text:
Australian Senate inquiry to new anti-terrorism laws to take place in one day

An Australian Senate inquiry into new federal anti-terrorism laws is to take place in effectively one day, it was revealed in the Senate October 13.

Senator Robert Hill today moved that the laws, after introduction in the Australian House of Representatives, be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, with the report date set November 8 -- the Senate resumes sitting on November 7, after Senate estimates have been taken place, leaving either next Friday or the weekend for the inquiry to take place.

Amendments to make the date for report later were proposed: the first date of sitting in 2006 was proposed by Senator Andrew Bartlett, and November 28 this year was proposed by Natasha Stott-Despoja. A division on those amendments was called for, but the vote must take place on the next day of sitting -- November 7, due to an earlier order regarding divisions on Thursday at 4.30pm. The inquiry thus cannot commence until after this date.

Senators tempers were raised and vociferously decried the little time alloted for debate on the legislation. Senator John Faulkner called the situation "sheer bastardry of the government", and said "It is one of the most contemptible and despicable things I have ever seen in the time that I have been a senator in this chamber. How low can you go?". Senator Bob Brown has stated that in order to elucidate further Government actions, "between now and Christmas, when Senator Hill asks for leave, he will not get it. He will not get it." and later called the government "a disgrace [...] to Australia" and "a disgrace [...] to this nation."

Senator Julian McGauran said to Senator Stott-Despoja "you would be against [the laws] anyway." Senator Stott-Despoja replied "Don't bait me, Senator McGauran, today because I am not in the mood for it." Senator McGauran earlier this week drew the anger of Senator Stott-Despoja, who lost a friend in the September 11 attacks, by asking her "Have you once in this chamber acknowledged the war on terror?".

The Government has defended its decision, with Senator Hill stating "Unless it is agreed, it is not going to go through. We cannot have divisions, and at least we have tried. ... Time is of the essence in this matter." and later expressed "regret that this motion has been moved with very little consultation." Senator Eric Abetz has remarked that "on 7 November the Senate would be voting on whether or not an inquiry would be held to report the very next day. Of course, that would make a mockery of the system," and that the Opposition failing to drop the amendments "clearly indicates that the Labor Party ... are going to try to play the technical game and say, 'The government will only give us one day to deal with the issue.'"


text:
Astros defeat Cardinals in second game of NLC

October 14, 2005

Baseball

The Houston Astros defeated St. Louis Cardinals in the second match of their 2005 National League Championship with a score of 4 runs to 1. The standing in the 7-game series after two games between them is 1-1, while in the American League Championship, the Chicago White Sox won against the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim to make the current series standing also 1-1.

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


text:
User:Falcorian

Falcorian is a physics student at the University of California, Berkeley. He spends time on Wikipedia when he’s ignoring homework or friends, where he mainly makes minor edits, and reorganizes links to make things fit together better (he hopes). Recently he's also moved over to other wikimedia projects.

Interest

 * Warhammer 40,000
 * Star Wars
 * Science Fiction

Currently Working On

 * Bolos (see User:Falcorian/bolo for work in progress)

Wikipedia

 * Ætherverse
 * Belvedere Castle
 * Boies Penrose
 * Created Warcraft Templates:
 * Template:WarcraftBBook
 * Template:WarcraftBCharacter
 * Template:WarcraftBGame
 * Template:WarcraftBItem
 * Template:WarcraftBLocation
 * Template:WarcraftBOrganization
 * Template:WarcraftBRace

Wiktionary

 * procrustean
 * rhadamanthine
 * untrammeled

title: User:Falcorian


text:
Talk:Australian Senate inquiry to new anti-terrorism laws to take place in one day

Great work!
I would like to congratulate and say thankyou to User:Dysprosia for your work reporting events in Australian the parliament. It may not be as high profile as dance parties in Utah, but providing reporting on politics that is free of corporate or big media influence is arguably more important.

It also shows that quality original reporting can be done without leaving our desks. Parliament transcripts are available online, and government and opposition party press releases are available online.

Keep it up!

- Borofkin 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd like to add my congrats. A pleasure to read a truly well written and informative article. Neutralizer 12:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! :) I appreciate it. I tend to read Hansard when Parliament is sitting (though I don't have the opportunity to watch live online unfortunately), so it's not difficult to give a report on the interesting things that may happen to pass. Dysprosia 13:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Ubuntu releases third version of popular Linux distribution

This is also spam
Like the recent Apple ipod story, and the numberous Yahoo stories currently on the front page, this is not a news story.

You are talking about an incremental update of an already existing product. It revolutionises nothing, and even if it does, you present no evidence (it doesn't - trust me, and save your time).

Please work on news stories, there are a lot of sites that cover this type of incremental update to an existing product.

I'm not going to try to tell you how to tell the difference between a news story and a non-news story. I think you can do that for yourself. You just need to think before you type. Yes, we want to be inclusive, but we also want to be news.

-- Hongslop 07:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

This is also confused
An article about a distribution of a free software, GNU-based, which is a fork of Debian ...and the article doesn't mention any of those three things?

A marketing campaign for Ubuntu might (unethically) hide those three things - they might do so to create the opinion that all the work was done by Ubuntu instead of the GNU and Debian projects. Wikinews shouldn't carelessly rename the content of a marketing campaign as news. I'm going to edit the article to refelect this. Also, I agree with the above "spam" comment. 85.28.66.218 23:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And on general article quality, you can't talk to the general public about "distributions" without explaining the term. 85.28.66.218 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

NOT NEWS
Only a small minority of the people who visit wikinews want to hear about this type of stuff, and they also visit slashdot.org. This type of article does NOT belong on wikinews because most of us don't really care about such a minor topic.

I agree that this is not newsworthy, but I think we should focus our efforts on developing newsworthy articles rather than denigrating less newsworthy ones until we have enough to start being selective. This project is only in its infant stages, with very minor and slow coverage of current news, and at 4-12 articles a day, we don't really need to start whittling them down yet. 66.92.1.58 05:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Well it was news to me and I found it an informative article, esp as I've beem thinking about installing ubuntu on my own computer here at home 82.34.177.22 14:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I also think this was a good article, and not spam. This was not a minor topic for me I had been planing to upgrade as soon as I heard the new version was released.  Just because a topic is something minor to some does not mean it is not newsworthy. I could care less about many of the events we report upon that are "big news" but we should still have them. The soultion if you are unhappy with stories that you think are no news worth being published is to write more stories! By attacking the people who are writing stories you are only hurting Wikinews. --Cspurrier 14:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
South African government issues first seizure order on farm

October 14, 2005

The government of South Africa has issued its first expropriation order on a farm in the North West Province.

Hannes Visser's family bought Leeuw-spruit Farm in Lichtenburg, in 1968. Until 1939, the farm had been owned by Abram Molamu. Mr Molamu's descendants successfully appealed to the Land Claims Court for return of the farm.

Mr Visser and the Land Claims Commission were unable to come to a mutually acceptable resolution.


text:
User talk:193.231.30.200

Welcome
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 may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. 193.231.30.200, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

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! --Deprifry | +T+ 11:42, 14 October 2005 (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
 * Style guide - how an article 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
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:193.231.30.200


text:
Study finds marijuana use leads to brain development in rats

October 15, 2005 In the November issue of the Journal of Clinical Investigation, researchers announce that they have found that cannabinoids promoted a generation of new neurons in rats' hippocampi. The study held true for both a plant-derived and a synthetic cannabinoid. The hippocampus is a part of the brain that contributes to learning and memory. In particular, it has been shown that the hippocampus is essential for the formation of new episodic memories.

"This is quite a surprise, chronic use of marijuana may actually improve learning memory when the new neurons in the hippocampus can mature in two or three months," said Xia Zhang, with the Neuropsychiatry Research Unit of the University of Saskatchewan.

"Our results were obtained from rats, and there's a big difference between rats and humans," added Zhang, "So, I really don't know yet if our findings apply to humans. But our results indicate that the clinical use of marijuana could make people feel better by helping control anxiety and depression."

Zhang and his co-workers performed behavioral tests on two purified cannabinoids. The test results indicated that these two cannabinoids have anti-anxiety and antidepression-like effects in rats that may depend on the ability of cannabinoids to promote the production of new neurons in the hippocampus. Marijuana contains a complex mixture of chemicals including cannabinoids and may have somewhat different behavioral effects than the purified cannabinoids tested so far. Previous studies examining the effects of cannabis have highlighted negative aspects of the drug's use, such as short term memory difficulties, increased heart rate, nausea, and (in a very small percentage of people) hallucinations. Long term studies about cannabis use tend to be controversial as the data is seen to be biased or flawed. The most agreed upon effect of long term cannabis use is lung damage. However, proponents argue that the correlation between cannabis consumption and lung cancer is misleading suggesting that cannabis use may correlate with tobacco use or that the data is not being properly analyzed.

Related Stories

 * Meth use now USA's top drug problem, survey finds

External link

 * Cartoon

Naukowcy twierdzą, że marihuana może mieć pozytywny wpływ na ludzki umysł


text:
Anti-terror raid in The Hague

October 14, 2005

Gunshots were heard in The Hague on Friday morning during anti-terror raids by security officials, Dutch media reported. This was later explained by Dutch minister of justice Donner as being explosives used against an enforced door to gain entrance to one of the locations identified as being used by the suspects.

The Dutch news agency ANP reported that at least one of seven arrests by security officials on Friday was made in The Hague, the seat of the Dutch government, and at least one of the other arrests was made in Amsterdam. Other locations where searches were being preformed include Almere. One of the arrested people is Samir A., who was previously arrested for being involved with terrorism.

While the raids where done the Binnenhof, the part of The Hauge with the primary buildings of the Dutch government, were sealed from outside because of security concerns.

In the afternoon a press conference explained the reason for the raids: The suspects were trying to gain access to explosives and weapons to target the AIVD (Dutch intelligence agency) building and certain Dutch politicians.

title: Anti-terror raid in The Hague


text:
User:207.38.190.85

Hi, about "free software" and "open source software", I've replied to your post on the slightly old Wesnoth article: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Open_source_game_Wesnoth_reaches_version_1.0 85.28.66.218 14:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User:207.38.190.85


text:
Talk:Anti-terror raid in The Hague

title has to change
the current title (Hague Siege) is aweful, it gives a totally wrong picture of events in my opinion. Boneyard 13:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * this title (Anti-terror raid in The Hague) is better, still it was an action in several dutch cities at the same time. Boneyard 13:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

incomplete tag
adding such a tag is kinda pointless if you don't explain what you are missing exactly. Boneyard 13:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anti-terror raid in The Hague


text:
Wikinews talk:2005/October/14

The ubantu link does not belong with actual news articles

title: Wikinews talk:2005/October/14


text:
Wikinews talk:Copyright

Mirror
Brujula.net is mirroring Wikinews articles with the notice "Wikinews content is not copyrighted but licensed under Creative Commons Attribition 2.5 Licence Brujula.Net © 1995 - 2007". There is no link to the license text. See for instance http://www.brujula.net/english/noticias/wiki/Arsenal_defeat_Manchester_United_at_Emirates_Stadium.html. I don't know how this is generally dealt with here. Superm401 | Talk 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I've just managed to convince the site owner to mention the licence, he was also using Wikipedia content without a GFDL-licence and decided to take the content down. I'll send him a short email about it.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

GFDL
I think the text on the project page should explicitly state that GFDL, the licence Wikipedia is using, is incompatible. Otherwise I am sure it will happen again that users copy text from wikipedia in here.--Grace E. Dougle 15:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

triviality
Is there a lower bound on complexity for copyrighted material? for example, I copied the template for sic from wikipedia, the full contents of which are: [sic] which in my opinion is uncopyrightable, but an editor warned me that I needed to get permission from all editors on wikipedia before I do this. Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demiquave (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 June 2007

Why not upgrade to CC BY 4.0?
Which issue holds up such a potential upgrade? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Have you seen the conversation happening at the water cooler? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 13:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Pages to update when license is updated from 2.5 to 4.0
Per Water_cooler/policy it has been decided that Wikinews should update to 4.0 but that it would be good if all Wikinews update so it is still possible to share/translate in the future.

Once Wikinews is ready to do the change the pages below should be updated: (for a list of other language versions see User:MGA73/Licenseupgrade)

 * 1) MediaWiki:Copyright (elevated privs needed)
 * 2) MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning (elevated privs needed)
 * 3) MediaWiki:Gadget-UTCLiveClock.js (elevated privs needed)
 * 4) Social media (elevated privs needed)
 * 5) Template:Translated Wikinews (elevated privs needed)
 * 6) MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-footer-license (elevated privs needed)
 * 7) MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning (elevated privs needed)
 * 8) mediawiki-config (make a request in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/)
 * 9) Template:Main about (elevated privs needed. Should likely point to WN:COPYRIGHT)
 * 10) Copyright (See comment below re: articles created before XXX)
 * 11) Template:Printedition (See comment below re: articles created before XXX)
 * 12) Template:PD-Article (See comment below re: articles created before XXX)
 * Category:Public_domain_articles (See comment below re: articles created before XXX)
 * 1) Global Networking/All ✅ (see notes below re:Poland)
 * 2) Template:PrinteditionLicense ✅ (Needs sighted. Uses cc-by-2.5)
 * 3) Template:Copyvio ✅ (needs sighted)
 * 4) Template:Imagevio ✅ (Needs sighted)
 * 5) Template messages/Image namespace ✅ (No addtnl change needed.)
 * 6) Audio guide ✅
 * 7) Audio Wikinews/About ✅
 * 8) Audio Wikinews/Template/Full Report ✅
 * 9) Audio Wikinews ✅
 * 10) Audio_Wikinews/Cheat_Sheet ✅ (audio pages often use cc-by-2.5. Must change to Cc-by-4.0 post-update)
 * 11) Audio Wikinews/News Briefs/Show/Templates ✅
 * 12) What Wikinews is not ✅
 * 13) Spread_Wikinews ✅

Also So it should be clarified if they should be changed or if that apply to all non-article edits.
 * 1) MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyrightwarning says cc-by-sa-4.0 (elevated privs needed)
 * 2) MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright says cc-by-sa-3.0. (elevated privs needed)

You are very welcome to add more pages if you find any. --MGA73 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Some of those pages will require elevated privileges to edit (all of the MediaWiki links). When the time comes, I can modify as many of the others as possible. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think we should create a Current CC Version or similar template that we use to replace all existing mentions of the current version. That way in future upgrades of the license, we can change one location rather than repeating this exercise. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC); edited 16:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I think that it is a super good idea. If that page is protected you can edit all the other pages now. And using that template it is very easy to see where the current version is listed.
 * But I think some places need to mention that "Articles created before is licensed 2.5 and articles after that is 4.0.
 * If the change is done August 1, 2024 for example then that date could be published on all other language versions of Wikinews and then all that want can change at the same date. And chosing a date a bit out in the future gives all wikis a chance to prepare (find out where to change). --MGA73 (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 * In the article Global_Networking/All, the section for Poland mentions a specific license and links to a page on the Poland wikinews that is no longer there. Given that we're hoping all other language wikinews sites upgrade, how should we hand the Poland section of that page? Just remove all that verbiage like the other languages? Is the Networking page still useful? The last meaningful edit was seventeen years ago. I just removed spam from it that was eleven years old, so I doubt anyone has paid much attention to it recently. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello again Michael.C.Wright! I found one more page: As for the page you mentioned above related to Poland it does seem to me the page is out of date. I wonder if Marek Mazurkiewicz knows the correct link. --MGA73 (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) MediaWiki:Mobile-frontend-footer-license

 * I added it to the list as not done. We'll need someone with elevated privileges for that one. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Great Michael.C.Wright! Template:Main about should be fixed too. --MGA73 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Added and help requested for protected pages. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 17:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What are You looking for on pl.wikinews? How I can help You? :) Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help @Kajtus von Rzywiec!
 * We have a page here, Global_Networking/All, with a broken (?) link to the following pl.wn page: . Is there a better page at pl.wn we should link to on our side (maybe a generic copyright page) that clarifies your copyright license? Alternately, we could remove the link entirely on our side so that neither of us needs to worry about maintaining it in future upgrades. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * [1] this page is here. As You said, it's just lists web resources for reporters.
 * This is about our licences: Warunki użycia (Terms of use). Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk) 12:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just thought to translate the link to English and I see now it isn't meant to point to a clarification of the license. It's meant to point to a page on pl.wn that lists web resources for reporters. If that is correct, and if you have a new page for that, we can update the text on our side. 👍 —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kajtus von Rzywiec thank you for the clarification. It turns out we had the right page title, but wrong linking syntax. I've corrected it. Thanks again for the assist. I also meant to post this last week but forgot, sorry. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) If I can help in any way, just tag me. Kajtus von Rzywiec (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I created User:MGA73/Licenseupgrade to make it easier for other languages to upgrade too. Everyone are welcome to update/expand it. --MGA73 (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * it will require a configuration change in https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/mediawiki-config/browse/master/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php$10828 too. --MGA73 (talk) 07:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Copyright


text:
Wikinews talk:Audio Wikinews/News Briefs

Audio quality
I think there may be a problem with the audio on the latest wikinews brief (2005/10/08 - 0540 UTC). The announcer sounds barely coherent. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? 88.111.85.15 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, can anyone who wants to do a Wikinews Audio Recording?

Question
Just out of curiousity, can anyone who wants to do a Wikinews Audio Recording?4.37.66.131 18:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, anyone who wants can do a Wikinews Audio Recording. --Bdude 01:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh ooh I do! I do!
Call me crazy, but I haven't seen much of an Audio News Brief service going on here.

I can always chip in every week or so, maybe every day once my other audio commitments are done.

Let me know if that's good. Phil-hong 05:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on EARTH would you NOT use MP3 files?! Or even MP4?
Call me crazy, why would you wanna go another direction and not get with the mainstream audio formats?
 * For philosophical reasons. (MP3 is patented. Patents bad. Against Free content) Bawolff ☺☻ 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is true that it would be against the philosophy of The Wikimedia Foundation to use a patented tool, the original poster makes a good point. If we wish to make this a highly used resource, we should use a standard that is usable in the highest number of applications (i.e. mp3 players, radio broadcasts, etc.).Andrew.in.snow 21:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding dates to transcripts
Since times are added to the actual News Brief media files, would it not be prudent to add them to the transcript names as well? This could facilitate morning/nightly/breaking news media files, and give more pertinent news to people in different time zones (rather than getting yesterdays news). Mikedanko 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

jingles
I've uploaded [[Media:Wikinews briefs part of intro.ogg]] and [[Media:Wikinews briefs jingle.ogg]], for those who want to use them.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

URLS
I've noticed that Wikinews encourages people to use the news on podcasts etc. but I think due to the URLs at the end, it doesn't make for easy listening. Saying 'http colon forward slash forward slash creative commons dot org forward slash licences forward slash by forward slash two point five' sounds a little rubbish on audio! Is there no way this can be shortened, i.e. 'for more information about today's news brief, visit wikinews dot org'? I understand mentioning the creative commons licence but surely they can just be referred to wikinews if they want more info on that? Just a suggestion! :) —DanielWinter - (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It doesn't have to be with URLs, I just used to say the license name. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think common practice would say you could easily do away with the "http://" for spoken URL's, since anyone who attempts to enter it verbatim into a browser's address bar will get to the same place as if you had spelled it out. --RoninBK - (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Label as inactive?
Sadly it seems like this should be labelled as "inactive" in some way. This page looks nice and glossy, and then I click to "listen" and it says "Today is Friday August 6th 2010"! Not sure why it's not playing the more recent ones from 2012 I see listed here, but in any case... super out-of-date.

-- Harry Wood (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Bush has a rehearsed tele-conference with US troops in Iraq

It does not appear that our article supports the evident statement of fact in the first line. Nor does it indicate that the conversations are rehearsed. It may be that the sources support these facts, but those facts aren't in our article. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Allegedly
Words like allegedly are great if you want to maintain a NPOV, but I have to say I don't often see them used when there is video and audio documentation that something has in fact taken place. And in regards to that proof not being in this article, the sources are proof. If you need embedded video and audio in the wiki article, then the word alleged needs to be added to a few hundred thousand other articles as well. (posted by KnuckleBean, 19:18, 14 October 2005)

I agree that "allegedly" doesn't need to be used here, this doesn't make any claims that aren't supported by the sources, which are themselves reporting on what was broadcast for all to see. It doesn't say "the conversations were rehearsed", it says Barber was "coaching the soldiers about what topics the president would be asking questions about", "rehearsing their actions on camera" and "reminding them of what questions have been assigned to each soldier." All of those things are supported by the quotes, which are considered facts due to the wealth of provided reliable sources. If some people are concerned that people will read this article and conclude that the entire thing was staged, then... well, people do have a funny way of examining the facts and using them to form conclusions. -Eisnel 22:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem with all the titles that have been proposed is that they assign some malicious intent in preparing some military officers for an interview with their commander-in-chief. I can't imagine anyone being interviewed by the president without some preparation. The article itself says (at the bottom) that the soldiers were prepared, but that their answers were their own. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that these officers were "prepared" for the interview -- and indeed the president was prepared as well by his advisors. This was a publicity stunt -- were it not, it would not have been televised -- but the POV problem arises when we present these facts as inherently bad (or good, for that matter). Why can't the title simply say "Bush holds televised interviews with US officers in Iraq" or something like that? Let our readers draw their own conclusions. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's the problem I see. Perhaps if the story focused on the critcs view of the events (as well as those who don't see the problem with it) it would be harder to characterize it as POV. The problem with that, is where are you going to find that discussion? The news agencies reporting aren't giving us that side, so unless the author conducts interviews its going to be impossible to make it sound any different. Perhaps if we could lengthen the Whitehouse's rebuttal to the accusations it would balance it a little more, but I think for a story as interesting as this it would be unfair to keep it in development hell. Unless someone can come up with very specific POV charges (apart from "it kinda sounds POV") then the tag should be removed at it placed on the published page. Choosing what story to cover shouldn't be considered POV. --Wolfrider 23:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I see your point about the title. There's probably a better title out there. But there's a problem with your title suggestion: This story isn't about the teleconference, it's about the pre-conference rehearsal before the teleconference. Why is that news? Because a number of other news outlets have decided it's news, and because it interests people, the same reason anything is news. If this were just about the teleconference and not what happened just before it, then your title "Bush holds televised interviews with US officers in Iraq" would be fine. But a minor media uproar has occured due to Barber's televised preparations with the troops, and we need to report on it too, so here we are. The title needs to reflect that. Perhaps "Bush aide rehearsing troops in preparation for interview with President draws allegations of a scripted performance". I know, that title sucks, because I suck at titles. But what I'm trying to point out is that the title needs to say what the article is about, and the article isn't really about the teleconference, it's about what came right before and the buzz and denials that followed it. Another title idea: "White House denies perception that President's interview with troops was staged." -Eisnel 23:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Just out of interest, does anybody know how many stories that become the centre of an NPOV dispute AREN'T stories with some connection to President Bush?! Rcameronw 22:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Edbrown05's title
At this moment, Edbrown05 has changed to the title to "Bush teleconference with Iraqi troopers criticized as rehearsed" -- I think this is great. I might make change it to Bush teleconference with US troops in Iraq criticized as rehearsed, but his title is fine. I'm just noting this here in case it changes again and I forget. Does anyone object to Ed's title? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it's great. --Wolfrider 23:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It is kind of hard to imagine (like said above) this conference would have gone off without some preparations of the soldiers part. With the headline change, I think the most seriously objectionable NPOV allegation has been meet, so I'm removing the tag and moving this to 2nd lead. -Edbrown05 23:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I still have a problem with it. Since I'm new to actually editing the site, I'm not going to make a fuss or try more changes of my own, but if I came across this without having been exposed to the story before, the new headline would leave me with the impression that the article dealth with criticism. Criticism comes from critics, critics are not neutral, criticism is opinion based on a POV. I could argue that in a more subtle way, this headline is as equally inappropriate as "alleged" was. It suggests that the content is the actual criticism or that it will be critical, and that what is newsworthy is the criticism and not the teleconference. Don't get me wrong, this is a headline worthy of unbiased news sources everywhere. It could appear in the NY Times and I wouldn't blink. But our news media handles the truth with kid gloves, because polls say people don't trust or like them, and their earnings often show it. They walk on egg shells unless sudden public outrage spurs them into mild fits of journalism. But the truth in this piece of news is simple: The President held a pre-rehearsed teleconference with American soldiers in Iraq. I understand how using "Bush" for short might hit a nerve with people tired of hearing "Bush did this," and "Bush did that," sometimes I don't like hearing it either, especially from the mouth of someone I know wants to influence my opinion, not inform me of facts. But these are facts, and whether you use "Administration held" or "Whitehouse held" or "Rehearsed by administration staff" or something incredibly passive like, "Live News Cameras record rehearsal and preparation for President's teleconference with Troops in Tikrit" -- no matter what you use, the facts are that it happened. It wasn't criticized by the news, it was reported by the news, and this is wikiNEWS. It also is not simple preparation as was suggested, simple preparation is nonspecific and could refer to hairspray. Also the dictionary definition of rehearsal is not compatible with the definitions of interview or conversation. --KnuckleBean 08:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't find one thing wrong with KnuckleBean's reasoning, nor can I find where anyone on the talk page feels his title was POV...so I am putting it back for the sake of title integrity. Neutralizer 11:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Neutralizer, if you cared to read my comment above, you would very much recognise that, leastwise myself, finds the newly-revised-by-you headline POV. Hard to believe you find it that important to change it (thereby creating messy redirects) when the previous headline was satisfactory by a seeming concensus. -Edbrown05 14:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry about changing the headline; I thought it was ambiguous and could read as if only Iraqis were involved "iraqi troopers" and then I had trouble changinging it something that made sense. Anyway, whatever headline the rest want is fine; I would change it back to Ed's headline right now except for KnuckleBean's comments below; sorry, I should have just left it alone. Neutralizer 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Neut, please change the headline back to what it was. --Wolfrider 16:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Unless deleting the word "allegedly" makes it my headline, it wasn't my headline. Maybe I should've considered it more and used something similar to what I suggested in my last post. But moving on, I still don't understand the logic of using 'criticized' in the headline when the subject of the article is not criticism, but the actual rehearsal. It's like changing the headline of an article about the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal to read "Clinton holds booty call, criticized as adulterous." It also undercuts the reality of a rehearsal by suggesting administration critics are the source. --KnuckleBean 16:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Because rehersals are not news. What makes this interesting and noteworthy is that there is a controversy generated because of it. There is discussion about whether or not this means Bush was padding his conference or that the soldiers were simply speaking their mind. It raises alot of questions about whether Bush is actively censoring and altering information that would undermine the administrations policies. That's what the news part of this is. The implications and discussions around the rehersal. --Wolfrider 16:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think maybe there is a confusion here over the disparity in source coverage between the words "Staged" and "Rehearsed". I agree that the larger focus of most of the news coverage is the controversy over whether it may have been "staged" even in advance of the rehearsal. That said, even from this perspective I don't understand the purpose of going back to "criticized as rehearsed". If rehearsal is not noteworthy (personally I think both are significant) or at least less noteworthy, then it should not be the headline. But I also object to "staged" simply because it makes no sense. I realize that for FOX, ABC, and the Pentagon it has some kind of incendiary meaning. I also realize that as a country we in America seem to be hurtling through some sort of plus ungood doublespeak hellscape devoid of dictionaries where words mean whatever most people can be tricked into thinking they mean, but the fact that the teleconference was rehearsed, that each party had prepared statements to make (regardless whether or not they passed out copies to eachother), and that it was recorded for an audience intended only to see the results post-prep, makes it staged by any defnition of the word. Anyway, my thoughts.--KnuckleBean 21:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

sgt. ron long's blog...
...has been positively identified as sgt. ron long's blog? Doldrums 14:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Tornado jet crashes in Scotland

October 14, 2005

A British Royal Air Force tornado war plane has crashed into the ocean off the east coast of Scotland. The two crew are reported to have been injured during the crash. The plane got into difficulty after taking off nine miles south east from the planes base, RAF Leuchars.

The injured crew are being flown by helicopter to Ninewells Hospital in Dundee. At present their condition is unknown.

title: Tornado jet crashes in Scotland


text:
Daniel Craig to be new James Bond

October 14, 2005 British actor Daniel Craig has been confirmed as the man to follow Pierce Brosnan as the sixth James Bond.

Producer Barbara Broccoli and director Martin Campbell called Craig 'a superb actor who has all the qualities needed to bring a contemporary edge to the role'.

"It is a huge iconic figure in movie history, and those things don't come along very often," Craig said. The role makes Craig the second Englishman to act as the British spy code-named 007, based on the famed literary character created by novelist Ian Fleming in 1953.

Craig's film credits include Road to Perdition, Enduring Love, Layer Cake and Sylvia. On British television, his major breakthrough was a starring role in the 1996 BBC drama Our Friends in the North.

The next Bond film Casino Royale is due to film in Italy, the Bahamas, the Czech Republic and Pinewood Studios. The film is due for release in 2006.

title: Daniel Craig to be new James Bond


text:
Girl's flu case found to be drug-resistant

October 14, 2005

A Vietnamese girl's case of bird flu was found to be oseltamivir-resistant, where oseltamivir is the active ingredient of the anti-viral drug being marketed as Tamiflu.

The girl had been taking care of her brother who had caught the disease, and may have contracted it from him rather than from infected birds. She was on a low dosage of Tamiflu, and recovered when given higher doses. She had contracted a mutated form of H5N1 bird flu.

Tests on lab animals were also found sensitive to zanamivir, marketed as Relenza.

Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Tokyo said the girl's case was "only one case, and whether that condition was something unique we don't know."

In related news, Romanian authorities have announced the bird flu virus detected in the Danube delta in eastern Europe is the same lethal H5N1 strain which struck in Asia.


text:
Virginia crime commission endorses tougher dog law legislation

October 14, 2005

The Commonwealth of Virginia pressed ahead with new dog law proposals designed to stiffen penalties against owners whose animals attack and injure people. On Wednesday, the State Crime Commission unanimously endorsed a dog law measure that would increase the criminal penalty from a class one misdemeanor to a felony offense of unlawful bodily injury, a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

The commission also proposed that police, in addition to animal control officers, be given authority to classify a dog as "dangerous". With a dog carrying that classification, tougher censorship against owners who let their dogs roam would be possible, and a felony charge against its owner would be more warranted in the event the dog should cause injury. Edward Houck, a senator in the Virginia General Assembly, said he plans to bring the proposals for a vote during next year’s legislative session. Houck is a Spotsylvania County representative where a dog owner, Deanna Large, pleaded "not guilty" to the felony charge of involuntary manslaughter in the mauling death of an elderly woman attacked by her 3 pit bulls. The crime commission did not propose legislation in the instance of injury leading to death; the issue of that criminality will be left to the court. The crime commission chairman, Ken Stolle, said he would wait to see the outcome of the circuit court trial. At present, there is no law in Virginia to specify a particular offense by an owner whose dog(s) injure or kill a person. Lawmakers want to see if the judge, William Ledbetter Jr., finds that an involuntary manslaughter charge in the case of Large is appropriate. The trial is set to go forward on December 20 where she faces 10 years.


text:
UK's highest court to rule on use of information extracted under torture

October 14, 2005

Britain's highest court, the House of Lords Judicial Committee, meets on Monday to consider the legality of the use of evidence extracted under torture by third countries.

The UK's Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 allows the government to detain foreign nationals indefinitely if there is sufficient evidence to suspect them of terrorist involvement. The case now under examination centres around ten British-based foreign nationals, who have been detained under the Act's provisions.

The evidence against the detainees has not been publicised. But their lawyers claim there are grounds for believing that it may have been extracted under torture by a foreign government. In November 2004, the UN Committee Against Torture, which monitors implementation of the Convention Against Torture, criticised Britain's refusal to rule out the use of information extracted under torture.

Britain is a state party to the Convention Against Torture, which states that the use of evidence obtained through torture can never be admitted in any court. But the Convention has not been formally adopted into British domestic law.

Human Rights Watch today released a statement arguing that the stipulation against the use of information extracted under torture is nonetheless "binding on all states" under customary international law.

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and a number of human rights organisations have raised wider concerns about the case, arguing that the use of information extracted under torture amounts to condoning the use of torture.

British domestic law outlaws the use of torture. The British government officially condemns the use of torture in any circumstances. But it argues that the use by Britain of information extracted through torture by a third party may sometimes be required in order to protect the British public from acts of terrorism. The British government maintains that the use of such information does not, in and of itself, condone or encourage torture.


text:
Talk:UK's highest court to rule on use of information extracted under torture

I think this is OK to publish but there's actually loads more useful background that could be added, drawing on those source articles. Probably the main big issue I've not included a source for (there is a load of stuff out there) is the public controversy surrounding the issue at the moment in the UK - especially so with respect to the withdrawl from Uzbekistan of the British Ambassador Craig Murray, who had spoken out against the use of information extracted under torture. It was widely reported and helped bring the issue to prominence in the UK -- Rcameronw 21:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * When you lie down with dogs; you get up with fleas...that ain't opinion; that's a fact. UKA,UKA,UKA. Neutralizer 21:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't it depend on how hungry the fleas are? My dog got fleas plenty of times but they never seemed to go for us... incidentally there's a Guardian piece on (part one of) the Murray incident here: (and a song that explains basics of the later developments here:  - though I'm not sure it would meet the wikinews NPOV standard) -- 80.43.5.75 22:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:62.56.50.236

Copyright
You can reuse any CC-BY content on anything under the GFDL. Also keep in mind the GFDL does require anyone subsequently recopying to include attribution! --Cspurrier 22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.56.50.236


text:
Persistent rain storm in Northeast USA comes to an end

October 17, 2005

On Saturday, the storm that blanketed the Northeast portion of the United States came to an end after eight days of consecutive rain. Many areas were flooded, while some areas had very little damage. States affected by the storm were New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, parts of New York, and Connecticut.

At least 10 people across the Northeast were reported dead as a result of the storm. Four more are missing.

Some areas of New Jersey had more than a foot of rainfall. Acting Governor Richard J. Codey declared a state of emergency on Friday as a first step toward applying for federal aid. The emergency was lifted on Saturday at 8:00 PM local time.


text:
Australian Minister 'leaks' draft of anti-terror bill

October 15, 2005 Jon Stanhope, the Australian Capital Territory Chief Minister, has posted a confidential draft of the proposed Australian anti-terror bill to his website. Mr Stanhope says he hopes posting draft counter-terrorism laws on his website will open community debate about the issue and has stated that he will not comply with instructions from the Commonwealth to remove the document. The Australian Labor Party is backing his actions.

The main impetus for the action appears to be the short amount of time the Senate committee will have to debate the bill; just one day. In particular the Greens Senator Bob Brown has accused the Government of engineering the circumstances that only allow a one-day inquiry.

"It was an extraordinary premeditated attack on the Senate committee system and effectively made the committee system a farce," said Senator Brown. Others, including the Australian Law Council, have expressed concerns about the scope of the proposed bill.

Prime Minister John Howard has defended the process, saying "It's important for the security of Australia, it was unanimously agreed to by me with the eight Labor premiers and chief ministers, and we can't have any undue delay that the legislation will be exposed for public scrutiny and it will reflect that agreement."

Human Rights Watch and the International Federation of Journalists have also criticised the proposed laws, saying that they will impede press freedom, "severely threaten Australians’ civil liberties and violate international law".

Concerns with the Bill
The concern with the bill has centered on a number of areas:
 * A so-called "shoot to kill" policy, especially in the wake of the shooting of an innocent Brazilian man in London.
 * 14 day Preventative Detention Without Charge
 * 5 years jail for revealing information about an ASIO detention
 * Control Orders involving tracking devices and home detention which can be extended indefinitely
 * The inclusion and definition of sedition, which in the bill may include "to bring the sovereign [i.e. the Queen] into hatred or contempt", or to "urge disaffection" with the Australian Government. Australian law does not protect freedom of speech, so this proposed law may effectively outlaw criticizing the Australian Government. It may also effectively outlaw some protests.
 * The ability of judges to make decisions outside of the court system.
 * 'Recklessly' providing funds to anyone who *might* be a terrorist is an offence, punishable by life imprisonment, even if they are not a terrorist


title: File:15October2005.pdf


title: File:15October2005.sxw


text:
Iraq to hold constitution vote today

October 15, 2005

Iraqis will vote on a referendum for the nation's proposed constitution today. It will be the second vote in the nation since the United States occupation. Local police and troops, as well as foreign troops will be on patrol to prevent violent insurgency. Schools, government offices, and the Baghdad airport are closed. Borders are shut to non-essential traffic. Votes are being recorded at 6000 polling stations throughout the country, even in the volotile Anbar province.

Interestingly, unlike the January 19, 2005 elections, in this referendum there have not been reports of provisions made for Iraqis living overseas to vote. At least one Sunni opponent of the constitution theorizes that overseas Iraqis are more secular and well-educated and would therefore be more likely to reject the constitution.

Most prominent politicians are endorsing the constitution; but some are not. President Jalal Talabani has appealed for a Yes vote, and called on Sunni insurgents to not disrupt the voting process. Dick Cheney, the United States Vice President calls it "vital to get a constitution in place." Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'ite spiritual leader, as well as Kurdish leaders are also encouraging a yes vote. The Shi'ites and Kurds make up about eighty percent of Iraq's population, so it is widely believed that the constitution will be ratified.

Election officials in Iraq say as many as 65 percent of eligible voters have turned out to vote so far. A simple majority is needed to approve the constitution. Election results are not expected for another five days.

title: Iraq to hold constitution vote today


text:
Explosion outside Trinidad nightclub wounds more than 10

October 15, 2005 An explosion outside a popular nightclub in Trinidad's capital, Port-of-Spain, has wounded at least 10. Officials are unsure of the cause of the explosion and no group has yet claimed responsibility. This is the fourth such bombing to occur in the area -- all the bombings have occurred near the same time each month. The explosion occurred just after 7:00 p.m. AST (2300 UTC) outside the "Smoky and Bunty" bar along a popular strip of bars and clubs.

"This is the worst type of attack on our city and against our citizens," said Minister of National Security Martin Joseph during a press conference. Joseph also announced that five suspects were detained and being questioned by police. "What is different on this occasion is that there have been arrests."

The United States Department of State and the Canadian government have issued travel warnings in response to the recent violence in the area.


text:
Crown Princess Mary of Denmark gives birth to male child

October 15, 2005

Her Royal Highness Crown Princess Mary of Denmark has given birth to a healthy baby boy at a Copenhagen hospital at approximately 1:57 am local time this morning, ending many months of waiting for the Royal Family, the Danish public and much of the world. The baby weighed in at 3.5 kilograms and 51 centimeters long.

The royal pregnancy was made public on 25 April 2005, and in that period, many Danes speculated the gender of the child. The Crown Princess had experienced contractions in mid-September. The royal couple has not announced his name, but it is likely to be Christian in line with Danish tradition. Since Christian II, who died in 1559, Danish kings have alternately carried the name Christian or Frederik.

The child will become heir apparent styled as HRH The Crown Prince when his parents ascend to the Danish throne as King Frederik X and Queen Mary.


text:
Talk:Australian Minister 'leaks' draft of anti-terror bill

I can't find the homepage in question, does anyone have a link? --Tarka 09:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added references. A major Australian newspaper is now serving the document in question: [Sydney Morning Herald] and their [copy of the bill], so it is probably okay to upload it to Wikinews, in that the AU govt goes on the rampage they will have bigger targets than Wikinews.

 * This is a huge story,imo, because the future of Australian democracy is at stake. Ramming through legislation quickly is how the US government came under the control of a strong-willed minority of control freaks. Neutralizer 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added a point that Australia has no "freedom of speach". So making it illegal to critizise the govn't is pretty big. Wisty 08:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Shocking! Hitler's Germany in the 30's; Stalin's Russia in the 40's
See Wisty's comment above. Can you imagine not being able to openly criticize your government? Hitler's Germans could not, Stalin's Russians could not, Saddam's Iraqis could not, The chinese and north Korean people can not. Do you want to join them??????? I urge lovers of freedom in Australia to hit the streets right now; surround your parliament buildings and stay there until your political leaders withdraw this fascist legislation. This could be the last chance you have....if you don't care, think about your kids and your grandkids; growing up afraid to speak their mind or to protest a bad government...don't wait another second...do it now! Neutralizer 15:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Explosion outside Trinidad nightclub wounds more than 10

NPOV
Sources do not support the statement that these men are "thought to be" the ones responsible. In fact, the AP report says the opposite;

"It was not clear what caused the explosion, but it followed a series of bombings that have all occurred around the same time of the month. No one has claimed responsibility for the bombings or linked them to any political movement."

Rather than tag, I will remove the reference.Neutralizer 11:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sources clearly state that "arrests were made in connection", and since this is the first time in the four bombings that arrests were made, it's important to the event. Next time you remove news with the pretence of making it NPOV, try just removing the parts that can legitimately be considered biased.
 * only 1 of the sources says that and that is not the same as saying the individuals are "thought to be connected"; let us please not add to anti-muslim hysteria by expanding on existing speculative reports. Neutralizer 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The Pravda source dated the 15th states there have been no arrests.The caribean source is dated the 14th and is the only one that says there were arrests. The Ap source says "It was not clear what caused the explosion" and that 5 people have been "detained for questioning". We need clarification as our sources provide conflicting info re; arrests. Neutralizer 23:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The question here isn't if anyone has been detained or arrested, it's if the Minister of National Security Martin Joseph's comments during a press conference is a reliable source and should be included. Since he's attributed to the statement, what's being reported is his statement, not that anyone was or was not arrested. Explain (before reverting) how the reported fact that "It was not clear what caused the explosion" contributes doubt that Joseph made the statement that there were five arrests. 23:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's another dated the 15th that does not mention any arrests Neutralizer 23:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * mentions arrests. If one source lacks information, that's no reason to remove information provided by another source.

 * ok, I am satisfied to leave the article as it is right now in this regard. Neutralizer 12:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of dateline template
See this section of the style guide with regards to use of dateline template. 18:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC) Pay particular attention to "In journalism, the location in the dateline may either refer to the location of where the article was filed from or where the event happened even if the writer was not physically present." Karen 23:37, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Template:Wikibooks

 Wikibooks has more about this subject:  es:Plantilla:Wikibooks

title: Template:Wikibooks


text:
Template:Commonspar

 Wikimedia Commons has more media related to:

title: Template:Commonspar


text:
Template:Doi

doi:

title: Template:Doi


text:
Talk:Study finds marijuana use leads to brain development in rats

NPOV
This article is very unbalanced, and reports only on the findings of a single study. The context, especially, is lacking. No mention is made, for example, of the many studies which show in humans the debilitation of short-term memory on a permanent basis related to regular cannabis use. NPOV requires a balanced reporting - in this case it should show what the prevailing opinion is in the scientific community and why the finding is surprising. - Amgine / talk 17:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The finding is "surprising" only if you make unwarranted assumptions about the types of chemicals that might promote neurogenesis.

 * "show what the prevailing opinion is in the scientific community" - If this is to be a requirement that must be satisfied in order for Wikinews to "publish" this news article, then someone needs to better define this requirement. "prevailing opinion" about what? --JWSchmidt 17:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The article is just reporting on a single study, and that is all it claims to report on. In the context of the study itself, it isn't an unbalanced perspective.  It doesn't claim that this is a perfetly verified scientific fact, but the context of the article doesn't require it to.  I think we should give the wikinews readership enough credit to assume they know the difference between a siinglle study and a solid fact.  I say remove the tag.

 * It's very simple to include additional material (even a quick overview) about the negative aspects as well. There's no real reason I can see to avoid doing so. --Wolfrider 18:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * From []

"In the brain, THC connects to specific sites called cannabinoid receptors on nerve cells and influences the activity of those cells. Some brain areas have many cannabinoid receptors; others have few or none. Many cannabinoid receptors are found in the parts of the brain that influence pleasure, memory, thought, concentration, sensory and time perception, and coordinated movement(5).

The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system(6) and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine(7). Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse."

The POV problem here is that the article asserts (perhaps unintetionally) that marijuana is "good for you". The key to a NPOV is to never make any such assertion. To avoid that, provide information relating to the negative affects of cannabis use as well as the information regarding this new study. The reader can take from it what he wants. --Wolfrider 17:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, the surprising element in this study, for me, is that there is reported neurogenisis at all, since cannabis is the only drug of abuse which has this reported. It will be interesting to see who repeats the experiment and what their findings will be. - Amgine / talk 18:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

article title
I think that the title "Lab study shows marijuana may be good for the brain" is a problem. The research article shows that one specific canabinoid stimulates the production of new neurons in a part of the rat brain and has "anxiolytic- and antidepressant-like effect" in certain behavioral tests performed on rats. I think the title should specify "in rats". The research article is not about marijuana; the title of the Wikinews article should mention marijuana only if done with care. "May be good for the brain" is vague and has not really been addressed by the Saskatchewan group's research. They conclude the article with this statement:

"The opposing effects of high doses of acute and chronic cannabinoids, together with the anxiolytic-like effects caused by a low dose of cannabinoids, may finally explain discrepancies in the clinical study literature regarding the effects of cannabinoid on anxiety and depression."

I'm still reading the research article, but I do not think even the authors would claim that their results mean that "marijuana may be good for the brain" --JWSchmidt 18:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Good points. Feel free to rename the article, anyone logged in may. - Amgine / talk 18:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we publish this now? --Wolfrider 18:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm done editing the article; I think it should be published. "Long term studies about cannabis use tend to be controversial as the data is seen to be biased or flawed." <-- This is true, but I think it ignores the possibility of reporting what is in the medical literature, which can be done even if people still argue about what the available results mean. --JWSchmidt 20:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

question about nausea
Are these contradictory? --JWSchmidt 19:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) "Medically, it appears to relieve convulsion, inflammation, anxiety, and nausea." (source: wikipedia article on cannabinoids)
 * 2) "Previous studies examining the affects of cannabis have highlighted negative aspects of the drug's use, such as short term memory difficulties, increased heart rate, nausea..." (source: the article)
 * Not necessairily. It is a drug, so its effects would vary depending on the user. Also, I got the information from Wikipedia's article. I've also been around those who use marijuana and can attest to it occassionally causing nausea. Not that I'm a legitimate source for Wikinews. ^.~ --Wolfrider 19:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think cannabinoids could cause nausea under "normal" conditions and limit nausea under special conditions such as cancer chemotherapy-induced nausea. --JWSchmidt 19:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I found an Australian [government report] that highlights both.
 * "Some first-time users report negative effects like headaches,nausea, fainting, mental confusion.."
 * "In 2000, a NSW Government report concluded that cannabis could be useful for certain medical conditions... The report suggested that cannabis may be most useful for the following conditions:... nausea and vomiting, particularly in people having chemotherapy for cancer..."
 * I'll add the source to the article. --Wolfrider 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nausea can result from mixing with other drugs - such as alcohol. I think the article is pretty well balanced now and would like to see the dispute tag taken off.  There's some good work here, it's interesting, says the jury is out on whether cannabis is good bad or indifferent, and doesn't say "go start smoking this stuff".  The only thing I'd question is the lethal dose bit.  Sure, people are likely to pass out before ingesting a LD via smoking, but is there actually a lethal dose you can take by eating the stuff?  I've - jokingly - been told the lethal dose is one kilogram dropped on the head from a great height. Brianmc 20:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * i never knew anyone to get nausea from pot; has anybody else? I think that is just one of the "reefer madness" lies. Neutralizer 12:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I knew a girl who would occasionally get nausea and other unpleasant symptoms from smoking. it was strange, but that's someone ;)  --CGW 12:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Funny image
Okay, I absolutely love that image at the bottom, but should we remove it for the sake of the story? --Wolfrider 22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know how to go about introducing cartoons at this site. I loaded the image to make a stab at it. Perhaps this is a poor way to solicit input. -Edbrown05 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A picture is worth a thousand words. People have been using this "weed" for thousands (millions?) of years. Some people have claimed to benefit cognitively from casual marijuana use while clinical studies suggest that heavy use can be addictive, damaging and unsatisfying. The "poor" laboratory animals are caught in the middle as scientists try to figure out what goes on in the brain. I say leave the "silly" image in, it "says it all". --JWSchmidt 22:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, I think it's hilarious. Good job. :-) --Wolfrider 22:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Since cartoons are sort of an editorial, and since the image can't be easily changed by other contributors, I put it back in as an 'External link'. -Edbrown05 06:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Drug companies(including beer & booze makers/dealers) can't make money off of Marijuana
It's too easy to grow at home(like a "weed"). That's why it's illegal; it would be a cheap substitute for all the headache pills ,sleeping pills, anti-depression pills and the #1 contributor to domestic violence/child abuse...alcohol. That's reality; marijuana is only harmful when it's being sold by drug dealers who might lace it or use it as an entry level product and then switch kids to something more profitable (& easier to hide) like "e" or meth. Just another business/government scam; keeping it illegal; but an exceptionally nasty scam.Neutralizer 23:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In terms of harm done to people, it is hard to explain why ethanol is legal and marijuana is illegal. You could probably argue that the marketing of sucrose is more harmful to health in Western societies than than legal marijuana would be. However, it is not clear to me that the benefits of legal marijuana would be greater than the harm done by the likely increase in over-use of marijuana that would happen if it were legalized. --JWSchmidt 23:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think widespread availability would dramatically reduce alcohol related problems. I suppose we could compare domestic violence rates in Amsterdam to those in London or New York? (waiting for the pre-result rationalization as to why that wouldn't be relevant...anyone?...anyone?). Neutralizer 12:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Title is wrong
Marijuana does not contain the cannabinoid which was SYNTHESIZED for use in this study, therefore we can not conclude that marijuana is good for the brains of rats, only that the synthetic cannabinoid shows some benefits for the brains of rats. unsigned comments by 66.82.9.71
 * In addition to the synthetic cannabinoid, the study also did experiments using one naturally-occuring cannabinoid. But your point is still valid and was raised during the development of this Wikinews article. Since the main cannabinoid of marijuana acts on the same cannabinoid receptor that probably caused that effects described in the study, it may be a safe inference that marijuana would have the same effect on neurogenesis as do the two tested cannabinoids. I let the story go out with "marijuana" in the title in an attempt to make use of the "name recognition" of "marijuana" and included this disclaimer in the article: "Marijuana contains a complex mixture of chemicals including cannabinoids and may have somewhat different behavioral effects than the purified cannabinoids tested so far." --JWSchmidt 14:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I just say, your contribution to the article has been incredible. --Wolfrider 14:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wolfrider: Thank you for adding things like: "I don't really don't know yet if our findings apply to humans." It is great to have a quote from the senior scientist making clear the limitations of applying exerimental results from lab animals to humans. --JWSchmidt 03:16, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:Doi

This template is intended to allow simple standardized links to digital object identifiers (DOIs).

Examples
produces:

Problem DOI
This DOI doesn't work in the template. I tried several character encodings. It's in Sea_level_rise. (SEWilco 03:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC))
 * 10.1175/1520-0442(2002)015<0487:SOCASI>2.0.CO;2

Original source

 * Wikipedia:Template talk:Doi

title: Template talk:Doi


text:
User:JWSchmidt

JWSchmidt <-- at wikipedia under development | State of the Wiki | Wikinews bias | de-admin vote | institutional bias | protected pages

Biology Articles
See: Health | Biology | Science and technology<-- contains a biology section
 * Dog flu spreads across the US
 * China and Europe face new avian flu outbreaks
 * Lab study shows marijuana may be good for the brain - original title
 * Study finds marijuana use leads to brain development in rats

Embryology and abortions
Development
 * UN health expert warns Bird Flu could kill 150 million
 * Possible vaccine against bird flu created in Hungary
 * Australian science organisation discontinues genetically modified pea research

Political control of education

 * Utah bill requiring divine design education withdrawn by Senator Chris Buttars
 * Creationist sentiments affect Imax business strategy
 * Kansas School Board has copyright withheld over teaching Intelligent Design
 * Teaching Intelligen Design: Dover PA school board election results
 * Vatican issues defence of evolution, rejects fundamentalist creationism

Janet Waugh voted against proposed intelligent design teaching in science CBS news.

Comments on the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" by Janet Waugh: "Thanks for your comments about the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the supporters who have sent their support to members of the Kansas Board of Education. I am supporting the recommendations of the science committee and am currently in the minority. I think your theory is wonderful and possibly some of the majority members will be willing to support it."(source)

"Sue Gamble, a board member who opposes the inclusion of ID in science teaching" (Kansas Gears Up for Another Battle Over Teaching Evolution Science)

Comments on the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" by Sue Gamble "I will add your theory to a long list of alternative theories I intend to introduce when it is appropriate." (source)

Evolution debate spawns a saucy monster by Don Lefler in The Wichita Eagle Sunday Aug. 28, 2005

 * Advocacy groups complain about 4parents.gov sex-ed website
 * Coupling university research funding to military recruiting on campus (see)

Political control of medicine

 * Australian churches begin campaign against late-term abortion
 * 8th Circuit Court rules 'partial birth' ban unconstitutional
 * FDA ruling on emergency contraceptive pill questioned
 * RU-486
 * United Nations passes Declaration on human cloning
 * Bush signs historic Schiavo bill into law
 * patenting genes

Biological warfare

 * US military to buy anthrax and bioweapons production systems

War with Iraq

 * Grand Jury investigation of Plame leak nears end
 * Lewis "Scooter" Libby indicted on five charges
 * Story preparation/Special Counsel ends probe into leak of CIA officer's identity

title: User:JWSchmidt