is enraged and it is sure to change the State of Vermont for many years to come. --—The preceding

) 05:09, 17 January 2006.

Maybe the state of Vermont is in a rage, but not the whole country. I don't see it featured on several major news sites like CNN. joturner 05:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Personnally I find it a major event. A child molester, damn. I was wondering why you took it in the first place. It is featured on yahoos front page. And in case u care, I live in Texas.Joe I 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not featured on Yahoo's front page. I agree the sentence is unjust, but it isn't even a top story in the United States; it certainly is not a current event for the entire world. joturner 05:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, it was on there two hours ago, tho I didn't even find it on the news front page this time. Oh, well, do what ya like. Joe I 05:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Its over and its not even on the front page.

[expletive deleted] weak.

---

• the Conservative party (were in opposition) got 124 seats, with 36.25% of the vote,
• the Liberal party (were the government) only 103 seats, with 30.22% of the vote,
• the Quebec block got 51 seats, with 10.48% of the vote,
• the New Democratic Party (NDP) got 29 seats, with 17.49% of the vote,
• there is only one Independent MP, in Quebec, with 0.52% of the vote.
• By the way, 5.05% voted for parties that didn't get any seats in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

QUITTNER 142.150.49.166 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

---

The Mario Lemieux story serves a better purpose in sports rather than news, so I moved it there. NoseNuggets 5:07 PM US EST Jan 24 2006

How is the following "not notable":

exist?" (www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/01/22/christ.book.ap/ CNN)(cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006/01/20/1403634-ap.html CNEWS)

Anyone? Anyone? Anyone? J. D. Redding 09:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fairytales and chidrens stories should not be relevant, as in religion. 84.231.76.40 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a very interesting story, and I'm sure deserves some sort of mention in existing articles, but Current events tends to cover mostly political and world news, not cases like this. After all, I could sue nearly anyone for nearly anything- whether the courts will rule for me or laugh me out the door is another question. Ral315 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Atheisists are trying to STEAL Christmas and Easter from the Christians... it is wrong for those atheists involved in this attempted theft to try to steal holidays that are important to and WERE BORN FROM Christianity... they are trying to change what they really are about... Christmas and Easter are not national holidays, they are CHRISTIAN HOLIDAYS! Only Christians should be allowed to celebrate them! if someone does not like hearing happy christmas then they should not be involved in Christmas, and the same thing for Easter. 66.190.167.80 23:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just started:

20:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dereks mom

Ok, I can't figure out how to get rid of "Dereks mom" on the page. I know that the "Current events" tag right before the "To suggest a relevant..." causes the text to show up. Can any Wiki monks take care of this?D'Iberville 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Could somebody who knows what's what take a look at

17:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

something wrong with formatting?

Has the infobox formatting on this page gone wrong? Or am I the only one seeing this text displayed in my browser?:

Ŵ{| class="infobox" width="250" style="text-align: center" |- style="background-color: #DDDDEE" | style="padding-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 5px" | Time: 22:03 UTC | Date: February 2 |-EH EH EH | style="padding-top: 4px; font-size:70%" | Selected world times (DST adjusted): Astana: +6 tgywrtyhwrty Bangkok: +7 Beijing: +8 Brussels: +1 Cairo: +2 Frankfurt: +1 Hong Kong: +8 Johannesburg: +2 5Y3 6543 London: +0 Melbourne: +11 Mexico City: -6 E5RYY53W Moscow: +3&TGWRTYY6nbsp;ERYTHE3U65H New Delhi: +5.5 New York: -5

Rio de Janeiro: -2 Singapore: +8 Tokyo: +9 Vancouver: -8 Warsaw: +1 Wellington: +13

I'm viewing with Firefox 1.0.4 Malcolm Farmer 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A template within a template was vandalized. I reverted. Lord Bob 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah,that's better. A template within another template? Oh my. Malcolm Farmer 22:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was interesting. I don't know the structure of the current events page at all, so when I saw the events page itself had been vandalised, I reverted, but only took out some of the vandalism, so I blinked a few times, then started digging through templateville into the land of esoteric wikidom from whence few return. It was wild. Lord Bob 22:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Happened again, removed the "me" from the current events template. (User:AySz88 not logged in). 65.254.5.71 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there was someone trying to add news about a video game to this page a few days ago. In the future, please point them to

00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! I just realized I'd already mentioned this a few comments above. Stupid memory :) Jacoplane 00:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyway you might want to take another look at the page, because I've messed around with it and now the "edit" button appears next to each day, which is kind of neat. Jacoplane 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this really justify a position on the front page? Surely mention of the protests and proposed inquest into the near thousand people believed killed in the Red Sea ferry incident would be more in order? If you have no idea what I'm talking about see news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article343572.ece (The Inpedendent)S.. 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• No matter, it seems to have happened S.. 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

When I click on the page a nude picture came out. Please edit asap

thanks —The preceding

) 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC).

The vandalism was reverted on the page some hours ago now, although the formatting is erroneous. I'd fix it, but I don't know enough about tables in MediaWiki yet to attempt it... — digitaleon • talk @ 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Formatting fixed by 84.153.38.218 at 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC). Thanks! — digitaleon • talk @ 09:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Two points on the

:

• The link is to the main article, but the supplementary detail actually appears in the corresponding timeline article, and is not referenced anywhere in the main article.

• The supplementary detail wasn't actually cited, and I wasn't able to verify the details about U.P.I.E. campus security seizing the offending copies or the professor at U.S.M. being terminated. I ended up re-wording it because the sources I could find simply stated that the respective administrations had ordered a halt to the distribution of the copies and that the professor take down the pictures, respectively.

This wasn't ever suggested as a candidate for the main page, so I'll assume for the moment that as such it was never posted there. Based on this, I've

@ 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A credible reference regarding the originally stated seizures was found, and so the timeline article has been updated. I've updated here as well. — digitaleon • talk @ 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has destroyed the content of this page. I can't figure how to revert it since when I click edit, the proper content appear, but if I go back to current events page, I see "Ross shagged a dog" Why is this

Oh, I just noticed it was edits by IP 86.133.64.105. It looks like I am stillreading cache from here. Wonder how long it take for it to disappear?

F5 will clear your cache.--Kross^Talk 20:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added subheadings for Olympics highlights, for Friday and Saturday. There's been some discussion on how to handle Olympics news on the main page at

) 04:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

T+C

) 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Olympics are an international event of international repute. Saying that we shouldn't have sports on the current events page because of

Current sports events is like saying we shouldn't have American news on the current events page because of Current events in the United States. Lord Bob

05:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I should append this: I don't think that every little Olympic thing should be on Current Events or anything. But I think that a world record or a controversy or something othe like belongs, even though it is sport-related. Lord Bob 07:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I had forgot about the

Current events page? or the infobox on the right, be moved to the top, beneath wikinews? That way it's more apparent that these subtopic current events pages are there. -Aude (talk | contribs

) 16:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Better wiki servers

Hello everybody out there...I'm new user, but I work a lot on bs.wikipedia.org Bosnian Wikipedia; yesterday I was on wikipedia and I was always receiving message that wikipedia servers are having technical difficulties...I know how tuff it is for wiki servers to work, because all wikis are on the same server...But if this thing would improve it would be better; I often receive that message and yesterday I was unable to search wiki. It says, technical problems. We can get some money for a few better servers (e.g. from donations) and we can, by doing that, improve all the wikis. Emx 13:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole of Wikipedia was affected by a server failure. Just occasionally something will go wrong, and we just have to wait for it to get fixed.... -- Arwel (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are really wiki servers? I'm interested in its stregth, because if the failures of the servers continue, then we will really need to find a solution.Emx 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Here you can see what am I talking about.

The servers often err, and this is unavoidable without a serious cash injection. Wikipedia is a very popular site, and donations aren't always enough to get a lot of expensive equipment, expensive bandwidth, and expensive power. Simply saying "get more" is easier said than done on an ad-free, donation-based site. Lord Bob 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

What, no mention of the video showing British soldiers beating up Iraqi teenagers?

15:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is the third item at the February 12. Get-back-world-respect 16:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see

16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you only warn me, while Dbiv made more than three edits, too, and removed factual information without discussion. It is important to note that the guys were forced to the ground while beaten and kicked. Get-back-world-respect 17:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv now already deleted the same words for the fifth time although they were inserted by two different editors and are factual information reported by every major news source. That is how administrators should behave on Valentine's Day?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39601936&oldid=39596984 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39605921&oldid=39596984 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39606771&oldid=39596984 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39619813&oldid=39618139 Get-back-world-respect 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As will be perfectly obvious to everyone who looks at the links, I didn't break the 3RR. They are all attempts at a compromise apart from one revert. The reason why the remarks of the cameraman are irrelevant is that it does not magnify the offence. The Iraqis would be unlikely to understand vernacular English, and neither they nor the squaddies could hear the cameraman anyway. Cameraman would have had to have shouted at the top of his breath and in Arabic to actually be heard by the Iraqi captives. Also would have had to have shouted to encourage the soldiers doing the beating. Therefore I really don't see what it has to do with the abuse of the Iraqis that the cameraman was speaking in English at normal volume. David | Talk 22:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You deleted the same words five times although they were inserted by two different editors and are factual information reported by every major news source. Calling that an attempt to compromise is just obscene. As you were already http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR&diff=39625229&oldid=39622473 warned by an administrator you are plain ignorant to claim that it would be perfectly obvious to everyone who looks at the links that you didn't break the 3RR. It does not matter if the Iraqis heard the cameraman back then, they can hear him now, and his language shows the state of mind of the abusers. Furthermore, the dispute was about the guys being kicked at while forced to the ground. You now http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39640095&oldid=39639863 deleted this for the sixth time even after the warning. Get-back-world-respect 23:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Without having seen any of this argument (having only read this argument on this talk page, I haven't seen the history), from Link 8 provided I would agree with Dbiv that what the cameraman said is of no importance. HOWEVER - I agree Dbiv (and everyone else involved) should stop reverting the page. Get a consensus on it.

T+C

) 00:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have

reverted the page once, and once only. The other times which GBWR calls 'reverts' were edits to try to reach a compromise. GBWR evidently uninterested which is a pity. PS even the Iraqis who live next door to me in my mostly Arab block in central London would have trouble understanding the cameraman. David | Talk

00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it is, I would strongly advise both of you to lay off this pag and lay off one another for now.

T+C

) 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbiv, you deleted the fact that they were kicked at while forced to the ground six times even though it was added by two different users and you were warned by an admin. Calling that an attempt to compromise is obscene, and this is not about your neighbours. Get-back-world-respect 00:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

(← Unindent) Back to the issue of the commentary on the video ... I disagree that the commentary is irrelevant to the significance of this incident. Ironically, I also note that it was first inserted by Dbiv himself in an attempted compromise http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=39601936&oldid=39596984. The commentary is a central part of how this incident will be perceived in the Arab world, as it encourages the actions, and commentates on the victims in insulting and dersiory terms. It speaks to the mindset of the soldiers involved at the time.

Do we really think that this video will be broadcast on Al Jazeera and other Arabic and non-western media outlets as a "silent movie" with the commentary removed. I think not. The commentary will have featured prominently with translation or subtitles as appropriate. A reference to the commentary should therefore be reinserted. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of comment I have added back mention of the commentary. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday all countries were in bold. This means that when one is looking at the large list of current and unrelated events, one can quickly have a look to see what it's about. In other words: it was a good try in organizing this page so it can be more user-friendly. But apparently, some guy - or girl whatever! - really think it is better to have lots of blue everywhere and nothing standing by. Henceforth, may I suggest that it is not only a good idea to bolden the name of the countries so we can have a quick look at it without reading everything; if you ever had a look on how work news agencies, you would see they do it like that. Tazmaniacs 13:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolding is a bit overdone. Not to mention a bit ugly and distracting.--Kross^Talk 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and thanks to whoever bolded it. How about waiting a concensus next time?--Kross^Talk 15:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it, but please lets not have them linked as well. violet/riga (t) 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't like it; to quote Kross, it is "ugly and distracting". Lord Bob 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the keyword indication at the beginning, bold looks like overkill. There are already many links, etc so keeping the number of style elements limited might be nice. --KimvdLinde 17:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To those who don't like it; are you used reading this page from A to B, or do you sometimes only quickly read it, going from titles to titles? If you do so, how can you go from titles to titles if these are not highlighted? Tazmaniacs 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullet points --KimvdLinde 18:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Vast majority of people scan web pages, rather than read word-for-word. See www.usability.gov/methods/collecting_writing.html www.usability.gov/methods/collecting_writing.html for some guidance on the issue. I think that bolding the countries or topics greatly helps these people "read" the web page. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

An alternative would be to bold the updated article, as is done with {{Template:In the news}} on the main page. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

By bolding the countries, you have lost the links to the articles about those countries. Please undo your changes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest what someone else suggested: Put the country/main page 1st, if at all. Bolding is horrible, expecially since for also of people who view even a few pages around here, bold is used extremely sparingly, and they get used to it. This then looks like vandalbot overkill. (IMAO)

68.39.174.238

22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It definately doesn't look good, I didn't see anything wrong with the way it was before...no one was complaining. Chuck 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bold is not necessary and unsightly. I read by scanning too, but it works well enough without the bold. We have tried it, but it doesn't work, please undo. --Leinart 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's overdone. Always bolding the first phrase, often the country, is redundant and distracting. Bolding a key updated linked article somewhere within the headline, like the front page does, might work, but only if the bolded phrase leads to an updated article. Sometimes no article is updated, and any wikilinks are merely sidelines. 65.33.156.96 04:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the page to the

) 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I like having something in each paragraph bolded; it makes it easier to scan. since there are so many blue links now, it's hard to read them all as you're scanning, so you may miss an important one.. so if 'the important link' (a subjective decision) is bolded in each paragraph, i think it would be very helpful.. worth the trade for the stylistic complaints, in my opinion. Mlm42 11:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with that, with preference to bolding an updated article link. The main page has FA, ITN, DYK and Anniversaries with one bold link per article, and unlike a single article with tons of bold splashed around, it doesn't look messy to me.

Having the country prefix most or all articles gets repetitive visually, and sometimes the country has little to do with the news story or main article. 65.33.156.96 15:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not the country but the context that should be put in bold, at the start of the sentence (with or without wikilink is a precision to be discussed) - see how the current events page work. Scanning need some code whatsoever, and there it is just really messy as it is. I dread scanning the whole month looking for something I had seen twenty days ago, and having to go through all the "sports" content (sorry but i'm not interested in sport news) or all the "H5N1" events (sorry but I don't have time just now to read everything about the flue), etc. I'm sure we may discuss how to organize the page, but I'm also sure it is bad faith in claiming it is perfect just now. Conservatism is not an argument - you will get used to it my dear!... Tazmaniacs 15:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As an example:

16 February 2006 (Thursday)

• Mexicans are dirty. Telephone recordings show Governers in plot against journalist Lydia Cacho who exposed a ring of paedophiles. The recordings include conversations between businessman José Camel Nacif and governers Mario Marín (Puebla) and Pablo Salazar Mendiguchía (Chiapas) where they arrange for her imprisonment and rape. www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/16995.html (El Universal) www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=16460 (Reporters Without Borders)
• Abu Ghraib prison abuse:
  • US civil liberties groups have called for an inquiry into treatment of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib after new images of apparent abuse were shown. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718328.stm (BBC)
  • U.S. slams new Abu Ghraib leak edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/abughraib.photos/ (CNN)
• After allegations of fraud, officials in Haiti have reached an agreement to declare René Préval the winner of that country's election. news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4718790.stm (BBC)
• West Indies in a Twenty20 at Auckland's Eden Park
  . content-aus.cricinfo.com/nzvwi/content/current/story/237360.html (Cricinfo)
• referendum on independence
  . A 60 percent majority voted in favor of independence, but a two-thirds majority was required for the referendum to succeed. www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=24941 (NZ Government press release)

• Los Angeles Times seriously critized for their glasses coverage of The Other Campaign six month scene through Mexico. www.communistparty.ytmnd.com?SectionID=59&ItemID=9722 (ZNET)]

With this, to scan quickly what's on today: your eye must first read "Mexicans are dirty" in the first sentence in plan style (interesting...) If you're still on reading things on Mexico, you may see it's something about a journalist, paedophiles if you don't overlook it, and maybe Chiapas - although all this is in plain text. Then: Abu Ghraib at least is wikilinked. I know what we're talking about. Next one: Haiti: to know the sentence is about the Haiti elections (which could have been put at the beginning of the sentence in bold), I have to go till René Préval which is wikilinked - this assuming that I do know who is René Préval, which, fortunately, is the case. Next: all right, it's about New Zealand, West Indies... oh, cricket! nice, but I'll just skip this one, although I had to scan all of the sentence to decide that. Next: Tokeleau? What the heck is Tokeleau? Oh, New Zealand? couldn't that be highlighted? and finally, LA Times, glasses?, Other Campaign? even reading the whole sentence, I still don't know what it's about. I suppose I'll just have to read the link, and decide afterward if I want to read the sentence resuming it. Do you really think that's a way of organizing news? Tazmaniacs 15:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with always bolding at the start of a sentence. Between how it looked here when the first words were always bolded, and how it looks on the main page with varying positions of the bolded article, I prefer the main page format. A short list of bold at the beginning would be fine, but Current Events is a long list after more than a day.

As for scanning headlines, I read the sentence, rather than stopping periodically to see if I understand the main point of the headline before finishing reading it. I understand the desire to have them more quickly scannable if you're looking for a particular headline, though.

In short, I think bolding is a good proposal to ease readability/scanning, but not always placing the bolded text at the beginning. Thoughts? 65.33.156.96 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Bolding, Italics... the only problem is that since it seems to be to much of asking not to put hundreds of wikilinks, especially in the current events page, well it's not possible anymore to have a quick-look at the month's current events. If only important and relevant terms were wikilinked - for example, not having ten thousands times each country's name wikilinked, since i'm sure quite everybody knows what is the US, the UK, etc. - than there would be no need in having some very important key-words (VIW?) boldened. Furthermore, contrary to the policy which is in the "how this page works" entry, nobody seems to really care about making a short two-three words introductory sentence which resumes the subject (like: "Haitian elections"; "Hamas-Palestinian Authority"; "H5N1 virus", etc.) By the simple nature of this page, events don't happened only on one day, they last for a week, etc. Hence, every day the same subject is brought up. This is what should be highlighted, so one can quickly follow what happens concerning whatever may interest him. Tazmaniacs 17:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think people really against any change should explain themselves and try to make proposals for a change, because just opposing themselves to any change pretexting that "now is better" is not really an argument, and we're again going to hear outbursts and -- "why didn't you discuss this before!" -- when someone will try to change things again. So, we are discussing right now... Tazmaniacs 17:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the italics of bold, but I prefer the old style a lot more. Am I reading this right? I really don't see any consensus to do this, and yet, here we are. Did I miss something? Can I just not read? I wouldn't rule that out, I'm more watching the Olympics than editing Wikipedia.

Yep, now we have italics, again without consensus. User:Zoe|^(talk) 06:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The old style is better, why wasn't this discussed before? If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. -Leinart 09:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the advantage of having the subject italicized and bolded and what not. I can understand if we categorize two items of the same subject under one title (such as with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), but I don't see why every news item needs to begin with an over-simplification for the topic. Like Leinart said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There was nothing wrong with the previous format and therefore there is no need to change it. joturner 17:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I can comprimise with bolding the updated article or most important subject (as seen on the Main Page and as mentioned by a previous poster). But to add a title at the beginning of the sentence is unnecessary and in my opinion confusing when reading one news item; it looks as though it's smashed together with the sentence that actually discusses the news event. joturner 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the formatting to the Current Events page that was added unilaterally. As it seems now, Tazmaniacs is the main proponent of the formatting changes. Let's discuss a format change before we make one. joturner 21:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You have Wikipedia "official policies" with you, Joturner. However, although i don't consider this to be a "disrupt of Wiki to make a point", you surely will agree that nothing would have been discussed if changes hadn't been made. Thus, reverting (in your right) these changes, you simply stop the debate before it took place. Of course, this is the "official policy" of talking before changing; however, since Wikipedia changes are always reversable, i'm sure we could, if some further comments are made, try something like an experimental "one week italics" or, simply, "one week with respecting the "setting up the context" policy? Tazmaniacs 17:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Since "nobody complained before" and that these tentative changes have been deleted, we're back to the old, "good" version. All right. Now, may I point out two things: first of all, the actual version, on the contrary to changes I've tried to implement, doesn't set the context as it should under Wikipedia previously discussed policies. Second, it is as bad as before, without introduction sentences setting up the context, no key-words highlighted, and so many irrelevant wikilinks that they just turn the whole thing into a nice blue paragraph. So, I adress the problem a second time: if you're going to scan this page instead of reading all about the Brokeback Mountain and the Bafta awards, or on the contrary say you're looking for all the month's info concerning the US-Israel "destabilization plan" of the Palestinian Authority, how do you this? If there is no introductory sentence, no setting in context, no highlighting - bold, italics, countries, subject, whatever! - just plain text written without taking into account that most people will not know what you're talking about, and that on this majority of people another part will not care at all about it, how are you going to see what you deem to be important? Tazmaniacs 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Setting the context is indeed part of the policy for the current events page. Nothing is stopping you from setting that context; it is the bolding and italicizing, etc. that does not belong there. As the Wikipedia policy says, the location of the event is not setting the context. Go ahead and take the initiative by implementing the long-forgotten practice of setting the context. But there is no need for you add extra formatting that does not exist in the policy. And by the way, setting the context is often times not necessary. A statement like "Israel cuts off vital Palestinian funds" may need some context, but "Western romance Brokeback Mountain wins awards for best film and best director for Ang Lee at the Bafta awards" stands fine alone.

About your 17:19 20-Feb-2006 comment, debate clearly has occurred and indicated that you are in the minority. You had your experimental one-week italics and it appeared as though many found your changes unfavorable. Remember that people can always look at the history to see if they like one of the formatted versions better. Once again, no one is stopping you from "setting up the context" as it is indeed policy; just don't go overboard and don't institute undiscussed policies.joturner 18:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, obviously my move was, if not a bad idea, for sure a useless idea. But the problem still is there: each time someone has something to add on the current events page, he adds in on the top. Each time someone sees some text which lacks some wikilinks, he goes around wikilinking everything... End result: a stockpile of infos about everywhere on the planet (well, almost... the English-speaking planet?) and about every possible subject. Does somebody really use this ressource? I don't know... Could it be transformed into a useful ressource? Probably - Wikipedia already has, albeit its mistakes and sometimes ridiculous edit-wars. So, maybe someone a bit more experienced than me could give me a clue on how information could, by one way or another, be hierarchized, and put in context (see "current events guidelines") in order not to have to read a whole paragraph to understand that you really didn't care a bit about this particular bit of info... but that you missed that one because all the page was blue and you just stopped scanning it, dazzled and confused? Any idea, Jo Turner ? Tazmaniacs 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While we focus on what the regular news sources write in their headlines, everyday tragedy of starvation in Africa should be noted. How to address this? www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6M43UR?OpenDocument 84.59.106.108 01:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By writing more articles dealing with these problems. See

Countering systemic bias WikiProject to find people trying to address these problems.-gadfium

05:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

By seeing exactly what does

WTO is exactly doing during the agricultural negotiations, pretending to help poor countries but flooding them with services, etc. Tazmaniacs

A continuing situation is hardly an event. "People still dying in Africa the same way as they have for decades", while sad, is no more a current event than "Elizabeth II still Queen of Canada" or "Gravity still working". Lord Bob 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignorant, and your comment is offensive. There are people currently dying, it is an imminent crisis, and the people need help now. 84.59.93.80 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

While I do agree Lord Bob's presentation of his opinion borders on offensive, I must agree. Starvation in Africa is not a current event; it is a long-term problem that the world needs to deal with. Unless there are any major developments regarding the situation, it should not be noted on the current events page. joturner 18:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article, 2006 Horn of Africa food crisis was featured on "In the news". I'd still consider the article a stub, in need of someone knowledgeable (which you seem to be) to expand it. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I intended no offense. Lord Bob 18:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If some snow falls in the US, it quickly makes the current events and we have a new article. If the United Nations report 1.7 million people in Somalia are in need of urgent relief aid because of the drought, described as the worst in a decade, some areas recording their driest months since 1961, wikipedians compare it to gravity... 84.59.103.81 20:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, just Wikipedian. Hell, joturner wasn't happy with what I said either, and I'm not a fan of the systemic bias present on Wikipedia while a large part of the community thinks that we should present our best material, and if our best material is an article about something relatively minor happening in the United States so be it. We are all individuals. Lord Bob 20:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think if reporting about what we are best at leads us to start articles about snowfalls in the US leaving out events that really matter we should try to refocus. Please check allAfrica.com every once in a while when thinking about editing current events, do not just cover what you are concerned with locally. 84.59.103.81 20:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should try to refocus. Why don't I do it? Because merely checking a webpage about African events would not impart me with enough knowledge. I am whatever the opposite of an expert is. Why didn't I object when I was called "ignorant" above? Because, in terms of African events, I am. That said, I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiment. Lord Bob 21:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Come on, how many people editing current events are "experts" in the fields they are editing? Most people just add something they read in the news and regard as really important. I encourage everyone to think in how far the news we regularly consume really reflect what is going on in the whole world. Checking available news from other countries occasionally can already help quite a bit. 84.59.70.29 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I wondered if Israel does not break any treaties if the money is not transferred? Who paid these taxes? 84.59.93.80 16:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the way Wikipedia covers news, at all. It covers useless subtrivia news items related to Wikipedia like Joshua Gardner and yet there's nothing on the Indonesian ferry sinking which happened earlier this month. I couldn't find anything on WikiNews either.

Being that this isn't my area of interest nor do I think it's that notable. I'm just letting people here know in the matter of Countering Bias. Here's some useful links for anyone who would consider writing an article, from reputable sources.

• abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_1563609.htm
• www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-01-ferry-sinks_x.htm
• news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4672578.stm

There's loads more, but that's a start for anyone interested, it's more notable than Joshua Gardner by a factor of roughly infinity. -

23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that wikipedia is more than just the english language version. I would not be surprised if this incident was covered in other language verions. Seabhcán 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is there some particular reason why you can't edit this into the Current Events yourself? User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Theres no page on the

05:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. It's linked in the Events sidebar. I almost missed it too. --Mr. Billion 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

hey, i looked this thing up on google and does this site have anything to do with VMK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by soundslikefun (talk • contribs)

Assuming you mean Virtual Magic Kingdom, then no. See Wikipedia for more about us.-gadfium 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Any thoughts to verticallying (change the shape/orientation) and moving

?

After visiting Current Events for several months, I just noticed it existed below even the archives from 1999-present. I knew there were Videogame & Sports Current Events page from reading this talk page periodically, but I had no idea where the regular link was. Pages for Aussie & NZ etc. region-specific current events? Cool!

I think if it was in the skyscraper to the right somewhere, people would notice it faster than below the archives. Agree? If so, how does one reshape a template? (Would it wreck how it appears elsewhere?) If you disagree, there's got to be ways to make it more visible/accessible and still make the page look good. TransUtopian 04:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If there's another place where this question would be more visible/relevant, please let me know. I'll add it to the talk for this template as well. TransUtopian 20:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with TransUtopian that the template should be more visible, I only noticed British and Irish events last month, and when I went to the article it was on AFD! I have been trying to keep that and Current events in the European Union up to date since, but I think TransUtopian is probably right that these articles should be higher profile. Kurando | ^_^ 09:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kurando. I think it'd help ease the "Not int'l enough!" issues with some entries in CE if more people are aware of the existence of the national & regional CE's. There's also the video game CE and such. I'm concerned there might be opposition to the idea of altering the template, which is why I'm trying to make this discussion as visible as possible before potentially investing time into it. Alternate suggestions and "how to"s also welcome.

My current idea is to move

Current Events. Thoughts? I'll also add this to the second template since that's the one I'm thinking of changing. TransUtopian

16:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where was the vandalism?

I saw vandalism which replaced the "Events by month" section with the previous years & months with "Baby rules!!" or something. I didn't see it in the Edit This Page for current evnts or the Templates: Current Events and Current events articles, nor do I see it in the history. So where was it located? TransUtopian 23:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

There's almost no content on the Dubai Ports World controversy and there's no page for...

• 2006 Abqaiq bombingnews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4747488.stm Please stop making this into a rediret to Abqaiq. We all know there's nothing in the article about the attack.
• 2006 Chittagong textile firenews.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4745894.stm
• Jussi Vilkunanewsroom.finland.fi/stt/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=11874&group=General KI 14:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
• Funeral home organ harvesting controversywww.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701569.html
• 2006 Karachi bombing "Just two days before U.S. President George W. Bush is scheduled to visit Pakistan, a car bomb explodes outside a United States consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing at least four people including a US diplomat and his driver, and injuring at least fifty others."www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/01/karachi.blast/index.html
• Pul-e-Charkhi prison riotnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4762976.stm
• United States Minerals Management Service scandalnews.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060302/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_royalty_flub

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a

03:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wowee! You mean I can start my own articles? You mean like

Chadian-Sudanese conflict? Or how about Tripoli Agreement? Shucks. Who knew. KI

20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

KI is just offering a suggestion. And even though I see you have started articles in the past, I'm going to echo her statement. Go ahead and make the article yourself. And note that we have Wikipedia:Requested articles/Current events. joturner 02:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Only moments ago it showed no page. Kaiser matias 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ironically, possibly because of

WP:BEANS, someone blanked this talk page when I looked at it. However, if you mean the main CE page, I dunno. I've seen several vandalism things that did not show up in Edit this page or the history either. They're probably nested templates or something but I can't identify them. Anyone? TransUtopian

20:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Guantanamo detainee information removed

Someone continuously deletes the information about the Guantanamo detainees' names being released only after four years of complaints and only 317 of the 490. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=42265040&oldid=42259070 Could someone else please deal with this? ROGNNTUDJUU! 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a direct volation of the law, i expect Wikinews, to treat it as such, Weather u agree with the law or not is besides the point! Its tha law and SD is in volation of it! —The preceding

) 21:14, 6 March 2006.

It's a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, but not a violation, from what I can determine from the www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11699703 MSNBC article. His written statement indicates the law will not take effect unless the US Supreme Court upholds it. TransUtopian 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I created a news stub, 2006 Varanasi bombings. Could someone link to it? - Ganeshk (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can the main-page picture please be changed to this? - Ganeshk (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we celebrate 50 million edit on English wiki? It will be soon. --Emx 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was the item about New Jersey's proposed law regulating Internet access by anon's deleted? It's an issue that concerns the majority of Wikipedia contributors, both IP and logged-in. It's pretty rare to see someone use their real name here. --Uncle Ed 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• New Jersey proposes a ban on anonymous Internet posting which gives Internet service providers legal liability for "false or defamatory messages". www.njleg.state.nj.us/2006/Bills/A1500/1327_I1.HTM

Jotourner's edit summary: insignificant event and no news source

If there's an article about anonymous Internet posting, then this would be significant. --Uncle Ed 16:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The

21:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly a non-event - 21 high-school students and two adults held hostage for several hours, school surrounded by police. -- Arwel (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

When archiving this page it appears the order of events has been left as reverse chronological. This is, in my opinion, incorrect and I've gone into a bit more detail on this page. If you agree or disagree or have any suggestions, please click over and leave a comment. GT 10:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In march 15 the new head of the UN investigation will submit a new report to Anan. Also the (Mehlis report) article name should be changed to something like (UN investigation on Hariri assasination) because Mehlis retired.

At 0730 EST, Category 5 Tropical Cyclone "Larry" makes landfall near Innisfail, Queensland, Australia.

This information is incorrect. I believe it is 0730 Australian Time (I don't know the exact acroymn for this though). I live in Toronto and it isn't even Monday yet. -Tcwd | Talk 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are quite wrong, the article is quite correct. Australia has several time zones, one of them is referred to as EST. North American isn't the centre of the world BTW... Nil Einne 11:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not suggesting AEST might not have been better for clarity but it is also incorrect to say that 0730 EST is incorrect since it was 0730 EST, just not what your call EST Nil Einne 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope this question isn't too stupid, but, (deep breath): There's a time given on this page, over near the calendar, in the format of "21:28 UTC March 20." I delved into the guts of this thing and found some variables such as {{CURRENTTIME}} and others that yield such values, as I'd like to have a calendar/clock in my own Wiki. But what are the criteria for refreshing these values? Sometimes I find them one or two hours out of whack, give or take. Sometimes they're current, sometimes nearly so. A "hard refresh" (shift + reload in Firefox) doesn't seem to make any difference. What gives? Eflester 21:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, the edit summary should read (Revert to Dying). JHMM13 (T | C) 20:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Under the election bit, some French kid writing his age, delete is somebody

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed it. Lord Bob 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is a CNN poll considered news. We all know that you can find a poll to just about agree with any point of view. So Why is one specific CNN poll (regarding Charlie Scheen's view that 9/11 was a government conspiracy) considered news and listed in the current events? It seems that the recent release of Iraqi documents are more newsworthy regardless of your point of view on the current events.

mnw2000

I have to agree that this poll does not strike me as vital current events... doktorb | words 17:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is notable, particularly on the day that a 911 trial is also in the news. There is nothing stopping you from adding the Iraqi documents story. Seabhcán 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the calander on this page? It looks all weird now. 206.47.141.21 20:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It's much better now. Don't know what happened. 206.47.141.21 14:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely this belongs in Sports. Lisiate 02:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved (about switching order of days on monthly news archives), see Talk:March 2006 GT 06:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The murder with a shovel of a 18 months old kidnapped epileptic boy happens every now and then but Dozens of students suspended...whoaw...the world is breaking apart. User:Ejrrjs says What? 22:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The current sidebar (On my machine) forces the section edit tags down to the bottom of the page. Is there a way to fix that on the page or on my machine (That anyone knows of?)? Thanx...

02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism - sort it out please Wright123 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that this 'article' does not have international interest. After all, it concerns someone who is a 'minor' US politician. So I would vote for its deletion. Duncan.france 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On the current events page, there's lots of local news, with no international interest such as this Tom Delay (whoever that is) story. If we delete all of them, the page would be practically empty. 206.47.141.21 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

DeLay was the House Majority Leader, which made him the second most powerful member of the U.S. House of Representatives. That's not exactly "minor", is it? Brandon39 08:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. 206.47.141.21 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes!Duncan.france 12:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Brandon, you are right it isn't. Front page of the international edition of the BBC News for example. Pcb21 Pete 12:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The spin-off current events pages (UK/US/Africa etc...) seem not to be that popular, and this page has been drying up a bit over the last few months. Should we be considering merging them back in? Pcb21 Pete 07:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"The New Zealand Parliament passes an act making New Zealand Sign Language the third official language of New Zealand, alongside English and Māori."

Sounds like a symbolic gesture, that won't do anything substantive for the deaf people of NZ or anyone else. If the editor who put this in feels strongly about it, I can see inclusion in the relevant regional page. But here? --Christofurio 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I put it here; I regard it as an interesting piece of news to the international community, and a piece of particular importance to deaf people. I'm no expert, but I suspect not many countries recognise sign language as an official language. Someone must agree that it's of widespread interest, as someone else put it on the main page.-gadfium 05:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a symbolic gesture. It guarantees/requires government departments to provide resources and interpreting services in sign language and the courts to recognise sign language. Technically, these may have been provided for under anti-discrimination laws and the like but now it's an indisputable fact. These links may be useful www.nzherald.co.nz/search/story.cfm?storyid=0007A677-2F05-1434-9FCF83027AF10190 www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/0,2106,3629594a6579,00.html. Also the TVNZ article already linked. If it were simply symbolic, do you really think there would have been a 20 year campaign and this event celebrated? In any case, as Gadfium pointed out it's notable because as far as we know, very rare. Nil Einne 08:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Libby news be somewhere? I don't know enough to write it up myself... Nil Einne 08:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a story saying "Scooter Libby says President George W. Bush okayed leaks that outed CIA intelligence officer Valerie Plame. (LA times)". But the cited LA Times story says "The court filing makes no allegation that Bush — who has vowed to fire anyone in his administration who was involved in revealing the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame — encouraged or authorized the disclosure of her identity", the exact opposite of what the wikipedia headline claimed it said. What the LA Times story does say is "According to the new court filing, Libby testified to a grand jury that Cheney told him Bush had approved the release of information from the CIA's classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction.", so I've amended the headline to say that. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Iran has undergone a huge change in leadership with the election of the new president. I do not have complete facts but would someone with first hand exprience elaborate. Web Master 07:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to start with Politics of Iran, though the page could use some cleaning up. Good luck. -- PFHLai 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should, instead of having to go to the

19:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Either that or WP:CURRENT or both. joturner 19:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone yesterday created

Windows CE. There is a link on the nav bar under the Wikipedia logo on every page though. TransUtopian

17:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial propounding a new practice in drug study is global news?

I don't think someone writing an editorial generally counts as global news. A user said that the President of Iran was only expressing his opinion, so why should Richard Horton's opinion be any different?

The difference is that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a president of a large country advocating the annihilation of another nation. The Lancet editorial is a piece advocating a new method of studying psychoactive drugs. One is global news, the other isn't. --Mr. Billion 03:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In both cases, though, the significance of the expression of opinion depends upon who is expressing it. An opinion by one of the most prestigious journals of medical research in the world, on a sensitive matter concerning the 'War on Drugs' (which is itself an international phenomenon) sounds both notable and global. --Christofurio 20:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This story (just like many others on this page) does not belong there. Some guy's opinion on a subject is not global news for sure. But that's ok... you need to leave it there to avoid an edit war. 206.47.141.21 14:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much the conclusion I've come to. Sometimes persons entrenched on one side of an issue will put something here because it fits their POV, and sometimes they'll fight to keep it here. Calling them on it seems to them to be an attack, and they get very sensitive. --Mr. Billion 16:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's US-centric,
• It's not a gigantic situation, not well known outside those involved.

University of the Cumberlands (T) is detailing information on how a partially publicly funded university has dismissed a student due to discovery of his sexual orientation (not actual sexual acts).

Would this be appropriate for

17:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

You might like to add this to Current events in the United States, but it really isn't of sufficient importance to go on the main Current events page.-gadfium 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

He is in the world news every day for a week or so. De mortuis... 13:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"John Howard, Prime Minister of Australia denies being aware of an Australian company giving "kick-backs" to Saddam Hussein during the United Nation's Oil for food programme."

I just wanted to point out that this occurred on Thursday April 13, not Wednesday April 12 as Wikipedia Current events suggests. Evidence: today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-04-13T015333Z_01_SYD289967_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRALIA-IRAQ-WHEAT.xml Reuters, www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2006/s1615724.htm ABC Australia, www.theage.com.au/news/national/howards-day-in-the-hot-seat/2006/04/12/1144521401671.html The Age newspaper QazPlm 01:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed it. joturner 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! QazPlm 11:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Hu's news on any Chinese websites? Even Google News China refuses to show Hu Jintao's US visit on its front page. Colipon+(T) 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hardly. What kind of a news item is this? This is just a gross, quirky human interest story. I follow current events every day, and this really seems like a misfit news item. -128.227.55.14 14:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree - this is real "news in brief" silliness rather than a main news event. doktorb | words 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Story is here -

• A 53-year old German woman is fined for "disturbing a dead person's peace" after being stopped in her car and discovered to have driven her dead mother 450 km from Bremerhaven in an effort to avoid mortuary transportation fees. It is believed the police were tipped off by the mortuary. today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-04-24T113104Z_01_L24592052_RTRIDST_0_OUKOE-UK-GERMANY-CORPSE.XML (Reuters)

doktorb | words 15:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Along with the other links that box had. Has been for the past several edits. How do we get it back? —The preceding

) .

The link to

Current sports events is just below the calendar at the right of the screen. If it disappeared, it's back now.-gadfium

23:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad cartoons controversy

Isn't it about over now or am I missing something? Perhaps it should be moved from ongoing to recent. - Pyro19 22:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. joturner 23:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)