text:
User talk:TalkHard/Quality over Quantity

I'm very interested in comments and other ideas on how to improve the quality of articles. For those who disagree with the points I bring up, I have a couple questions:
 * Is Wikinews valuable right now? In other words, if it never grows into anything bigger, will it still be valuable?
 * If yes, what value does it serve? If no, what will it take for it to become valuable, and how long will this take?

I appreciate all feedback. - TalkHard 12:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feedback
I think if you increase the number of people working in a article you rather help improving the article quality. However the best results will be get if you increase the number of people working in a article during review. You can have a lot of wikiusers working in an article and you still get a bad one because these people generally can't see the problems others can. People who have not primary edited the article (article is first time seen) can do better reviews. When you are envolved in a work you don't see the same troubles people who are at some distance can see. So I think the increasing of the number of people working in a article may improve (not necessarilly) the article quality but the increasing of the number of people doing the review will sure improve the article quality.--Carlosar 02:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the comments. The thing though is I'm not just talking about fixing problems with articles. But rather creating and finding useful information for use in them in the first place. This is not done in review. I believe Wikinews will serve no useful function if we don't create articles that are better than articles found in daily papers, in terms of depth, background, and context. Anything less is a waste of time. Why would anyone come here? - TalkHard 10:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 15:35, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)--Some ideas:
 * Writing: we have good possibilities of assuring quality if some of the reviewers -or editors- is a English native language speaker or is known by the community as been as a good English speaker.
 * Policies: we need to have well defined policies. But these policies can not be too complex or extense otherwise the edit/review process will become difficult and slow.
 * Legality: the same as Policies. I think the present legacy policies are good enough.
 * Comprehensiveness: the same as writing
 * Accuracy: maybe we need some rules here; so it is the same as Policies
 * Neutrality: an article can be NPOV but there is not NPOV wikinews editors/reviewers. Everybody have their own point of view about every subject. This is inevitable. An article will be NPOV if people with different point of view work in it. Sometimes is impossible to write a completely neutral article. In these cases, the people with diferent point of view must have a oportunity of showing their diverse vision by giving contributions to the article. These contributions must be validated by physical evidences, events which really happened; they cannot be personal opinions - although I think there are situations where you can use an opinion. However even in these situations you must say that what you are writing is an opinion.

 * I sense the first round of the Wikinews' version of the stub debate is coming..
 * Pro/additional points

 * I personally agree that 5 to 10 is a good number to have for each quality article, and one or two articles at a time is quire reasonable amount multi-tasking (though I would say 4 is fine).
 * Compared to Wikipedia, in case you know one, Wikinews benefit a lot less from harnessing an article from a stub to a comprehensive version taking a long time. By that time, news value could become almost none.
 * Contra/questions

 * If there are some incomplete reports and empty pages, people may indeed start adding to it or writing an article.
 * It is the sense of "Oh, why no one is taking care of such an important story? Do I have to do it!?" that draws people in.
 * Not everyone knows how to write a good news story, or how to collaboratively produce one. And people do not like to be told what to do, what not to do. So better let them learn by experimentation and observation, rather than imposing rules.
 * More organization and more rules stifle people's creativity.
 * We want speed, and we should go by dynamic interaction and good faith, not rules.
 * Chaotic energy is part of any prospering wiki.
 * We need many more people first, because with this amount of people, areas of interest/expertise do not overlap much, and collaboration is not as easy.
 * Voluntarily taking up a duty is fun and exciting, but being assigned a task is not.

 * On other parts, I am one of those who think we should aim for a weekly. But yes, holding off release is not that meaningful. We just need to think of in-depth coverage than breaking news, i.e. weekly than news wire. Tomos 21:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Feedback from Lyellin
I'm using a new header just to break it up a bit... Anyways. I agree, quality is needed to bring more people- the Catch 22 you mention. I'm wary of your idea, but it's better than anything I've come up with to help quality ;). Here's why I'm wary: With the lack of people we have now, that's perhaps 1 or 2 articles developing at a time, maybe 3 or 4 (counting regular contributors). Assume a turn over of a couple days, and we're not producing much (not to say this is a bad thing, per se, but could be a problem). We also are constricting people across the board... you acn't write about this unless others will write with you. Well- I want to write about the public transportation problems in PA... how many people can help with that? That's where I see the real trouble lying with your suggustion. Lyellin 02:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quantity will lead to quality
My philosophy for wiki and for news in general: ''The more stories we write, the more people will be exposed to us. That will lead to more people joining the team, which, in turn, means more critical eyes will see each story; improving the quality of our product.'' This means that I am of the group that says there should be no review process in place that would slow down the dissemination of information. I am opposed in principle of making Wikinews a peer-review publication for every article we produce. -- Davodd | Talk 09:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree with the premise that the kind of stories we are currently producing will bring anyone to the site. Meanwhile, there are people like me who have decided to stop wasting effort on something that lacks any value. I suspect that unless something is done, the site will stagnate as people lose interest. I have a new mini-proposal that I posted at the Water Cooler that I believe is a good compromise between my idea here and the objections to it. - TalkHard 04:26, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
Ukraine opposition candidate Yushchenko is suffering from a Dioxin intoxication, doctors say

Doctors from the Rudolfinerhaus clinic in Vienna say "there is no doubt" Ukrainian opposition leader Victor Yushchenko was poisoned with Dioxin.

Yushchenko's body had about 1,000 times more than the normal concentration of the toxin. It is unknown if there were any other poisons in his system.

Although it has not yet been proven that the poisoning was deliberate, doctors suspect it was. "We suspect a cause triggered by a third party," said Michael Zimpfer, head doctor at the Rudolfinerhaus clinic. He suggested the poison may have been administered orally, through food or drink.

Today's announcements are a follow-up of an earlier press conference, where Dr. Korpan that there were three hypotheses under consideration, one of them involving dioxin. He did not reveal what the other two hypotheses were. Dr. Michael Zimpfer, director of the Rudolfinerhaus clinic emphasized that time there was no proof yet to specify the substance causing the illness.

Yushchenko left Kiev on Friday (2004-10-12) for further examination in Vienna. When Yushchenko fell ill on October 6th, Ukrainian doctors had initially diagnosed food poisoning, leading to speculation that he had been poisoned deliberately. The illness has disfigured Yushchenko's body and face which doctors say could take up to two years to heal.

He fell seriously ill on the September 6th, during his presidential campaign. Yushchenko was taken to the Rudolfinerhaus clinic of Vienna, where he stayed for four days under Dr. Korpan's care. He was diagnosed with "acute pancreatitis, accompanied by interstitial edematous changes." These symptoms were said to be due to "a serious viral infection and chemical substances which are not normally found in food products" as his campaign officials put it. In laymans terms, he developed an infection in the pancreas and got a bad skin condition that disfigured his face with cysts and lesions. The skin condition has similarities with the chloracne associated with dioxin posioning according to a British toxicologist John Henry.
 * Viktor Yushchenko (left) as he appeared in July 2004 and (right) as he appeared in November after the poisoning

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


text:
Talk:Ukraine opposition candidate Yushchenko is suffering from a Dioxin intoxication, doctors say

Hmmm this article is barely touched. I think we need a more stable base by exploring more news feeds. And, next time putting an article here be sure to read the rules first. How should we handle poison-situations? Speculation is very NPOV friendly, must wait for other wikipedians to respond...--83.116.2.193 17:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We also have an article Yushchenko seriously ill. This article, it seems is reporting a new development. When I've read reports on this, there wasn't any report of high level dioxin (see talk).

I would say speculations are okay to report when they have news value and are not misleading. When misleading, we should try to somehow introduce how it is received among experts of various kinds. Well, it's not like I have thought about this throughly, so open to other views.

Regarding the rules, yes, it is better if newbies read enough rules and guidelines, but at this point, I think we should welcome quite anybody who can join us and edit in good faith. Learning as doing is fine, most of the time. So I would hope the contributor read Welcome and ask questions if he has any. Tomos 18:22, 11 12月 2004 (UTC)

some grammar changes, and added some quotes and names for the doctors, and reference to BBC.

I also removed ¨Yet there are main lines the media takes and somehow seem Yushchenko friendly.¨ as the meaning is not very clear - is it that the Ukrainian media has been reporting this in a pro-Yuchenka manner?

As for speculation, I think it is acceptable, so long as the speculation does not overshadow the core of the story.

I also looked for a press release from the clinic, but their English news page (or my browser) did not appear to be working, perhaps a native speaker could translate?

-

This is an interesting news story. It will test the format of wikinews: is his reliable way of making news or will it become highly sensored due to overt demand of neutrality.

I read the article and it contained only verifiable statements of facts on the matter. This news is a fact, and this news has political effect. That however does not give grounds for sensoring the article.

- Rephrased some things for clarity and tried to clean up some language. -- adaMada

a major change
After a discussion at Talk:Yushchenko's illness a result of poisoning, doctors confirm, I have decided to merge two articles on the same issue.

Now there have been further development on this. The type of dioxin has been identified, formal investigation started in Ukraine, a Russian official made a statement that poisoning did not take place, etc. If someone can incorporate those stuff quickly, that would be great. Tomos 21:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Picture?
Why was the comparison picture removed?

Unclosed formatting...
editprotected The Image credit to the photographer has an unterminated SMALL. This tag must be closed within the Link syntax. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ •–• 18:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:TBIMC

The Tampa Bay Independant Media Center
This is a communal login for our organization.

The Tampa Bay Independant Media Center is a website dedicated to the creation of accurate and passionate tellings of truth. Our Main Site Our Message Board [http://www.tampaindymedia.org/phpbb2/viewforum.php?f=11 Our Discussion Area... for articles posted on our site.]

Editors.
My name is Kenny Dixon. I am a member of The Tampa Bay Independant Media Center. I'm not the only one. Others can make there presence known on the talk page if they wish.

I set up the WikiNews logon so that members of our Editorial Working Group could check out this site. I find it interesting but not the best wway to create news. I'm still forming my opinion on it. So... yeah. This is actually this first time I've ever created a wiki page so Give me a hand... w00t! w00t!

title: User:TBIMC


text:
User:Mydotnet

I discontinued working on wikinews (having categorized articles and writing one or two) because what good is "news" a year from now? Wikipedia is useful because it is "history," "news" has a short half-life. Read How the News Makes Us Dumb.

Hi, check the weather!

title: User:Mydotnet


text:
Talk:Wikinews

I am not completely sure what the intention was, but.. Tomos 21:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikinews was officially approved by the Wikimedia Foundation's board of trustees. That is why the demo version started, and the announcement was made on Foundation-l and other mailing lists.
 * 2) Wikinews is perhaps officially launched when it became "en.wikipedia.org," getting rid of "demo" out of its URL. Of course, things are in formation, and we bear "Beta" in our logo. So what is official launch is a bit open to interpretation.

Why do we have an encyclopedia article on a news site? Shouldn't this page be on Wikipedia? Dan100 15:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I merged the text and re-directed to the missions statement, which I feel is a proper overview. Dan100 16:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wikinews


text:
Kerik withdraws from nomination

December 10 2004

United States President George W. Bush's nominee for Secretary of Homeland Security, Bernard Kerik, has declined to continue through Senate confirmation. In a letter to President Bush, Kerik explained that the immigration status of a housekeeper and nanny, as well as nonpayment of income tax on the housekeeper were his reasons for retracting.

However, Kerik's past dealings may have been the strongest reason for his decision to withdraw from the nomination. Newsweek has uncovered that as recently as 1998, a New Jersey judge had issued an arrest warrant for Kerik following a tangled web of lawsuits relating to unpaid bills on a condominum. Newsday and the Seattle Times have reported that Kerik may have business ties to the Mob and allegations of two extramarital affairs have arisen.

In addition, his windfall profit from stock options in Taser International (i.e. "Taser guns") with no apparent investment, has been under heavy investigation. Kerik received a profit of more than USD $6 million after selling his stock in early November, just before an Amnesty International report critical of Taser guns was released. Kerik had joined Taser International's board shortly after resigning as New York City's police commissioner; both the NYPD and Department of Homeland Security have purchased large amounts of Taser's non-lethal electroshock weapons.

title: Kerik withdraws from nomination


text:
Taiwan Voters Move Away From Chen's Agenda

Taiwan's opposition parties defeated the pro-independence coalition in the country's legislative elections. The result means President Chen Shui-bian may have trouble pursuing his agenda of distancing Taiwan from mainland China.

Election officials say the Kuomintang-led opposition coalition will end up with 114 seats in Taiwan's 225-member Legislative Yuan - one more than it had going into Saturday's vote. The coalition favors stronger ties with mainland and leaving unchanged Taiwan's political status. The pro-independence coalition led by President Chen Shui-bian's Democratic Progressive Party, failed again to secure control of the legislature. It captured 101 seats.

The election was seen as a referendum on the president's efforts to distance Taiwan from mainland China and move toward greater separation. Taiwan and mainland China split in 1949 after a civil war divided the country. While the People's Republic of China was established on the mainland, the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and continued to cling onto the Republic of China. While Taipei moved away from its claim of being the sole legitimate government of China in the 1990s, Beijing continues to consider the island its territory and says Taiwanese independence moves would be considered grounds for war.

President Chen may find it difficult to push forward his key platform issues. They include legislative approval of an $18 billion arms purchase from the United States; renaming state enterprises and foreign offices that bear the name "China" or "Chinese" to bear the name "Taiwan," and a referendum on a new constitution.

Hsiao Bi-Khim, a member of the president's Democratic Progressive's Party, says those issues are important for his country. "These issues, they're actually reflecting the popular sentiment here and are a pragmatic step forward," said Hsiao Bi-Khim. "It's a process of natural evolution here in Taiwan."

Beijing says the proposals could provoke Chinese intervention but Ms. Hsiao says the president will not push Taiwan toward formal independence. "President Chen has laid out what we will not touch upon, and mainly issues related to sovereignty, independence and national name change, these issues will not be dealt with in the constitutional reform process," she said.

[http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1705.html Washington "does not support" independence for Taiwan. Neither does it categorically oppose it. It does oppose any unilateral changes in the present situation.] Saturday, it appeared that by leaving control of the legislature in the hands of the president's opposition, Taiwan's voters did just that.


text:
Category:Politics and conflicts

ar:تصنيف:سياسة bs:Kategorija:Politika bg:Категория:Политика ca:Categoria:Polítiques i conflictes cs:Kategorie:Politika de:Kategorie:Politik el:Κατηγορία:Πολιτική και συγκρούσεις eo:kategorio:Politiko es:Categoría:Política fa:رده:سیاست و منازعات fr:Catégorie:Politique et conflits ko:분류:정치 it:Categoria:Politica e conflitti hu:Kategória:Politika ja:カテゴリ:政治 no:Kategori:Politikk pl:Kategoria:Polityka pt:Categoria:Política ro:Categorie:Politică ru:Категория:Политика sr:Категорија:Политика fi:Luokka:Politiikka sv:Kategori:Politik ta:பகுப்பு:அரசியல் th:หมวดหมู่:การเมือง tr:Kategori:Politika uk:Категорія:Політика zh:Category:政治

title: Category:Politics and conflicts


text:
Category:Vietnam

bs:Kategorija:Vijetnam cs:Kategorie:Vietnam de:Kategorie:Vietnam el:Κατηγορία:Βιετνάμ es:Categoría:Vietnam fa:رده:ویتنام fr:Catégorie:Viêt Nam it:Categoria:Vietnam ja:カテゴリ:ベトナム pl:Kategoria:Wietnam pt:Categoria:Vietnã ro:Categorie:Vietnam ru:Категория:Вьетнам sq:Kategoria:Vietnam sr:Категорија:Вијетнам sv:Kategori:Vietnam tr:Kategori:Vietnam uk:Категорія:В'єтнам zh:Category:越南

title: Category:Vietnam


text:
Category:United States

ar:تصنيف:الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية bs:Kategorija:SAD ca:Categoria:Estats Units cs:Kategorie:Spojené státy americké de:Kategorie:Vereinigte Staaten es:Categoría:Estados Unidos eo:Kategorio:Usono fa:رده:ایالات متحده آمریکا fr:Catégorie:États-Unis ko:분류:미국 it:Categoria:Stati Uniti d'America he:קטגוריה:ארצות הברית ja:カテゴリ:アメリカ合衆国 no:Kategori:USA pl:Kategoria:USA pt:Categoria:Estados Unidos ro:Categorie:Statele Unite ale Americii ru:Категория:США sr:Категорија:Сједињене Америчке Државе fi:Luokka:Yhdysvallat sv:Kategori:USA ta:பகுப்பு:ஐக்கிய அமெரிக்கா tr:Kategori:Amerika Birleşik Devletleri uk:Категорія:США zh:Category:美国

title: Category:United States


text:
Category:World

es:Categoría:Mundo it:Categoria:Mondo

title: Category:World


text:
Category:Taiwan

ar:تصنيف:تايوان ca:Categoria:Taiwan cs:Kategorie:Tchaj-wan de:Kategorie:Taiwan es:Categoría:Taiwán eo:Kategorio:Tajvano fa:رده:تایوان fr:Catégorie:Taïwan ko:분류:타이완 it:Categoria:Taiwan ja:カテゴリ:台湾 no:Kategori:Taiwan pl:Kategoria:Tajwan pt:Categoria:Taiwan ro:Categorie:Taiwan ru:Категория:Тайвань sr:Категорија:Тајван sv:Kategori:Taiwan tr:Kategori:Tayvan uk:Категорія:Тайвань zh:Category:台灣

title: Category:Taiwan


text:
Category:Category

This is the top-level category. From here, you can browse through articles on Wikinews.

This category is not actually uncategorized, since as an internal category it belongs to Category:Internal Wikinews organization, which in turn (as an internal category) belongs to itself. There should be no uncategorized categories at all.

ar:تصنيف:أخبار ca:Categoria:Principal cs:Kategorie:(-VŠE-) de:Kategorie:!Hauptkategorie es:Categoría:Índice de categorías eo:Kategorio:Ĉio fa:رده:رده‌ها fr:Catégorie:Principale ko:분류:분류 it:Categoria:Categorie he:קטגוריה:קטגוריות no:Kategori:Wikinytt pl:Kategoria:Główna pt:Categoria:Página principal ro:Categorie:Categorie ru:Категория:Всё sq:Kategoria:!Kategoria Kryesore fi:Luokka:Pääluokat tr:Kategori:Ana kategoriler uk:Категорія:Головна

title: Category:Category


text: Category:Ukraine

title: Category:Ukraine


text:
Category:Iraq

ar:تصنيف:العراق bs:Kategorija:Irak ca:Categoria:Iraq cs:Kategorie:Irák de:Kategorie:Irak el:Κατηγορία:Ιράκ es:Categoría:Iraq eo:Kategorio:Irako fa:رده:عراق fr:Catégorie:Irak ko:분류:이라크 it:Categoria:Iraq he:קטגוריה:עיראק ja:カテゴリ:イラク no:Kategori:Irak pl:Kategoria:Irak pt:Categoria:Iraque ro:Categorie:Irak ru:Категория:Ирак sr:Категорија:Ирак fi:Luokka:Irak sv:Kategori:Irak ta:பகுப்பு:ஈராக் tr:Kategori:Irak uk:Категорія:Ірак zh:Category:伊拉克

title: Category:Iraq


text:
Category:Mozambique

ar:تصنيف:موزمبيق de:Kategorie:Mosambik es:Categoría:Mozambique fa:رده:موزامبیک fr:Catégorie:Mozambique it:Categoria:Mozambico ja:カテゴリ:モザンビーク pl:Kategoria:Mozambik pt:Categoria:Moçambique ru:Категория:Мозамбик sq:Kategoria:Mozambik sr:Категорија:Мозамбик fi:Luokka:Mosambik sv:Kategori:Moçambique

title: Category:Mozambique


text:
Category:Brazil

ar:تصنيف:البرازيل bs:Kategorija:Brazil ca:Categoria:Brasil cs:Kategorie:Brazílie de:Kategorie:Brasilien el:Κατηγορία:Βραζιλία es:Categoría:Brasil eo:Kategorio:Brazilo fa:رده:برزیل fr:Catégorie:Brésil ko:분류:브라질 it:Categoria:Brasile ja:カテゴリ:ブラジル no:Kategori:Brasil pl:Kategoria:Brazylia pt:Categoria:Brasil ro:Categorie:Brazilia ru:Категория:Бразилия sq:Kategoria:Brazil sr:Категорија:Бразил fi:Luokka:Brasilia sv:Kategori:Brasilien ta:பகுப்பு:பிரேசில் tr:Kategori:Brezilya uk:Категорія:Бразилія zh:Category:巴西

title: Category:Brazil


text:
Category:Kenya

ar:تصنيف:كينيا cs:Kategorie:Keňa de:Kategorie:Kenia el:Κατηγορία:Κένυα es:Categoría:Kenia eo:Kategorio:Kenjo fa:رده:کنیا fr:Catégorie:Kenya ko:분류:케냐 it:Categoria:Kenya he:קטגוריה:קניה ja:カテゴリ:ケニア pl:Kategoria:Kenia pt:Categoria:Quênia ru:Категория:Кения sq:Kategoria:Kenia sr:Категорија:Кенија fi:Luokka:Kenia sv:Kategori:Kenya tr:Kategori:Kenya zh:Category:肯尼亚

title: Category:Kenya


text:
User:Jiang

 * Leave comments on my  TALK PAGE .

My real name is not Jiang. I am an undergraduate at the University of California, Berkeley. I have been a regular contributor at Wikipedia (w:User:Jiang) since April 2003 (and an administrator there since July 2003). I will be contributing mainly on East Asian politics.

title: User:Jiang


text:
Category:Africa

ar:تصنيف:أفريقيا bs:Kategorija:Afrika ca:Categoria:Àfrica cs:Kategorie:Afrika de:Kategorie:Afrika el:Κατηγορία:Αφρική es:Categoría:África eo:Kategorio:Afriko fa:رده:آفریقا fr:Catégorie:Afrique ko:분류:아프리카 it:Categoria:Africa he:קטגוריה:אפריקה ja:カテゴリ:アフリカ no:Kategori:Afrika pl:Kategoria:Afryka pt:Categoria:África ro:Categorie:Africa ru:Категория:Африка sq:Kategoria:Afrikë sr:Категорија:Африка fi:Luokka:Afrikka sv:Kategori:Afrika ta:பகுப்பு:ஆப்பிரிக்கா tr:Kategori:Afrika uk:Категорія:Африка zh:Category:非洲

title: Category:Africa


text:
Category:Vanuatu

cs:Kategorie:Vanuatu de:Kategorie:Vanuatu es:Categoría:Vanuatu fa:رده:وانواتو fr:Catégorie:Vanuatu it:Categoria:Vanuatu ja:カテゴリ:バヌアツ ru:Категория:Вануату sr:Категорија:Вануату sv:Kategori:Vanuatu uk:Категорія:Вануату

title: Category:Vanuatu


text:
Category:United Kingdom

ar:تصنيف:المملكة المتحدة bg:Категория:Обединено кралство bs:Kategorija:Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo ca:Categoria:Regne Unit cs:Kategorie:Spojené království de:Kategorie:Vereinigtes Königreich el:Κατηγορία:Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο es:Categoría:Reino Unido eo:Kategorio:Britujo fa:رده:بریتانیا fr:Catégorie:Royaume-Uni ko:분류:영국 it:Categoria:Regno Unito he:קטגוריה:בריטניה ja:カテゴリ:イギリス no:Kategori:Storbritannia pl:Kategoria:Wielka Brytania pt:Categoria:Reino Unido ro:Categorie:Marea Britanie ru:Категория:Великобритания sr:Категорија:Уједињено Краљевство fi:Luokka:Iso-Britannia sv:Kategori:Storbritannien ta:பகுப்பு:ஐக்கிய இராச்சியம் tr:Kategori:Birleşik Krallık uk:Категорія:Велика Британія zh:Category:英国

title: Category:United Kingdom


text:
Category:France

ar:تصنيف:فرنسا bs:Kategorija:Francuska ca:Categoria:França cs:Kategorie:Francie de:Kategorie:Frankreich el:Κατηγορία:Γαλλία es:Categoría:Francia eo:Kategorio:Francujo fa:رده:فرانسه fr:Catégorie:France ko:분류:프랑스 it:Categoria:Francia he:קטגוריה:צרפת ja:カテゴリ:フランス no:Kategori:Frankrike pl:Kategoria:Francja pt:Categoria:França ro:Categorie:Franța ru:Категория:Франция sq:Kategoria:Francë sr:Категорија:Француска fi:Luokka:Ranska sv:Kategori:Frankrike ta:பகுப்பு:பிரான்ஸ் tr:Kategori:Fransa uk:Категорія:Франція zh:Category:法國

title: Category:France


text: Category:Poland

title: Category:Poland


text:
Category:Europe

ar:تصنيف:أوروبا bg:Категория:Европа bs:Kategorija:Evropa ca:Categoria:Europa cs:Kategorie:Evropa de:Kategorie:Europa el:Κατηγορία:Ευρώπη es:Categoría:Europa eo:Kategorio:Eŭropo fa:رده:اروپا fr:Catégorie:Europe ko:분류:유럽 it:Categoria:Europa he:קטגוריה:אירופה ja:カテゴリ:ヨーロッパ no:Kategori:Europa pl:Kategoria:Europa pt:Categoria:Europa ro:Categorie:Europa ru:Категория:Европа sq:Kategoria:Evropë sr:Категорија:Европа fi:Luokka:Eurooppa sv:Kategori:Europa ta:பகுப்பு:ஐரோப்பா tr:Kategori:Avrupa uk:Категорія:Європа zh:Category:歐洲

title: Category:Europe


text:
Category:Middle East

ar:تصنيف:الشرق الأوسط bg:Категория:Близък Изток ca:Categoria:Orient Mitjà el:Κατηγορία:Μέση Ανατολή es:Categoría:Oriente Medio fa:رده:خاورمیانه fr:Catégorie:Moyen-Orient ko:분류:중동 it:Categoria:Medio Oriente he:קטגוריה:המזרח התיכון ja:カテゴリ:中近東 no:Kategori:Midtøsten pl:Kategoria:Bliski Wschód pt:Categoria:Oriente Médio ro:Categorie:Orientul Mijlociu ru:Категория:Ближний Восток sq:Kategoria:Lindje e Mesme fi:Luokka:Lähi-itä sv:Kategori:Mellanöstern ta:பகுப்பு:மத்திய கிழக்கு நாடுகள் tr:Kategori:Orta Doğu uk:Категорія:Близький Схід zh:Category:中东

title: Category:Middle East


text:
MediaWiki talk:Prefs-help-userdata

With MediaWiki ver.1.4, individual users can choose his own language for interface using Special:Preferences.

When I choose Japanese, for example, even the content of Mediawiki:Copyrightwarning change. Now it becomes the text prepared at Japanese Wikipedia. This means that the people using the Japanese interface does not see that contents should be placed under public domain, but instead see the message that contributions are released under GFDL.

If we take this seriously, it is a legal complication. So I would propose to get an agreement that all the users who change interface language into other than English are still bound by the texts like Mediawiki:copyrightwarning written in English that define important agreement, user's intent, warning, and other messages regarding the user and user's contributions.

More concretely, it means to insert a message like the following in this mediawiki page:
 * Language: You can choose interface language by changing this option. However, you agree that even after the change, the interface texts such as Mediawiki:copyrightwarning that appear to the users with English language interface will remain the valid texts that define important agreements, warning, your expressed intent, and other important issues regarding you and your contributions to English Wikinews. When those texts in English are modified while you are using other interface language, they still have the validity. Texts in other languages are not valid. Please do not use this option if you cannot agree with this.

I thought about this for a while and discussed on IRC with some others who know Mediawiki's code and server administration, and this was the only quick solution that I can think of. But I admit this sounds a bit against our spirit of multilingualism. If anyone has a better solution, I'd like to know.

Tomos 04:05, 12 12月 2004 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Prefs-help-userdata


text:
Portuguese government resigns

Portuguese Prime Minister Pedro Santana Lopes, along with his entire cabinet, resigned Saturday after President Jorge Sampaio dissolved the Western European nation's parliament.

The resignations came after Sampaio warned the government that it would be "politically limited" in the run-up to elections scheduled on February 20. Santana Lopes's Social Democrat Party is severely trailing the Socialists in public opinion polls, reports indicate.

After a slew of crises during Santana Lopes's tenure, including poor credit ratings and accusations of media censorship, Sampaio dissolved the parliament on Friday in an attempt to restore credibility to the nation. He then scheduled new elections ahead of the ones already scheduled for 2006.

title: Portuguese government resigns


text:
Category:December 11, 2004

de:Kategorie:11.12.2004 it:Categoria:11 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 11, 2004


text:
Category:December 10, 2004

de:Kategorie:10.12.2004 it:Categoria:10 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 10, 2004


text:
Talk:Veteran sergeant accounts US torture coverup

I've organized this discussion to make it easier to read.

Article is POV
I've noticed that Carlosar put in: a deletion request for this article (now retracted by him after discussion- thanks!). I've edited out some facts that may seem to have a POV, and hope that this would make the piece far simpler. I'd like to request assistance on this piece. I think it's important, and want to work with the community to help make it better. thanks for your help! nw 18 Dec 2004 (EST)
 * I don't think any facts should be edited out at all. Facts don't have POV, only opinions. I'll help with the piece, as I've come across a radio show that interviewed the author.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have put the page at the Deletion Request because it was very bad and abandoned. Since after I have put the page at the Deletion Request there have been a effort in increasing the quality of the page; so the Deletion Request was not so bad at all. Wikinews is very small and there are many articles which are left alone, not edited, not reviewed or poorly reviewed. I think that this kind of trouble will be minor in the future, when there will be more wikinews users. But now, I could not think in another thing than putting the article at the Deletion Request. I think it was a right decision because the quality of the article at that point was really bad. -- Carlosar 16:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your encouragement, Herda05. I have access to the original article, but not sure how I can get it to you. nw 23:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments - I'm new here and appreciate your critical feedback. If you read the source material, I think you'll find it credible (the FBI is taking it seriously, for instance). There are many verifications of the facts from witnesses, too. I welcome and ask for your editing and additions and improvements. I'm trying to learn. thanks! I agree that my writing was bad - mostly due to a very quick jotting down of ideas - i've fixed it up a bit, but it could use more help. It may seem propaganda or NPOV, on it's face, but I think if you see how I qualified all the statements, and you read the article, you'll see there were many credible witnesses, and the research appears solid. I don't think this is propaganda at all, and I don't think the un-NPOV holds either, but if you have specific arguments, etc, i'm eager to hear them. Please read the article in full if you haven't. It's pretty amazing. I'd encourage others to weigh in, and encurage removal of the dispute issues. Thanks all. nw 18 Dec 2004 (EST)
 * nw its hard to find anything currently in the aticle that can be disputed--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, of course, but was willing to hear arguments, as i'm new here. Please weigh in on the deletion page, too, as it is just my opinion there so far - others please join if you agree. thanks! nw 23:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article is Propaganda
It seems mere propaganda. Not worth. -- Carlosar 06:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 16:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) : This article is very bad written, not NPOV and it seems propaganda. However I think it can be published if it gets corrected. The correction demands a good work. Someone good in English could help.
 * Carlosar, it might be helpful if you could make specific suggestions on what needs to be altered rather than vague generalizations about POV and propaganda.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official supression of torture complaints? Seems very worthwhile to me. The whole reason Bush & Rumsfeld got off so lightly on Abu Ghraib was because they alleged that torture ocurred in only "a few", "isolated" incidents. If complaints of torture are being supressed, this speaks of a wider, systemic problem. I'll help with the article once I've slept. -- Jeortiz 11:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Should be Deleted
Carlosar 16:23, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC): There are another big trouble with this article too. It is about a accusation but the references are poor and not reliable.
 * The article is a good candidate to deletion request.
 * Why is it a good candidate for a deletion request. I think as Jeortiz points out, this seems very worthwhile to me as well.
 * This article should not be deleted in order to preserve our supposed democracy. If America is going to try and start a democracy in the East, it should demonstrate a good example and let its own people speak.  We can think for ourselves, and this is one article of information that should not be supressed by the seemingly brainwashed people and the elite who (classically) desire not to be responsible for their actions.  Let me speak on your thought that the source is not reliable.  Those in power have told you what is reliable.  CNN and many other news outlets considered reliable have consistently published inaccurate and many times biased information.  I'll end this by saying something very simple: we can think for ourselves and we need all of the information about an issue to make a better conclusion.--Komplexnous 15:23, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 12:05, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) -- I am not against this kind of article criticizing US actions in Iraq, but, this article is very weak. I think maybe this was not your intention but this article is sensacionalist, POV and propaganda. Your article will not be considered serious if you did not write it according good editor parameters.
 * Carlosar, can you point out something that you think is sensationalist in the article that we can correct? Are you disputing the sergents account of witnessing torture, a coverup, or both? Do you have any facts you can cite that contradict the sergeant? Right now the article is so bereft of information it seems an almost random collection of statements regarding the incident. I will be putting in more information and would appreciate it if you would give comments.--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The article is from a reliable source: salon.com. It is not at all propaganda - the journalist has solicited feedback from many sources.  It may have been initially poorly written, but I'd like to thank Herda05 helping improve it. I'm new here : ).  It is very far from a frivolous issue.  that argument is particularly concerning to me. Carlosar entered that argument on the deletion request page (Separate from this page). The source article presents facts that make a strong case for a cover-up by a particular Captain, at minimum.  Maybe I haven't written that clearly enough into my original piece, but that is reason for revision, not deletion.  if you read the source material, I think you'll find it credible (the FBI is taking it seriously, for instance). nw 00:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- It's perfectly obvious, that the propagandist here is Carlosar. American mainstream media already does good job blocking this kind of stories, PLEASE don't mimic it here. One can't really be any more neutral when reporting man's CLAIMS. Of course, you *should* try to reach the other party for comment... --Klaus Eduard 16:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion. There are a lot of people who think just the opposite of you. -- Carlosar 16:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Should be Expanded
I acutally think this article should be expanded. I've read the introduction on salon.com regarding the reference article, "Whitewashing torture?", but can't pay the subscription fee to read the rest. The fact that other news organizations haven't picked this story up is indicative to me of a climate of self-censorship in American media.
 * But also this can be a indicative that the story is not reliable and maybe is untrue. -- Carlosar 03:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reasoning. Editors must make decisions everyday regarding what to cover and what not to cover. The overwhelming problem with major media organizations is that they are corporate. Their primary concern is return on investment for shareholders, not informing the public. Editors will be pressured by the system they work in to go with stories that sell more papers. Sometimes that means the public gets informed about issues, sometimes it means the public gets informed about what marketing research says will sell more advertising. Because a story is not picked up by major media is not in itself an indication either way regarding of it's factual accuracy. It is an indication that some kind of self-censorship has taken place. The reasons for that self-censorship could be factual accuracy or could just as easily be the desire to sell more papers, but that is merely speculation.--Herda05 17:10, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't this what wikinews would be perfectly suited for? The ability to report on stories that aren't being reported by other outlets, and to report storeis that get locked away from public consumption through subscribtion only news outlets?--Herda05 23:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting that Carlosar should criticise the article's English, when he obviously can't write it himelf.

About POV and sensationalism
When a American soldier is made captive by an Arabian soldier, if he is luck, he will be beheaded quicklly and the Arabian soldier will get a medall. When an Arabian soldier is made captive by Americans and he is not well treated, the Arabian soldier is quicklly repaired and the American soldiers get a Martial Court.
 * What you have said here has no bearing on whether David DeBatto's report is accurate--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Iraq soldiers torture was not very different than the torture suffered by some nerds when they get into the University. I think the Iraq soldiers must be well treated, and I am against bad treatment at all, but I say you must be carefull when you say torture. Besides the governement of the USA officially condemns any bad treatment to prisioners. Some Arabian leaders, on contrary, praise when an Arabian soldier clearly tortures an American soldier. The torture suffered by the Iraq soldiers are a isolated case(and unfortunaltely this happens in every war) but the torture suffered by American soldiers are a rule. If you have to be a prisioner, would you like to be a prisioner of whom? Would you like to be a prisioner of the American army or a prisioner of the Saddam army? Think about it and be honest.
 * You are stating "Iraq soldiers torture was not very different than the torture suffered by some nerds when they get into the University" as if this was fact. Provide us evidence to reveiw the merits of your argument. Your belief or opinion regarding the comparison between the torture of Iraqis and American University "hazing" needs to be supported.
 * My personal preferences regarding who I should want to be a prisoner of are inconsequential to whether this article is POV, and in and of themselves are POV. Any personal feelings I have on the matter are POV. This has nothing to do whatsoever with whether David DeBatto's reports is accurate--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not against you publishing the article(mainly if the articel is true), but I say you must be very carefully otherwise you will get a POV article and you will be just making propaganda or hypocrisy. The "American torture" is clearly different of the "Arabian torture". I think you can do a better work than this at least(Something has emproveed since my last reading, but it is not good yet. Demands a little more work. Unfortunately I dont have too much time now. I hope I have helped.) -- Carlosar 03:28, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "American torture" or "Arabian torture", besides your own distiniction which is POV. Torture is defined in U.S. law as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.” . What David DeBatto is reporting is that "torture" under this definition is going on, and further, that the U.S. military is covering it up. If you disagree with the facts of DeBatto's report, provide references that contradict Sergeant Ford's statements. To date you have only provide statements of your own beleif and opinion, and you have every right to refuse to believe the facts as stated by Sergeant Ford. That does not make the Sergeant's story any less accurate though.--Herda05 17:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The case of the sergeant begin forced repeatedly to undertake psychiatric examinations can in itself be tantamount to torture. See the way that dissidnts in Soviet Union were considered as psychiatric cases. If the practice of evacuating soldiers who show moral concerns about the war for psychiatric reasons while their are fit gets widespread, this will be a major issue in terms of Human Rights -- from the US governemnt toward its soldiers.

 * On the other hand, the question of the torture practised by Islamist Iraqi Resistance factions is irrevenlant (tu quoque logical fallacy). I do not at all mean that you are trying to decieve us by bad faith -- I know that this kind of arguments come easily at your mind whithout your knowing. Bu the fact that the "others" are doing bad things does not in any way authorise the USA to do the same things, even to a lesser extand. The USA are a modern, civilised, democratic state : they are expected to live by higher standards than a bunch of Islamist desesperados.

 * Carlosar has now stated above: "I am not against you publishing the article". So, Carlosar, can you remove your deletion request? And we'll hear and discuss your concerns and try to address them? Thanks! nw 01:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An important question
Is the case true? Can you assure it? The POV media cited in the source usually publishes articles which are not true. Be carefull. -- Carlosar 09:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Can you provide examples of fake news published without reserves (autenticity warnings) by both Democracy Now! and Salon.com ? In the affirmative, we will have to take more caution with this news; it the negative, whil this will not in itself acertain the autenticity of the news, it would make comments such as "the source usually publishes articles which are not true" a little bit gratuitious.

 * This is an important question Carlosar, but you have done nothing but raise it. We can not answer the question for you. The onus is on you to review the sources we've cited and the facts as Sergeant Ford has relayed them to David DeBatto and choose to either believe them or disbelieve them. Any reporter can only report the evidence he has gathered to support his statements in his article. It is up to the reader to decide whether the evidence the reporter has provided is enough to justify his statements. I believe what David DeBatto has reported based on the evidence he has provided. From reading the comments I think others have as well. If you or anybody else has evidence to discredit Sergeant Ford's statements then I think we'd be glad to to read it and even cite it in the article.
 * As for Democracy Now! being POV media, all media is POV. Anything we as humans do is POV. This disucssion should not be about whether Democracy Now! is POV, but wether the article as it stands is POV by distorting or omitting facts that are relevant to it's conclusion. Please see Rama's comments as well.--Herda05 18:16, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Time!! From start to finish: Dec 8 > Dec 23. 23-8=15 days. Hot stuff, guys.

Are you sure this article is true?
If you look closely at the photograph of Mr. Ford, you will see that there is an insignia on top of his left breast pocket. It is the insignia of the Navy Seals, or the budweiser badge as it is commonly refered to. Mr. Ford is wearing the uniform while on active duty displaying a badge he did not earn. That being said and denoting the importance of these badges and insignias in the military perhaps it would be best to consider leaving Mr. Ford's account to the dark corners of the internet. Also, Mr. Ford was known as Doctor Ford. He even used to sign with the M.D. Suffix on his name. Never mind that Mr. Ford is not a doctor. So, taking into consideration that this person makes allegations of torture, while pretending to be a Navy Seal and a Doctor, makes you kind of wonder the veracity of his statements. Also, it is nice to note that Mr. DeBatto, describes events in his article that never actually happened. For example. In trying to show what a poor leader Col. Pappas is, he mentions the fact that 3 soldiers died while in transit to his Change Of Command Ceremony. That never took place. In reality, the soldiers died while travelling to LTC Griffin's Change Of Command Ceremony, one of COL. Pappas' subordinate commanders. Mr. DeBatto mentioned the fact that the 223rd was one of the first divisions to enter Iraq after the "Shock and Awe" aerial bombardment. Well. The fact that the 223rd was one of the first "UNITS" to enter the war is almost true. Elements of the 223rd MI Bn entered Iraq early in the war. But those elements were attached and/or assigned to the 519th MI Bn (ABN TE). The HQ Section was safely in Kuwait awaiting movement orders (including DeBatto and Ford). DeBatto calls the 223rd a "division". Anybody who knows military doctrine can tell you that a Division is a military unit composed of many brigades and battalions. For an "intelligence expert" to call a battalion "a division" makes you kind of wonder if he is truly that familiar with simple military structure. Is the trying to make it sound like the 223rd is a huge unit? Or is he just showing his ignorance in simple military doctrine and terminology. Ford mentions the fact that "no medevac order" was written. That is not cover up material. That is just a sign of the fact that the headquarters section of the 223rd did not know how to operate in that environment. The 223rd MI Bn (L) (prior to the OIF I deployment) had never been to war. Many rules and regulations were broken or omitted not due to "conspiracy", but just plain ignorance and lack of knowledge. No person be it civilian or military is authorized into a military aircraft without being entered into the aircraft' Manifest. That is a matter of procedure. Mr. Ford's departure from the theater is a known fact. Everybody in the unit knew about it, and most were glad about it. Carlosar
 * Carlosar, none of this changes two important facts that make this a story wothy of wikinews, to us and the world. 1) The FBI, Army Criminal Investigations, and Army's Inspector General ALL believe Ford's story has merit and that his allegations deserve investigation. 2)No one has come out disputing Ford's charges.

 * This is a news story reporting that Sgt. Ford has alleged the U.S. Army is covering up torture. Nothing more than that. It is not a news story saying that the torture is happening, or that Ford's story is true. It is relating Ford's allegations and indicating that they are under investigation. If you disagree with Ford's allegations that is your right. If you feel that the allegations regarding Ford being a braggart and exagerator are true, that is your right. If you feel that David DeBatto is an amateur, that is your right. Opposeing release of Ford's story for others to review and make their own judgements about is wrong. You were able to review the evidence presented in the article, and have yourself helped to uncover more information regarding Ford for inclusion in the article. Why do you still feel that people should be denied the same opportunity you yourself have?--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * DeBatto refutes comments similar to those posted by Carlosar here | DeBatto's refutation of points - scroll to find them. nw 16:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rebuttal from Dave DeBatto here:
"I have heard all these comments before of course, but from other sources. Some of them were Pentagon "plants", some were sincere. Let me just address a few points off the top of my head.

1) Ford, to the best of my knowledge, and to me personally in several lengthy interviews, never said he was a SEAL. He made a clear distinction of being "attached" to the SEALs in the early 1980's as a medic. This is a fact I have verified beyond all doubt by both official Navy documents and direct testimony from people that were there. The folks at authentiseal.org, whom I spoke with, make no distinction between those saying they were attached to a SEAL team (which WAS done with medics for a time in the 1980's is seems) and those claiming to have been SEALs. It is just their policy and I personally think it is unfortunate. Authentiseal.org have never asked to see the evidence Ford has about his service, nor contacted him so he can defend the claims against him (as the website says they do with all persons so accused) before posting his name on their site. That is perhaps very dangerous ground, legally. Just my lay opinion.

2) Yes, I really do know the difference between a "division" and a battalion". I was in MI my entire Army career. That was a last minute change by a Salon editor without my approval. It happens.

3) He called himself "Doc" when I met him too at Fort Bragg in February 2003. However, I asked him right away if he was an MD or PhD. and he told me no, he was just a medic, but he has always been referred to as "Doc" since becoming a Navy medic over 30 years ago. It just kind of stuck he said. He also said he was in some kind of medical school or internship, which, upon later research, turned out to be true. It ain't Harvard, but it is a legitimate medical school.

4) Ford IS an inveterate braggart. This is beyond question as far as I am concerned. However, although that trait may make him unpopular with some, it does not make him a liar. Some people seem to have a hard time separating the two.

5) His "castle in Scotland" that he has been accused of inventing, turns out to be a time-share kind of arrangement for a castle which is indeed in Scotland, with the St. Andrews Society, of which he is a member. My wife also is a member. It is legit.

5) This letter writer obviously has an ax to grind with Ford. I don't. Neither do I have an ax to grind with Artiga or any of the members of Ford's team from Samarra. My dealings with them were always pleasant and I found them to be good soldiers, CI agents and considered them friends and comrades. I never even talked with Ford about the incident while in Iraq or until one year afterwards after Abu Ghraib was made public. I was asked to write a story about it and I did.

Bottom line, my inquiry into the facts of this issue revealed two glaring facts to me; Ford's allegation were not investigated prior to him being sent to Landstuhl, despite official statement to the contrary and he was not mentally unstable as was stated by his superiors at the time. This alone should dictate further official inquiry into this matter.

Enough said.

Regards,

Dave DeBatto"

 * Can we trust in DeBatto story?. It seems he is an amateur reporter giving his opinion about a fact. Are we giving an authorized wikireporter permission to Debatto now? You see, I am just talking about possible issues related to Wikinews quality policy. ---Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * DeBatto's status as an amatuer has nothing to do with the truth of Ford's story. I also beleive that everyone here is an amateur, so by your reasoning, should everything on wikinews be suspect? Wikinews currently has not set a quality policy, as far as I know.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * He mentions that Ford went by 'Doc' as a nickname -- he was the medic for his team!
 * Why didnt he said that first? He was at least malitious.--Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The Salon.com article mentioned that Ford was a medic for his team, actually. The allegation that Frank was referred to as 'Doc' came up _after_ the publication of the article, and DeBatto quite effectively responded to that above imho.  nw 17:36, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Carlosar's points avoid addressing how all Army doctors have found Ford sane. nw 02:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why dont we ask to the doctors? Is it possible?
 * IF you want to continue the research into the story beyond David Debatto's original reporting, feel free to do so. I've written an email to David Debatto, but beyond that demands too much of my time. I didn't sign up to wikinews to become a reporter, rather an editor and poster of news that I think is under reported elsewhere.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Col. C. Tsai, the doctor who examined Ford in Germany was interviewed independently by Spiegel Television, Germany. This is reported in the original Salon.com article.

 * No other media has published this news. Even the POV Al-Jahzera. Should Wikinews accept this article? Besides, even the sargeant is a true person, he is an anonymous unknown person accusing known people. This is not journalism. -- Carlosar 01:00, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * See Speigel Television, Germany reference above, Salon.com is a highly reputable publication, Plus there are 3 independent government investigations into this now. nw 17:30, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It is exactly what good journalists do. Reporters file stories all the time that relate events from "unknown" persons. If being "known" was a requirement for news, then only government officials and famous people would be sources for news. The Los Angeles Times reports stories based on information from unknown soldiers and generals all the time (i.e. Maryland Arson and Charges and Countercharges), is it your argument that those articles in the Los Angeles Times should not be accepted as news?

 * Fake SEAL accuses soldiers of torture -- Carlosar 01:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hiding torture Soviet-style
 * As Debatto pointed out in his reply, and nw links to, these accusations are Ad Homminem attacks that have nothing to with the veracity of Ford's allegations.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Other websites which talk about the case show a copy of the same article. There is only one source copied and distributed around the internet. There are some blogs and websites which contest the news claims. -- Carlosar 03:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post that information as part of the article. The more information the better.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem remains: An almost anonymous and unknown person accuses other people. Is it right? Can we accept that? What kind of troubles can we have in the future case we allow this? -- Carlosar 03:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * We can report the information we have and let other poepl decied if it is right, that is what news reporting is all about. I welcome the future case where this occurs. Providing the information is what the reporter's job is.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * There were multiple witnesses inteviewed in the piece, not just one person. nw 17:43, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * new source material added: internal FBI document shows the Sacramento FBI office took torture and cover-up allegations of an individual seriously enough to warrant an investigation. Allegation is likely contained in (but censored out) in the attached "Urgent Report" to "The Director" of the FBI. (the unnamed individual is likely Ford, because this is the office where he reportedly filed one of his complaints). Dave DeBatto, the author, pointed me to this. It took a Freedom of Information Act Lawsuit by the ACLU for this document to be published.

nw 23:18, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I just have pointed out some possible issues about this article. Anyway if you think there is no trouble and you guarantee it is ok and reliable, unless someone else contests the claims, I am obliged to accept the article. I think my work is finished here.-- 12:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Carlosar we all appreciate vigilance regarding truth, but the issues you raised speak nothing about whether Ford's story is true, they just attack his character but do not refute his allegations. If you are obliged to accept the article, accept it because there has been no information presented that refutes the claims made by Ford. No one here is guaranteing that what Ford said is true, what we are garunteeing is that when it is determined that Ford's allegations ARE true of false, that will be reported in this article.--Herda05 15:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * So, it is Ok. You see, if I think I see something wrong with the article I must say, so other people say what they think too. This is review, sometimes I have to say something other people dont like because this is the reviewer job: he says what he thinks it is right or wrong. Since there are people supporting this article and no one else against it, I think it is ok.--- Carlosar 17:08, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next step?
I think I have finished my review. The article has been here for a long time. What is the next step now? Should we do a poll for the publication of the article ? Should we put the POV logo out, or just leave as it is? I have started the discussion, now I would like to left the work to yours. -- Carlosar 15:28, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm ready for a poll. We might spend more time addressing concerns, though, too. I also think the POV logo should be taken out. Thanks to _everyone_ for their participation! This has been interesting! nw 17:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have removed the POV logo. If someone else is against it put the logo back again. I have removed the review logo because according to the new rules it is not used in Wikinews anymore(if I am wrong please, correct me). -- Carlosar 19:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have moved the news to the Latest news section because this article is getting old and it has been here for a long time. This is a kind of trouble, articles get edited and reviewed for a long time. Maybe with a lot of more people in the future, we will not have this kind of trouble. -- Carlosar 19:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Additional email from David DeBatto
and (in addition to allowing me to post his previous email (above)), he added this:
 * All, I corresponded via email with David DeBatto,(the reporter for the Salon.com article),

".... One final thought. The change of command ceremony "John" said never happened, in fact did happen as stated in the article and was for "full bird" (O-6) Colonel Parrish (not the Lt. Col. John referenced) to hand over command of the 205th MI Brigade to Col. Pappas on July 1 2003.

Pappas was actually in place and present at Anaconda at least two weeks prior to the ceremony making the transition and settling in. That puts him there at the time of the incident with Ford that I referenced. The three 519th soldiers were killed as I said, although it was prior to actual ceremony by several days or even weeks, I don't remember and it is irrelevant. It was, in my opinion, a needless tragedy, a sentiment felt by many other soldiers present at the time as well. I don't know who was to blame for that nor do I accuse anyone.

A minor point, to be sure, but since minor points seems to be important to "John" and not the substance of the story, I thought I would throw it out as well.

Again, at least three federal investigative agencies have deemed Ford's allegations credible enough to initiate investigations. Please refer John and anyone else interested to either the NYT article this week or the ACLU website for complete access to the documents. All I have tried to do is lay out the facts as I found them and make observations based on those facts. Not everyone will agree. That's fine and as it should be. If John was indeed at Anaconda he knows that I served with honor and bear no malice to anyone that I served with or for. Not everyone, including John apparently, can say that.

I now believe I know who "John" is and I think he should voice his concerns to the appropriate investigative agencies to make sure all sides on this case are heard, even from people who publish numerous rants on several Internet websites calling Ford a "liar" and "crazy" and worse.

Happy Holidays!

Regards, Dave DeBatto" -- published with permission of DeBatto by: nw 16:38, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finished?
I think the article is finished. I suggest you put it at the Latest News soon. The news is getting old(although I think this is not a problem at all).-- Carlosar 18:54, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have already done that. If you have something against it, please remove the article from the Latest News and put it here back again.-- Carlosar

Reopen the issue?
Unfortunately I have to add the Dispute logo because the issue has been reopened. I dont want to put my rebuttals here in this article, neither I will write something about it because I dont want to continue on a never-ending discussion. I think it is still ok letting the De Batto rebuttals in the Talk page of the other article. But, please, lets finish this issue. Everything you and me could say about the matter has already been said. -- Carlosar 21:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS:I agree about deleting the Dispute logo of this page if other people agree about deleting the Dispute logo at the other article too.

Really finished this time
If anybody cares, all investigations into the torture allegations have been finished (FBI, CID, et al.). Conclusion? Nothing was found to substantiate Mr. Ford's allegations. Just a POV to put the last nail in the coffin. Mr. Ford fabricated the story, and Mr. Debatto sold it. The commanders who sent him out for his own mental health are all still in the National Guard of California and are keeping their ranks. No letters of reprimand were included in their records. The "accused" either finished their terms and got Honorable Discharges or are still serving honorably in their respective National Guard units.

Of course, this could all mean that the government did an outstanding job in covering up the whole affair, but given the effectiveness of the National Guard, I seriously doubt it. John (tht73a@yahoo.com)


text:
Talk:Former Pantera-guitarist Dimebag Darrell killed on stage

I have seen something about at the television. The news seems ok. Someone could check the writting.-- Carlosar 06:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cleared the syntax in the final paragraph, work still needed on the article as a whole. Rje 19:01, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the article's sparsity has the required amount of respect for the band and fans. To add details would emphasize the life and death of the madman, and detract from the expression of tragedy that is warranted. I updated the summary on the date-organized list, because the name of the killer was wrong, and the legendary musician as the main target of this "fan" of a dysfunctional broken-up band, was not expressed.


text:
User:Eloquence/State of the Wiki: December 12, 2004

It's been an exciting first month for the Wikinews project. Let me briefly recap the history. I formally requested the creation of Wikinews as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation on October 10, 2004. By that time, I had the domain name under my control (which had been a bit of an issue), and had completely reworked the proposal on Meta-Wiki, the coordination wiki used by all Wikimedia projects.

Based on a long discussion on the foundation-l mailing list, I removed some of the more controversial bits of my initial proposal (editorials, an accreditation scheme for reporters). We also agreed that we could not just launch the project without asking for community approval. This was a historic first for the Foundation: Projects like Wiktionary and Wikiquote had just been created on an ad hoc basis when people had expressed interest in working on them. This approach was no longer workable for an organization with thousands of volunteer contributors from around the world, which had taken in more than $100,000 in donations already. What was needed was a vote.

I had organized votes before, such as the shockingly huge Wikipedia logo contest, so I proceeded to create a voting page on Meta for the purpose and announced the vote on October 22, 2004. The vote was open until November 12, 2004.

Voting went fairly well, though there were language pages where there was significant opposition to the project. The Chinese community in particular was worried that a Wikinews project might further endanger the existing Chinese Wikimedia content in terms of government censorship. Some prominent Wikimedians, including Anthere, an elected member of the Board of Trustees, opposed the project. Blog-celebrities like Joi Ito and Dan Gillmor expressed significant skepticism. , Many worried that Wikinews would hurt Wikimedia's reputation, not be able to live up to its mission, and waste resources.

Still, shortly before the vote was closed, a demo site was set up at demo.wikinews.org to demonstrate the feasibility of the project to the Foundation Board, which would make the final call on its creation, in light of the outcome of the vote but not bound by it. In spite of the objections, a large majority of the community voted in favor, including the other two active Wikimedia board members, Angela and Jimbo Wales.

At this point, I started setting up the basic structure of the website as I envisioned it, with region pages like North America and topical pages like Politics and conflicts. I also formulated a proposal for a review process which, in its current form, resides at Article stages. Some initial decisions had to be made: Should articles be in a separate namespace before they are "published"? Should datelines be part of article titles?

I tried to keep things simple. The most complex aspect of the site in its early stage was the review process. I created a Template:Review outline which was supposed to be the framework in which review discussions would take place. The first version of the template still required consensus in all the different categories: neutrality, accuracy, legality, policy compliance, and comprehensiveness.

The first article that properly passed through review was, as I recall it, President of China lunches with Brazilian President. It seemed like a good start. Nothing spectacular, but also not the kind of thing you would find on the CNN frontpage - a story written based on the interests of the primary contributor. Soon many other people started contributing, people I admire for the time they spent on this project so far, and who deserve most of the credit for what Wikinews is today and where it is going.

Things worked reasonably well with the intial community, but the site did not grow as fast as it could have. Soon we would have to face an essential question: Do we want to make it easy to get stories published? Or do we want to enforce quality control before we make stories visible to the general readership? On November 23, 2004, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales made some edits in favor of the first option. He argued that the site needed to be in a state of creative chaos, especially in its early stage, in order for people to be comfortable working on it, and for the processes to evolve naturally, through the wiki model.

I mostly agreed with Jimmy's concerns, and had already tagged policies with Template:Proposed policy to encourage users to edit and improve them as they see fit. My only point of disagreement is that I prefer to work on the basis of what is there, rather than creating too many separate processes and inviting people to do whatever they want. My approach is not without problems -- if the initial authors of the suggested policies are uncooperative, they can try to block any substantial changes. I have, however, always been open to radically rethinking the way we do things around here.

In the coming days, I and others made a few changes to simplify the procedures. The structured review outline was removed, and instead, users were encouraged to simply voice any objections to articles in review on the discussion page. The rules of review were relaxed so that even an article which did not receive any comments during the review stage could pass through it. Eventually, the review process was made optional altogether.

The project was approved by the Board of Trustees and officially launched on December 3, 2004 in English and German. New editions can be requested on Wikinews/Start a new edition and will be set up according to user interest. The initial media attention was quite intense (partially through my own doing with this Slashdot story and this lengthy Kuro5hin piece) and has put all our deficiencies in the spotlight. We are not afforded a period of quiet build-up as Wikipedia was in its early days. We should be prepared for heavy criticism, and not be discouraged by it.

The article guidelines right now are very simple. You can write about everything: edit Template:Editor tasks and get going. As long as you consider your article to be unfinished, you should not yet add it to the index pages, but instead tag it with. If you feel your article is very good, you can submit it for community review by adding at the bottom -- but this is optional. See Article stages for other, optional, tags.

The current tagging system is a kind of accelerated process similar to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, though the criteria are more formal and less targeted towards brilliance. This seems like a reasonable compromise to me: We still encourage our contributors to engage in quality control, but we do not require it, allowing for more rapid growth, while clearly informing our readers about the state an article is in. I think that a formal Wikipedia peer review process will work similarly to that.

There are lots of open questions with regard to article development, particularly when we want to consider an article "stable" or even freeze it. On this issue, too, I am open to all possibilities. We might want to opt for a system where changes are always possible, but where we have better tools for patrolling them. For instance, a change to an article that is weeks old might be especially highlighted on Special:Recentchanges, so that other editors can bring it in compliance with a policy. The article body could provide more intuitive links to view the differences between recent article revisions.

We have had no experiences with original reporting so far. We should take some careful first steps in this area soon. I still believe that we will want to build a system where Wikinews regulars can accumulate a real-world reputation that they can use to be accredited as journalists by organizations, companies, goverments, and so forth. That is essential for us to become competitive with other news media.

The main difficulty I see with our current model is the necessity to manually update index pages like the Main Page. Information like the date of publication or the review state, if it is desired, has to be manually entered. The more index pages there are, the more difficult this process becomes. At some point, the whole site ceases to be scalable.

I believe that Wikinews will lead us forward on the path of convergence between blogs and wikis, something I have described in some detail in my book. The way to handle the indexing issue, I think, is to make it possible to display newsfeeds of articles in particular categories, sorted by their creation date: essentially a category filter on Special:Newpages. Multiple such feeds should be insertable like templates on any page. They could include information beyond the title and date, such as the first paragraph of text from the article or the review status. They could be made available as RSS feeds, one of the most requested features (you can use the feed for Special:Newpages for now).

I think the maintenance of multiple index pages only truly becomes feasible with this functionality, and that until then, we should stick to keeping our Main Page nice and current.

Right now, many articles are in review and stay there. That is not necessarily a problem if we consider the review process to be essentially timeless, make the tags slightly less obnoxious by putting them at the bottom, etc. We will, however, probably want to invite more contributors to participate in the review, and cultivate a strong belief in quality control and journalistic ethics. As always, software changes can facilitate this -- see Wikiflow for some of my ideas on the matter -- but I don't think that should be our highest priority at the present time.

Is Wikinews already a competitive news source? Hardly, but that would have been quite a feat with less than 10 days of official operations. Our software has not been made for indexing news stories, and that is increasingly a visible problem. I'm a semi-active contributor to the MediaWiki codebase, but how much I can do to help Wikinews along will depend on what else I'm doing at the time, including the need to pay the rent. If you are firm in PHP and MySQL, please help us out in making the software more suitable for what we're doing.

Our processes are still very basic and rough, and will need lots of refinement over time. More Wikinews language editions will help us to gather data about what works and what doesn't.

The big question is, of course, whether volunteers can create a competitive news source. Looking at the thousands of bloggers who are doing a large part of what we're doing, but separately and without consistent standards of quality control, I do think it's possible. We need to get those people involved, we need to make it super-easy for anyone to contribute stories, we need to make quality control a rewarding and easy to understand process, and we need to keep the site maintainable, interesting and fun. I consider Wikinews in many ways a bigger challenge than Wikipedia, but it is a challenge that I am willing to face with you all.

I have a very simple philosophy that I think every child should be taught as soon as possible. It's that mistakes are a good thing, not a bad thing, if we learn from them, and change our actions accordingly. I invite you to find new and exciting mistakes for us to make and learn from. We have a chance to create something unique and important, but it will require passion, dedication, and a willingness to question everything.

Erik Möller

Berlin, December 12, 2004


text:
User talk:Eloquence/State of the Wiki: December 12, 2004

I think the biggest mistake is that we are focusing too much on our long term goals rather than our short term goals. One of our stated goals is being a competitor to news agencies like AP and Reuters. But even if something like this is possible, it is many, many years away before we can have that kind of quality and variety of articles. For now, we must focus on what can make us valuable in the short term. So we can't look to these agencies as a model for us to follow. In addition, having brief summaries of news that has already been covered better by everyone else will not make us valuable. I don't think blogs are valuable for summarizing the news, but for finding news interesting to their readers and having an opinion on it. This too is not the model Wikinews can follow. Instead we must figure out what it is we can do well. But we already know, don't we? Our mission statement says Wikinews will be useful "because it will provide free, neutral, integrated summaries of the news from elsewhere." It other words, our strength and value will lie in the quality of our articles. This is where we must focus our efforts. We can't just wait and hope having more people will improve the quality, we must figure out how to improve the quality now. I've written up these thoughts and more, along with a proposal on how to pool our resources on creating quality articles (rather than everyone doing their own thing), at Quality over Quantity. We only have one short term goal listed in our mission statement, and we are already failing it. Maybe some of you will think I'm jumping the gun, and that it needs more time to develop. But how much time should we give it? At the very least, we need to have more specific short term goals. Otherwise, how will we know things are moving in the right direction? - TalkHard 09:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Coalition talks between Israeli Likud and Labour parties underway

In Israel, key political parties have begin conversations to form a new government. The Likud party and the Labour party intend to cooperate to ensure a stable formation. If the process works as planned, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can start his plan to evacuate Gaza. Mr. Sharon needed new coalition partners after sacking Shinui from government.


text:
Talk:Coalition talks between Israeli Likud and Labour parties underway

I've just started this article, but there are some problems with my English. Would someone like to check it??? And the article is so short, because there has been already so much talking about, that I fear to repeat to many facts. koko 13:32, 12 dec 2004 (UTC)

The original story included the phrase International reporters think the agreement between the Likud party and the Labour party was already made, but for the world it has to seem like it is all new. — I could not find that in the source that was accessible (BBC News), so I removed it. If you can find a working link that substantiates this claim, please add them back in. -- IlyaHaykinson 20:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know, it isn't in this article, but on the Belgian television thet talked about it, and they had a converstation obout it with the Dutch people. koko 16:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text: User talk:70.70.95.226

title: User talk:70.70.95.226


text:
Talk:Taiwan Voters Move Away From Chen's Agenda

Article also published http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-11/24896.html. Much is exact text from linked reference.

 * Please sign your posts. It was first published by Voice of America and is therefore in the public domain. --Jiang 06:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Category:December 12, 2004

de:Kategorie:12.12.2004 it:Categoria:12 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 12, 2004


text:
Category:December 13, 2004

de:Kategorie:13.12.2004 it:Categoria:13 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 13, 2004


text:
Category:Portugal

ar:تصنيف:البرتغال bs:Kategorija:Portugal ca:Categoria:Portugal cs:Kategorie:Portugalsko de:Kategorie:Portugal el:Κατηγορία:Πορτογαλία es:Categoría:Portugal fa:رده:پرتغال fr:Catégorie:Portugal ko:분류:포르투갈 it:Categoria:Portogallo he:קטגוריה:פורטוגל ja:カテゴリ:ポルトガル no:Kategori:Portugal pl:Kategoria:Portugalia pt:Categoria:Portugal ro:Categorie:Portugalia ru:Категория:Португалия sr:Категорија:Португалија sv:Kategori:Portugal tr:Kategori:Portekiz

title: Category:Portugal


text:
Wikinews talk:About

Does Wikinews have or plan to have an RSS Feed ?
Yes! Currently there is some RSS functionality; more is under development and discussion.

Are the news submitted by the users? and how are news items hyperlinked to reference pages?
Yes, Wikinews may be submitted by anyone. All articles are produced by the people who visit this site, and anyone may edit any article.

Sources (news articles or other online documents which are not part of the Wikimedia family of websites) are linked using the following syntax: [url text to disply]. An example might be English Wikipedia which ends up looking like: English Wikipedia

Wikimedia articles or documents, and other wiki sites, can be linked to more simply using interwiki links. From Wikinews, articles on Wikipedia can be made using the local link format, but prefixing a "w:" to the link. So w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style Links to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Articles which are on Wikinews may also be linked to, using the regular Article title format. You can find much more help at How to edit a page, for basics, and the Workspace is a good place to create your article and get help with writing, editing, and publishing it.

title: Wikinews talk:About


text:
User:McCart42~enwikinews

[ Today] • H2O • Issues • Admins • BrkNews • Stats • Users   2024-July-29TZ

 Mens Conscia Recti  Subpages: Boilerplates:  Current projects: en  See my Wikipedia userpage for a biography.
 * Contributions
 * Other users
 * Article template
 * Welcome message
 * Local news: Pennsylvania

I began editing Wikinews with a username on 2004-12-11.

Infoboxes
Some articles that use infoboxes in an interesting way:
 * Violent rioting, deaths follow disputed election in Togo - Excellent infobox by IlyaHaykinson
 * Millions worldwide still in slavery
 * Time Warner loses personal data on 600,000 employees
 * Chili Finger Incident

title: User:McCart42~enwikinews


text:
George W. Bush nominates EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt as health secretary

December 13, 2004

Washington, DC - US President George W. Bush has chosen former Utah governor Mike Leavitt to succeed the outgoing Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson. Leavitt, 53, who took over the Environmental Protection Agency last year, will succeed Tommy Thompson if the Senate confirms him. He would oversee implementation of new prescription drug benefits for people on Medicare and Bush's plans to allow religious groups to apply for federal funds to provide treatments for addiction.

Leavitt joined Bush's cabinet in 2003, and has been called a 'fine executive' by the President. The move comes as the Bush administration is trying to find someone to fill the post of Secretary of Homeland Security, after nominee Bernard Kerik withdrew concerning immigration issues with a former nanny.

The department oversees Medicare and Medicaid for senior citizens, the safety of drugs and the nation's food supply through the Food and Drug Administration and it administers the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Thompson is the ninth cabinet member to leave after Bush's re-election, and his departure was not seen as a shock by many Washington insiders. Those nine departures mark the largest second-term Cabinet overhaul in more than 30 years. Presidents Reagan and Clinton each had seven Cabinet changes for their second terms. The last to have nine was Richard Nixon in 1972. The Senate must confirm all of the nominees. Confirmation hearings have been scheduled for Margaret Spellings, nominated for education secretary, on January 6, and Condoleezza Rice, nominated for secretary of state, on January 18-19.


text:
Suicide car bomb attack in Baghdad

On the one year anniversary of Saddam Hussein's capture, 13 Iraqis were killed according to AP in a suicide car bomb attack by an al-Qaida-linked terrorist. The attack took place about 9 AM Monday, when many Iraquis were arriving to work, outside the Green Zone which is home to the Iraqi interim government and several embassies. The region is under severe protection.

Authorities said the suicide bomber detonated the car while it was in line at a checkpoint. The explosion was very loud and it could be heard throughout the city.

title: Suicide car bomb attack in Baghdad


text:
User:Jgarzik

Jeff Garzik. home page

title: User:Jgarzik


text:
User:Asciident~enwikinews

I'm Melissa Della. I am also asciident on a number of other sites, including Wikipedia.

I like current events, and I'm interested in watching Wikinews itself develop.

title: User:Asciident~enwikinews


text:
Portal talk:Europe

Wikinews Europe Coverage Stats
=Country links to categories?= As it is now, the country links at the top of the page links to the wikipedia page about the country. Maybe we should link to the category instead? At least if it exists? --Regebro 11:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I know on the North America page the beginnings of state/province pages are beginning- sort of like a main page for each. We'd probably want to do that for each country, yes? At least untill we can manipulate categories a great deal more. Lyellin 15:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't really follow you here... Can you explain again? --Regebro 17:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry :). Instead of having each country link to a category page, I had envisioned it as each country linking to a "country main page". Each country would then have something like a "Wikinews Germany" division, and articles regarding that country would be put there. I was thinking that would be better than having a category page for each country as what we link to here, just because the categories cannot be sorted by anything save title. Instead, we'd link the category on each country page, so that users wishing to see a large list of all articles pertaining to a country can see that list. Lyellin 17:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

UK & Ireland
Im creating a UK & Ireland page on a trail basis. CGorman 19:47, 19 Feb 2007(UTC)

European Union portal
I think there should be a European Union portal. The EU news (debates, discussions, elections) have not a proper portal. Maybe the Europe portal should provide a link to a more specific portal for the European Union.161.74.11.24 13:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikinews is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the  link at the top. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly.  If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.–Doldrums(talk) 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is actually a portal for the European Union. I added a link at the top of the page following the example of other regions.Gpeilon 12:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that the original person seeking the portal was seeking news about the political aspects of the EU, i.e. news about the EU, not just news from within the EU. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Help! - SNP victory in Scotland
Please help me get this article up, I don't knwo what to do with it. It's the most important Scottish political breakthrough for fifty years, and may have rammifications for the future existence of the UK. --MacRusgail 21:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

CAT redirect
? acagastya PING ME! 16:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Europe


text:
Category:Sweden

ar:تصنيف:السويد bs:Kategorija:Švedska ca:Categoria:Suècia cs:Kategorie:Švédsko de:Kategorie:Schweden el:Κατηγορία:Σουηδία es:Categoría:Suecia fa:رده:سوئد fr:Catégorie:Suède ko:분류:스웨덴 it:Categoria:Svezia he:קטגוריה:שבדיה ja:カテゴリ:スウェーデン no:Kategori:Sverige pl:Kategoria:Szwecja pt:Categoria:Suécia ro:Categorie:Suedia ru:Категория:Швеция sq:Kategoria:Suedi sr:Категорија:Шведска fi:Luokka:Ruotsi sv:Kategori:Sverige tr:Kategori:İsveç uk:Категорія:Швеція zh:Category:瑞典

title: Category:Sweden


text:
User talk:Jam2k~enwikinews

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 Jam2k. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jam2k~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) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jam2k~enwikinews


text:
Talk:George W. Bush nominates EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt as health secretary

Needs wikilinks back to WP, along with a resource or two. Lyellin 18:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Puerto Rico's election for governer contested

The hotly contested Puerto Rico election for governor has entered the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston to decide whether the Puerto Rican Supreme Court or a U.S. District Judge has jurisdiction over the contested ballots.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Puerto Rico. The election has been contested since November.

The ballot for governor allows Puerto Ricans to vote for a governor of their political party and any one person. The largest instance of this occurred when members of the Independence Party voted for their candidate (who trailed a distant third) and for Aníbal Acevedo Vilá of the Popular Democratic Party. Opposition mainly from the New Progressive Party argues that the intent of the voter is not clear on these "mixed ballots." The Popular Democratic Party points out that such mixed ballots have been accepted in the past.

Pedro Rosselló, former governor from the New Progressive Party, is up for re-election.

The Puerto Rican Supreme Court ruled the ballots valid, a decision that was overturned by a U.S. Federal Judge Daniel Domínguez, who ordered ballots be counted but not confirmed until their validity can be decided. The election is a close one, and the validity of the contested ballots will determine the winner.

Time pressure increases with each day, since the inauguration is scheduled for Jan. 2, 2005.

The Independence Party favours Puerto Rico becoming an independent nation, and is a small third party. The Popular Democratic Party currently is the ruling party and favours Puerto Rico to remain a commonwealth. The New Progressive Party favours Puerto Rico becoming the 51st state.


text: User talk:63.81.211.1

title: User talk:63.81.211.1


text:
Google begins massive effort to make books available online

December 14, 2004 Four universities as well as The New York Public Library have agreed to work with Google to make some of their books available via the world wide web. The universities are Harvard University, Stanford University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Oxford.


text:
Category:December 14, 2004

de:Kategorie:14.12.2004 it:Categoria:14 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 14, 2004


text:
Category:December 15, 2004

de:Kategorie:15.12.2004 it:Categoria:15 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 15, 2004


text:
Category:December 16, 2004

de:Kategorie:16.12.2004 it:Categoria:16 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 16, 2004


text:
Category:December 17, 2004

de:Kategorie:17.12.2004 it:Categoria:17 dicembre 2004

title: Category:December 17, 2004


text:
Jury suggests the death penalty for Scott Peterson

December 13, 2004

Redwood City, California - The jury in the Scott Peterson trial suggest that Peterson receive the death penalty. Peterson was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn child.

The official sentence will be announced on February 25th, 2005.


text:
Police raid filesharing resources

In recent weeks several large European BitTorrent and ed2k link sites have either been closed by the police or have gone offline voluntarily. Sites in France, Netherlands, Finland and Slovenia have been affected.

On December 14, FIOD-ECD, the Dutch economic crimes police, raided the premises of the hosting provider Mindlab. Servers hosting sites Releases4u.com and Shareconnector.com were seized by the police. The reported number of systems seized differs, from 4 (tweakers.net) to 11 (the register). The raids were initiated by BREIN, a Dutch non-government "copyright oversight organization".

BitTorrent link sites distribute torrents, which are computer files with information about a larger, shared file co-ordinated by small servers known as trackers. Unlike predecessors of P2P applications like Napster, this sharing is not centralised on the servers of link site operators, and no illegal files exist on the servers of link site operators. Although such a system has been previously thought to be a legal loophole for file sharers, the recent spate of raids by copyright enforcement authorities apparently proves otherwise.

Prior to raids Mindlab clients Releases4u and ShareConnector were the largest link sites for the ed2k network in the Netherlands. Mindlab had previously refused to remove the servers for Releases4u and ShareConnector, arguing that such link sites were legal in the Netherlands.

The servers were taken down after a discussion that went nowhere according to Tim Kuik, head of BREIN. "We simply ran of patience," he says.

At the same time, FinReactor, one of the largest link sites in Finland was raided by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (Keskusrikospoliisi, KRP) at the request of Finnish copyright organisations.

On December 19 two large BitTorrent sites, SuprNova.org and TorrentBits.org closed without providing an explanation, although these have apparently been voluntary decisions by the operators of the sites.

Prior to its closure SuprNova.org, based in Slovenia, was generally considered to be the largest BitTorrent link site on the Internet that hosted links to both authorised (e.g. Linux software) and unauthorised files (e.g. Hollywood films). This closure is surprising as it has been generally thought that its location in Slovenia would make it invulnerable to the actions of American-based copyright enforcement groups.

According to a statement made later on the site by its site's 18 year-old owner, who goes by the nickname Sloncek, and an interview for Slyck, he decided to voluntarily close the links section of the site after the news about arrests of admins of several prominent P2P sites and after receiving legal warnings.

Although the forums and the IRC network will remain online, SuprNova.org claims that it will no longer hold links to BitTorrent files again.

At the end of 2004, eXeem, a project to decentralize the BitTorrent link network developed by SuprNova.org, reached a beta stage.

In a bid to avoid the pitfall of Napster, most other major filesharing networks are decentralized, including Gnutella, Gnutella 2, KaZaA and eDonkey2000.

The goal of Exceem was to eliminate the need for torrent link sites and trackers by allowing every user to easily publish new files on the network without having to post a torrent file on a centralized server and distribute them without dedicated trackers. The closed beta testing with more than 5,000 users was underway by December. The status of eXeem after the closure of SuprNova.org remains unclear.

TorrentBits.org, another link site was closed at about the same time, the reason of which is still unknown at this time. The site's founder and owner, known by the nickname "Redbeard", remains unavailable for comment.

Other torrent sites that have reportedly closed are Delirium Vault, Youceff Torrents (closed by French police), Phoenix Torrents (closed voluntarily).

Activities of P2P link sites have not been proved to be illegal and so far no link site was successfully sued by copyright owners. However, police in many countries are often willing to close the sites when they are accused of copyright violations. Confiscating the servers is usually enough to destroy the site, as most of the sites are run by volunteers on a non-profit basis, who are unable and unwilling to fight a prolonged legal battle.

The first large link site to be closed, ShareReactor, was taken down by Swiss police on March 10th, 2004.

Raids have apparently followed a trend of a higher probability of raids when site owners have received donations from file sharers; some believe that this allows authorities to charge operators of such link sites for copyright crime instead of copyright infringement. ShareReactor and ShareConnector were both closed soon after purchasing new server equipment using money donated by their users.

Many people have suspected that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a trade association representing the interests of major movie studios based in the United States, are linked to police actions, although the extent of their involvement is unknown at this stage. The MPAA has taken credit for the closure of FinReactor, although the KRP has officially denied that MPAA had any contacts with Finnish authorities.

BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer (P2P) file distribution tool written by programmer Bram Cohen which was debuted at CodeCon 2002. BitTorrent allows many people to download one file at fast speeds. It does this by having downloaders swap portions of a file with one another, instead of downloading from a single centralised server or individual. It is particularly suited to quickly distributing new files to a large number of users.

eDonkey2000 is a peer-to-peer file sharing application developed by MetaMachine, using the Multisource File Transfer Protocol. eDonkey network encourages permanent sharing of files, ensuring good long-term availability, but is not as effective as BitTorrent in quickly spreading new releases.

title: Police raid filesharing resources