Talk:Current events/Archive 6

Avaragado vows to slay AP headlines
I just deleted all events from June 27, as they were simply Associated Press headlines in all their headline-speak glory ("Iran vows to resume nukes", and the hideous "Drug links alleged in Mexico editor slay"). I considered trying to rewrite them but thought, well, be bold. Current events doesn't exist to reprint AP news anyhow. -- Avaragado 09:36, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, daft as those headlines are, rewording them would probably be a better idea, since the page is here to carry brief summaries of news stories, appropriately written. But then, I guess if you just delete them, someone can add them properly from scratch as easily as you could have rewritten them. *shrug* - IMSoP 09:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * My main motivation for deletion rather than rewriting was that Wikipedia is not a news service. It's for the contributors to decide what news events to include: AP's agenda is not Wikipedia's, and vice versa. On balance I thought Wikipedia's agenda was better served by deleting the AP headlines, but it could have gone either way. -- Avaragado 11:56, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I also find Avaragado's actions drastic, it does act as a reminder that current events primarily exists to provide hooks into Wikipedia articles with relevance to current events, not to provide a news service. For instance today's leading news story on the BBC (World edition) is Powell's visit to Sudan. Now in a way Powell visiting somewhere is not that big a deal, but it does give us a ideal hook to showcase our content on the Darfur conflict.

New president of the European Commission.
i think this news should stay in the current events a little longer, since it afects the whole european union (25 countries), also its a news that appears in the "frontpage" of the important media - --Cyprus2k1 16:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sports events on Current events
I notice that a few hours ago there was a short edit war regarding the US Open golf result. Is there a consensus that important (by some definition) sports events are allowed to be "promoted" from Current sports events to Current events? Or is Current events now for non-sporting events only? -- Avaragado 11:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Why do we keep going through this?  I wasn't especially fond of parlaying sports events to a separate page, but I went along with the idea because I knew some people don't care about the College World Series or the Wimbledon quarterfinals or whatever.  But, come on, the U.S. Open of golf is one of the biggest golfing events in the world.  We sports fans are not "littering" the current events page with smaller events, but when something major comes along, it should be listed here.  Period.  It's a current event.  Whether or not you (ambiguous "you" here, not refering to anyone specific) think it's important is beside the point.  I'm so sick and tired of everyone trying to completely eschew sport from Wikipedia (&lt;sarcasm&gt;except for the articles themselves, no one would ever consider asking them to be deleted, we just don't want them where anyone can see them&lt;/sarcasm&gt;).  It's aggravating.  Why must sport be treated like second-class citizenry around here?  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  13:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * If you could somehow work an anti-Microsoft tirade into the sports reports, they'd be much more acceptable. Thanks! Pcb21| Pete 15:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with you. As I said a few weeks ago, I don't see why someone winning the Abel Prize for Maths is considered "major" enough for this page, but the longest match in grand-slam tennis history (or the result of one of the four golf majors, as you've found) is not. As far as I can see the only remotely defensible justification for removing all sports events from this page is because there's a separate page. However, I don't think that's both necessary and sufficient justification for every sports event. An analogy is 2004 and the sundry 2004 in... articles. Even though there's a 2004 in politics article, no one is deleting politics events from 2004 simply because there's a separate page. 2004 in politics/film/sports/shoes/royalty/whatever should contain as much trivia as their editors want; the important stuff from those should bubble up to the main 2004 page. It's surely the same here. If not, then Current events should be renamed Current politics events or Current non-sports events or something else that better describes what is actually wanted here. -- Avaragado 15:41, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * First of all, "weasel word excuses" is not a way of argumentation but just unreasonably impolite. Second, why do you think there is an extra page if we keep sports news here anyways? Third, as much as many people never read the economics section of the newspaper and always switch off the radio when the lottery numbers or traffic jams are announced, many complain that sport is covered at all in the news rather than in special TV or radio shows. In the particular case of golf, most people in the world have never played golf nor have they ever heard of the US open. If you wanted to include the World Soccer Cup Final I might agree that this is an event interesting for many, but golf is clearly not more important in any way than Wimbledon or Formula 1. And if you want to include those you have to cover the other Grand Slam tournaments as well and some will complain about the Indycar series and in the end you can just include all sports news, which we decided not to do. Get-back-world-respect 22:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Not argumentation but the truth. See: Avoid weasel terms.  You gave no specifier to whom you said thought golf was unimportant, merely a blanket statement that many people don't care about golf.  Many do.  Millions, in fact, if you go by American TV ratings alone, and that doesn't even scrape the surface worldwide.  Secondly, I think that the reason there is an extra sports page here because people who hate sport are looking to appease those who like sport without coming out and trying to say that they feel that sport is just plain unimportant, not because people who like sports asked for it.  Thirdly, if you don't like sport, ignore it.  If you don't like it on the news, turn it off.  But just because you don't like it doesn't make it unimportant.  Billions of people watch sporting events around the globe.  For many of us, our frames of mind for eras of time are accentuated by major sporting events, or at least sports are one of the easiest things to recall throughout our past, more so than even political events.  If you asked any blanket group of Canadians to name a major piece of legislation that passed in 1972, many, if not most, would be hard-pressed to come up with something.  But if you asked them to come up with a sporting event, I guarantee that almost every Canadian over the age of, say, 10, could probably name something important that happened that year.


 * But specifically about golf, how do you know how many people play golf? Athletes inspire generations of people.  Thirty years from now, a generation of South African golfers will look to this U.S. Open where Retief Goosen and Ernie Els played together on the final round as a defining moment for themselves.  You say that most people haven't heard of the U.S. Open.  Well, most people haven't heard of Wikipedia - is what we're doing unimportant?  That's a fallacious argument.  Additionally, the U.S. Open is a Major, by definition.  There are only four of them: the U.S. Open, the British Open, the PGA Championship and the Masters.  We're not adding results of the Buick Open or the EDS Byron Nelson Championship, just the biggest events in the sport.


 * Finally, to the "slippery slope" argument, those of us who actually know about sports (and there are quite a few of us who work hard on these articles and go completely unnoticed by everybody) are able to determine what should go on this page and what shouldn't. It's not difficult.  There are only so many major sporting events in one year (maybe 25 or so, not including rotating events like the World Cup of soccer, hockey or the Olympics) and maybe a handful of unscheduled events.  The page is not going to be overrun with smaller events.  I wouldn't let it; I haven't let it - I have removed smaller sporting events in the past.  (I recall specifically when someone kept trying to add the results of the NCAA Division II basketball tournament.)


 * I just don't understand why this should be removed. These current events eventually get rotated out into individual articles; they become the historical record of sorts on Wikipedia for what is happening in the world right now.  It will look stupid for someone to look to see what was happening in the world and see no sports.  That's just ridiculous.


 * And, on a personal note, I always hear a lot of complaints about "Ameri-centricism" on Wikipedia and how Americans should be "edumucating" ourselves on other events in the world so that we can write about it and not just what we're "comfortable" with, but I challenge the sports-haters (or, at least, sports-detractors) to do the same. Educate yourselves on something you don't know about in sports and write about it.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  01:35, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm with Get-back-world-respect on this one. Fwiw. Which is probably not much -- clearly a minority view, isn't it? And I don't know enough about golf in the USA to comment on this specific case. Probably the opening matches of the Eurofooty event shouldn't be here, either (let's wait for the final?), but I'm not going to take it on myself -- and incur the wrath of the sports fans -- to remove them. –Hajor 23:43, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you on the early Euro 2004 matches - see my comments a few weeks ago. Despite this being a month-long tournament Europe-wide, with UK TV ratings through the roof for England's matches, I intended to include the result of the final only - one match out of 31 - on Current events. But this isn't about football, or golf, or any specific sport. I'm not objecting to the presence of summaries of US Supreme Court judgements, or the latest Internet Explorer vulnerability, or the election results in Mongolia, even though none of these affects me. Look back at the earlier discussion: there were 14 sports events included here over the month of May. What's the problem? (If it's that they all belong in Current sports events, then please address the analogy I made in my comment yesterday.) -- Avaragado 10:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The sports page was only created recently, so no wonder some people still come up with sports news here. However, as I already explained, if we want to cover every masters of a sport like golf that most people in the world have never ever played nor do they follow it we need to cover more popular sports like tennis or soccer as well. And where is the barrier? Formula 1 ok? Do we need every Tour de France race? Major league? Champions league? Just keep it at the extra page and keep this one to major events of international interest, primarily in international politics. Non-sports events is as awkward as would be Current events excluding the weather forecast of Alabama and Chinese lotteries. Everyone can see that sports news have their own page since the link is at the top of this page. You mentioned US Supreme Court judgements, in my eyes they are only relevant in case they have an impact on events that are widely followed like the Guantanamo scandal or the 2000 elections. About election results I cannot see why we should restrict it to big western countries just because most people do not know where Mongolia is. Encyclopedias are there for informing people about things they do not know yet. [[Image:abugitmo.jpg|40px|Get-back-world-respect]] 15:12, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I already addressed all your concerns. Please see my response.  You talk about court cases that are "widely" followed, but sports are just as widely followed, I don't see why the "widely" followed sports (which, contrary to your opinion, includes golf, tennis, soccer/football, etc.) can't be listed here as well.  Finally, your own argument, "Encyclopedias are there for informing people about things they do not know yet" applies just as much for sports as it does anything else.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  15:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You neither addressed my concern that there is an extra page nor that including golf masters while excluding tennis masters and many other sports events is dubious. And concerning your "weasel" term argument, that in itself was a weasel term as defined by that controversial article: "a blanket statement that many people do care about golf". You know yourself that an overwhelming majority of the world population has never heard of a US open for golf nor do they care at all. Get-back-world-respect 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did. I said there's no need to keep sports events entirely segregated to a secondary page because it would be stupid for someone in five years who visits June 2004 to see nothing about sports at all.  Secondly, I just said that tennis and other important sports events should be included, but you deleted a golf event and said that golf was unimportant, which is why we were talking about golf.  Finally, the "overwhelming majority of the world population" hasn't heard of a whole host of things that are still important.  The "overwhelming majority of the world population" hasn't heard of the Cassini-Huygens probe, yet we list that as "important", despite the fact that outside a group of scientists, astrophysicists and space geeks, it's not even that important to the general population of anywhere.  But it's an accomplishment, something that is difficult to achieve and interests a group of vocal and active people - just...like...sports.  This is no different except that you either don't like sports or just want to see the entirety of sport relegated to a subpage, even when something major happens.


 * The bottom line is what you think is important is not what I think is important. Why can't you just leave it alone and let the people who view the page decide whether or not to skip over one measly sports event?  This is not a minor event, it is a world event.  A South African won the event and people from Japan, Fiji, Canada and a host of other nations were in the running the entire time at one of the four biggest events in golf.  Absolutely international and relevant.  R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  15:59, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Along with User:RadicalBender, I thought the situation was pretty clear. Detailed results for all sports: Current sports events; important results for important sports: promote to Current events. Analogy: Detailed political trivia: 2004 in politics; important political events: promoted to 2004. The people best placed to decide what counts as important are the people who know the subject matter. Yes, current events should include results of Golf majors (four per year!), Tennis majors (four per year!), Formula 1 championship results (not each race unless notable for other reasons), football league championship results (not each match), etc, etc. -- Avaragado 16:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It is not stupid if someone in five years sees nothing about sports in June 2004 as long as there is a separate sports page. Other people already decided they wanted sports on an extra page, that was before I deleted your item which was at the time the only sports item I saw. While many people indeed have never heard of many current events this is only because the event has not happened before but a current event can shed a new light on something and raise the interest of people. In the case of a golf masters, they have been happening four times a year for a long time as you informed me, and still most people never decided it interests them. I do not want to bash your hobby, if you prefer golf and I prefer swimming I am entirely ok, I just would never come to the idea to mention a swimming race as a current event, particularly not if there is an extra page. And your mentioning of different nationalities is nothing special nowadays, there are most probably international meetings of dove keepers or rocket scientists as well, and still they would not be worth covering per se.
 * Avaragado, why shall we cover golf but not rugby, football, icehockey, snooker, curling, basketball, baseball, cricket, volleyball, polo, fencing or boxing? The popularity of sports varies greatly by countries and time period - usually sports are much more popular in a country as long as there are outstanding athletes from that country. To me it seems that the decision is entirely arbitrary and it would be best to keep it all at the extra page. Get-back-world-respect 16:19, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The decision on whether to include any event - sporting, political, scientific, mathematical, whatever - in current events is arbitrary. We all use our best judgement. By what process did someone decide to include an item on a decision of a Hong Kong appellate court? Or the increase of US interest rates? Or the opening weekend earnings of Fahrenheit 9/11? Why that court decision and no others? Why those interest rates and no others? Why that film and no others? It's the same with sporting events.


 * I'm British. Brits think baseball is called "rounders" and is only played at school. But I know that the World Series result is worthy of a place on current events, even if I would go out of my way to avoid watching it. Your question presupposes that I believe we should not cover those sports: not true at all. Can you give me a list of countries whose events are ineligible for inclusion on current events? -- Avaragado 17:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course we always decide on our own best judgment. That judgment decided to set up an extra page for sports. Sports is something that people often want to be kept separately because it is only interesting to those who follow the specific sport, which varies by time and country. I never argued that news of any country should be left out. Get-back-world-respect 22:27, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Even with the extra page for sports, it does not preclude the possibility of having sport events on current events. On another point, let me make something perfectly clear.  I don't play golf.  I don't watch golf.  I know about golf and the general concepts and rules and some of the golfers, etc. - enough that I can write articles about golfers.  However, I'm not an especially big golf fan.  BUT, I know the importance of golf in sport.  I watch enough sports and Sportscenter that I know what is important and what isn't.  It's all a judgment call, like everything else on this page.  There is no slippery slope argument here.  I won't let smaller events on this page; it reduces its usefulness. R ADICAL B ENDER  &#9733;  03:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Golf may be seen as important in your favourite sports show. In Britain cricket is important. Pakistanis like hockey very much. In New Zealand they play a lot of rugby. Why do you think your perception is more important than theirs? Get-back-world-respect 09:42, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * But you can say that about every event on the page! Why do you think your view - that sports events have no place on this page, period - is more important than anyone else's? There was an entry on June 30th about a proposal for new social bills in Spain. This affects the population of Spain, and very few others. Does that item belong on the page? -- Avaragado 10:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If you think something else does not belong here discuss that separately. I discuss that a US open in golf is not important enough to be mentioned as a current event if there is a separate sports page. Note that it were others who wanted that page and note that the golf open is one of few items that are debated. I insist that if we allow this item we should allow a hell of a lot of other sports events as well which we decided not to do. Get-back-world-respect 11:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I note that you answered neither of my questions. (Incidentally, nowhere did I say that I thought the Spanish item didn't belong here: that's your presumption. I'd like to know what you think.) Also, it's educational to look back to May 2004, before current sports events began. I don't see a "hell of a lot" of sports events. In fact, I count 16 sports or sports politics events out of 201 in total. I don't consider 8% a "hell of a lot". (My breakdown: 13 sport; 3 sports politics; 14 science/technology; 11 arts/entertainment/celebrities; 160 other, mostly global politics. YMMV.) Finally, I don't see where "we decided not to" include sports events here. Could you tell me where? -- Avaragado 01:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I did not say that you said the Spanish item didn't belong here, I just showed that your argumentation is flawed if you want to tell me that because there are other dubious items here all sport should be allowed. As you rightly say, 8% is not a hell of a lot. As I rightly said, if we decided to mention golf sports opens we should allow a hell of a lot of equally interesting other sports events which we decided not to do - which is why the extra page was created and which is why there were only 8% even before. Your continous complaints of "you did not answer me" are not productive. If you mean a particular point please mention it again. Get-back-world-respect 03:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If a news item about a proposed change in Spanish law is worthy (in this case, I believe it is), then a news item naming the winner of the U.S. Open is equally worthy. If a news item announcing the winner of the Abel Prize for Maths is worthy (in this case, I believe it is), then a news item naming the winner of Euro 2004 is equally worthy. Nobody is adding all changes in Spanish law, nor would anyone add all results in the U.S. Open. Nobody is listing all maths, physics, chemistry, biology, etc, prizes, nor would anyone add all results in all football championships.
 * You cannot hold sport to an entirely different standard of entry to other topics. The argument about current sports events is flawed since there was no decision, as far as I have been able to find, to omit the most important sports events from current events as a result of the creation of the new page. Current sports events includes a wider range of sports-related events: if current events is a "news channel", then current sports events is a "sports channel" (and note that news channels also include sports highlights, but leave the depth and the trivia to the sports channels). If you want to hold a consistent position, then you should be arguing on Talk:2004 that, since 2004 in politics exists, then all political events must be removed from 2004. If, however, you believe that important political events should be allowed on 2004, then you can't simultaneously argue against important sports events on 2004, or important sports events on current events - unless you believe sports to be intrinsically less worthy. I contend that they are not. -- Avaragado 09:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Paranoid, I, and those who asked for the extra page do not hold sport to an entirely different standard of entry to other topics. But Paranoid and I agree, as we already noted below, that sports events, and regularly recurring once in particular, most often do not affect people much, as well as celebrity gossip or local news. While it is obvious that 2004 should mainly be about politics since this is mostly what ultimately remains for history, some agree that current events is not the place for much sports. And as I told you several times there are so many sports events equally important as a golf open that this page would be dominated by sports if we hold everything to the same standard as you rightly want to do. Get-back-world-respect 10:04, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So where do we go from here? This discussion is going nowhere. You say that sports events "most often do not affect people much", but tell that to the millions in Portugal and Greece who will experience elation and despair in a few hours in the Euro 2004 final. (More people, I would suggest, than are affected by the opening of a new subway system in Bangkok that apparently merits an entry in current events for July 3.) I think we need more opinions from other interested parties: we've been dominating this discussion too much. What do other people think? -- Avaragado 17:38, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The Bangkok subway will affect people's life quite a lot and for a long time if the subway is a substantial improvement for the traffic. It can also be seen as a step in economic development. Ask people in Greece or Portugal in five years if any of them feels still affected by a soccer game. Also note that the Euro football championship is an event that only occurs every four years and has many hundreds of millions of spectators, in contrast to golf opens that occur sixteen times as frequently. I agree that it does not help much if we two discuss this endlessly but should see what others think. Maybe you want to start a poll? Get-back-world-respect 13:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Let me give my somewhat different perspective on sporting events debate. It seems to me that the issue should not be relative "importance" of the event, because first of all the definition of "important" is extremely unclear, and second because the section would then change into something completely different (demographics, some behind-the-scenes political stories, investment decisions by large MNC, budget decisions, some medical advances, distruptive industrial and other technologies). Such list would be extremely useful, but the main impediment is we don't have enough highly knowledgeable people to compile (and update) it. And so we are left without clear direction to move in and some rules of thumb are necessary.

One such rule may be how many people will be affected by that and how strongly. Another may be the "newsworthiness" of the event. To judge it we can check how many news outlets carry the story or to think ourselves how new, surprising and original it is. So I think that repeating events, such as sports event (or elections) generally are, do not fit here very well. Furthermore, sport generally does not affect people's lives very much (besides making them happy or unhappy for short time).

On many news sites there are sections, such as Technology, World, Politics, Sports, etc. I think that we should simply ban some categories from being included - sports, celebrity gossip, oddities, local news, should not be included here, because they do not affect many people or because they are not newsworthy enough.

I also don't really see the value of current events page for sports fan. It's not like there may be much new information interesting to them in those 2 or 3 articles that will be linked from the news item. If they care about golf, they are likely to already be following the championship and know enough about the players. And if they don't care about golf, it's not like they will suddenly start caring. This is not true for other news items, such as politics, economy, technology or science. Paranoid 11:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's my view: think long term. The current events and current sports events pages have very little value per se; their value starts growing once they're archived. The importance of current events is only apparent when those events are no longer current. (Future historians will also be amused by the events we choose to leave out that subsequently take on an importance we don't yet comprehend.)


 * I don't believe it's possible to include a blanket ban on any category; there are always exceptions. Celebrity gossip? The OJ Simpson trial. Local news? School shootings; bits of Charles de Gaulle airport collapsing. This doesn't mean I think that all celebrity gossip etc is fair game: far from it. I just believe we need to be flexible.


 * I don't understand your last sentence (well, it is 2:30am right now). Are you saying you believe that a technology news item might turn someone who doesn't care about technology into someone who does, and that this could never happen for a sports news item? If so I don't understand your reasoning. -- Avaragado 01:44, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess he meant someone uniterested in golf will not change his mind about that sport when he learns the name of the person who won some open this year whereas when someone learns that people constructed a rocket with private money he may think, "hm, interesting, would not have believed that was possible". The main point is that sports, celebrity gossip, and local news, usually do not affect many people and are not newsworthy. No one is trying to tell you you have to leave it out if Nicole Kidman sets an astonishing record in running around the world in 80 days in order to get funding for the local school of her children. Get-back-world-respect 03:42, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Blissfully ignorant of the discussion going on here, I just added a news item to July 3rd about Sharapova winning the Wimbledon women's final. I did so only because there was already an item on July 4th about Federer winning the men's final. What's good for the goose... - 216.61.33.185 22:00, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

July? Archive early
Given that it has been July for 19 minutes UTC, I think the page archive happened too early. We agreed to leave it for about a week before. Where is the discussion of this policy change? Pcb21| Pete 00:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Whut? No we didn't. We used to have it moved pretty much as soon as possible after midnight UTC, but then to copy-and-paste the last few days' worth to keep the page from being so bereft, with any changes to be merged into the month-article upon removal. However, for the last few months, Wik began to object to this second part of the practice, so only the first part - the moving - happened, and the page was, essentially, blank for a few days. Since Wik is not here to object to previous practice, it has continued to be excised in the usual way. BTW, thanks to Grunt for doing the change.
 * James F. (talk) 01:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * So... we should archive June 27 when July 2nd comes?
 * KirbyMeister 01:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * No, usual practice was to have 7 days' worth of events; as July lengthened, the number of needed entries from June diminishes, until nought on the 8th...
 * James F. (talk) 17:05, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Pete that archiving AND deleting every thing so early looks bad. Otheriwse it'd look as if nothing is happening around the world. --Menchi 01:29, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

kfdıjb vjnb vbjbg jbkjbgnnbvgmbk''' Bold text

Superscript textfjhnfgf'''fn hjgbnbjbjgbnjbkh