text: File:Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.jpg

title: File:Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.jpg


text:
User:Harej/monobook.css

/* the following is needed for the redesign of the main page that is based on messedrockers version by Bawolff */ /* */

div.center {text-align: center;}

div.main-box {border: #3366FF solid 1px; background-color: #ffffff; margin-bottom: 0.4em;padding:0.4em;} div.main-box { -moz-border-radius: 10px;} div.title-box { -moz-border-radius-topright: 10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 10px;} div.title-box {background-color: #3366FF; text-align: center; font-size: 150%; padding: 0;margin-top:-0.5em;;color: white; font-weight:bold;vertical-align: top;text-decoration:none;}

/* leads */

div#seccond-lead-box {float:left; width:48.2%;text-align:left; height:15em; }

div#Lead-box {float:right; width:48.2%;text-align:left;height:15em; }

div#interview-recent-box {text-align:left; vertical-align:top; float:right;width: 48.2%;height: 15.3em;}

div#third-lead-box {float:left; width:48.2%; vertical-align: text-top; height:15.3em;}

div#wrapper-mainbox {background-color: #DEF;padding:0.5em 0.7em 1em 1em;} div#wrapper-mainbox table {background-color: #DEF;}

/* */

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Harej/monobook.css


text:
35 South Park complaints not upheld, New Zealand

June 29, 2006

Today, June 29, the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decided to throw out the 35 complaints made against a South Park episode. Three of the 35 were from church societies. The South Park episode in question was aired in February and depicted a statue of the Virgin Mary menstruating. The episode was named Bloody Mary.

That episode received the highest number of complaints the BSA has ever received since starting in 1989. And C4, the broadcaster, received the highest number of viewers since it started in 2003.

The complaints received state that the broadcaster breached a number of standards in the Free To Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice but the BSA responded by saying that it is within the broadcasters freedom of expression.

C4 and the BSA both agree that people were given offence by the episode. C4 chose not to screen the episode again. The broadcast of the programme was protected by the Bill of Rights Act 1990.

The BSA did note that the programme was not a direct attack on Catholics but was to satirise the belief in miracles from statues. The programme was deliberately provocative. The BSA says, "But showing disrespect does not amount to the sort of vicious or vitriolic attack normally associated with the denigration standard."


text:
Talk:35 South Park complaints not upheld, New Zealand

OR
BSA press release And watched TV3 News.


text:
Daughter of Yuko Ikeda kidnapped to ransom in Tokyo; freed 13 hours later

June 27, 2006

Ikeda Kanako, a 21-year-old senior student of the Meiji Gakuin University and the first daughter of celebrity surgeon Yuko Ikeda, was kidnapped at about 1225 (UTC+9), June 26, 2006, in Shibuya, Tokyo.

A bullet was fired and one officer slightly cut when police stormed a Kawasaki apartment to rescue the girl.

Kanako was dressed in a white light half-sleeved cardigan, blue jeans with a bistre belt made of leather, a spring green camisole and carried a bag of Vuitton when she was abducted at a bus stop.

She was found unharmed 13 hours later by Japanese police at a condominium located in Nakahara-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa. The young woman's make-up was not disordered; Kanako's long brown fringe was not disheveled at all and she was wearing what she had been when she was kidnapped.

The kidnapping of Kanako was a big story in Japanese media in June, 2006. The story appeared in many newspapers as the front-page news on June 27, 2006.

Kanako and her kidnappers had been in touch with her mother using Kanako's mobile phone. The effort to free her was helped greatly by a woman who witnessed the moment Kanako was taken; she wrote down the license plate of the van and other details.

Police traced mobile phone calls and were able to locate the van in Kawasaki where they detained two of the kidnappers as they went shopping.

One conspirator Li Yong, 29, from China, led the policemen to the apartment and tricked Kaneo Ito, 49, from Japan, to open the door. Ito managed to discharge one bullet before being restrained by an assistant police inspector, the first man in the room.

The other man involved in the kidnap of Kanako was Choi Gi Ho, 54, from South Korea. Kanato was freed unharmed.

The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department arrested three men on suspicion of conspiring to kidnap a woman and hold her to a reported 300 million yen ransom.


text:
Talk:Israel Defense Forces attack Gaza Strip

Just wondering why the headline for this page uses the euphemism "pushes" rather than "invades". I'll change it shortly unless anyone can convince me otherwise. Jobrahms 13:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

invades
Invasion suggests a certain size of armed forces. Since neither article nor source refer to the size of the armed force, a size neutral headline would be better. However if Israel did send a invasion size force into the Gaza Strip, invasion would be accurate.

Personally i prefer "Israel sends armed forces into Gaza Strip"

83.160.232.32 17:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Invasion size force" ??? What qualifies for that? It is the action, not the size. Once again, and  ~ clearthought 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I would go with "enters". Israel Defence Force Enters Gaza Strip. Mvelinder 16:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not NPOV
The dramatic Nizar Rayan citation reeks of anti-Israelism. The title uses "invades" instead of the suggested "sends armed forces into." Arafat must be delighted in his grave to see his followers taking over wherever they can. --Gabi S. 18:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "invades" is fine. since when is so "neutral" to call military advancements "movements"? they don't go for a walk (even though no much point, it's preferable giving it any title as soon as the facts are followed to a reasonable accuracy).

Invasion is neutral. But is it accurate?

To simplify things. I wouldn't call 10 tanks an invasion, 100 tanks could be called an invasion and 1000 tanks are an invasion for sure. Invasion makes me think of the allied invading Normandy, Germany invading Poland, the Soviet Union invading Poland, Israel invading Lebanon, Argentina invading the Falklands, etc.

If you know the size of the Israeli forces please ad it to the article (with a source). If you don't know the size don't use a word in the headline that suggests a size.

83.160.232.32 20:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I would say that invasion would be fine. Size does not really matter, it is the action involved.Wikitionary entry for "invade" For example, let's say I got a drink (i.e. drank something), it would not matter if I drank a tiny sip or the whole of the thing that I was drinking, the point would be that I drank it and the size would no effect on the word used to describe the action. ~ clearthought 21:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Did some slight tweaking so article doesn't report Israel's stated motives as fact. In war the true motives of any participant are only known to themselves and are often misrepresented to the public and press. Since the 8,000 man strong search and rescue force the US sent out just recently allegedly to free their 2 soldiers resulted in a quick slaughter, it is not credible to sophisticated readers that Israel's primary purpose for this attack is to "free" the soldier. If I were to speculate, I'd say it's more of a payback...but since we don't speculate, we must simply report what Israel says is it's purpose but not as if their stated motive is the factual truth. Neutralizer 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

my 2€
may be Israel military force enters Gaza Strip is better than invades. Israel goals is not Invasion in order to control territory, i hope.

Jacques Divol 20:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Invade does not have to mean conquer.. it can mean move into... ~ clearthought 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Whilst it can mean move into, surely if there's differing opinions about the meaning of the word then people may not think of that particular definition - wouldn't it be safer to err on the side of caution and merely point out that Israel has sent troops in the Gaza Strip? R2b2 21:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There are differing opinions on nearly everything. All of the dictionaries I have consulted say it can mean move in and, in addition, Israel is taking aggressive movement anyway... If we became so cautious then we would not be able to report news (i.e. without having disagreement or being worried about offending someone), now would we? ~ clearthought 22:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If Hamas were to move the same # of its troops into Israel,blow up bridges and kidnap elected Israeli political leaders would we use the word "invade"? If so, then we should use it here,imo. Neutralizer 13:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You mean Israeli military forces enter Gaza Strip not Israel military force enters Gaza Strip longbow 13:52EST 30June06

Not an invasion
dictionary.com

in·va·sion  Audio pronunciation of "invasion" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-vzhn) n.

1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease. 3. An intrusion or encroachment.

Israel's mission in Gaza is not to conquer it is to rescue a hostage. The means by which they go about the hostage rescue might legitimately be questioned. But the correct title should not have "invade" in it because it clearly isn't one on dictionary definition. I don't agree with the word "pushes" either - it's devoid of meaning. I'd suggest the word "storms" - Israel storms Gaza Strip as this implies a brief violent incursion which as it is a hostage rescue mission it probably is. Ealturner 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Did Vietnam invade Cambodia then? I don't think the intent is relivent in defining only the action.--Irate 01:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I refer you to and  ~ clearthought 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Nope your wrong look at [dictionary.com] which actually say's niot what a previos user said.

in·vade  Audio pronunciation of "invade" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (n-vd) v. in·vad·ed, in·vad·ing, in·vades v. tr.

1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage. 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate: “The principal of the trusts could not be invaded without trustee approval” (Barbara Goldsmith). 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: “About 1917 the shipworm invaded the harbor of San Francisco” (Rachel Carson). 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.

v. intr.

To make an invasion: “The X-rays showed that the cancer, which had invaded deeply into the chest cavity, was retreating” (Zach Rosen).

[Middle English, from Old French invader, from Latin invdere : in-, in; see in-2 + vdere, to go.]in·vader n.

[Download Now or Buy the Book] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Main Entry: in·vade Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing 1 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE  2 : to make payments out of (a fund from which payments are not ordinarily made)

Source: Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Main Entry: in·vade Pronunciation: in-'vAd Function: transitive verb Inflected Forms: in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing 1 : to enter and spread within either normally (as in development) or abnormally (as in infection) often with harmful effects   2 : to affect injuriously and progressively  —in·vad·er /-'vAd-&r/ noun

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

invade

v 1: march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; "Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939" [syn: occupy] 2: to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; "This new colleague invades my territory"; "The neighbors intrude on your privacy" [syn: intrude on, obtrude upon, encroach upon] 3: occupy in large numbers or live on a host; "the Kudzu plant infests much of the South and is spreading to the North" [syn: overrun, infest] 4: penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way; "The cancer had invaded her lungs"

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

invade

invade: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

Source: On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB --Irate 02:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry I don't understand your point. "Invades" is a laden with POV - the POV that Israel is in the process of conquering Gaza. Israel, as quoted in the article, claims it is a temporary occupation. Totally and utterly misleading to say Israel is "invading". Note also there has not been a statement of war that usually happens before an "invasion". This is not a war. The best analogy that fits the facts is a hostage rescue. That is why I suggest the metaphor "storms". Sudden, violent, temporary. Please remember this is a news article; it's not a place to debate the legitimacy of the methods by which this hostage rescue is being undertaken. Neutral point of view is the aim. Ealturner 02:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If you think "invades" is POV they you obviously did not read those dictionary entries. "Storm" works almost the same way. Israel "penetrated" and to a certain degree "overrun" parts of Gaza, did they not? OK. I am not going to waist any more time arguing on this issue. ~ clearthought 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I read those definitions. Here was one. " 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage." Conquer and pillage? There is no conquering or pillaging reported in the article. Ealturner 02:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * FYI, the numbers pose as separate meanings for the word. For example,

storm (stôrm) n.  1. An atmospheric disturbance manifested in strong winds accompanied by rain, snow, or other precipitation and often by thunder and lightning. 2. A wind with a speed from 64 to 73 miles (from 103 to 117 kilometers) per hour, according to the Beaufort scale. Also called violent storm. 3. A heavy shower of objects, such as bullets or missiles. 4. A strong or violent outburst, as of emotion or excitement: a storm of tears. 5. A violent disturbance or upheaval, as in political, social, or domestic affairs: a storm of protest. 6. A violent, sudden attack on a fortified place. 7. A storm window. ~ clearthought 02:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Numbers 3. and 6. both apply in this case. Another reason why "invades" would be incorrect: wikinews does not predict the future. The evidence we have - statement from Israeli government - suggests it is a temporary mission and that Israel are not out to conquer and annex Gaza territory. Once the hostage is freed the army would return to Israel. I think storms is a decent, neutral word. It gets across the violence Palestinians experience while it does not say the Israelis are out to steal their land and rob them. Any sort of agreement with me :) ? Ealturner 02:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This is rubbish. Invade does not imply conquest if it did what use is the word conquest. Do invasive plants seek to conquer no. Is an invasion of froga and attempt to conquer no. It seem that the Americans do not want to admit to invading Iraq and Israeli doea not want to admit to invading the West Bank because they see them selves as better then Hitler. But it just spin, it is an invasion. Are you American or Isreali by any chance, do you support the invasion or not?--Irate 10:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia decribes D Day as an invasion. So why not this. However, many other invasions and operations had a designated D-Day, both before and after Operation Overlord.--Irate 11:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If Palestine(btw,what is it actually called now?) were to move the same # of its troops into Israel,blow up bridges and kidnap elected Israeli political leaders would we use the word "invade"? If so, then we should use it here,imo. Neutralizer 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Irate, //Are you American or Isreali by any chance, do you support the invasion or not?// Please do not resort to calling people names it does not support your case or demonstrate your adherence to neutral point of view. "Invasion" is a fundamentally inaccurate way to describe the news according to its publically available dictionary definition.  Germany "invaded" Poland to take the land and steal from its people. The article states Israel forces are in Gaza to get a hostage freed; Israel is not invading to take land or steal. The use of "invasion" to describe the news comes across as partisan. It's not an invasion; it's a hostage rescue mission. That's why I suggested an alternative term. Ealturner 16:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Did USSR "invade" Afghanistan, what about the western coalition; did it "invade"Iraq and Afghanistan? Not to steal and take land, I hope. Actually, Russia did not steal or take land from Czechoslovakia and the other "iron curtain" countries either; nor did the nazis in France. I disagree with the severe limitations of the word "invade"...it should be seen strictly as a physical event; motive analysis is always a subjective activity.Neutralizer 19:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Neutralizer, that has been what I have been saying all along. Ealturner only looks at one or two of the meanings of the word, yet he does the opposite with his word, "storms"!!! "Storms" has multiple meanings and connotations and so does "invades", in fact, since Israel is really not aggressing that quickly, it may be wrong to even call it "storms"! ~ clearthought 19:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * A nice cup of tea and a sit down. Let's just let it be. ~ clearthought 19:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Clearthought, "storms" is my chosen metaphor. The only two relevant - non-meterological definitions - fit this case. The primary definition of "invade" is wholly misleading and does not give the slightest inkling to the read as to what the article is about. If you're writing for a newspaper I'd probably go for "invades" - yeh, because it's dramatic, aggressive and make people read. But this is NPOV here and we can't do that. Do you understand me? Ealturner 19:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * How could something be the "primary" definition, they are all numbers.. none of them has a little label saying "primary definition", just like with storms! Now look up the word "hypocrisy". ~ clearthought 19:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's generally accepted that the 1. defintion is the most commonly used. It is in that sense I meant 1. was the "primary" definition - the most used one. Storms is obviously a metaphor so "1. An atmospheric disturbance manifested in strong winds accompanied by rain, snow, or other precipitation and often by thunder and lightning" is not going to mislead the reader too much. Unlike conquering and pillaging!  Seriously.... ;)Ealturner 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Settler?
I saw no mention of the settler they took hostage then supposedly killed about 3 hours ago. Any specific reason for that?--4.131.135.45 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * okay no mention of his death--4.131.135.45 02:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ~ clearthought 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The article was written before that news broke. It needs an article of its own. Ealturner 02:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

abbas response
Meantime, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, condemned Israel's attacks on infrastructure in Gaza, which disabled its only power plant and knocked down three bridges on the north-to-south roads. In a statement, Abbas said he considered "the aggression that targeted the civilian infrastructures as collective punishment and crimes against humanity."  Doldrums 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Israel seizes Hamas leaders"
It seems 8 ministers and other officials are now arrested.

new article?

reuters: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-06-29T095848Z_01_SCH354578_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml APress: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/ISRAEL_PALESTINIANS?SITE=TXDAM&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME

WTF!!!
The title must be renamed. It is so very anti-Israel not NPOV at all. 203.214.133.79 11:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * How is that? If Hamas did the same to Israel we would call it an invasion. You, sir, are POV. ~ clearthought 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

BBC says: 64 MPs and officials were seized?
BBC states: "Sixty-four MPs and officials were seized".

CNN states: "Overnight, Israeli security forces arrested 64 Palestinians in the West Bank, who were suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, the Israeli army said."

Reflex 13:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * it's probably "8 ministers + officials"

Palestine's right to exist?
This is a bit of an aside but perhaps important in terms of how media refers or doesn't refer to the "country" that just elected Hamas. I noticed the map we use does not have a name for the territory where the people elected the Hamas political party to govern them. Ok, I guess the fact is, right now, Palestine does not have the right to exist Gaza Strip. I didn't know that and it makes it awkward to report on activities within a country that does not exist. Also, perhaps there is no "invasion" if there is no "country" which was invaded. What a load of hypocritical bull surrounding this entire middle eastern conflict, it seems to me. Perhaps we should simply not report on anything that goes on in that part of the world as it may be impossible to do so with accuracy and NPOV? Neutralizer 14:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutrality doesn't mean cowardise but i think we could, how to say that in english, maybe give an unsavory, unsmely name to this article in order to calm down any further attack ???

 * enters  to remplace invades, everyone agree ???? please, we need to be cool !

Jacques Divol 14:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * is there a way to please both? in any way, facts should matter more than titles.
 * You know, reality is not pleasant at all for 3/4 of the people leaving on this planet. truth is not pleasant at all to accept sometime. Our goal is not to please, our goal, I hope, is to report events with the more sensibility, intelligence and truth possible with no warp, otherwise Wikinews is like all others news-site Jacques Divol 14:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Enters" is better than "pushes" - "pushes" implies encroachment without retreat. However enters is such a banal word to put in a headline. It describes very little. Enters for what? I agree "invades" is an utterly ridiculous, inaccurate way to describe the events. My personal favourite word for this is "Storms" - it implies violence but that the raid is only temporary. Ealturner 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. If N.Korea did the same thing to S.Korea that Israel is doing to "Palestine", wouldn't we be using the word "invade" and also perhaps "attack"? Please explain why we are tiptoeing around this intrusion? If Syria were to now bomb Israel and send in troops to rescue the duly elected Palestinian politicians, would we be shy to say "Syria attacks Israel" or "Syria invades Israel"? Am I off base here with these comparisons? Neutralizer 19:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer be careful of the fallacy of mistaking bias toward the "underdog" - or in this case the less rich, less well armed side in the conflict - for the NPOV. The facts are the only NPOV. You raise an interesting point but since the Israeli detentions were made to locate the missing soldier, they are temporary detentions. As these detentions are contingent on the release of the missing solider, captured by Hamas in a military attack on an Israeli outpost, reprisal from Syria would be an alliance in the Hamas attack on Israel. Ealturner 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * With respect I do not think we can speak for Israel. I don't know that "detentions were made to locate the missing soldier" nor that "detentions are contingent on the release of the missing solider"..perhaps the effort is simply to show the world that Israel can not be messed with or to drive more of a wedge between Hamas and the other palestinian groups. Why would I think this is simply a rescue? because Israel says so? Almost every invasion or attack throughout history has had some type of justification offered by the attacker, from Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to the 9/11 attack; who are we to pick which country's attack justifications warrant removing the labels of "attack" or "invasion"? Neutralizer 23:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Captured, Kidnapped or Detained?
According to the BBC's editors

Civilians are "kidnapped", military are "Captured" and, since troops don't usually make "arrests", the politicians were "detained".

Please use the proper word based on English, not personal feelings. If you feel either of the above were illegal, make an explicit comment and note the corresponding laws.

-Vmax
 * The BBC assumes that they are legal operations if they are not then it is kidnapping and false imprisonment. Using the terms you give means accepting the legality of the detention/kiddnapping of representatives. Words have to selected for context and the context here is disputed. So which words should be used is unclear. In such cases what does you BBC editor say.--Irate 19:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The BBC calls most of them detentions. ~ clearthought 17:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I made the first edit adding "arrested cabinet members" because I saw some sources in google.news using it (and it was only a bit later it was first announced). "Detained" is fine by me.

 * What the BBC says is irrelevant. BBC does not adhere to a neutral point of view, and unlike us, nor does it have to. Nor should any other news organisation influence wikinews. We are different for a reason: we are NPOV. Therefore, I agree with use of words based on their publically available English definitions. Using words on their meanings will effortlessly tell the news as it is, not how we'd like it to be. I think "detained" or "captured" described Israeli actions as the people arrested were, unlike the Israeli soldier, not chosen at random, rather those individuals could best help the investigation to locate the missing soldier.  Ealturner 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * BBC tends to have more NPOV than us... just look at us, arguing about a few words... sad (this is why I took a 1.5-year long Wikibreak). ~ clearthought 19:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, the BBC is not NPOV. Looking at the world from the side of the little guy instead of the big guy is not NPOV. It's a different point of view. Wikiness is NPOV and as such we have to be in the middle, state the facts how they are on their publically available definitions. Ealturner 19:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * omg, this collective viewpoint is really getting pro-Israel,imo, to me that's exactly how it comes across when a soldier is kidnapped and politicians are detained; give me a break, guys, just admit that most of us feel differently about the level of justified reaction when a stray Israeli bomb blows up Palestinian kids on a beach than when an Israeli soldier is "detained" by Hamas. The former we accept as part of war and expect no consequence at all and the latter we sympathize with a full blown invasion as being a reasonable consequence. To the family of either the kids on the beach or the soldier taken prisoner, I doubt the pain they feel is a whole lot different (except one of the families still has hope), so its the pain of war which is constant and non-partisan and should guide our NPOV parameters, imo. This invasion and mass arrest has insulted and terrorized the innocent civilians who live there as well as shut down a fledgling democratically elected government. Let's not sanitize the reality of the event through our pro-western lens. Neutralizer 19:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, it seems as if we are neither taking one side nor the other, and we are not taking both either and instead of ridding the work of partisanship, we are creating a new kind of it. We are taking none, making the reporting and editing unbelievably difficult to do and the forum of discussion choppy. ~ clearthought 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * This article looks to be on the side of both the "little" and "big" guy. ~ clearthought 19:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * //so its the pain of war which is constant and non-partisan and should guide our NPOV parameters, imo.// Sorry, that is POV. Wikinews is the one website on the internet that is free of POV. Get a blog, write for another news site is you feel passionately about promoting your cause. I'm not saying your cause is wrong, I'm not giving my opinions on this issue because it's irrelevent to the news. News = facts. Accurate use of language the way to tell the news in a neutral way. Clearthought, I believe wikistyle accepts that articles can contain "both the little and big guy" perspectives. When both are present that's accepted as neutrality. I'm happy with that. This pairing off is not possible in the title though. Ealturner 19:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You are yet to show me how the BBC has POV. News is news... and is often written by the "side" that gets, or can get, it out. E.g., if only Israel or reporters in Israel reported on Israeli forces entering Gaza, then it would be almost certainly from an Israeli viewpoint and not complete with the facts. However, in this case, you have reporters in both sides collaborating - like on the BBC - from both cultures' viewpoints. ~ clearthought 19:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * In fact, since we get most of our news from organizations like the BBC, one could say that we are as "biased" as they are since all we are doing is combining sources and rewording what they say! ~ clearthought 19:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The BBC is irrelevant to this discussion. Fox news, CNN, they're all irrelevant. There is a reason why wikinews is not about copying news articles from all over the net and pasting them here, aside from it's illegal to plagarise. That reason is NPOV. We're volunteers with a passion to tell news from NPOV. Wikinews gleans the facts from the sources and rewrites the articles from NPOV - using the correct words and giving balance of opinion (big and little guy) within the body of the article. Ealturner 20:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * //News is news... and is often written by the "side" that gets, or can get, it out. E.g., if only Israel or reporters in Israel reported on Israeli forces entering Gaza, then it would be almost certainly from an Israeli viewpoint and not complete with the facts.// Clearthought, that's a good criticism that will never go away with news. But we can't just make stuff up on behalf of the side without the megaphone that's not NPOV. Ealturner 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV objections
Could someone please itemize the actionable NPOV objections? The discussion is full of unsupported assumptions about underdog and big guy povs being in play as well as assumptions about other media's pov; all of this is just distracting,I think. Repeat; what are the actionable objections to the article as it currently stands? Neutralizer 23:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * No. I believe Ealturner and I have come to a conclusion on our differences. ~ clearthought 02:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * the objection is Israel's actions do not fit the defintion of "invasion" or "invades." This is the NPOV objection; it is not an invasion. It is a temporary attack in response to a hostage taken with defined objectives, as stated by Israeli official quoted in the article. The dictionary is the neutral arbitor. Irate has, without discussion, changed the title again which I consider disruptive behaviour and will revert. Irate seems passionate to use the word "invade" despite the objections; I consider this biased. We need an alternative to "invade," I suggested "storm" which nobody has objected too. If you think another word is more accurate, suggest it. Invade is wholly inaccurate on all dictionary definitions. Ealturner 12:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * You are surely taking a POV by accepting Israel's own statement of its motives. As Israel is an interested party, using its stated objectives to define the action seems most definitely not neutral. I note, with some irony, the current last comment on this page: 49 hours after I first changed "pushes into" to "invades" we have come full circle... Jobrahms 16:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * How about the word "raid"? Ealturner 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * For the sake of non-confrination (and the Zionists and anti-Zionists pushing for various wordage), I think "raid" or "enter" would be the best. If we choose the latter, we would want to stress in the introduction that it was an aggravated act, not just a movement. ~ clearthought 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Please calm down, everyone, namecalling "Zionists and anti-Zionists" is counter productive at the least. I agree with Jobrahms and Irate. Ealturner, I urge you to read Jobrahms's edit above because to me, this sentence "You are surely taking a POV by accepting Israel's own statement of its motives." is 100% true and also obvious. If you wish to be doing that, that's fine, but I wonder whether you agree that you are accepting Israel's own statement of its motives? Please ponder this a bit as I feel it is important to deal with before a consensus can be reached. Neutralizer 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The facts do not support the use of the word "invasion" on dictionary defintion. There is no conquering or pillaging. Let's get a consensus on this in a hurry. Ealturner 18:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * invasion:   1. an attack of sorts, usually against another nation
 * invasion: 1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. 3. An intrusion or encroachment. (American Heritage) the act of or an instance of invading (Merriam Websters)  1: the act of invading; the act of an army that invades for conquest or plunder 2: any entry into an area not previously occupied; "an invasion of tourists"; "an invasion of locusts" [syn: encroachment, intrusion] (WordNet)

 * In short, your statement is wrong. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Those definitions do not fit the facts of the news article. No conquest or plunder involved. Number 1. is the relevant definition as it is the most frequently used. We need another word. I'm fine with raid or storms or enters. I don't like the word "Enter" because it's bland but I'd go with it to settle this. Ealturner 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid we clearly do not speak the same language. Israeli forces engaged in an attack (Wiktionary definition). Israeli forces intruded, encroached, and invaded (American Heritage definition). They invaded (Merriam Websters definition). They invaded, entered, encroached, intruded (WordNet definition). Disregarding these definitions, all other contributors to this discussion have agreed that this word is appropriate, while you solely have suggested it is not. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 16:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Storms?
I think 'storms' is a little POV, not to mention that it reminds me of the blitzkreig and stormtroopers and all that, and this is nothing like that at all. Wouldn't something like 'invades' be better? 35.9.42.170 14:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read previous discussions on this Talk page. I, personally, was OK with "invades", but at this point I think that "enters" might be the best word choice. ~ clearthought 18:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The recent bombings of infrastructure and power supply make the word "invades" the only accurate word,imo. I suppose "attacks" is also a possibility. Neutralizer 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ugh, sorry didn't notice them. Probably the best wording of choice would be 'politely knocked on the door and wiped their feet before entering'.  The above is seriously laughable.

Attacks?
With the recent bombings of infrastructure and power supply maybe the word "attacks" would be unchallengable? Neutralizer 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * No objections here. "Attacks", IMO, should suit everyone's view on this. ~ clearthought 21:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Attacks is another bland word you'd not use but this is not an ideal situation. I'd accept it. Ealturner 23:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * No discussion here for a while so I've republished with "attacked." Ealturner 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. with Hamas now using the word "invades" and phrases like "move into" or even "storm" sounding particularly inefficient to describe military attacks and detentions of officials, "attacks" is one of the better options.

Invasion?
Could the editors so staunchly defending the Israeli POV (ie. that this incursion of 3,000 troops, armour with air-support etc. is a "rescue mission") please provide criteria under which they will accept that Israel has invaded the Strip by default (ie. what would have to happen for you to accept that labelling)? 202.72.148.102 12:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, why is the article "Israel Defence Forces attack" rather than "Israeli..." or "Israel's..."? 202.72.148.102 13:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'coz Israel Defense Forces is what they're officially called. Doldrums 13:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This is not an invasion on any dictionary definition of the term. Putting troops into a foreign land is not by definition an invasion. Check your dictionaries. "Invaded" is POV and as it stands the article is unacceptable. Pushing for "invade" when many have agreed an alternative word is disruptive. Ealturner 19:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This is farcical. Clearly what has happened is an invasion by a State into the territory under the control of another government. The dictionary definitions discussed above agree quite overwhelmingly with that conclusion; to argue otherwise is bizarre revisionism at best. The definitions are there, just above, where anyone can read them. The ongoing attempt to disguise the actions of the Israelis by euphemistically describing their actions as "an attack" is clearly POV, and being promoted on this page by a small number of editors. 202.72.148.102 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Point to the facts in the article, and cite the sources, that show the conquering and pillaging of Israeli troops in the Gaza strip and we shall call this an invasion. Ealturner 10:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought the "attack" word was working. I suggest that title be put back as there is nothing here on the talk page showing objections to that word. I will put it back and if someone wants to explain why there is consensus for something else then they can change the title again. Neutralizer 22:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Israel has launched a "major incursion" into the Gaza Strip... I kind of like that phrasing.... REGARDLESS, this is OLD NEWS NOW and arguing over the title has prevented publication -- Wikinews cannot be useful if we cannot publish news in a timely fashion. Why not publish the article and argue over the title? --Chiacomo (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I will again give my support for the word "attacks." I'd also consider "raids," "storms" and "enters" NPOV. I think the problem is "Invasion" is not defined the way people assume it is. It has a very specific definition; it's perfectly possible to send troops to fight another country in their country without it being an invasion. The Israeli aims must be known for the word "invasion" to be used on its dictionary definition.  As quoted in the news piece, Israel claims what they are doing is something rather different to conquering, let alone pillaging, Gaza. Invasion is therefore POV as well as inaccurate. I hope we can bring this debate to a conclusion now!  Ealturner 23:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Someone needs to publish and remove the tag. Neutralizer 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "Invasion" is not defined the way people assume it is. — And here we come to the soft core of this argument. The English language is a living thing; what most people believe a word means is actually what it means, regardless of however many 19th Century dictionary definitions one might dredge up to defend it. Most people would understand the movement of thousands of troops with armoured and air support across a border to be an invasion.

 * Israel claims what they are doing is something rather different — Israeli claims are irrelevant to the determination of how this information is presented. Their viewpoint must be presented clearly and accurately in ther article, but their claims about their motives are necessary POV and utterly irrelevant to the way this article should be constructed and named. 202.72.148.102 04:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * 202.72.148.102 first can I say please register with wikinews and help us out on a permanent basis. We need all the passionate helpers we can get. Second. The English language is a living thing but that's something for the English lit class, not wikinews. Ealturner 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the kind and encouraging invitation, but I think I'll wait until my wikipedia username is automatically valid on wikinews; I don't want to have to keep track of yet another login, and I don't see myself being a regular here just atm. As for your comments, perhaps I should be clearer. Most English users would understand that the Israelis have invaded; that you're able to locate some dictionaries providing alternate definitions of the word isn't really the point. "Invasion" implies a mass movement of troops and weapons into the territory of another government; it has nothing to do with motivation. In any case, the Israelis have admitted that the plans for this invasion were drawn up and approved long before Gilad Shalit's capture, and are now claiming that the principal aim of the invasion is to neutralise the source of the Quassam rockets. Others have suggested that the goal of the invasion is regime change, and the evidence would seem to support that. Your insistence, in the face of these developments, on the (I'm sure unintentionally) weasely "attacks" begins to seem less and less appropriate as the situation develops. I ask again, what would have to change for you to agree that this is, actually, an invasion? 202.72.148.102 11:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * It is not an invasion on the dictionary definition. To say the Israeli actions are for conquest and plunder, the most used dictionary definition of invasion, is POV. Ealturner 12:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You have located a single source (ie. Mirriam Webster) which includes the phrase "conquest and plunder", and yet you are touting it as the commonly accepted definition. This would appear, at first glance, not to be a good faith argument. Perhaps you could clarify your position. 202.72.148.102 12:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The definition is the same across all those I've seen. Including dictionary.com, cambridge, everyone I've seen. The most commonly used definition of invasion is, as the MW definition suggests, about possession and conquest. Please do not accuse me of not arguing in good faith. Ealturner 12:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, let's try to look at this in some kind of systematic, verifiable fashion. First, I'll use the google definition via answers.com (ie. what you get when you click the "define" link in google):
 * Wiktionary.org:
 * 1. to move into; 2. to enter by force in order to conquer; 3. to infest or overrun
 * American Heritage:
 * 1. To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.; 2. To encroach or intrude on; violate; 3. To overrun as if by invading; infest: 4. To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
 * Wordnet:
 * 1. march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation; 2. to intrude upon, infringe, encroach on, violate; 3. occupy in large numbers or live on a host; 4. penetrate or assault, in a harmful or injurious way
 * So OK, that's 2:3 in favour of the "conquer/conquest" at least, if not the "pillage/plunder". However, if I try the links resulting from "define invade" in google (ignoring the wordnet definition, as above):
 * Wikipedia:
 * "Invasion is a military action consisting of troops entering a foreign land (a nation or territory, or part of that), often resulting in the invading power occupying the area, whether briefly or for a long period. Euphemistically, an invasion is sometimes referred to as an intervention."
 * Terms I:
 * "Enter a Country with a Hostile Army, Violate a Country’s borders or Neutrality. The Act of Invading."
 * Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary (via dict.die.net, again in addition to the Wordnet definition, above):
 * "1. To go into or upon; to pass within the confines of; to enter; 2. To enter with hostile intentions; to enter with a view to conquest or plunder; to make an irruption into; to attack; 3. To attack; to infringe; to encroach on; to violate; 4. To grow or spread over; to affect injuriously and progressively"
 * Thefreedictionary.com quotes the American Heritage definition.
 * Wordreference.com quotes Wordnet, and links to Mirriam Webster and dictionary.com (which repeats earlier definitions plus some irrelevant legal and medical definitions).
 * Mirriam Webster:
 * "1. to enter for conquest or plunder; 2. to encroach upon; 3a. to spread over or into as if invading; 3b: to affect injuriously and progressively"
 * Dictionary.net quotes Websters.
 * So, that's 3:1 (for a combined total of 4:3) against the conquest and plunder "primary definition" (although I'm not sure why we should only look at the primary defintion, which is often based on etymological chronology). Perhaps more importantly though, when we look to see how other news services are describing the event, we find:
 * Google news
 * "attack gaza", 82 hits; "attacks gaza", 25 hits
 * "invade gaza", 239 hits; "invades gaza", 147 hits
 * So, it would appear that the rest of the world doesn't think that declared motivation is especially relevant, and recognise this invasion for what it is. Right now, wikinews seems to be out of step.
 * Your turn. 202.72.148.102 13:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * My turn? Is this a game to you? On my count all the dictionary definitions you cite define invasion as conquest/plunder. Here is the wikipedia entry for invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion "An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government." Ealturner 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * //Right now, wikinews seems to be out of step.// With a flourish you clinch the argument, eh? To my knowledge Wikinews is the only source of neutral point of view news on the internet. Thanks for confirming that for me. Ealturner 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * This is no game; it is an attempt to reach consensus, and your flippancy is quite unhelpful in that regard. I can't begin to understand what you mean by "all the dictionary definitions you cite define invasion as conquest/plunder"; even if you selectively exclude wiktionary, wikipedia and Terms I, what about Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary? Or are we now to pick and choose amongst the proffered definitions from each source? The wikipedia definition (very clearly and importantly) qualifies its suggested motives with "generally", and the wikipedia definition for "invade" (which is the term under discussion above, and the one I believe should be used in the article title) doesn't come close to what you're trying to say. There's no "flourish" to my exposure of the fact that your term is used no more than a third as often as mine by news organisations reporting the subject (at least, those google cares about) or I wouldn't have used the qualifier "seems". As for your "the army is marching out of step" cant, I refer you back to my opening sentence. 202.72.148.102 16:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't appreciate my objections being called "flippant." Please can we keep the debate nice? Dictionaries we both have cited show conquest and plunder as a common definition of the word invasion.  To use a word that connotates conquest when facts of the article do not support its use would be factually misleading. To say Israel's intention is to conquer Gaza is POV when Israel says its intention is to free a hostage. I don't know what else to say. The facts of the article do not support the word "invasion" which is an objectionable word on factual and POV grounds. Ealturner 16:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Ealturner is quite correct - Israel does not need to conquer Gaza: it is already the occupying power. Jobrahms 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough!
This is old news. There is no POV problem that I can see. Please don't retag with NPOV without detailing your specific issue. Let's move onto the next story. Talk:Israeli barrage of Gaza continues with strike on PM's office Jobrahms 09:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * My specific issue with the article is its title, which uses weasel words to disguise the nature of the event. I'll will move on (or off, in this case) once wikinews no longer promotes a POV interpretation of these events. 202.72.148.102 11:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * 202.72.148.102 What do you mean by "weasel words"? I'm puzzled by your attitude to neutral point of view at wikinews. It's okay to have opinions but wikinews is not the place to push them. We have a partial concensus on a word that is NPOV, let's go with that and move on to the next articles on this same subject? Ealturner 12:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * "A Weasel word is a word that is intended to, or has the effect of, softening the force of a potentially loaded or otherwise controversial statement, or [which] avoids forming a clear position on a particular issue." You claim there is a "partial consensus" for (presumably) "attacks"; there seems to be equivalent support for "invades" on this page. Polling is evil, so I'm not sure what to suggest at this point, other than to repeat my request for you to outline under what circumstances you would accept that Israeli has invaded. Are there any? 202.72.148.102 12:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You believe opinion polls are evil and then expect me to continue a serious discussion about hard news with you? Sorry, I feel I'm being taken for a ride here. Ealturner 12:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * it's a reference to Wikipedia:Voting_is_evil, i think. Doldrums 13:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops; I keep forgetting these are separate projects, and Wikinews editors are not necessarily familiar with Wikipedia conventions. It's a reference to Polls are evil on meta. 202.72.148.102 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay, now I understand where you were coming from with the phrase "polling is evil". Wikinews is about neutrality not the most popular idea.Ealturner 15:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * You said "polling is evil" be were not slow to do a "google poll" on the word invade? If you're going to be wrong don't contradict yourself too. It makes me look nasty. Ealturner 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Straw-polling and google counts are not comparable, one being a survey of editorial opinion, the other of third-party sources. On wikipedia we'd refer to your insistence on "correcting" third-party sources as original research.
 * If you're going to be wrong don't contradict yourself too. It makes me look nasty. — I can't begin to parse this. 202.72.148.102 16:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think the concensus is behind the word "attack" which has yet to be objected too on neutral point of view grounds. Let's move on. Go to my talk page if you want to say anything unrelated to this article to me. Ealturner 16:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I can't believe we're still on this! It seems quite clear to me (and, I think, most of us) that the article itself is not biased and does not deserve the NPOV tag. I'm happy with "attack" (it's a damn sight better than the original "pushes into" which most definitely was POV). Jobrahms 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I apologise for my part in extending this discussion to date Ealturner 17:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * no blood, no problem Jacques Divol

 * Hmm... I just came back to this article because it was in my Watchlist, and I have noticed that it has grown into an article almost entirely from Israel's POV. There are NO quotes on how Israel's military action has effected Palestinian citizens, which deeply troubles me. ~ clearthought 19:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

editprotected
Could someone remove the extra archive template at the top? There really doesn't seem any need for two of them. ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ also removed dupe publish, this may have caused the bot malfunction. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:212.175.131.130

Welcome
212.175.131.130, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Doldrums 10:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:212.175.131.130


text:
User talk:62.1.129.247

Welcome!

, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 10:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.1.129.247


text:
User talk:Reflex~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jacques Divol 14:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Reflex. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Reflex~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reflex~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Quais~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jacques Divol 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Quais. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Quais~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quais~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Narendra~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jacques Divol 14:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Narendra. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Narendra~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Narendra~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Korg

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jacques Divol 14:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Korg


text:
User talk:Haprils~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Jacques Divol 14:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Haprils. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Haprils~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Haprils~enwikinews


text:
U.S. military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay lack Congressional authorization, violate U.S. law and Geneva Conventions

June 29, 2006 The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions set up in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps in Cuba, to try terrorist suspects are not authorized by the Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing military action in Afghanistan, and that the President does not have the legal authority to establish military commissions without express authorization from Congress. The court also found the military commissions, as presently administered, to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions, to which the United States is a party.

The case, titled Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, focused on an Yemeni citizen who is alleged to have been a bodyguard and driver for Osama bin Laden and was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 and held at Guantanamo since June 2002.

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Military Order declaring that military commissions would try foreign terrorist suspects for alleged war crimes. These military commissions would differ from traditional courts of law in that: they would allow hearsay evidence; would be allowed to consider classified evidence during closed sessions, without providing the suspect a chance to hear the evidence or defend himself against it; and they would be allowed to use evidence coerced through torture.

The court denied the government's assertion that it lacks authority to review decisions by the D.C. Circuit Court because the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 only strips the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction over cases filed after its enactment.

Turning to the merits of the petitioner, it found that the crime Hamdan is charged with - conspiracy - is not a crime that violates the law of war and thus should not be tried by a military commission.

The court conceded that Congress has the prerogative to establish commissions such as the one desired by the Bush administration but found that it has not yet done so. The Supreme Court ruled 5-3 with Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Kennedy in the majority; Alito, Thomas, Scalia dissented and Chief Justice Roberts recused (he had earlier sided with the government on the appellate level).

Nine other detainees face charges before the military commissions. The Department of Defense had previously announced that it planned to charge an additional 60 of the 460 detainees remaining at Guantanamo before military commissions.

Reactions
Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift, Hamdan's military counsel who filed the request, said: "All we wanted was a fair trial and we thank the Supreme Court. Yes it is a rebuke for the process. [...] It means we can't be scared out of who we are."

President George W. Bush said that his administration "will work with Congress" to address the issue and added that "we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield, and I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court".

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that "for five years, the Bush-Cheney administration has violated fundamental American values, tarnished our standing in the world and hindered the partnerships we need with our allies. This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror, not because of any coherent strategic view it had, but because of its stubborn unilateralism and dangerous theory of unfettered power".

Senator John Warner (R-VA) said he doesn't regard the decision as "a blow" but rather as "an interpretation of the law".

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN) promised to introduce a bill after the July 4 holiday recess that would allow Congress to re-establish the military commissions.

"I will introduce legislation, in consultation with the Administration and my colleagues, that authorizes military commissions and appropriate due process procedures for trials of terrorist combatants," Frist said.

If a Frist bill is successful in becoming congressional law, along with backing from the executive branch, it would have the effect of over-turning the Supreme Court ruling.


text: File:Google-checkout.gif

title: File:Google-checkout.gif


text:
Google launches online payment service

June 29, 2006 Google has today launched its foray into the world online payment processing with Google Checkout. This is considered by many to be a rival to the payment giant PayPal, owned by eBay. This service is currently only available to U.S. residents.

Google has created the service in a similar way to PayPal. There are two types of Google Checkout account, Buyer and Seller. Only a Seller account can receive payments through the service, a Buyer account can only make payments. This is tied in very closely with the Google Adwords service — adverts selling items can now display a small shopping cart icon — which indicates that the advertiser accepts Google Checkout as a method of payment.

The selling rate is also closely tied in with the Google AdWords service. Other online payment services generally charge a set percentage per transaction, whereas Google Checkout credits you with a certain amount of "free transactions" when you purchase Google AdWords (For every US $1 spent on AdWords, US $10 in sales can be processed at no charge) — or a rate of 2% plus US $0.20 if the Seller is not a Google Adwords subscriber. There are no charges associated with Buyer Accounts.

Currently, Google Checkout only accepts Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover Credit Cards for inclusion on a buyer's or seller's account. They also offer a special deal for users of a Citicard credit card — US $5 (or 1000 ThankYousm Points) for signing up. Google has announced its' intentions to "to make the service available to merchants internationally" in the near future.

title: Google launches online payment service


text:
Talk:Google launches online payment service

Report created from the Google Press Release - linked to under Sources. --Skenmy(talk) 15:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Using a Google Press Release does not count as orginal reporting. --TUFKAAP 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Allrighty then - thanks for the correction --Skenmy(talk) 16:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's all good ;) Thanks for finishing. I had a more indepth article which included comments from analysts but Windows ME decided to freeze on me. So heh, I see I'm not the only one paying attention to the news. --TUFKAAP 16:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's some other sources:, and  which contain some input by analysts on the launch. --TUFKAAP 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More sources from Reuters:, , --Andreyf 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
User talk:67.177.240.190

Welcome!

, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:67.177.240.190


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/June 29, 2006

The time is 18:00 (UTC) on June 29th, 2006, and this is Audio Wikinews News Briefs.

U.S. military tribunals in Guantanamo Bay lack Congressional authorization, violate U.S. law and Geneva Conventions
United States

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the military commissions set up in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps in Cuba, to try terrorist suspects are not authorized by the Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing military action in Afghanastan, and that the President does not have the legal authority to establish military commissions absent express authorization from Congress.

35 South Park complaints not upheld, New Zealand
New Zealand

Today the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) decided to throw out the 35 complaints made against a South Park episode. Three of the 35 were from church societies. The South Park episode in question was aired in February and depicted the Virgin Mary menstruating. The episode was named Bloody Mary

Google launches online payment service
United States

Google has today launched it's foray into the world online payment processing with Google Checkout. This is considered by many to be a rival to the payment giant PayPal, owned by eBay. This service is currently only available to U.S. residents.

Closing statements
We invite you to visit wikinews.org for up-to-date news and information. This has been Audio Wikinews Newsbriefs. Thank you for listening, and enjoy the rest of your day. This recording has been released under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

title: Wikinews:Briefs/June 29, 2006


text:
User talk:FellowWikiNews/Archive 1

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Please note that your name is borderline possibly not allowed (as it may confuse people). see Username However its proably okay. Just a heads up as its on the edge. By the way, what do you think of the new flags on the main page? The international flag i'm still unsure of. I suggested a few alternates on the talk page, that I'd like your input on. Happy editing and welcome to wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

 * The flags look much better. The Flag of the United Nations.svg looks realy good. I also like The Blue Marble.jpg. FellowWikiNews 20:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

image
Thankyou for uploading images, however the image you uploaded is not acceptable for inclussion at wikinews because you obtained it from another news site (Copyright law, fairuse issues, etc) please see WN:FU. Happy editing Bawolff ☺☻ 22:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I did not know which tag to use. FellowWikiNews 22:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll try and find an image. theres Image:Flag of Canada.svg, but its better if its a real flag on a flag pole. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, When you are finished could you put it on my talk page under a headline. FellowWikiNews 22:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

flags
Heres what I've came up with

See also commons:Category:Canadian parliament buildings, commons:Category:Peace Tower, commons:Category:Flags of Canada. These arn't Ideal, so I'm still looking. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of them arn't displaying, for some unknown reason. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Found a better one:

 * Thanks, Image:Canada flag halifax 9 -04.JPG looks like the best one along with Image:Ottawa 5 db.jpg even though the flag is small. FellowWikiNews 13:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Preview
I would like to thank you for your contributions to Wikinews. However, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the help with that. FellowWikiNews 21:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Another image
Sorry but I had to delete another image of yours (darn image rules :, Stuff on the BBC web site is not crown copyright. Don't worry, the image rules take a while to get used to. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Darn image rules why does this always happen. On Wikipedia the image rules are a bit more easier for me. But when I go on WikiNews image rules are so hard to get used to. Next time I will go on WikiCommons and get an image. FellowWikiNews 22:34, May 3 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, our rules are more stringent. (For a variety of reasons, but mostly it was to force people to commons I think). Slowly, we're getting less strict, and wikipedia is getting more. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's okay commons has good images. But not always what I am looking for. FellowWikiNews 22:37, May 11 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry too much. Worst that happens is the image gets deleted. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess your right. FellowWikiNews 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk page of ip
Deleted now. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a thanks on your talk page. FellowWikiNews 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How will this problem never happen again? FellowWikiNews 23:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops User talk:205.189.97.202 is back again. That is because I forgot to log in. Please delete it. FellowWikiNews 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just remember to log in :). I've deleted the page again, but if this is a static IP, we *should* just redirect it to this one.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what I was thinking about doing. FellowWikiNews 23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about checking the remember me box by the login prompt, That way it will always log you in? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you shure? FellowWikiNews 20:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it varies with browser and settings, (Lynx it won't work, nor will it if you set cookies to expire at the end of the day in other browsers.). However in most modern browsers it will. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Journowiki timezone
It is because I have not taken the time to update the installation to UTC timezone; PDT is the local time for the server. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I understand. Thanks for helping me. FellowWikiNews 22:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

cat:Washington, D.C.
I am far from offended, in fact I was glad to have you involved yourself there at Bawolff's page and elsewhere. I'll be the 2nd person to tell you that I'm stupid (my wife would be the 1st), and I would not want to go to the trouble of changing the to unless it was the right thing to do. There are currently articles in the existing category and portal that would need to get moved, these older articles would require sysop involvement because they can no longer be editted.

When I created the category, I viewed it as a region of the United States on a level similar to states, like Maryland. Within the District of Columbia, there is the city of Washington. Is there another vicinity within the District of Columbia that could lay a unique claim to to existence, or is the entire District swallowed by Washington itself? That's where I'm stupid, and that's why I'm glad you entered into the discussion. -Edbrown05 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not take what you said on Bawolff's page the right way. So now I will be happy to answer your question. How about the article on Wikipedia about the District of Columbia? FellowWikiNews 20:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm amazed the 'pedia article you cite answers this in the very first paragraph. I don't know how many times I viewed that page without reading the first paragraph! I'll see to changing category over to Washington, D.C. :) Edbrown05 03:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But I do want to wait a bit for Aselman and MindSpillage, since I pinged both their talk pages to point them here. They both live in close proximity to the Washington. Best regards, -Edbrown05 05:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like feedback. Since they both live in close proximity to the Washington. FellowWikiNews 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have an opinion on this. I usually refer to the area as "Washington, D.C." though. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. Should we change the category? FellowWikiNews 19:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The category and portal probably should be changed, unless Drew (Aselman) has something surprising to say. -Edbrown05 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. FellowWikiNews 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will be surprised if we don't. FellowWikiNews 01:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This isn't a hot button for you, is it? If it is, then you should make the changes, because I'm so lazy it might take a week before I remember. -Edbrown05 03:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Wikinews and copying
WIkipedia is allowed to copy of us because of are license.

Origionally We were PD, However we changed by a straw poll on meta a while ago to CC-BY. That means that people can modify are content and people who re-use us must provide credit where credit is due, and must require their reusers to provide credit where credit is due (Credit to the Wikinews Comunity). It does not require that people allow other people to allow reuse

Wikipedia is GFDL (While orrigionally nupedia license, but that was long before I was arround). GFDL in my humble opinion is a long and annoying license. It requires attributaion and all reusers must allow others to require their work (sort of similiar to CC-BY-SA). I believe every contributor has to be attributed individually (not sure on that point), and you have to include a three page long legal document with lots of fine print with any redistribution of the content (sure on that point).

Since wikinews requires only attributation, wikipedia can use it

Since wikipedia requires attributation, and allowed reuse of all content, Wikinews can't use it.

The main thing that the GFDL has got against it is the three page legal document. Imagine Print edition with that :(. We also get listed in search engines that only search CC content (look at advanced search in google We're # 1))  Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. FellowWikiNews 19:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But not on Google Canada . FellowWikiNews 20:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * that sucks :( Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like on google canada to me if, you only allow stuff under CC-BY. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Email via Wikinews
Well, all you have to do is set your email address in your preferences (there should be a link in the upper-left hand portion of the screen), and it will send you a confirmation email. I think it's a link, so click it and it should be activated - then you can email from Wikinews, and recieve email from other Wikinewsies through the web interface. If I just misinterpereted your question, just give me a response :). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you get it on Wikinews? FellowWikiNews 21:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you recieve it in the email address that you put under 'preferences'. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

My user page
Thanks for changing the title of the article. FellowWikiNews 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop editing my user page. FellowWikiNews 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is it? I'm very confused. Karen 16:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's . Sorry, but I don't realy want anyone editing my user page. FellowWikiNews 16:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Three points:
 * All pages are editable by Wikinews contributors. By common curtesy, user's pages are generally not edited by other users except when necessary. (In other words, it's not 'your' page, it's Wikinews's.)
 * It is policy to update links to an article when the headline has been changed.
 * Civility is requested in interactions between users. This would normally preclude the use of imperative verbs.
 * - Amgine 17:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (editing not logged in)
 * It's okay. You can edit my user page. FellowWikiNews 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll tread lightly. Karen 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Logging in
No, I'm afraid I can't. I'm not at my home machine (instead an internet cafe in the USA), and I use a moderately strong encryption password on this account, which I have failed to memorize. - Amgine 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (editing not logged in)
 * I thought users can log in anywhere. FellowWikiNews 18:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can, but only when I can remember my password. Which I can't normally, except on the machine I created it on. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Why are you leaving? FellowWikiNews 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I left a year ago. I just came back to update the stats.-- Davodd | Talk 19:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes
I am GangstaEB. I didn't want to cause problems, so I just started a new account here.GangstaEB 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Join
Hello, I don't want to create articles, but thanks for the suggestion. 203.214.115.130 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Wikinews
Yes, I am, at least when I'm at home and not at uni. pfctdayelise (translate?) 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Forbes images
Hi. You seem to have uploaded images created for Forbes and then claimed that the license was GFDL. If this is somehow true, please indicate where Forbes or their photographers have released these images under that license. They are currently candidates for speedy deletion as obvious copyvios. Jkelly 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Images at commons
Please include sources for your images at commons which are about to be deleted. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks for telling me. I just added sources for the images. FellowWikiNews 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't forget:

Bawolff ☺☻ 02:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * commons:Image:2425 1.jpg
 * I can't find the source. I guess it will be deleted. FellowWikiNews 03:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

article discussion page revert
Why did you delete the post I made? -Edbrown05 00:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand your comment on that page. FellowWikiNews 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a valid reason to remove another users comments. You should restore Ed's edit. - Borofkin 00:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself. Next time I will be civil. FellowWikiNews 00:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx, I could have been more expressive. My talk page post was agreeing with you FellowWikiNews... the article's main contributor was saying something that seems to be insider information. Tough situation when what a contributor is saying makes sense, and is news worthy, but nothing else fits with policy for publishing. -Edbrown05 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Apple ITunes Image
Just wanted to make you aware that the image you linked to on Commons for the Apple ITunes Movie article has been marked for deletion (decision pending). Not sure if this affects anything but thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. R2b2 00:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If it is deleted I will take it off the article. Thanks. FellowWikiNews 00:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I've looked into it, and its not allowed on commons, but its fine on wikinews, and will stay here locally. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

For being such a darn good news writer...
...in so many odd topics you get this:
 * Thanks! FellowWikiNews 14:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:FellowWikiNews/Archive 1


text:
US Federal Reserve raises interest rate from 5% to 5.25%

June 29, 2006

The United States Federal Reserve has announced an increase of 25 basis points (0.25%) in the federal funds rate bringing it to 5.25 percent. It also announced its approval of a 25 basis point increase in the discount rate to 6.25 percent.

The federal funds rate is the interest rate at which depository institutions such as banks lend balances they maintain at the Federal Reserve (called federal funds) to other banks overnight. The discount rate is the interest rate that an eligible bank is charged to borrow short term funds directly from the central bank through the discount window.

In its statement, the Fed said that growth is moderating from its quite strong pace earlier in the year, which it partly attributed to a cooling of the housing market and the delayed effect of increases in interest rates and energy prices. The Fed noted that inflation measures were "elevated" in recent months and that while productivity gains have held down increases in labor costs and inflation expectations "remain contained". However, it pointed out that high levels of resource utilization and high energy and commodity prices have the potential to sustain inflation pressures.

In its outlook over its future moves, the Fed statement said "Although the moderation in the growth of aggregate demand should help to limit inflation pressures over time, the Committee judges that some inflation risks remain. The extent and timing of any additional firming that may be needed to address these risks will depend on the evolution of the outlook for both inflation and economic growth, as implied by incoming information."


text:
User:FellowWikiNews/monobook.css

@import "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Skins/newspaper-background.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css";

display: none; }
 * 1) faketalk2 {

title: User:FellowWikiNews/monobook.css


text:
User talk:160.129.107.231

Welcome!

, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!FellowWikiNews 18:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:160.129.107.231


text:
Zapatero announces peace talks with Basque separatists, ETA

June 29, 2006

“The Government is going to initiate talks with ETA" said Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero in a televised speech to Parliament, Thursday.

The historic announcement meant Mr Zapatero's Socialist-led government were set to begin peace talks with the Basque separatist group ETA for the first time in Spain's history.

"The process is going to be long, tough and difficult. We’ll handle it with determination and prudence, with unity and loyalty and always with respect to the memory of the victims,” said Mr Zapatero.

At a news conference Mr Zapatero said the proposed talks would discuss the dismantling of ETA's organisation and the 500 ETA prisoners in Spanish jails but not Basque independence. "Democracy will not pay any political price to achieve peace," Mr Zapatero said.

The Spanish opposition Popular Party did not give their full support for Mr Zapatero's peace bid. They particularly objected to talks with Batasuna, the political front of ETA. "Any normal person understands you can't negotiate with someone whose negotiating weapon is as powerful and hard to argue with as a pistol," said Popular Party leader Mariano Rajoy.

ETA had been fighting a terrorist war since Franco's era until it announced a permanent ceasefire March 22, 2006. The group was responsible for 817 deaths over its 38-year campaign while staking its claim for territory in northern Spain and south-western France.

ETA says the motivation for talks is so the Basque people get to decide their own future.

Their request last week came after three months of ceasefire. Though ETA had not killed since 2003 it had continued to explode bombs and extort money from businesses.

It is thought a six-year police crackdown on militants and opinion polls that suggested not all Basques wanted independence made violence a counter-productive strategy for ETA. Violence also had become associated with September 11, 2001 and the 2004 Madrid bombings.


text:
Talk:France out-wit Spain 3-1 and clinch quarter-final spot

"Outwit" is misspelled. How to correct this? ~