This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Current events/December 2005 page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events

Time

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime

Years

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears

Lists

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList

History: Contemporary

	History portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
	This page is supported by the Contemporary History Task Force.

This is the discussion/talk page for: Portal:Current events/December 2005.

See also: Wikipedia:How the Current events page works
For instructions on how to archive Current events at the start of a new month, see: Wikipedia: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 really is a WP article of the form:

Portal:Current events/2005_December_1

Refer to each day, using those article names. I didn't create this design, just trying to help others work around it. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Format

09-Jan-2008: The format of this article had been a tall column wrapped as 8 words-per-line, but was changed 09Jan08 to wrap as 16 words-per-line (at 800x600 resolution screen size), reducing page length by 40% (making page seem half as long). The coding to shorten page:

  ==[[Portal:Current events]]==
  {| align=right style="background-color:transparent"
       cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0
  | style="width:250px"|
  {{Portal:Current events/December 2005/Calendar}}
  {{Portal:Current events/December 2005/Sidebar}}
  |}
  {{Portal:Current events/Month Inclusion|2005 December}}
  {{Portal:Current events/Events by month}}

The month September_2005 was the 1st widened to shorten the page. The page can be narrowed for each user by changing the width of their browser windows. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related issues

[ See: Talk:Current events. -Wikid77 ]

Issues from 2005

Note: Proposed move removed. Article page had already been moved to location listed in vote. Just talk page was left at old space. Talk page now moved matching location to article page.

Also though nomination sitting here, no actual vote had been set up. [[user_talk:Jtdirl]] 22:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

General Archives:
- Old: 1 | 2 | 3
- 2004: 4 (Apr 26) | 5 (Jul 26) | 6 (Jul 26) | 7 (Aug 19) | 8 (Aug 19) | 9 (Oct 1) | 10 (Nov 29)
- 2005: 11 (Mar 21) 12 (April 2005) 13 (Dec 16)

On December 26 (1340 UTC), Archive 13 due to the large number of posts. All topics for which the latest post was December 18 or earlier have been moved to that archive.

Current events "link to day of month"

(reposted from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical))

These do not work for me. I have date preferences set to yyyy-mm-dd. Looking at the HTML "view source" I see the link is to

<td><b><a href="#10_December_2005_.28Saturday.29" title="">11</a></b></td>

where the date is in dd_monthname_2005 format.

At the destination end, I see

<p><a name="2005-12-10_.28Saturday.29"></a></p>

where the date is in yyyy-mm-dd format.

Thus the link doesn't work. -- SGBailey 00:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to headers with wikified dates is simply not a good idea. I've made an experimental fix, adding an explicit anchor defined with an id attribute attached to blank lines before each header. I'll bring this up at Talk:Current events. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When adding a new day header, please also include (and appropriately modify) the "div" line as well. Without this, the links from the calendar don't work. If anyone can think of a better way to do this, please feel free. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That works a treat. I've done Sept 2005 as well. I was going to tackle November when I moticed that its infobox was all wrong - I'll leave that till someone has sorted it out and I'll slowly work back through the months doing them. -- SGBailey 10:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps rather than even try to hit the auto-generated anchor for the header, the link from the calendar and the div should be a simple date string, like "20_December_2005". I think this might make it easier (and more clear) for folks to update. I'm a little surprised the date headers aren't added automatically by user:NekoDaemon. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NY public transportation strike

So what? How does it impact everybody else? In which way will it matter, let's say, in 2010? It a local news, really but before removing it I'd rather hear other opinions. User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. Made the morning news here, and the BBC--Irishpunktom\^talk 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking through the things on there currently, I don't see how in 2010 anyone will care about a bus crash in Pakistan or the Midwest Airlines Flight 210 emergency landing, but should we remove them? Evil Monkey - Hello 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; that's the difference between an encyclopaedia and yesterday's paper. Or should we add every newsworthy issue everyday? User:Ejrrjs says What? 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Current Events collects a lot of junk. Sometimes people like to push their agendas or positions with news items, and sometimes they put in things that are of interest only to people in their region. But "only events that people will care about ten years hence" is a little too strict a criterion. The New York transit strike is mostly regionally interesting, and its presence on Current Events probably is partially the result of systemic bias. But New York City is one of the largest cities in the world, the story did make the BBC, and it's been a big story recently. I think it passes the test for inclusion on Current Events. --Mr. Billion 03:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"War" or "belligerence" in Chad?

We currently have an item about the conflict between Chad and Sudan resulting from an attack for which the Chadian president says Sudan is responsible. Different sources say different things, though. The BBC quotes a Chadian statement as saying Chad is in a "state of war," where Reuters, al-Jazeera, and CNN quote it as saying "state of belligerence." A Google News search for the exact phrase "state of belligerence" and +Chad has a few more results than the exact phrase "state of war."

In English, if a head of state says he's declaring war, that's a little different from talking about "belligerence." I'm guessing the difference is in translation, but I think it's a key distinction. You'd think they'd be able to get a direct quote right. --Mr. Billion 02:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

CNN In The Money just gave a positive spin to Wikipedia. Johnski 19:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that one too; I suppose we should be watching Jack Cafferty for vandalism? ;) --Golbez 21:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bigotry on Current Events

Before taking his Hannukah break, User:Freestylefrappe saw fit to add obscure news about a Pakistani murder that is not on the front page of any news service (except Wikipedia). Why add this obscure incendiary story except to promote bigotry against Muslims? The story is not even mentioned on BBC South Asia news page among the three dozen regional stories they find worthy of publication. Yet, the lead news stories on major news services are absent on Wikipedia, such as "Benedict Leads 1st Christmas Mass as Pope" [1], "U.S. Monitors Muslim Sites Across Nation for Radiation" [2], and "Rubble fall kills 11 Delhi workers" [3], for example. --68.19.38.4 15:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that the anonymous user assumes that a story mentioning a murder committed by a Muslim is meant to "promote bigotry against Muslims"... then goes on to point out the fact that the user who posted that story is Jewish. Talk about hypocrisy...-- Mwalcoff 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The facts speak for themselves. Biased editors and administrators with their own agendas skew Wikipedia to reflect their hateful bigotry. This detracts from the credibility of the "ENCYCLOPEDIA". If you consider pointing out the facts about this morass of deceit to be hypocritical, then by all means, do your part to support these smear campaigns and drive the "ENCYCLOPEDIA" into a downward spiral of hatred, unreliability and bias.--68.219.234.244 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, Mr. Anonymous User in Georgia, is that you claim to be so sensitive about bigotry yet find it germane to mention Freestylefrappe's religion. It cuts both ways. -- Mwalcoff 03:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention his religion. He did. When I checked the current events history to see who submitted the inflammatory story from Pakistan, it led to a user named Freestylefrappe (whose edit comment was "not a Christmas miracle") and when I clicked on his username, his discussion page said "Hanukkah wikibreak. Time for me to chillout. Unless the comment is long term, I suggest you go to another administrator for help." When I wrote in the discussion page that before going on Hannukah vacation, this user submitted an obscure story with little value except to promote bigotry against Muslims, those are facts. Nothing ironic about it. You seem more concerned about repeating a user's notice that he went on Hannukah vacation than the attempt to turn Wikipedia into a hate site. That's ironic. --68.217.111.53 13:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the Hanukkah comment came from Frappe's talk page. My point was that you assumed bad faith on his part while doing exactly the same thing you were criticizing him for doing. You're upset because he mentioned a story that you considered not to be noteworthy and that mentioned Muslims (although he didn't use the word). You then turn around and mention his religion, which was completely irrelevant to the issue. Personally, I don't care what his religion or yours is, nor do I care about the Pakistan story. But I think you're being hypocritical. -- Mwalcoff 20:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The current events for Christmas day is terrible. what happened to Christmas mass at the Vatican? All I see are three terrible stories about death in non-christian countries. Thanks Wikipedia, for being a receptacle for all the Internet's trash. And merry christmas to you all, too. It's things like this that make me thank God for Britannica and the New York Times. --Muchosucko 18:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Junior Nice?

The following was added to December 25 by an IP user:

Jim Junior Nice, of Twin Falls, Idaho is arrested for poisoning his three children; 6-year-old twins, Justin and Spencer, and a 2-year-old girl, Raquel Anna. Despondent over his divorce, he had lost custody of the children after the 2004 drowning death of a fourth child, 22-month-old Ian Nice, in a ditch at a local park. (CNN)

Is that honestly world news? He killed his children over a divorce; doesn't sound all that rare. On the other hand, the case involving the Pakistani man has been considered an honor killing and thus is a unique case. The story above isn't even one of the top stories in the CNN Law section, which was where he got the news item. joturner 14:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any difference between a man in the USA who kills his children over a divorce and a man in Pakistan who kills his children over a marriage. Perhaps you can tell us why you think the Pakistan story is "unique" when the article states that many like it occur each year. Similarly, many people in the US kill their wives and/or children out of depression, mental illness, social isolation, etc. The Idaho Falls man's story is as much a major world news story as the Pakistani man's story. --68.217.111.53 15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it would have been more appropriate to say more unique. Take a look at Google News. You see the story being covered in Pakistan (of course), the United States, the United Arab Emirates, China, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. On the other hand, coverage of the Jim Junior Nice case is limited primarily to the United States (with some coverage from the UK and a somewhat satirical article from Germany). Clearly, one is world news and the other is not. And as I mentioned before, even CNN (the source) doesn't think it was big news. In addition, if no one cared enough to add the event yesterday when it actually happened, it's often not important enough to add it today. joturner 16:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The logic you are using is flawed because many stories receive international coverage yet do not appear in Wikipedia. For instance, here we have another American family gunned down by one of their own, a murder-suicide story covered by 300 newspapers around the world. [4]. But not on Wikipedia. Why? Out of all world news stories, why does the Pakistan man killing his family deserve to be one of the four stories covered by Wikipedia on Christmas Day? This is an example why Wikipedia loses credibility. There is no objective system to determine what stories should be covered and what stories should be ignored. The system for reporting news is biased and uneven. Where are these important news stories that are covered far more widely than the Pakistan man who killed his family? The new Pope's first Christmas Mass? Thousands of pilgrims returning to Bethlehem? Two dozen killed in Zongshan China bar fire? Two more US soldiers killed in Iraq on Christmas Day and 20 Iraqis killed by blasts in Baghdad on Monday? Israel's announcement that they will expand the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories? Vietnam drops rape charges against Gary Glitter. Congo and Uganda border skirmish. China bird flu vaccine release? I could go on. [5] --68.217.111.53 18:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe instead of complaining about what's left out you should put those stories in! -- Mwalcoff 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hollow advice. Most attempts to edit are reverted by the in-house "experts" as you may have noted by the above paragraphs of discussion.--68.217.111.53 21:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section edit links

The edit links for each day's events seem to not get along too well with the stacked tables I was trying in the sidebar. Can someone more familiar with the quirks of Wiki CSS have a looksee and see if there's any way this can be rectified? The Tom 22:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them altogether because of it...I'm not sure there's anything that can be done. Ral315 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Issues from 2008

Any issues below are after 2007. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]