Portal talk:Current events/March 2005

This is the discussion/talk page for: Portal:Current events/March 2005. Also see: How the Current events page works. For instructions on how to archive Current events at the start of a new month, see: How to archive Current Events

How to edit days
09-Jan-2008: The edit-buttons might not work at each day (the highly complex, peculiar article format has been garbled). However, each day in April 2005 really is a WP article of the form:
 * Article name: March_1,_2005
 * Proposed name: Portal:Current events/2005_March_1

Refer to each day, using those article names. I didn't create this design, just trying to help others work with it. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Format
09-Jan-2008: The format of article "March_2005" involves the inclusion of the 31 individual daily March-2005 articles (such as "March_13,_2005"), with all 31 articles stacked into a list. That technique is extremely simple, and should probably be used in other month-2005 articles, such as "August_2005". -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Related topics

 * [ See: Talk:Current events. -Wikid77 ]

=Topics from 2005=

Some of the people killed in Tel Aviv bombing are soldiers - trivia?
Irishpunktom, in one of his anonymous IP incarnations, keeps trying to insert this this item onto the page for March 1.


 * Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israeli press has reported that three of the five people killed in the bomb attack in Tel Aviv on Friday were members of an elite Israeli army unit serving in the West Bank. (Al Jazeera)(Jerusalem Post)

In my view, aside from the fact that this is trivia (the news of the bombing has already been reported, the identities of the victims don't particularly matter), I think it is clearly being inserted in an attempt to create a justification for the bombing - that is, the victims deserved it because they were an elite group that served in the West Bank. In fact, the victims were attending a surprise birthday party, and there is no indication the bomber knew they were there, or targetted them specifically. How do others feel? Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It certainly shouldn't be a separate entry, and should either be combined with the previous item or removed entirely. We're also in definite need of a Middle East current events page; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict headers alone have a much larger presence on Current events than events for any of the other splits (even US) did. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 03:49, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's important, and clearly the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera have too. I am on using my IP because, as I have told you before, I can't log in when I'm in work. As for a 'Middle East Current Events section', I'm not sure it's the best idea, but it's worth a try. --195.7.55.146 17:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Newspapers have hundreds of stories in them every day; that is no indication that all these stories belong in the Current events pages of Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Omission of definite articles
Omitting definite articles like the and a in news entries does nothing to add to the entries, and makes them sound like they're written by someone who barely speaks English as a second language. Who decided that it was a good idea to omit the? I understand that probably at least part of the decision was to reduce the length of the entries and maybe make them more like newspaper headlines. However, these entries are not merely headlines, nor should they be. And a the or a here and there only adds marginally to the length of the entry. So... Can we stop doing that? Mr. Billion 09:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I think it is right to take out the articles as has been done. This news is more presented in headline form instead of the body of a story, and hence has been presented in a sort of condensed headline form. If you want to know who wanted to omit the the you can ask newspaper editors from years past. If you want more info you can check out the entry on Headlinese. I think it is just a convention started a long time ago and we're all used to it. Just think about a newspaper headline with "the" and "a" added to it.--Theloniouszen 02:46, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Like pretty much everywhere else in Wikipedia, Current events has used complete grammatical sentences for at least as long as I've been watching it. Since Wikipedia is not paper, there is no need to omit words or punctuation just so that we can make the font larger, as newspapers must.  I hope you're not suggesting that we put every entry in tags also. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 03:05, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Did I say anything of the sort? Anyone reading this that is fluent in english can tell that the writing style of the news items on the Current Events page are written in a fashion based off of newspaper headlines, notably, the use of the present tense for nearly all items, even for those that have already passed and finished.--Theloniouszen 03:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

New items
I just noticed an anon moving items to the bottom of a date section. Aren't new items supposed to go on top? Mgm|(talk) 11:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * They should go on top. If they go on the bottom, then the overall structure of the page is reverse chronological while the day's events are chronological. That seems less than ideal to me. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 17:08, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The anon in this case is Irishpunktom, and he likes to put things in the order of what he finds most important. For example, any negative articles about Israel are moved to the top immediately.  He also like to publish a lot of trivia about Israel as well; for example, in his view an internal report alleging Israeli government misspending is as important on "Current events" as 19 people being killed in a suicide bombing in Iraq. Jayjg (talk)  18:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Err.. Maybe not. Jayjg.  I have noticed that you have done exactly that though, nice way to be critical of someone for something you do. Anyway, there are times when I edit, or try to correct a page and another edit has occoured in the meantime, in such instances i try and fix the other persons edit in after mine. --195.7.55.146

Anti-Syrian Lebanese protests?
I'm just wondering why there was no headline on this today, unless I missed something. J. Parker Stone 08:00, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Err.. if you don't see a headline for something that should be there.. make one --195.7.55.146 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why was the death of John DeLorean repeatedly removed ?
Why was the death of John DeLorean repeatedly removed ?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=next&oldid=11369854
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&diff=prev&oldid=11352882


 * Because deaths don't go on current events, they go on Recent deaths, where you'll see DeLorean is mentioned. A very few deaths to go onto current events, mostly those where that person's death will have repercussions one would expect to see in current events (so deaths current presidents of countries should, but of past presidents probably shouldn't). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 21:07, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo
I am surprised there is no mention of all the events listed in Current events regarding the Terri Schiavo case. I'd do it myself, but right now my Wikipedia time is very limited. Kingturtle 17:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

News section disapeared. Any suggestions why? -- Cat chi? 17:36, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

who removed what ? Check the history.

Kingturtle I added it to ongoing events. It took less than 30 seconds. User:MPS 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Better Communication
There needs to be better communication here as to how people can get involved with writing articles if you want to take on new users. There is absolutely no mention of this whatsoever. Take this edit as a case in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_events&oldid=11702438

It was reverted as vandalism. The content of the picture notwithstanding, (because I'm sure several of you will flip out) the current events page would look much better with a picture of a current event on the front page.

This edit was reverted as vandalism, and the person reverting requested a ban. Innovation is not vandalism. Communicate, don't persecute. --Dbsanfte 23:45, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the charge of vandalism stemmed from the one guy holding a sign saying "We are idiots". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 02:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly, so what's the point of this exactly, that a picture of demonstrators is fine, as long as their signs don't conflict with one another? That picture is real -- is it 'vandalism' because that 'idiots' sign expresses a viewpoint? Don't all the other ones, too? Is that guy's right to protest any less newsworthy or accurate than the other demonstrators? This reeks of persecution, if not outright censorship. --Dbsanfte 04:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Dbsanfte, I'll assume good faith and try to be charitable since you seem to be new. The Wikipedia guidelines are a central part of what you need to read. There, you will note that one of the key guidelines is the NPOV policy, described as "representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically." You would have us believe that the two balanced views fairly represented in that photo are (1) Some Christians believe euthanasia is murder, balances with (2) Anti-euthanasia Christians are idiots. This is a patently unbalanced and inflammatory representation of the views surrounding the case, which makes the photo inappropriate. Even you recognized the possibility that some people seeing the picture might "flip out." I agree that pictures in the news section ares something we should consider, but that particular picture was clearly inflammatory. Every edit box has the following message underneath it that says "You're encouraged to create, expand, and improve upon articles; however, bad edits to articles are watched for and will be quickly removed. This one was removed, and rightly so. MPS 15:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ridvan ?
When is Ridvan ? The article says it begins at sunset on March 20. On Current events, under 'Upcoming holidays', it's April 21. At least one of these two dates is wrong ??? -- 09:47, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * FYI: User: Dremo fixed the Ridvan page a few days ago. Accordingly, Ridvan begins on April 21. -- PFHLai 02:38, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

=Topics after 2007= Any topics below are after 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)