Portal talk:Current events/May 2003

Untitled
minesweeper, you beat me too it. that mercury news item is a nice one. Kingturtle 07:05 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

Is this really a current event? And if so, is it NPOV? : ''In Great Britain it is now time to decide whether to join in use of the euro or not. Supporters and opponents are talking loudly. Financial minister Gordon Brown should decide soon whether to join or to not. '' -- Zoe

Re May 11: Is there a reason why 'Stakeknife' 's name is not being published here? Given that it is published on, for instance, BBC News, I can't think of a reason not to. Pcb21 15:04 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, I think the U.S. paper currency is starting to look more and more like European, kind of funny given how "we"'ve mocked theirs in the past. ;) -- John Owens 19:01 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * P.S. Weren't the old silver certificates rather blue? Or is that meant to mean it's the first paper with colours other than those? -- John Owens 19:05 May 13, 2003 (UTC)
 * Good question -- although most definitely "greenbacks," the old silver certificates did have blue -- and red too, I think! Slrubenstein
 * This statement needs clairification then. MB 19:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

If someone desides to change the information here to make it clearer, or correct, please also do so at United States dollar.

Point of clarification: we're supposed to put news items under the day they occur, not on the day they first make the news, right?


 * In general yes. But sometimes the mere discovery of something is an event in and of itself and should be noted on the day the discovery was made (like when the body of Chandra Levy was found or the day that a huge conspiracy is uncovered). --mav 23:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I would just like to point out the irony in the statement "In Britain, the child-killer Mary Bell has won her High Court battle for anonymity", in case it isn't immediately apparent. ;) We didn't even post Stakeknife's real name. -- John Owens 16:27 21 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Nor have we published Mary Bell's current name. :P Evercat 02:20 27 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, in my defense, I'd like to point out that at the time of my comment, that wasn't made clear here, and I throw myself on the mercy of this court. ;p -- John Owens 05:02 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Regarding the Yale story, there are still conficting reports... Until there is confirmation that there was a device, lets leave it out of the Current Events article. Kingturtle 05:55 22 May 2003 (UTC)
 * An explosive device went off 
 * An explosion rocked an empty classroom
 * A bomb exploded in an empty classroom 
 * A explosion of unknown cause rocked a classroom 
 * Vagueness is always good when initial reports are confused. Another site to check for updates is [http:www.yale.edu Yale's site]: click on News and go from there. (Basically though, as far as this talk page is concerned, and donning my Amazing Kreskin hat, there's nothing in that building that would blow up all by itself). -- Someone else 06:19 22 May 2003 (UTC)

I believe the tax plan was passed on the 22nd not the 23rd, could someone confirm this? MB 20:25 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * The Senate definitely did its passing on the 23rd, around 2 A.M. -- John Owens 20:28 23 May 2003 (UTC)
 * On second thought, of course, while that's the 23rd in Washington, and even later in the day UTC, it was the 22nd where the Wikipedia server is located. Do we use local date of events, UTC date, or Wikipedia local date at time of events? This must've been established at some point.... -- John Owens 20:32 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Good point... I went by the source article that I used. Reuters said that Congress passed the bill on Friday. That being said, I think we probably cannot have a generalized time frame that is in use. Sometimes a UTC will be more appropriate, and sometimes local time will be the only one that makes sense. --Dante Alighieri 20:37 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree. Should we just assume that any time or date is either UTC or local time? Should there be a policy that it be one, or both? Slrubenstein


 * I think, in the interest of NPOV, the only fair thing would be to use the date at the time at the point on the Earth directly under the Moon. It's the only way I can think of that doesn't favour one country or time zone over another. Except the Loonies, and they don't count. -- John Owens 20:49 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * You've clearly lost it. The only fair thing to do is always use 11:05 4 May 1989 (UTC) for ALL dates and times. That will finally standardize things. ;) --Dante Alighieri 20:53 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * alright, I just thought I heard this on the news yesterday after work, in fact, I am almost certain I did. I'll check.  MB 20:50 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure that it was passed yesterday, but today President Bush said he will quickly sign the $350-billion tax-cut package. I'm going to chck the congressional record http://thomas.loc.gov.  MB 20:54 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Alright, I was wrong, it was today, here is the vote info if anyone is interested:  http://clerkweb.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=226 MB 21:03 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * While that agrees well with the time I quoted, I was talking about a Senate vote, and that's a House vote you've got there, on adjourning. What's the exact connection? Did the House have to vote again right after the Senate passed theirs to approve changes made in the Senate version? -- John Owens 21:09 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, The House voted to ajourn, b/c the Senate voted the bill into law. It pretty much went like this:
 * Yesterday house voted for bill.
 * today Senate voted for bill.
 * then house voted to go home and party, and senate agreed. MB 21:22 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now. So it was a House Party, then, eh? -- John Owens 21:26 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Can someone find the vote results and link them to the current event? Kingturtle 21:45 23 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Done. -- John Owens 22:08 23 May 2003 (UTC)

could someone add ? thanks! Kingturtle 19:42 24 May 2003 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on May 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20030604091035/http://reuters.com:80/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews to http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2763012

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)