text:
Federal Reserve chief's stagflation scare

June 6, 2006

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has told an International Monetary Conference inflation is creeping higher and will receive "particular scrutiny."

Benanke's comments, to an audience of bankers at the Willard Hotel in Washington, has tripped up stocks and bonds which fell by 199 points on US markets Monday (1.8 per cent loss).

The comments seem to have been interpreted by traders to mean there will be an interest rate rise.

A strategist at Wells Capital Management said: "Here we have some suspicion the economy may be weakening ... and a struggling stock market," "And the Fed chairman chooses [Monday] to inform everyone he has decided to get tough on inflation," says Jim Paulsen.

The panicked markets had expected no rate rise at the next Federal Reserve meeting on June 29. The United States central bank began raising interest rates two years ago - 16 consecutive rises later it stands at 5%.

The news might also suggest the billowing crude and commodity markets have affected other parts of the economy. Excluding energy or food prices, core inflation was "at or above the upper end of the range that many economists, including myself, would consider consistent with price stability," Mr Bernanke said.

Bernanke said his core inflation canal was between 1% and 2% a year. Quarter inflation, however, was rising: 3% through six months; 2.3% over 12 months. "These are unwelcome developments," Bernanke said when he announced the figures.

Overall the economic data was "consistent with the softening in the pace of overall economic activity that seems to be under way," Bernanke said in his speech. Stagflation is the economic problem of rising inflation and falling growth. The Federal Reserve often lower interest rates to finance the economy but in an inflationary economy interest rates might also need to rise. Such a situation might put the Fed in an uncomfortable pinch.

Monetary policy is an incomplete science. Even so, Bernanke is old enough to remember the 1970s when the Federal Reserve declined an interest rate rise. Recession and high prices appeared to be the result.


text: File:Google Spreadsheets.gif

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

title: File:Google Spreadsheets.gif


text:
Google launches Google Spreadsheets

June 6, 2006

Google has launched an online spreadsheet site, in a private beta.

The site will allow spreadsheets to be shared between up to 10 users, which is aimed to be useful to teams and small businesses. "Many people already organise information into spreadsheets. Where they are struggling is to share it" said the product manager, Jonathan Rochelle.

Google recently bought the online word-processor Writely, launched a calendar product, as well as a desktop search tool. Many see this as them straying into Microsoft's markets.

Google Spreadsheets uses very advanced AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript And Xml) and Client Side Scripting to mimic very effectively it's desktop counterparts' functions.

It is surprisingly fast, has very good formatting and advanced formula support, but best of all it has complete support for Microsoft Excel .xls files, and very good collaboration: just enter the e-mail address and you can share easily.

title: Google launches Google Spreadsheets


text:
Talk:Tubes, Grateful Dead musician Vince Welnick died of 'probable suicide'

I can't find the Sonoma County Sheriff office report, needs to be a direct link formatted like I did with the other one. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

title
He did not die of 'probable suicide', but probably died of suicide. --vonbergm 16:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
User talk:202.177.186.178

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

And a warning
Please don't blank talk pages and replace them with advertisements, like you did here. Continuing this will result in the removal of your editing privileges from Wikinews. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 20:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, please do not replace the contents of discussion pages with your own content. It is considered disruptive, and is not permitted on Wikinews. If this happens again, you will have your editing privileges removed. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 20:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:202.177.186.178


text:
Embattled Thai Election Commission hands TRT case to Attorney General

June 6, 2006

Thailand's Election Commission passed their subcommittee report on to the office of the Attorney-General without making a recommendation. The report, which The Nation describes as all legal documents detailing the allegations that the caretaker Prime Minister's populist Thai Rak Thai party paid small parties to take part in the April 2 snap election.

The EC subcommittee led by Nam Yimyaem concluded in their report that Thai Rak Thai had engaged smaller parties illegally in an effort to avoid the minimum voter requirement of the constitution. The report's recommendation was that the party should be dissolved.

The EC passing the buck on the election fraud allegations follows on from scathing criticism from the country's Supreme Court President, Charnchai Likit-jittha. In a letter to the acting Senate Speaker, Charnchai rejected Speaker Suchon Chaleekrua's proposal that he nominate two new members to the Election Commission to fill present vacancies. Citing the constitutional requirement that the EC be politically neutral, Charnchai said of the three remaining commissioners they, "are not in a position to have the trust to continue with their work".

The troubles of the Election Commission may see doubt cast on the proposed date of October 15 for a rerun of the general election.


text:
Australian PM announces nuclear taskforce

June 7, 2006

As expected by media sources, Australian Prime Minister, John Howard announced on Tuesday that he would be setting up a "Prime Ministerial taskforce" to investigate uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia.

Timeframe and purpose
The results of the review to be undertaken by the taskforce are expected to be made public in November. The taskforce is to investigate:
 * Whether Australia has the capacity to increase uranium mining,
 * Whether it would be economical for Australia to carry out uranium enrichment and reprocessing,
 * Implications a nuclear energy industry would have on Australia's existing energy industries,
 * The circumstances under which nuclear energy could become economically viable,
 * How nuclear energy could decrease greenhouse gas emissions,
 * How nuclear energy could work alongside renewable energy sources,
 * "Next generation" nuclear technologies, which claim to resolve safety, waste and proliferation concerns,
 * Nuclear waste and storage,
 * Possible security implications,
 * Health and safety issues.

The taskforce
Mr Howard said the taskforce will be led by former Telstra CEO and nuclear physicist, Dr Ziggy Switkowski and will include five other members. In a statement, Mr Howard announced two of the five additional members. One of Australia's foremost nuclear researchers, Professor George Dracoulis from the Australian National University and economist Professor Warwick McKibbin, a board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia.

The Prime Minister said that he would announce the other three members today, after they confirm their availability.

Dr. Jim Peacock, Australia’s Chief Scientist, will assist the review process.

Mr Howard said that Australia should investigate the potential to capitalise on its vast uranium reserves. He said Australia had 40 percent of the world's known uranium reserves, and Australia could "increase and add value to our uranium extraction and exports".

The Prime Minister told reporters that nuclear energy is not something that will happen in the short term in Australia, but may occur in the long term. "I don’t expect to have nuclear power stations in Australia within the next two or three years," he said.

"I do think, however, that we need in an open-minded and as emotionless fashion possible, to have a serious debate about this issue." Mr Howard said.

Mr Howard said that it is "foolish" for Australia to remain solely as an exporter of uranium given the vast amounts of the mineral the country has.

The opposition has been calling on the Howard government to name possible locations for nuclear power stations since announcing that they wish to investigate the use of nuclear energy. Mr Howard told reporters that it the plants would be built by private enterprise and those calls on the government were "putting the cart before the horse".

Mr Howard said that his government expected the opposition to run a "fear campaign" on the issue and that he would not be deterred, as he believes the public's opinion on nuclear energy has shifted significantly. He said that he wanted a full and open review, examination and debate.

Criticism
During his press conference on Tuesday, Mr Howard was asked if the taskforce had been weighted to come up with a favourable report as the members announced so far were pro-nuclear. Mr Howard denied the claim saying that members had been selected who knew the subject and were "open-minded and clear headed".

Claims of a conflict of interest with Ziggy Switkowski have begun to surface after it was revealed that he is a board member of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, which runs Australia's only nuclear reactors in Lucas Heights, south of Sydney. Mr Howard, speaking on ABC Television defended the claims saying "He's a nuclear physicist Ziggy Switkowski, he's a proven person in the commercial area, he's got strong public administration skills, that's a good combination for something like this".

In order to minimise the conflict of interest, Switkowski resigned from the board of ANSTO on June 7 2006.


text:
User talk:67.101.233.244

Hello, why do you practice religious descrimination? The Scientology Volunteer Ministers are a very legitimate Disaster Relief program, have you even looked into the organization? or are you baseing your actions off of your own religious descrimination towards Scientology?

please tell me

title: User talk:67.101.233.244


text:
White House diverted $1.6b war funds to border security

June 7, 2006

United Press International (UPI) reports that the Senate took US$1.9b out of the 2006 emergency war supplemental funding to fund border security last month. The White House reportedly called for the transfer that was put into an amendment sponsored by Senators Bill Frist and Judd Gregg. Out of the $1.9b, $1.6b was meant to replace equipment that has been destroyed or worn out after four years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.

An unnamed Pentagon budget official told UPI "You can't tell me that illegal aliens coming across the border pose the same kind of threat to national security as insurgents in Anbar do against Marines."


text:
User:Harej/Scratchpad

Welcome to MessedRocker's scratchpad, where Messedrocker will test out things or put things just for fun in here. Feel free to mess around, too. Wiki belongs to everyone!

Inspirational Filler
Wikimedia Agenda: tomorrow I'm taking angela to disney world's magic kingdom we're going to kidnap goofy until mickey agrees to enter the public domain

On #wikipedia:  MessedRocker: What're you doing here? Scurry on back to #wikinews :P

Mr. Treason + Howard Dean:

"Not only am I going to sue in a COURT OF LAW in TRENTON, NJ, Raul654, I’m going to sue in a COURT OF LAW in SOUTH CAROLINA and OKLAHOMA and ARIZONA and NORTH DAKOTA and NEW MEXICO, and I'm suing in a COURT OF LAW in CALIFORNIA and TEXAS and NEW YORK … And I'm going to sue in a COURT OF LAW in SOUTH DAKOTA and OREGON and WASHINGTON and MICHIGAN! And then I'm going to WASHINGTON, D.C., to sue the WHITE HOUSE! YEEAARGH!"

 Wikipedia doesn't respect my rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland!

Example Fieldset/Legend
Znx is a Legend Or not
 * Yeah it sucks that thoose don't work. (They're alot more useful then the tag which is allowed. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Isolation experiment
Browse articles • Audio Edition • Print Edition • Wikinews RSS • Get involved • Help with Breaking News • Newsroom • Help

title: User:Harej/Scratchpad


text:
User talk:141.156.242.86

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 01:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:141.156.242.86


title: File:07June2006.pdf


title: File:07June2006.sxw


text:
Talk:Australian PM announces nuclear taskforce

Original Reporting
Written from the PM's press release and interview transcript. ABC article used to provide some criticism of the PM's taskforce. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
20 percent of Victorians drive on worn tyres

June 7, 2006 A survey released today by the RACV and Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce found that 20 percent of cars in Victoria have at least one worn or unroadworthy tyre.

The study looked at 1,000 cars last month and found of those 200 had at least one tyre that had worn.

Chief engineer for the RACV, Michael Case said that driving on worn tyres could increase the distance it takes a car to brake and road safety. "Increasing the braking distance can increase the chance of running into the car in front of you and having an unnecessary collision and if that collision is serious enough certainly it can cause injuries" said Mr Case.

It is widely accepted that tyres are one of the most important parts of a vehicle. As tyres are the only part of a vehicle in contact with the road, they affect acceleration, braking and cornering.

As well as the safety issues associated with driving a vehicle with a worn tyre, drivers can be fined for "driving an unsafe vehicle" and fined AUD$171, in addition police may "defect" the vehicle, restricting its use until repaired. Victorian law requires that tyres have a minimum tread depth of 1.6mm.

Wikinews investigated the average price of each tyre on a typical large and small Australian sedan, and SUV and found the cost to be AUD$129, AUD$105, and AUD$191 respectively.


text:
Talk:20 percent of Victorians drive on worn tyres

Possible images

 * You are an absolute legend - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Original Reporting
As the original source of this article was very short, I thought it would be interesting to look into the penalties of driving on unroadworthy tyres and the cost of replacing them on the three popular kinds of cars in Australia.

I compiled a list of vehicles which are considered to be popular (or well known) in each category.

Large sedan

 * Ford Falcon
 * Holden Commodore
 * Toyota Camry
 * Mitsubishi 380

Small sedan

 * Toyota Corolla
 * Hyundai Accent
 * Nissan Pulsar

SUV

 * Nissan Patrol
 * Ford Territory
 * Subaru Forester
 * Toyota Prado

I then looked up the tyre sizes of the vehicles on their manufacturer's website and contacted local tyre retailers and asked for the price of their mid-range tyres by size. Interestingly, despite slight variations in sizes between makes and models (in each group), the tyre models and pricing are the same.

Here's what I found:

Large sedan
AVERAGE $129
 * Bridgestone ER30 $90
 * Pirelli P6 $149
 * Goodyear NCT5 Eco $139
 * Dunlop Monza 200 $138

Small sedan
AVERAGE $105
 * Firstone Firehawk 700 $109
 * Goodyear NCT5 Eco $109
 * Yokohama S306 $99

SUV
AVERAGE $191 --Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Territory and Forester:
 * Bridgestone ER30 $165
 * Goodyear NCT5 Eco $175
 * Goodyear Fortera $195
 * All (including Territory and Forester):
 * Bridgestone D840 $229


text:
11,000 evacuated in Indonesia as Mount Merapi threatens to erupt

June 7, 2006 The Indonesian government has ordered the evacuation of 11,000 people form the Magelang district as spews ash, lava and smoke from its dome. The dome continues to rise and scientists fear it may collapse. Smoke and ash are rising at least 2.4 miles into the sky and lava is rising at least 4 miles from the volcano's crater.

"Of course it is dangerous. But we don't know for sure whether the lava dome will collapse," said an Indonesian government volcanologist, Subandriyo.

At least 40 cars and trucks have been ordered to assist in the evacuation and take villagers to nearby schools and government buildings that have been turned into makeshift shelters.

"Since Monday we have evacuated ... more or less 2,000 people. The people that we need to evacuate are around 11,000. The lava has spread out in various directions. The lava domes are weakening," said Edi Purwanto, who is in charge of the evacuation post.

Scientists also say that the recent earthquake on May 27 which had a of 6.3 may have caused the volcano to become unstable and likely "shook the mountain." At least 5,800 people were killed in the quake.

"I don't think that's unreasonable. The volcano is an unstable pile of rock. It's fragile. I would be surprised if it [the quake] didn't literally shake the mountain," said an Arizona State University volcanologist who studies the volcano, Stanley Williams.

The volcano sits 280 miles to the east of Indonesia's capital of Jakarta.


text:
Body found in the Christchurch, New Zealand Avon River

June 7, 2006 Anthony James Creamer's body was found in the Christchurch Avon River on June 6.

He was a sickness beneficiary and lived in Avonside Street which is located near the Avon River.

Christchurch police Detective Inspector Malcolm Johnston said that there were no suspicious circumstances relating to the death and no suspicious injuries had been identified. However, he said it was still too early to tell the exact cause of death and police could not yet rule out foul play.

"There is no apparent suspicious injuries, but we will wait for the results of the post-mortem," Johnston said.

A member of the public spotted the body tangled in weeds in the middle of the river near Locksley Avenue, in Dallington, about noon. They flagged down a police car and the officer jumped into the river and brought it on to the riverbank.

The body was fully clothed and early suggestions were that it had not been there long.

The autopsy should be completed by June 7.


text:
Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/CheckUsers

In accordance with Wikimedia Policy, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and authority to request CheckUser permissions for trusted users on English Wikinews.

Requests for CheckUser permissions are listed below for the Wikimedia Stewards.

Please direct discussion to the talk page.

CheckUser Request 1 - June 2006
The Arbitration Committee requests that the following users be granted CheckUser permissions:
 * User:IlyaHaykinson
 * User:Cspurrier
 * User:Chiacomo

 * Arbitration Committee member signatures confirming this request:
 * IlyaHaykinson 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Chiacomo (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 07:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cspurrier 23:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I recognize that Bawolff and I are are the two wierdos of ArbCom, and if Chiacomo, Cspurrier or Ilya go astray... then something will happen, maybe not by these two, but by any of the others involved. -Edbrown05 04:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * :D . Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Deprifry|+T+ 07:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
User talk:67.23.38.149

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 03:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:67.23.38.149


text:
"Ten Commandments" judge loses Alabama gubernatorial primary

June 7, 2006

Alabama Gov. beat back a Republican primary challenge from, the former judge who tried to put up a monument in his courthouse.

In the weeks leading to Alabama's gubernatorial primaries, polls showed Riley had pulled ahead of Moore, the former state chief justice who became a hero to the religious right in 2003 when he was ousted over his refusal to remove a 5,300-pound Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building.

Moore conceded in his hometown of Gadsden, telling supporters, "God's will has been done."


text:
User talk:68.154.122.154

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly.

Hello,

Your recent contributions constitute vandalism and have been reverted. Should you believe that your contributions are *not* vandalism, please argue your case on Vandalism.

Further vandalism will result in a 24 hour ban. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead.

title: User talk:68.154.122.154


text:
Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/CheckUsers

When this this happen. and this better be posted on WN:ALERT. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? --Chiacomo (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont really understand this, is the Arbitration Committee making decisions about who will be authoriced to ask for a 'checkuser'? international 10:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I put a "flag" on the discussion as I agree with User:Brian New Zealand. Redman 11:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Both Chiacomo and CSpurrier are charter members of Journowiki and could use checkuser to selectively allow or disallow sockpuppets on Wikinews. Neither voted for MrM's deadmin which may indicate a "posse" mentality. 65.95.149.134 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I involved myself in this is not that I think any mentioned user are unsuitible for this. It is that I think Arbitration Committee is good for being the final and transparant end of disputes. Nothing else. In this specific case I suggest the bureaucrat be the formal way to ask for  a CheckUsers after proper discussion. They forward the communitys decision and dont act on their own. international 13:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This happened suddleny, with out any chat, I would have perfered you to set a policy/rules on its use before we got a local checkuser. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Anon IP
Please note that traceroute shows the Anon IP that "voted" as beingf yet again, in Toronto, same ISP and same list of IPs suspected to be used my neutralizer. Jason Safoutin 13:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what vote your talking about, but if you're refering to the anon above, a surer way of telling if hes neutralizer then seeing if the ip came from the isp that serves a fair bit of Toronto and Montreal (Well I know its popular there, It could also be popular in the rest Ontario, and Quebec) is to look for the Journawiki link. Neutralizer is the only one (To my knowladge) who believes that conspiricy. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I certainly don't support hunting down sockpuppets that aren't disrupting the community or attempting to manipulate community processes., Chiacomo in June 2006, referenced by Edbrown05 07:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not Eloquence & another (maybe Karen)
Its normal for the arbcom to make such decissions, as you don't want the wider wikipolitics entering the debate. (You want to nominate a Turk/inclusionist/etc so I want to nominate an Arminien/deletionist/etc)

But I really think it'd be best if the ArbCom didn't use ArbCom members as checkusers. Judges aren't cops.

Eloquence is the obvious choice (and he might accept since it'll be less work than ArbCom). And I personally think Karen would be a good second choice. Maybe Mindspilliage if she was around more.

Just spread it around a bit guys. It'll keep life more civil. Nyarlathotep 11:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Eloquence was asked, but he refused.--Cspurrier 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be abrupt, but as an academic I know a discussion closer when I see one. Are there no other qualified contributors on Wikinews who might be interested in this position other than the handful who already sit on ArbCom? Redman 23:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, checkuser requires a high level of trust and technical skills. I can think of 7 or 8 other users who I would trust with checkuser, of these users however two have refused, and two are not active enough to justify it and the others are arbcom members who have expressed no interest when it was discussed, or lack the technical skills--Cspurrier 23:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to additional CheckUsers -- though we don't need terribly many. Their primary function is to aid in Abritration Committee investigations. It is important to remember that the responsibility is a heavy one -- users with CheckUser privileges are bound by the Wikimedia Privacy policy and may be legally responsible for their use or misuse of the tool. Users with CheckUser privileges must also be technically capable of interpreting the results of a CheckUser investigation.

Results are seldom concrete, but rather, only approach a level of certainty nearing 100% -- one cannot say with 100% assurance that Chiacomo is a sockpuppet of Neutralizer, even if we share an IP address I may have only been visiting his apartment and used his computer. CheckUser is only a tool, used along with comparison of edit-style, and other indicators to determine with some level of certainty that two or more users are in fact the same person. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Craig. I'm happy that you asked Eloquence first. I agree that its not easy to find two if he drops out. And we've got enough socks that local checkusers are needed.

Anywho we'll have another arbcom ellection eventually. So, if anyone cares about keeping them disjoint, it'll just change who is on arbcom. So all is well in the long run.

Also, Chiacomo, the primary function of checkusers is to identify accounts making troulbe as socks of other accounts making trouble; thus "consolodating" the communities understanding of the problem. Such trouble normally is well below the complexity observed in arbcom disputes. (Like identifying all accounts who spout conspiracy theories as socks of Neutarlizer) Nyarlathotep 09:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Dang waitress, you switched drinks with me and Nyar... ! -Edbrown05 09:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Sock Cops
What worries me, (okay maybe it doesn't worry me), but if the community makes this a voting thing for who is or isn't a 'checkuser', then it implies a responsibility to the user granted access to the tool to employ it by being a cop. I don't want "sock cops" running around here right now, but that's me. I kinda liked what vonbergm suggested on international's talk page as a way to monitor its use for now. -Edbrown05 07:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have any trouble getting one of these three to you the information you want. You could also ask a Steward if you liked. Nyarlathotep 14:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2007 Review?
I suggest we (the committee) review all members who have checkuser, as a result of the last election.

For example are we happy with all the current noms, and because Craig Spurrier is no longer a member of the committee do we want been a armcom member to remain a requirement (note I more than happy with Craig remaining a checkuser, I just feel we should talk about this, as we are considering oversight). Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Both are extremley sensitive positions. I've no problem with Craig remaining a checkuser, although (as he is a Steward) he is extremley well trusted by the WM community.  Thunderhead  ►  02:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed, in fact I think he's the only one doing it :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


text:
Talk:White House diverted $1.6b war funds to border security

Here is the same source as cited in article but this one does not require a log in: From World Peace Herald


text:
User talk:Transhumanist~enwikinews

Welcome to Wikinews! --Meanmeancoffeebean 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 10:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Transhumanist. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Transhumanist~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 23:22, 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) 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Transhumanist~enwikinews


text:
Real body found at mock crime scene in Florida

June 7, 2006

When 29 students attended a fake crime scene in Fort Lauderdale Park during a field trip set up by their teacher, Sue Messenger, they found the body of a homeless man. Police said he died of natural causes and there was nothing to indicate that foul play was involved. The students are part of a criminology class at St. Thomas Aquinas High School.

At first, some students thought the body was a "dummy". "We thought it was Ms. Messenger messing around with us," said 16-year-old Josh Rozental, who was the one that had discovered the body. "When I went over, knowing what I know about rigor mortis and postmortem lividity, it was apparent to me that actually this was a deceased individual. So the biggest thing is I wanted them to move off…. I knew there was going to be an investigation and I just wanted them to back off and for us to not to disturb anything," said Messenger.

"It was a good crash course. The first thing we thought was, 'that's a real good dummy she set up,'" said 15-year-old Juan Cantor, a student at the high school.

For 20 years Messenger has been using "paper skeletons, fake weapons, notes, shell casings, and sunglasses" that students could find to further their education. The study was in its fifth of 13 days.

"The students went up to this one area … and found a man with his back against the wall and he looked dead. They thought it was part of the skit," said Kathy Collins a Fort Lauderdale Police detective.

Police said the man was David Wayne Bodie, 45.


text:
US reveals Nazi war criminal's location was known two years before his capture

June 7, 2006

The 27,000-pages of documents released on Tuesday reveal that while the United States and West Germany knew the location of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann two years before his capture, the fact was kept secret. The documents were declassified as part of the Nazi War Criminals Disclosure Act of 1998.

West German Intelligence informed the US in March 1958 of the whereabouts of the senior Gestapo officer, who was living under the alias "Clemens" in Argentina where he had arrived seven years earlier.

It was not US policy at the time to go after Nazi criminals since they were still recruited for Cold War operations.

"It now appears that West Germany could have captured him in 1958, if it wished to," said University of Virginia historian Timothy Naftali. He also said that CIA helped West Germany at the time to suppress part of Eichmann's diary - which was in the possession of Life magazine - that would have embarrassed West German national security adviser Hans Globke, himself a former Nazi.

Eichmann was captured by Israelis in 1960 in Argentina. He was tried in Jerusalem and received the death penalty.


text:
Talk:President Bush pushes for gay marriage ban

Bush! Bush! Bush! Why should our tax dollars help them when they can't help the population!?

Politics category
How could this NOT be related to politics, Messedrocker? --Jambalaya 12:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


text:
Rahul Mahjan gets two days in police custody

June 7, 2006 Rahul Mahajan, the son of slain Bharatiya Janata Party leader Pramod Mahajan, who was arrested on Monday under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, was remanded to two-day police custody by a Patiala House court in New Delhi on Tuesday.

Mahajan was discharged from Apollo Hospital and brought to the Tughlaq Road police station in a wheelchair. He was later produced in the court. Though the police wanted a five-day custody, the court granted only two days.

Subsequently, Mahajan was taken to the police station for interrogation. He was reportedly confronted with the other accused, Sahil Zaroo, who is also in police custody till June 12.

Zaroo was arrested in Srinagar on June 3 for allegedly purchasing and supplying drugs to the 7 Safdarjung Road bungalow in the early hours of June 2. He has allegedly disclosed to the police that he bought drugs at the instance of Mr. Mahajan's personal secretary Bibek Moitra, who subsequently died. The police also questioned Mr. Mahajan's erstwhile aide, Harish Sharma, to find out if he had any role to play in destruction of evidence at the scene of crime. Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police (New Delhi) Manish Aggarwal said they were also probing the role of the three domestic help.


text:
U.S. Senate defeats bill banning gay marriage

June 7, 2006 The United States Senate has defeated a proposed constitutional amendment banning. The bill was defeated 48 to 49 and did not receive the minimum amount of 60 votes to that would allow the bill to be taken to the full Senate. The bill fell 18 votes short of the 67 that were needed for approval. In order for the bill to become part of the, this bill would have had to be approved by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the , then be approved by the legislatures of three fourths (that is, 38) of the States.

However, Senator, -, who is a supporter of the bill says, "we're building votes."

"Most Americans are not yet convinced that their elected representatives or the judiciary are likely to expand decisively the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples," said John McCain (-) who opposed the bill. "A vote for it is a vote against civil unions, against domestic partnership, against all other efforts for states to treat gays and lesbians fairly under the law," said Massachusetts Senator.

The bill would define marriage as between a man and a woman, and would preclude the official recognizing of same-sex marriages. The bill is expected to be taken back to the Senate in July.

Already, 45 states have banned gay marriages.


text:
User talk:202.65.148.54

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 16:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:202.65.148.54


text:
Kenya deports Somali businessman

June 7, 2006

Following its decision yesterday to bar Somali warlords and their associates from entering the country, Kenya today deported a Somali businessman, citing his links to leaders engaged in the ongoing civil conflict in Somalia.

Abdirashid Hussein Shire was arrested by police at a hotel in the Kenyan capital Nairobi and escorted to a flight out of the country, reportedly heading for Dubai. Shire is alleged to be a supporter of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, an alliance of Somali warlords who are currently engaged in a conflict with the Islamic Courts Union for control over Mogadishu, the capital of Somalia.

Yesterday, the Kenyan government barred Somali warlords or their associates from entering the country. The Kenyan foreign affairs assistant minister Moses Wetang'ula declared them "persona non-grata".

"The government would like to reiterate its previously stated position that it will not permit its territory to be used by those who persist in destabilising Somalia and undermining our ongoing efforts to restore peace and security in that country," said the Kenyan foreign ministry in a statement released Tuesday.

Kenya has been closely involved in efforts to normalise the situation in Somalia. Kenya hosted and mediated talks between the various Somali factions for more than two years, leading to the formation of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004. The Somali Cabinet was named in August 2004 at the United Nations headquarters in Nairobi.

The Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki is also the current chairman of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, a seven-member regional development organization in Eastern Africa. The IGAD passed a resolution in March in support of the transitional government, expressing concern over the upsurge of violence in Somalia and calling for a cessation of hostilities. The resolution also called for the lifting of a UN arms embargo to "enable IGAD and the AU deploy the Peace Support Mission to Somalia".

Many Somali leaders have homes or business interests in Kenya, whose capital Nairobi forms a regional business hub.

title: Kenya deports Somali businessman


text:
User:Dragons flight

w:en:User:Dragons flight

title: User:Dragons flight


text:
User talk:Dragons flight

Please leave messages at:

w:en:User talk:Dragons flight

Messages left here are unlikely to be seen. Dragons flight 16:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dragons flight


text:
User talk:RibShank~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 16:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called RibShank. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name RibShank~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 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:RibShank~enwikinews


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/June 7, 2006

The time is 17:00 (UTC) on June 7th, 2006, and this is Audio Wikinews News Briefs.

11,000 evacuated in Indonesia as Mount Merapi threatens to erupt
Indonesia

The Indonesian government has ordered the evacuation of 11,000 people from the Magelang district as Mount Merapi spews ash, lava and smoke from its dome. The dome continues to rise and scientists fear it may collapse. Smoke and ash are rising at least 2.4 miles into the sky and lava is rising at least 4 miles from the volcano's crater.

Gunmen Seize 50 in Iraq
Iraq

On June 5th, gunmen posing as police officers raided a bus station in central Baghdad, capturing 50 people. Attackers raided bus stations, seizing travellers a day after 21 were dragged off buses, killed.

U.S. Senate defeats bill banning gay marriage
United States

The United States Senate has defeated a bill banning gay marriage. The bill was defeated 48 to 49 and did not receive the minimum amount of 60 votes that would allow the bill to be taken to the full Senate. The bill fell 18 votes short of the 67 that were needed to approve the bill and place it into the constitution.

Australian PM announces nuclear taskforce
Australia

As expected by media sources, Australian Prime Minister, John Howard announced on Tuesday that he will be setting up a "Prime Ministerial taskforce" to investigate uranium mining, processing and nuclear energy in Australia.

EPA block massive West Australian energy project
Australia

The Western Australian (WA) Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) have advised against the massive Greater Gorgon liquefied natural gas project off WA's Pilbara coast. Proponents of the projects say Gorgon is one of Australia's biggest export ventures, scheduled to provide up to 6,000 jobs and exports of up to $1.2 billion.

"Ten Commandments" judge loses Alabama gubernatorial primary
United States

Alabama Gov. Bob Riley beat back a Republican primary challenge from Roy Moore, the former judge who tried to put up a Ten Commandments monument in his courthouse.

20 percent of Victorians drive on worn tyres
Australia

A survey released today by the RACV and Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce found that 20 percent of cars in Victoria have at least one worn out or unroadworthy tyre.

Body found in the Christchurch, New Zealand Avon River
New Zealand

Anthony James Creamer's body was found in the Christchurch Avon River on June 6. He was a sickness beneficiary and lived in Avonside Street, which is located near the Avon River.

Real body found at mock crime scene in Florida
United States

When 29 students in Florida attended a fake crime scene during a field trip, set up by their teacher, Sue Messenger, they found a real body. The body of a homeless man was found in Fort Lauderdale Park by the students and police say he died of natural causes and there was nothing to indicate that foul play was involved.

Raw Audio starts Australia's first regular live webcast
Australia

Raw Audio will commence Australia's first regular live music webcast on June 11, called The Sunday Sofa Sessions. The webcast, which will be broadcast every Sunday at 8pm (Brisbane time), will feature a selection of South-East Queensland's bands and musicians, and the occasional overseas and interstate guest.

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

title: Wikinews:Briefs/June 7, 2006


text:
Security Alert at British Parliament

June 7, 2006

 is reporting that the has been reopened following a "security alert" in which the House of Commons was "locked down" after someone threw powder in the central lobby. A Scotland Yard statement is expected soon (18.55 BST).

 in the United Kingdom report that powder had been located within the Central Lobby. Tests on the powder showed that it was not, and the "all clear" was given at 18.50 British time.

title: Security Alert at British Parliament


text:
User talk:Fs

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 17:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Fs


text:
User talk:88.106.64.223

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Doldrums 18:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Stock Plunge
Welcome to Wikinews! Thanks for creating Stock Plunge, articles like this are appreciated. There are a few issues that must be dealt with before it can be published. The most important is that all Wikinews articles must cite sources for the information they contain. Articles should cite sources by using the tag at the bottom of the story. When you click "edit" there are instructions for using the tag underneath the "Save page" button. If your article contains original reporting, you should read the information at original reporting. If you are part of the story that the article is about, you may also wish to consider requesting an interview rather than writing the article yourself.

Discussion about your article will occur on the article talk page. Please go there to start or participate in the discussion with other Wikinews contributors. Keep at it and try to get this article published, which can sometimes be difficult, but you will find that it is worth the effort. - Borofkin 06:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:88.106.64.223


text:
User talk:Psm~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Doldrums 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

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

title: User talk:Psm~enwikinews


text:
User talk:CowicideReturnsAgain

This page has been protected to prevent vandalism. PVJ  (Talk) 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:CowicideReturnsAgain


text:
Talk:Terrorists seize 50 in Iraq

Ealturner 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (Sorry - this was my comment)

Gunmen - what does this mean? It's a rather empty term. Wikistyle guide says, among other things http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Style_guide#Headlines

Tell the most important and unique thing Make them unique and specific Write in a neutral point of view

What information does the word "Gunmen seize 50 in Iraq" convey? Men who had guns took 50 people. Just any men with guns? Do we assume from the headline all men who have guns are likely to kidnap or take to execute 50 people they can round up in a market? I think gunmen might be a better term to describe criminals who hold up a bank (if they had guns). We need another word to describe armed men who commit atrocities on civilians. By way of the French, the English language has that word.

Note that as a journalist who seeks a NPOV I want to use the right word, not a political word or a vacuous meaningless substitute for the correct word because some people don't like the correct word for political reasons.

Terrorist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist

Terrorism refers to a strategy of using threats and violence against civilians for political or ideological purposes. In an extended use, assassination of politicians and military personnel is also called "terrorism." Examples: Russian terrorists assassinated the Tsar and various government officials, Israeli terrorists targeted the British military. These are better described as forms of warfare by partisans, freedom-fighters, or insurgents.

This is clearly happening in this case, people with weapons took unarmed civilians against their will. This is terrorism. The people who took those people are terrorists. The objective journalist calls the people with the guns what they are according to the words the English language has available.

Censoring the right word is as biased as using an incorrect word for political reasons. For example, referring to gunmen who attack coalition military with stated aim to remove US forces from Iraq and to reestablish Sunni rule, at least over some part of Iraq, as terrorists is clearly incorrect. The correct word for these people would be insurgents.

Generally a blanket rule to use a word (eg. fox news "terrorist") or censor a word (eg. BBC news "terrorist") leads to vacuous headlines and/or bias.

As wikinewsies I think the correct word needs to be decided on a case to case basis if we are to succeed in our mission to provide news from a NPOV.

Use of term "Terrorism"
As you might guess I'm one of these people who is leery of the term terrorist. The reason being not that I don't believe terrorists exist, but that - as you are attempting to do above - you establish a clear definition for your usage of the term. Where you would run into problems is if the article was "terrorist this...terrorist that..." and so, instead a little variety is needed in the vocabulary.

The criteria I believe that can be applied to establish use of the term here (this article, not wikinews in general) are that civilians were targetted, and there is nothing to indicate that it is "resistance"/"insurgents" targetting collaborators.

If you poke through the history of wikinews you'll see people who'd go to extremes to misuse the term, leading to the reluctance to use it. So, whilst it may seem like a chore, I'd suggest you put a "use of the term terrorism" section on any article where you use it, this may help preempt disputes over it. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember that Category:Terrorism was deleted because the word can never be used neutrally - all groups, even those that target civilians, deny being terrorists, and the definition of terrorism certainly is not clear and unambiguous. If we allow these gunmen to be called terrorists, then sooner-or-later a contributor will come along and demand that we refer to US forces as terrorist. It's better to not use the word at all. I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted. - Borofkin 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 00:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC) The right word at the right time to get across the right meaning is the aim.

If we all did that things would be clearer. The argument others misuse a term is no reason to censor a term - all the more reason to use it CORRECTLY so the meaning of the term doesn't change.

I'm more than happy once it is established they are terrorists to then use weaker terms. Big and little hammers can both smack in the nail. The biggest hammer should be in the title.

I've also know of people going to extremes NOT to use certain words - read/listen to BBC product. Not using words for political reasons is as biased as using words for political reasons.

I'm of the opinion we should get back to using words for their actual objective, publically available meaning for a change!

Politicians, News companies - they shoudn't interfere with our work. Our definitions come from the majority/consensus. This is the wiki ethos. We get our definitions from dictionaries and wikipedia. They define our terms - nobody else!

I'm afraid "use of terrorism" note would politicise the word when it wasn't used in a political sense. Words are words. They have definitions. Use words according to their definitions and there won't be any argument.

 * I agree with Borofkin. He said what I was thinking. so other than agreeing, i have no opinion otherwise. Jason Safoutin 00:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 00:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

>>I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted. - Borofkin 23:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)<<

I could not DISAGREE more or be more HORRIFIED that someone would propose censorship for wikinews. This is clearly NOT the wikipedia ethos.
 * What I am proposing is that we only use terms which are neutral. Please explain how this is "censorship"? - Borofkin 00:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Your proposal never to use one explanatory term in favour of another is censorship.

The right word should be used. Wikinews isn't the BBC. It isn't CNN. It's not Foxnews. It's not Al Jazarea either. It has its own ethos.

Using subsitute words to the one we really mean is not being honest, it's not being neutral. Wikinews readers expect a group effort to be smarter, to achieve MORE than is possible than at a regular news station with limited staff.

It might be harder work using the right word all the time and to decide on a case by case basis. We might say things different to other news outputs. But, that's the point! It's necessary if we are to fulfil the mission to always be neutral.

We can and should achieve more neutrality here than any other news station. Censorship must not be mistaken for neutrality.

I've seen no serious objections to the accuracy of the word terrorist as it pertains to this article.
 * I do and for reasons Borofkin already stated. That would mean every killer in prisons are terrorists...a boy taking a toy from another boy a beating him up is terrorism then...heck me yelling F you to a person walking down the street could evben be terrorism. Point is anyone any any crime could be listed as terrorism. That is not neutral. I rarely use the word terrorist and when I do its is only in specific quotes. that are attributed to a name. Jason Safoutin 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC) No it doesn't. The meaning of a word applies and is decided in the case it is used.

That's a nice little theory you have there but it is irrelevant to journalism. We are a conduit for information - we don't decide how to filter it, we give it as it is. Dictionaries and wikipedia - publically agreed on definitions - are our reference books.
 * Did you not just say we are not BBC and CNN etc? they lable all these gunmen as terrorists...we do not follow their lead and cite their POV...after all its BBC and CNN etc that are calling them terrorists...not an *one* person. Jason Safoutin 01:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner, all you are saying is that you think it is the right word. Not everyone agrees. The gunmen certainly wouldn't agree. Those who support violent opposition to the Iraqi governmenet certainly wouldn't agree. Neutral point of view is not about being right, it is about being neutral. WN:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Ask yourself, would both opponents and supporters of these gunmen agree that the word "terrorist" should be used to describe them? - Borofkin 01:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Borofkin, we look in the dictionary and find the definition and match it to the case. That's neutral.

If your idea of neutrality is not using a word then I'm sorry that is not wikipedia ethos. To not use the correct word is a political decision as much as to use an incorrect word for political reasons.

Sorry I fear we are in total disagreement on this.

 * You seem to be suggesting that a definition is "neutral" (in the Wikinews sense of the word) because it appears in a dictionary. This is clearly not the case. The relavent Wikinews policy is WN:NPOV, which talks about NPOV as a balance between different points of view, rather than one single point-of-view called "neutrality". The Wikipedia article Definition of terrorism discusses at length the problem with the term. It states: "Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. One 1988 study by the US Army (PDF) found that over 100 definitions of the word "terrorism" have been used." Which definition should we use? How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition? - Borofkin 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>The gunmen certainly wouldn't agree.<<

Borofkin, are you party to information?

Ealturner 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition?<<

That a fact or your POV?

>>Which definition should we use?<< The people who read our articles are smart enough to have read a page with wikinews linked, visited wikipedia or found it by Google - they should know how to use a dictionary and work it out.

You seem to be throwing your hands up and want to bin a word because it's covered in shit. Sorry I think your POV is getting in the way of your neutrality. I think a quality of a journalist is being able to see through the shit.
 * Well now that you have been informed of WN:NPOV I am also going to ask that you read WN:E and WN:NOT (WN:NOT a theatre of war, which you are creating, by making accusations aginst contributers. please review these policies.

This is a community. You are not a single entity on this Wiki and please do not treat other users like they do not exist. Jason Safoutin 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an issue that should probably be discussed by the wider community. I've flagged this page for community attention, and I've also started a discussion at Water cooler/policy. - Borofkin 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) >>How can Wikinews possibly define the term when the all the governments and academics in the world haven't been able to agree on a definition?<<

That a fact or your POV?

>>Which definition should we use?<< The people who read our articles are smart enough to have read a page with wikinews linked, visited wikipedia or found it by Google - they should know how to use a dictionary and work it out.

You seem to be throwing your hands up and want to bin a word because it's covered in shit. Sorry I think your POV is getting in the way of your neutrality. I think a quality of a journalist is being able to see through the shit.
 * Well now that you have been informed of WN:NPOV I am also going to ask that you read WN:E and WN:NOT (WN:NOT a theatre of war, which you are creating, by making accusations aginst contributers. please review these policies.

This is a community. You are not a single entity on this Wiki and please do not treat other users like they do not exist. Jason Safoutin 01:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 01:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Jason Safoutin, I'm sorry that you feel insulted by something that I have said or not said and that you think I've created a "theatre of war". This is a strongly discussed argument with strong views on boths sides. Censorship brings out the fighter in me. I'm sure you have equally strong visceral reactions to what you feel is wrong.

I'm willing to return to the discussion.

>>The relavent Wikinews policy is WN:NPOV, which talks about NPOV as a balance between different points of view, rather than one single point-of-view called "neutrality".<<

Terrorist is a descriptive word based on facts which are in the news story. As I have said, it is not a politically charged word - the charge is brought to it by those with POV.

I maintain vigourously terrorist is the right word. No other more accurate word has been put forward, nor has anyone denied terrorist fits the definition for the article.

This discussion seems politically charged far beyond what is necessary for a simple article. You don't know my politics - save your battles for another time, please.

 * I don't it fits the the definition of this aticle. Jason Safoutin 01:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 02:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Are you going to give reasons? How can we discuss things if you're not going to play fair and explain your motivations?

My reasons why terrorist is correct word
 * attack, which we know was a forced capture, had a civilian target

Definition: Terrorism refers to a strategy of using threats and violence against civilians for political or ideological purposes.

 * attack had political/ideological purpose. "Men with guns" aren't know to go rounding up civilians in market places and taking them away. Those with political point to make are.

IMO this is not an "ethnic attack" - the facts are not in, cleansing does not appear to be motivation. Rather the exercise seems to be well organised and to some extent propaganda.

Terrorism.

 * Your opinion? you mean your POV. I stated my reasons...and tell me...who or what group is responsible for this? Jason Safoutin 02:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Terrorism on the publically available definition of the word. If the group responsible publically admitted the act we would mention the name of that group instead of the word terrorist.

 * Sorry, you did not make a convincing case why the word terrorist is not accurate in this case. I will vigourously oppose arbitrary censorship of words at wikinews as that is anethema to my reading of the wiki ethos Ealturner 02:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'm not sure what you mean by the "Wiki ethos". Any justification for the use of the word "terrorism" should be in reference to WN:NPOV. - Borofkin 02:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I am referring to the high standards wikinews strives for in addition to giving the facts from a neutral point of view. Please highlight which part of the page you linked censors the word "terrorism." Then bear in mind the page you linked can be edited at anytime. I am almost certain wikinews ethos is not striving to be Pravada of Soviet era fame. Ealturner 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have already done this. WN:NPOV states: "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." Supporters of the gunmen would reject the suggestion that they were terrorists, therefore to describe them as terrorists in an article is a violation of this policy. - Borofkin 02:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Are you party to information? That is your POV, unless you have a quote from those men with guns saying "we're not terrorists." You are jumping to a conclusion that they think in a certain way. Why do that when all one needs to do is look in a dictionary. You don't need to make a guess at what people think. Just look in a publically available information source.

 * We need to compromise here or no articles will ever be published. Censorship is not an option. Terrorism is a word. When the case fits it shall be used. That is the reasonable position. Ealturner 02:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you really suggesting that these gunmen may self-identify as terrorists? I find it extremely unlikely. I don't know of any person or organisation who has called themselves terrorist. - Borofkin 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * What you are doing is thinking. That is where bias comes in. You mustn't think, just tell the facts and use words according to their definitions. That's news. I'm not the greatest writer but that's news I'd strive for. If you can find me that quote where those men with guns clain not to be terrorists or use terrorist tactics, then I will agree it is a matter of POV and we should find another word. Currently such quote from those men with guns is not available; this news is a matter of description, and therefore we refer to the dictionary for our terms. Republishing article. Ealturner 03:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You talk about the definition of terrorism as though it is not in dispute. A disputed term can never be considered NPOV. Using your rational (that the gunmen must have specifically rejected the label of "terrorist"), I could argue that the next time US soldiers kill civilians at a checkpoint we should call them "terrorists", unless they specifically state that they don't consider themselves to be terrorists. - Borofkin 03:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The killing of civilians who may or may not be in any way associated with the people or ideologies the terrorists are fighting against with the intent of causing fear, panic, or communal tension in order to achieve a goal which is itself disputable is termed terrorism. Terrorism is often masked by the terrorists as a struggle for freedom even though peaceful methods can also be used to achieve this goal. Terrorists are most often Muslims who claim their acts are justifiable by the Quaraan despite learned imams clearly stating that even in a jihad, women, children and civilians should not be killed. As such, the term jihadi, or holy-warrior cannot be applied to these people since their attacks kil children, women and civilians who do not fall into the category of people the terrorists term as oppressors. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 06:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * There is an objective publically available definition for terrorism. To not use a word when the word fits is biased - censorship. I understand what you are saying, that today's terrorists in the history books will be called "freedom fighters" but that doesn't mean those freedom fighters didn't use terrorist tactics. Israelis who bombed British out of Israel admitted they choose terrorism as a deliberate strategy. It's not unclear to me such people would not call themselves terrorists on the publically available definition of the term. The furore you are stirring up over the term terrorism is itself evidence of POV - just look in the dictionary, no POV there. There is no reason whatever to object to the term as used in this article. Given the full and logical reasoning I have willingly made I am not happy that a compromise has yet been reached that does not require censorship. Ealturner 13:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, still no one has siad who or what group is responsible. Jason Safoutin 14:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Those who do terrorist acts are by definition terrorists. I stand by the reasoning I have argued the entirity of this discussion: it is the correct term in this case. Ealturner 14:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ealturner, you have somewhat right but as said earlier the word 'terrorist' is a pov problem. I like to call US and Israel among a few countries terroriststates, who commit acts of state terrorism. And the diferens between 'terrorism' and repression might not be so big. For not get stuck in a very long, and quite unconstuctive discussion I think its better you accept that 'terrorist' is a disputed word and dont use it if not attributed to someone. Just listen to Bush talking about 'terroristleader' Abu Musab al-Zarqawi been killed. I call Bush a worser 'terroristleader'. But that is my pov whish many disagrea with and I dont titulate him that in articles. international 15:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * International - stick to the dictionary there is no problem, whatsoever. The only issue is in your imaginations as I suspect that your own POVs are getting in the way of objectivity here and that your objections are politically motivated. I evidence this claim by your statement "I like to call US and Israel among a few countries terroriststates." Clearly you have a political bias which is motivating your objection. For me this excludes you from the debate as censoring terrorist would be biased.

 * I have simply asked for a word to be used according to its publically available definition. This is not radical, this is correct, honest, open journalism. This journalism can be double-checked by parties with no knowledge of the news subject. Not everyone follows politics - not everyone has your POV toward the word terrorist. We should use the objective publically available definition above all others. I have been quite patient outlining my reasons when I have no personal agenda other than to do good, accurate journalism. I feel my attempt to do this is being hindered. Let's get an agreement. Ealturner 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not and will not agree to the use of the word terrorism in this article. The word was not said by anyone, it cannot be attributed to anyone, there is no quote and still no one has said who or what group is responsible for this. And Again (I am growing tired of repeating myself) there are over 100 definitions for terrorist. It is impossible to use only one of those definitions. Jason Safoutin 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner, I think that 'gunmen' is as good as 'terrorists' in this article. I cant see anywere any political claims from the kidnappers and they might be out for money, bandits. Though I agree with other users, that even might have the opposit political pov than me in this question, that the word 'terrorist' is a disputed word. May I speculat its because its been used together with political agenda from some (not wikinewsies to my knowledge), and the lexical mening have been tainted. So my pov in this is not politically based. It is that i fear a long and unconstructive discussion that I hardly can see a solution on. international

 * International - thank you for your views, I appreciate your passion for news. However I believe you are wrong. Gunmen is a weak term that conveys less meaning than the word terrorist. Terrorist is the correct word - this much appears to be agreed. It appears you don't want that word to be used. Censorship is intolerable and displays political bias.  Ealturner 18:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I dont agree quite simple and its not political motivated. I try to answer you arguments below. international 18:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "I try to answer you arguments below." This is not a game. This is not a seminar and I'm not a professor. You are taking a lot of my time up with a politically motivated objection to a word that the good journalist refers to dictionary for guide of usage. I am not amused. Ealturner 18:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont like to get assumed motivations thrown in my face. Then I dont spend any more time on this. international 18:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's get an agreement
Ealturner 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Censorship is intolerable. Dictionaries are produced for a reason - to resolve disputes in word meaning and to provide a landmark objective, meaning for a word independent of how it may be used.

Borofkin advocates the word terrorism should not be used unless someone else has been reported to have said it:

"I oppose the use of the word "terrorist" in this article, or any article, unless it is atributed or quoted." [Borofkin - see earlier in this discussion]

I disagree wholly on any form of censorship of the journalist as there are times when terrorist or terrorism is the most accurate word. For the writer to deliberately not use terrorism in favour of a weaker term would be dishonest and misleading to the reader.

On the contrary, I think terrorism may be used on its definition as found in dictionaries; definitions which are consistent as to main usage - violence intended to achieve political goals, especially that which is directed to civilian targets.

Some definitions

dictionary.com: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Merriam-Webster: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion http://dictionary.cambridge.org/: (threats of) violent action for political purposes

Encarta: political violence: violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, carried out for political purposes

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Terrorism : 1. The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda. 2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives. 3. A psychological strategy of war for gaining political or religious ends by deliberately creating a climate of fear among the popuation of a state.

Webster 1913: he act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. Jefferson. 2. The practise of coercing governments to accede to political demands by committing violence on civilian targets; any similar use of violence to achieve goals

American Heritage: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I propose that unless those who have committed the alleged terrorist act have said their action was not terrorism, and are sourced as saying such, then their act if it best fits the definition of terrorism is terrorism and they are terrorists. The onus must be on those commiting each violent act to say they're not terrorists as we the journalist cannot assume they don't want to be known as terrorists or to use terrorist tactics. If those that initially fit the definition of terrorists provide a reason why they're not terrorists, then the rule of attributed and quoted use only of the word terrorist may apply. Ealturner 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Four users object to the use of the word terrorist in this article, and I continue my objection. Jason Safoutin 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * As far as I am concerned, the use of the term terrorist has been fully justified here on the talk page, and my concern that it be bludgeoned into people hasn't come to be, it is used - once - which is appropriate. Our Indian friend, PVJ agrees, so that's at least three on the side of the term being used.  --Brian McNeil / talk 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has not been justified. No one person or group has claimed responsibility. No one has attibuted or said these are terrorists. And until then it is a total POV. I will say this once more: if you want to use terrorist then some can say Bush is one or Israel or Iran or ANYONE and any nation. The fact is that they are GUNMEN. Point to a sources that says who is responsible or what group. Do we call murderes terrorists? Do we call Saddam a terrorist? The fact that there is opposition and support for the use means that the tearm itself is not a neutral term. Therefore I am still opposed to the use of it. Jason Safoutin 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

>> Four users object to the use of the word terrorist in this article, and I continue my objection. << Objection in itself is not sufficient to prove NPOV. If it the decision was based simply on a matter of numbers forget discussion, I can rustle up 2 dozen people, if not more, who would post here to support my view and get this passed. I'm not going to, and I believe you wouldn't do this either, because I'm a believer that reasoned debate can sort out differences. I believe, of the objectors here, Borofkin has the most nuanced stance - however his position still censors the journalist intolerably. My proposal is really not far off Borofkin's - certainly not as far off as some of the heat I'm getting might suggest. If you'd take time to consider my logical proposal I'd thank you for your effort. No grudges held. The point has gotten across to me that terrorism isn't a word that can be thrown around without a lot of thought, which is the way it should be. Ealturner 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten the community with POV pushing and a mass task force of meatpuppets. I am no longer going to collaborate with you as I believe you cannot and refuse to understand and follow WN:NPOV, WN:E, and WN:NOT. These are policies. I have to abide by them and so do you. Jason Safoutin 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Umm? Are you serious? I'm sorry you feel that way and feel the need to hide behind a lot of links to look authoritative and veteran over me. I am indeed a new contributor here and one who knows when he's not wanted. I was a new contributor who welcomed your interest and passion and your experience; but uncharitable use of my words and behaviour toward me is not at all welcome. I wonder whether I should help out here at all. It is not the friendly, intelligent, place for enthusiastic journalist without political agendas I thought it was. Ealturner 21:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If we can get back to the issue. I think there has yet to be a good case made why we can't use the word terrorism in this case. I'm not pushing for terrorist in all cases. Don't worry I'm not that kind of person. I just want to be accurate. Terrorist is accurate. Republishing. Ealturner 21:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * 82.141.50.12 strikes again. Moves it to develop; gives no reason. I consider this disruptive and am republishing. Ealturner 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Terrorists seize 50 in Iraq


text:
Talk:U.S. Senate defeats bill banning gay marriage

I'm rather certain that obtaining the requisite 2/3 majority (67 votes) in the Senate is not enough to amend the constitution, as suggested in the article. It also needs to be ratified by a majority (2/3? simple?) of the individual states. Siafu 19:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbols/Flags
I added the pink triangle. The history, if I am correct, is an international symbol. Hitler made the Jewish people wear the upside down triangle, who were gay lesbian etc. This is not POV or a "political statement." It is a symbol. Jason Safoutin 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also please see Pink Triangle
 * The pink triangle (German: Rosa Winkel) was one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, used by the Nazis to identify male prisoners in concentration camps who were sent there because of their homosexuality. Jason Safoutin 20:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Ealturner 23:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC) It looks quite silly with the two flags there but from a POV POV it's probably okay now. I think I'd choose an image of the Senate building for this.

Umm. Hang on are you saying US are Nazis for persecuting gays? Are gays persecuted? Actually from a POV POV it might be more POV than before. But I'm not an expert on the meaning of flags.
 * I never said that. You stated that the flag was a political statement. The flag maybe. but thr triangle is an international symbol. During the concentration camp times, thats what Jewish Gays/lesbians had to wear to identify themselves. It is not a made up symbol but has a very very deep history. Its not a political statement but an international symbol for GLBT. Jason Safoutin

Ealturner 00:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC) I'm alright with such a neutral symbol - it was the thought that the Nazis invented that particular one. Take the Nazi symbol and put it next to the American flag and there's a right Pick n' Mix group of people you might offend - Jews, Germans, Americans, maybe even Gays. The attempt to be neutral is obvious but underlying that is the dark thought to anyone who knows that triangle's history "Americans are Nazis".

Ealturner 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) On reading the Pink Triangle link I don't agree this flag is a neutral symbol - as I said I'm not an expert on flags.

>>The pink triangle, now a gay pride and gay rights symbol,<<

Seems it's like the rainbow one. It promotes a political agenda. Removing the images.
 * No...the images are not agendas but factual history. the flag represents a nation and a coiuntry as the triangle represents a culture. Its NPOV and removing images that are both relevant to the article, and iting them as agendas IMO is your POV. I NEVER said americans were nazis and I NEVER said gays were or anythingf else. Read the facts and the history. Jason Safoutin 00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Example of NPOV: Maryland Judge throws out law banning gay marriages. Both flags represent NPOV. To not have them IMO would be censorship. Jason Safoutin 00:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Ahem - you put the flags on that article yourself. Is your point that nobody bothered to delete them? 159.247.237.3 (w:User:Audacity) 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Flag
Regardless of whether it's POV or not, having a picture of an American flag is pretty dumb, and a waste of space. And the caption ("American flag") is even dumber, considering that this article is written in English. 159.247.237.3 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (w:User:Audacity)
 * English yes, but this is an international news site. The both represent NPOV and both are related to the article. Jason Safoutin 17:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean they're newsworthy. That's the critical thing you're missing, Jason. These pictures might be suitable on Wikipedia, but they are not news.

 * In terms of giving context: theoretically, someone could not know what a woman was, and need a picture. But realistically, that's such a small minority that it makes no sense wasting space catering to them. We know you're not a five-year-old, but seeing the history of this page might make one think so. 159.247.237.3 (w:User:Audacity) 18:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * And just for clarity, neither the person who last removed them, nor I, objected in any way based on NPOV grounds. 159.247.237.3 (w:User:Audacity) 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well objecting to them as a basis that "a 5 year old put them there" is not actionable either. Jason Safoutin 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they are not news...then ANY image on any article is "not news." both images are in direct relation to the article. Thats why they are there. As to the article that "no one bothered to delete them", thats because they are related to the article. Jason Safoutin 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

These illustrations are ridiculous!
consider them removed. + ½½½½

I think the story appeared more serious and neutral without the images. Anyone can remove the images who feels the same. Is there a consensus? That would help to prevent an edit war. Karen 18:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * 20:10, 7 June 2006 DragonFire1024 (added gay symbol and american flag...The symbol is not NPOV its recognized as a GBLT symbol)

DragonFire1024 probably meant to state that he felt the symbol was neutral, but mis-stated. Perhaps if images of U.S. President Bush and a cross were added, the images in the story would reach a balance. Perhaps that's an absurd suggestion, but it makes my point. Karen 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral is both images. Not neutral is one of them. Bothe are clearly related to the story, and at the moment no actionable objections by the anonymous uses have been made. Simply removing them because they feel a "five-year-old added them/wrote the article" is not actionable. Jason Safoutin 18:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But removing them to make the story look more professional is actionable. Why not wait to see if there's a consensus to keep the images - obviously some people feel the story looks better without it. I think that's what the "five-year-old" comment was meant to express. Karen 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Rainbowflag
This discussion is little unnecessary. I talk for the rainbow flag and if findig a image or symbol for US senat it would be perfect. Rainbowflag had the undertext a symbol for gaypride. That symbols is not pov themself but to removing it is a symbolic act of silencing gay people. And silencing gays is... not a Wikinewsy thing. I say it is less pov than a nationflag. Put it back. international 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree...but the triangle is an international symbol whereas the rainbow flag is mostly only represented in the US. I will agree to a senate symbol, if there is one available. But the reason for their removel, even by Karen, is not actionable. Jason Safoutin 18:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * "Looking better without the images" is certainly actionable. Karen 18:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd not object to the two flag images. Karen 18:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So I think that many images look better not in an articles...so lets begin to remove all the ones we feel are not making the articles look good. Now thats rediculous. 18:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly your editorial prerogative to do so. Consider the American flag and the Rainbow flag - the story is about U.S., so why use an international symbol? Karen 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at my suggestion. Happy editing! international 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks good, international. Thanks for colaborating on this story and adding your voice to the discussion. Karen 18:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're looking here to see why I reverted Jason Safoutin's edit, it's because I thought the offset images looked better. Of course, if you don't think that's actionable (as Jason Safoutin suggests) please mention it here. Karen 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
Kimberly Dozier heading back to US

June 7, 2006

CBS reporter Kimberly Dozier, who was wounded May 29 in Iraq is on her way back to the United States, where she will be admitted to the close to Washington D.C.  She was apparently very responsive, and was "talking animatedly."

Col. W. Bryan Gamble, a spokesman at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in where Dozier had stayed in intensive care for much of the past week, said her progress has been "encouraging." While Dozier was in Iraq working on a report about American Forces in Iraq on Memorial Day, she was wounded from a car bomb that actually killed Paul Douglas, a camera operator, and James Brolan, an audio technician, as well as an American soldier and an Iraqi interpreter.

CBS has reported that she remembers the explosion, possibly indicating that she doesn't have any significant brain damage.

title: Kimberly Dozier heading back to US