text:
Talk:France protests treatment of government minister by US authorities; US government admits mistake

This article has nothing to show for the US side; is unbalanced, therefore NPOV. Please provide more specifics on the arrest, and less accusations like "imposed some excessive control". Also, there could be more details into this story - it is rather vague on specifics. --Mrmiscellanious 22:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, hardly any US news source report on it. Yet, apparently, the US government official admitted a mistake. Mr Begag wanted to keep it discreet, so he's not commenting on it.
 * You won't get specifics unless Mr Begag changes his mind or eyewitnesses come forward. Submarine 22:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't manufacture news for the sake of "balance"; but more details and "quotes" added.Neutralizer 13:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
The article statest the US State Department did respond. They apologized for an officer's mistake, reprimanded the officer. The article appears balanced to me. - Amgine / talk 23:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Should be ok now. There's I think hardly anything opposing a "French view" or a "US view" — both governments seem to agree that the control was excessive. Submarine 23:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Traveling into or within the US now like going into East Germany 30 years ago
The chances are you'll not be bothered; but if,for any reason, US authorities/police target you, you can land in an anal rape jail for 10-20 years for having done nothing wrong whatsoever. Just look what they almost did to an american lawyer, Brandon Mayfield. Note his fingerprints were "100% verified" by the main FBI lab. The facts don't count in the US anymore. Neutralizer 13:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Getting _into_ East Germany was never the problem. But say, Neut? You ain't PaulRevere2005 redux by any chance are you? 69.23.220.138 00:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?
The very title of this article is POV, and is far too scant on details to be newsworthy in any credible way. -- Medude24 10:37, 22 October 2005 (PST)
 * I do agree. Tagging with necessary tags on your behalf.  --Mrmiscellanious 18:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The event was reported in the press, there was a diplomatic incident, and the US government admitted to the problem. Unless of course you consider that TF1, Le Figaro etc. report not "newsworthy" stuff, but a cursory look at the Wikinews front page shows that we do report even more pointless stuff. Submarine 22:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, I don't give a rip what other news sources report. Just because they are reporting it doesn't mean it is automatically news worthy.  As no details have surfaced, I see this as nothing more than a French government official complaining about something that could be as small as a vending machine giving him the wrong pack of gum.  --Mrmiscellanious 03:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title is far too biased, especially without concrete details in the story regarding what actually took place. How about something like "France protests treatment of government minister by US authorities"? --Wolfrider 00:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Much better, I think. --Mrmiscellanious 03:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

''I see this as nothing more than a French government official complaining about something that could be as small as a vending machine giving him the wrong pack of gum. '' Then why would the US government issue a statement that a mistake had been made and that they would reprimand and retrain the customs officer? Submarine 15:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As though comical as it may be, the government customs officer could have been a contractor ordered to fill those vending machines and perform all technical maintenence to the machine, and when it was noted that that hypothetical pack of gum was dispersed incorrectly, the supervisor went for another contractor. I know it's silly, but without details - anything is up for guesses.  --Mrmiscellanious 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I seriously disagree. IMHO by definition, an official complaint by a government on the treatment of a minister is automatically newsworthy. Also, this may surprise you but usually when governments makes official complaints, it's more then a pack of gum. Also this may further surprise you, but the wrong pack of gum coming from a machine is not generally construed as mistreatment and even a politician is unlikely to ever try to claim such... Nil Einne 18:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the Vienna convention defines the status of diplomats (in particular, a diplomat cannot be arrested and searched). That these international conventions were broken is quite newsworthy, and quite different from "the wrong pack of gum". Rama 09:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Emigration perspective in the eyes of young Poles

October 23, 2005

During 19 and 20 October in Częstochowa took place National Scientific Students Conference, which was mainly devoted to migration of young Polish people. It was prepared by two students organizations from Technical University of Częstochowa and Jan Długosz Academy. The leading theme was: To leave or to stay? Young Poles seeking for prospect year after Polish accession to European Union.

Particular parts of Conference was lead by sociology profesors Marek Szczepański, Adam Rosół and Lech Milian.

For the following two days students were presented their own research work, then discussing the reports with professors. The main problems which those reports concerns were opinion and attitudes of young Pols towards the problems of temporary and permanent emigration. Few voice concern about the unemployment rate among people under 25, an issue connected with job searching, as well as identity matters, acculturation of expatriates or the relevance of emotional sphere to adjustement to new host country.

W Częstochowie odbyła się konferencja naukowa poświęcona emigracji zarobkowej

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


text:
Iraqi vote remains in doubt

October 23, 2005

Amid concerns of electoral fraud, preliminary results now indicate the province of Nineveh will be the "swing province" deciding the fate of Iraq's constitutional referendum. On October 15, a reported 64% of eligible Iraqis voted in the referendum on the draft Iraqi constitution. One week later, preliminary results are available for fourteen of the eighteen provinces. Two of Iraq's 18 provinces have returned "No" votes, making Nineveh the third and deciding province that could veto the new U.S.-backed charter if rejected by more than a two thirds majority of voters.

Despite a last minute compromise achieved with one political party representing Sunni Arabs, Sunni voters appear to be rejecting the proposed charter by a wide margin. In Anbar, heartland of the insurgency, 96 percent voted "No" and in Salahaddin 81 percent voted "No", according to preliminary results. Nineveh is more ethnically mixed, but still mainly Sunni, and is at the center of fraud concerns when initial tallies of the overall vote appeared to swing wildly

Election officials caution that these preliminary results should not be construed as forecasts, as the ethnic diversity of those who actually voted may not be represented in these preliminary numbers.

title: Iraqi vote remains in doubt


text:
Talk:Iraqi vote remains in doubt

Psusen
did all this work but had it in the Iraq counting ballots story so somebody deleted it all. Neutralizer 23:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

At 23:15, 21 October 2005 Cspurrier edited Iraq Counting ballots --- "(rv do not update old stories write a new one)." Before I saw Neutralizer had started a new story, I did the same. I will wait to edit this story until Neutralizer takes a crack at it. Neutralizer developed the new title. I was surprised Cspurrier deleted all my work today (7 sources or so and a couple hours at least). My question is whether Cspurrier was correct in deleting the material? No media service has seemed to follow this story properly which I why I thought it was important to put it together.

--Psusen 00:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikinews, current Wikinews policy (What_Wikinews_is_not Wikinews articles are not works in progress.) does not allow for the updating of stories after the story has been published for more then a few hours. I had not yet had a chance to let you know about when Neutralizer did :). --Cspurrier 00:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I had left the article as breaking news for just this reason. I figured that once an article was published it should pretty much be left alone. But at 12:09, 21 October 2005 Cspurrier (remove ) ... The story was still valid as Iraq still is counting ballots 6 days later. Neutralizer has taken the old article and renamed it - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Optimism_over_Iraq%27s_vote_now_in_question --- If an article can not be updated a few hours after being published, and if it should not be considered breaking news, the the only recourse is to create a new story and link to the old stories ... agree?

--Psusen 00:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen,please finish the story
I know I said I'd work on it, but I am having trouble being objective as I consider the entire "vote while occupied" a flawed process. Neutralizer 14:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OP-ED
This article is nothing more than an opinion-editorial article. Please userify the page, or remove the editorial content. --Mrmiscellanious 16:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree it should be saved to Psusan's page, but there is a tremendous amount of news value in this. In total, it is 3 news articles: the Saturday referendum, the UN early results reports, and now the voting irregularities.

I've a pumpkin patch to visit, but some time later today I'd like more than a cursory look. -Edbrown05 16:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC) ---

Psusen
I try to be as balanced as possible. However, the media reports towards the end of the week pretty much all were slanted towards the "fraud" line of thinking, so I needed to include that position. The results were "guaranteed" to be final yesterday (Friday), but now it appears it will be several more days. So ... I will edit this article, delete all the old stuff and publish. We will then need a new story every couple of days until the final vote is known. Then we need a story which says - so what are the implications (if there any which are clear? This was a really strange vote protocol from the view of those of us in the US because of the way it was setup (rejection required a 2/3 no vote in at least 3 provinces) ... and this is editorial for this page only - but the way the rules were setup almost guaranteed passage given the ethnic breakdowns in the various sections of the country. I am also trying hard to reflect the sentiment from the Middle East (all factions if possible for balance). It is clear that the meainstream press in the US does not always clearly represent the views of the overseas press. --Psusen 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
I edited the article (major edit) but the edit did not take for some reason. I rewrote the entire article using the following source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/22/iraq.vote/index.html

The essence of the story was that the election apparently boils down to two provinces, Nineveh and Anbar. If the referendum is defeated by more than 2/3 in these two provinces, the referendum would fail.

As I said I rewrote the entire article, hit save and my story disappeared. Do you want me to redo it? --Psusen 00:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --Psusen, goodness gracious :| I hope you have a record of your changes. On rare occasions that can happen but in my own experience hardly ever lately. Please do try again. -Edbrown05 00:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
OK, I am reposting my story. Please review, edit and change to publish if it looks good to you. Thanks. --Psusen 00:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Was awaiting your lead on this to see what scope it would encompass, thanks. I think what you report is excellent, and you certainly could have published it yourself. I'll probably add to it. -Edbrown05 00:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Psusen
Thanks. How do you change the name of the article, keeping what you have? --Psusen 01:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * click on the 'Rename' tab. -Edbrown05 01:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Iraq final results - next stories
Another story hard to follow because Iraq officials keep extending the deadline when results are due. We need to keep looking for as definitive a source as we can find on the real results, not forecasts and projections. There may be two more stories. The penultimate story would be when Nineveh and Diyala are clear. If one or the other vote no, then the referendum would be rejected. If they both vote to support the referendum, then the referendum would pass. Final story on the vote would be the official declaration.

The next set of stories will lead up to December 15 when the official, not draft, charter is voted. The question is the extent to which there is objective evidence that the new constitution, if passed, will help to (a) bring the disparate ethnic groups together and (b) reduce the insurgency.

The reduction of insurgency would presumably lead to more calls to bring the US troops home. Along with the various events occuring in Iran and Syria, the role of the US in Iraq will continue to be a lead story.

Title
I find MrM's title odd and confusing "Preliminary Iraqi vote counts cautioned" I think this is better "Iraqi vote remains in doubt" Neutralizer 03:11, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iraqi vote remains in doubt


text:
Amazon rainforest being destroyed faster than previously believed

October 21, 2005

Newly published research shows that the Amazon rainforest is being destroyed at double the rate of all previous estimates. The research was published today in the journal of Science.

A new analysis of satellite images of the Brazilian part of the Amazon basin shows that on average 6,000 square miles of forest is being cut down by selective logging each year. This is in addition to a similar amount clear-cut annually for cattle grazing or farming. As a result, up to 25% more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere every year.


text:
User:RobLa

See wikipedia:User:RobLa

title: User:RobLa


title: File:22October2005.pdf


title: File:22October2005.sxw


text:
Talk:Avian flu found within UK

Note added later
Note that it was later found that the parrot did not have avian flu, but that the Taiwanese birds did have avian flu.

Changed title to reflect the story
There may always be mitigating circumstances to a story(the bird was still in quarantine)...which the reader finds out by reading the story. The only news here is that the bird was on British soil. Neutralizer 12:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't make it clear that, at the time of the article, it was not clear whether this was standard bird flu, or h5n1.

title: Talk:Avian flu found within UK


text:
User:Kookykman~enwikinews

Wikis:
 * Wikipedia|(talk)
 * Wikiquote|(talk)
 * Wikinews|(talk)
 * HRWiki|(talk)
 * Wiktionary|(talk)
 * Wikimedia Meta-Wiki|(talk)
 * Commons|(talk)

title: User:Kookykman~enwikinews


text:
Talk:South Thailand insurgents blamed for five bombs

How does anyone know who planted the bombs?
Has there been an admission or has any evidence been found to show who planted the bombs? Neutralizer 14:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you read the related material? It is a significant issue that the southern provinces of Thailand are predominantly Muslim. And, if you read again, you will not see anywhere in the article text the accusation that the persons placing the bombs were Muslim.  This is the only part of Thailand where there is a significant Muslim population, and the only part of the country where there is insurgency activity. Brianmc 14:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but your very words,imo, reveal a tendency we all have to draw conclusions based upon our own logical thinking and then to report those conslusions as a "by the way" aside in a news story ( "Muslims likely did it" is the message delivered by mentioning the religious affiliation of people in the area). + it just feeds into religious friction to always mention the religion of people in certain locations when it may have nothing to do with the story. e.g. New York City has the largest percentage of Jews of any major US city but we didn't mention that at all in the reports of the 9/11 attacks because we had no proof that it was relevant to the event. Neutralizer 15:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Try reading this, then you might want to reconsider putting Muslim back in there. Brianmc 15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought this was important; "To Gen Sonthi, the violence in the South is linked to the battle for resources..." a lot of times I think it's all about money and has nothing to do with religion. Neutralizer 16:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The term "insurgents" is not specific and refers to any person or groups acting in opposition to the government. It is neutral, and describes what they do - not whether they are justified or what their alleged motives may be. To say "insurgents are blamed for planting bombs" is redundant: whoever planted the bombs are by default insurgents as they are acting in opposition to the government. This edit adds obfuscating and confusing language to the lede which should be brief and precise. - Amgine / talk 14:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There is still no proof it was anti-government people who did it. It could be crazy people or government people(engineering an excuse for a reaction strike) or just a murderer who wanted to kill 1 of the victims and did the rest to deflect attention. All of these are unlikely but still possible. We have no proof at all that it was insurgents. Neutralizer 15:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

sometimes bombs are planted to "frame" the enemy
That is always a possibility, especially without any investigation or verified admission of responsibility. Neutralizer 15:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is patently ridiculous. You are accusing the Thai government and army of bombing their own citizens.  They are struggling to deal with the unrest, not make it look worse. Brianmc 11:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you really saying it has never happened before? (a government setting up a phoney "enemy attack").? Neutralizer 15:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I am not saying the scenario you have suggested is impossible; I am saying it is so unlikely as to be pretty out-there. The Thai government would like news of events in the south kept as low-key as possible as they claim it aids the insurgents' cause.  That being the case, why would they plant the bombs? Brianmc 15:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not a member of the Thai government, so I won't presume to know what there desires or agenda are. All I know is that there is,thus far, no proof that anti-government people planted the bombs. Neutralizer 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Other editors' opinions needed on this
I'd like to hear from other editors as I prefer not to use tags. Neutralizer 15:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll wait on this until later, but it is significant that the south of the country is predominantly Muslim, the roots of the separatist movement and insurgency are based on the history of the region being a Muslim Malay Sultinate. The Thai army have asserted that the insurgents are Muslim, although they do not apparently represent the majority in the region.  Taking out Muslim and putting in weasel words to avoid giving any indication why there is insurgency in the country does not sit well with me; had the information on the religious persuasion of the majority in the region been moved elsewhere I would not have reverted this.  If that information is not included I will revert it back. Brianmc 15:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we just agree to disagree; that's why I hope others voice their views.Neutralizer 16:08, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Others did voice their opinion. You reverted that to your personal preference for the story.  I see you have been dealt with for that. Brianmc 11:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Now others are involved; before it was just 1 anon. Neutralizer 15:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

*lightbulb*
Ah, i suddenly understandd Amgine's point... Insurgent can mean: [wiktionary] Neutralizer and I have been reading the first paragraph to be refering to the noun, where as amgine and maybe others have been reading it as the nominalised adjective, hence i think that all edits in regard to this word have been in good faith, and it has just been a matter of mis-interpretation.
 * 1) NOUN rebel, guerrilla, freedom fighter
 * 2) ADJ rebellious, opposing authority

Who is right? Nobody. However, I think the title of the article is using it in the noun meaning and so perhaps we should continue using that meaning. What do other ppl think? ~The bellman | Smile 14:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not believe you can be "accused of being a rebel" if you perform an act of rebellion. You simply are, because you have done so. Planting a bomb is an act of insurgency. Those who do so are insurgents. I strongly oppose using obfuscating language in the opening paragraph of articles without specific justification. There is no justification here. There is no benefit to the language you have inserted which I can see, but perhaps you can explain one? - Amgine / talk 15:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * What is currently in the first paragraph is "...insurgents have been blamed for the planting of five bombs during one day." People other than terrorists, guerillas, freedom fighters, rebels etc are capable of planting bombs. According to Brianmc an insurgent "attempt[s] to overthrow the government, or effect the establishment of an independent state in part of the country." There are reasons beyond these to plant a bomb. We know that there were bombs planted. We do not know, but assume that these bombs were probably planted by anti-government forces of some type. Untill we KNOW that the bombs were planted by anti-government forces then we can only report that their planting has been blamed on insurgents/anti-government forces. As a side note, since insurgents are the most likely explanation, and those insurgents use Islam as a tool/reason for thier insurgency, then the provences being muslim is very important. ~The bellman | Smile 16:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * "Insurgent" is a fairly neutral word, I believe the BBC has promoted its use in recent years and both sides of a dispute can interpret it to suit their personal agenda. In this case, if you're a supporter of the government you may interpret insurgent to mean "terrorist", if you support the separatists you can take away the "freedom fighter" meaning.  By definition, the people who plant bombs are insurgents.

 * Where I had an issue with Neutralizer was the repeated removal of the word "Muslim". Three of the provinces listed on the infobox have around 80% Muslim population, the fourth around a third.  That, as far as I am concerned, is a material fact which relates to the story.  Look to the previous article I put together on the issue and you'll see that other editors had not been particularly happy there that there was no indication of the background to the insurgency.  This time round, with the debut of the infobox, I intended to make up for the prior article's shortcomings.

 * Incidentally, Tuesday marks the first anniversary of the Tak Bai incident. So far some lawsuits have been filed by relatives of those killed and some of the injured.  Another lawsuit is apparently to be filed on the anniversary and there may be some protests (news if there are, news if there aren't - because they're expected).  I have started laying out material to use in an article on this for Tuesday, it can be found in my user space.  I sincerely hope that when the article goes up it is not subject to a similar disputeBrianmc 15:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * There is still no proof it was anti-government people who did it. It could be crazy people or government people(engineering an excuse for a reaction strike) or just a murderer who wanted to kill 1 of the victims and did the rest to deflect attention. All of these are unlikely but still possible. We have no proof at all that it was insurgents; even using Amgine's definition. Also, the Bellman is correct about the fact I interpreted the meaning of the word differently than Amgine and I certainly was unaware that I was doing anything that could be referred to as "bad faith". Also, does anyone think we should start putting the word "Christian" into stories about the USA or UK or Italy? Neutralizer 15:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to comment here on one specific aspect of Neutralizer's comment above, namely should we use "Christian" in articles about the USA, UK, or Italy. The idea is ... interesting, but I do not believe a valid comparison in this context.  The three mentioned countries are predominantly Christian, and anyone with a passing knowledge is aware of that.  On the other hand, most people know Thailand as a predominantly Buddhist country, and the exception is that the southern provinces have a significant Muslim population.  In the Bangkok Post article I referred Neutralizer to earlier there was an admission by the Thai army that the insurgents are a tiny minority and not representative of the majority - regardless of their religious affiliation.
 * Now, if you were talking about some parts of the U.S., such as those known as the "Bible Belt", and something like same-sex marriage, then I'd wholeheartedly support the labelling of the state as predominantly <something> Christian, not as a criticism of the religion, but as a statement of fact. Of course, being an atheist Buddhist I may be biased. Brianmc 20:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

the 9/11 attackers were "insurgents"?
That's what you are arguing, are you not? Neutralizer 15:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification; My point above is directed toward's Amgine's definition of insurgents as "The term "insurgents" is not specific and refers to any person or groups acting in opposition to the government"; not toward anything Brianmc had to say. Sorry for confusion. Neutralizer 19:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Where did you get that idea from? They (a) Were not citizens of the United States. (b) Not attempting to overthrow the government, or effect the establishment of an independent state in part of the country.  Please refrain from twisting my words and trying to incite a flame war. Brianmc 15:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to request the participants in this discussion, which is degenerating rapidly, to take a couple hours break away from this article, and this talk page, please. - Amgine / talk 15:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * ok..just added 1 more edit above before seeing this request. Neutralizer 16:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've been off and had some nice, spicy, Thai food. I think I can live with the article as it stands right now.  I'd like the introductory paragraph to be more concise and "punchy", but I don't think we're going to achive a consensus on something like that. (In any case, this is now 2-days-old news).  Neutralizer, my work off my User space for the Tak Bai anniversary could do with some feedback, I'd be happy to work on the talk page for that to avoid any controversy when I get round to using it.  Of course other people are welcome to comment on that too, this is something I'm aiming as being appropriate for use as a 2nd lead or featured article - there could be a lot happen on the day to justify that. Anyway, in this case as we've a couple of days to go we should be able to agree without things degenerating.  Brianmc 19:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure,thanks for the suggestion. Please send me a link to the work you'd like feedback on. Neutralizer 20:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On your talk page, for anyone else interested see here. Brianmc 20:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Mobile phones and bomb detonations
"In Pattani province, a home-made device was left at the entrance to Yarang district's electricity office. It was found to contain fertilizer and iron rods, with a mobile phone, presumably for remote detonation."

I think there is a conventional wisdom that mobile phones are used to remotely detonate IEDs. In fact, most of the time it's simply the timer circuitry which is used as a trigger mechanism. I think it's wrong to reinforce this misconception. Although this could very well of been an exception. 69.23.220.138 05:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with the acronym "IED" I???? Explosive Device? I'd rather not go looking for bomb-making manuals, but I may need to get more background if this becomes a regular attack method. Brianmc 09:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Improvised explosive device --Cspurrier 11:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
Former Irish politician Liam Lawlor dies in car crash

October 22, 2005

Former Irish politician Liam Lawlor died Saturday in a car crash outside Moscow, Russia. Lawlor's Mercedes crashed into a lamp post at approximately 1:00 AM MSKS (Friday, 2100 UTC).

Lawlor was on a trip in the Russian capital and was making his way to the airport with his driver and a Ukrainian interpreter. The woman, who sustained serious injuries, survived the crash. The driver of the automobile was also killed.

Lawlor resigned from poltics and his position as a Teachta Dála in the Irish house of parliament (the Dáil) after he admitted receiving sums of money from the lobbyist Frank Dunlop. After Fianna Fáil conducted its own internal investigation, Lawlor resigned from the Party, however he continued to support the government in the Dáil. Lawlor appeared at the Tribunal on several occasions and was imprisoned in Mountjoy Prison for non-compliance with the investigation.

Previous untrue allegations that the Ukrainian woman was a call girl have led to the Irish Independent newspaper issuing a formal apology to Mr Lawlor's Family. Reports that Lawlor was in possession of the drug PCP were likewise proved to be false.


text:
Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building

More than 350 U.S. students took part in a demonstration Friday outside the SUNY New Paltz Student Union Building where student leaders used a bullhorn from the rooftop to rally the gathering on the concourse below. University police dispersed student leaders from the roof which was followed by more than 100 students storming the Haggerty Administration Building (HAB).

During the 2004–2005 academic year, students lobbied for a $10 million renovation project for their Student Union Building, which has not been renovated since its construction more than 30 years ago.

HAB spokesman Eric Gullickson said that the supplemental appropriation for the project is the largest in the history of the college and that the six-member advisory committee includes three students but that; "the Student Association, which was offered the first seat on this committee, declined the opportunity," Gullickson said.

Student leaders, including Student Body President R.J. Partington III and Student Senate ChairJustin Holmes, who played a role in organizing this demonstration, testified during the Spring 2005 semester before the New York State Assembly Committee on Higher Education, eventually winning the renovation project. Holmes says that Gullickson's assertions are; "an out-and-out lie. The SA was never offered such a seat. We were offered 1 seat on a seven seat committee, with the administration selecting the other six members."

The major arguments for a capital project on the Student Union Building were that it:
 * did not accommodate organizations and organization office needs
 * lacked crucial technology for student mobilization
 * was built for a student population less than half the size of 2005, and
 * was one of the longest standing Student Unions in the SUNY system which had not undergone a renovation

During the Fall 2005 semester the HAB claimed that it would oversee the renovation project, citing the need for a larger lobby and bookstore.

The Kingston Daily Freeman reported:

The crystallizing issue for the demonstration was the upcoming $10 million renovation of the Student Union building. The renovation, scheduled to begin in about two years, will be the first major change to the building since it was built 34 years ago, according to college spokesman Eric Gullickson, who said the supplemental appropriation for the project in the state budget is the largest in the college's history.

Gullickson also said that a six-member committee had been formed to guide the design process, but student leaders, including Partington, were told that the proposed committee would be seven members, including four non-students and two students who were appointed by the HAB.

"No matter the size and makeup of the HAB's so-called renovation committee, it has nothing to do with the actual renovation process, which will be administered by a student committee, with input from other parties of course considered," responded Holmes.

Failure of negotiations
During the Fall 2005 semester, Student Body President R.J. Partington III attempted to negotiate with Administrators, including HAB President Steven G. Poskanzer, over the project.

The HAB refused to concede to student demands.

At this point, the Student Senate passed legislation proclaiming that the project would be overseen by a committee where students constitute a majority, and Partington announced that he “did not recognize and would not sit on” any committee that did not meet the needs of students.

Vice President of Acacdemic Affairs & Governance, Stephanie Adika said, "If the HAB won't even listen to us about our own building, how are they going to listen to us about all the other problems the students have with SUNY New Paltz."

The Demonstration
The event itself was organized by a loose coalition of elected student leaders, organization activists, and other students.

More than 350 students converged on the Student Union Building at about 3:10PM. Student leaders took to the roof to address the mass, including:
 * Student Body President R.J. Partington III
 * Vice President of Finance Lee Riley
 * Council of Organizations Chair Yoni Levin
 * Student Senate Chair Justin Holmes
 * Student Senator and President of New Paltz NORML / Students for Sensible Drug Policy Jenny Loeb

Issues Addressed
Students had been frustrated by a number of issues, including the campus drug policy, the state of the Women’s Studies department, a Black Solidarity Event called “Black Solidarity Day,” which the HAB had not fully recognized, the police on campus, and the lack of competition in food service.

“The reason we will oversee the Student Union Building renovation is that we need a place whose primary purpose is to facilitate the organization and mobilization of students around the many issues we have with campus policies,” said Holmes.

"They try to keep us from going to that event," Lee Riley said of Black Solidarity Day, an annual event that Riley said some professors try to discourage students from attending by scheduling tests or mandatory labs on that day. "We're here to combat that. It's a day when we can promote unity. It's a day when we can promote pride."

Storm of the HAB
At some point, some students spontaneously decided to enter the Haggerty Administration Building, and well over 100 students followed.

The Kingston Daily Freeman reported: About 100 students flooded into the Haggerty Administration Building toward the end of the demonstration, hoping to meet as a group with college President Steven Poskanzer. And when campus security blocked access to the building's elevators, the group climbed nine flights of stairs and filled the hall way outside of Poskanzer's office. They chanted and drummed on the wood-paneled walls until Student Association President R.J. Partington and Student Senate Chairman Justin Holmes were admitted to Poskanzer's outer office.

Partington and Holmes emerged to a very hot hallway, still filled with more than one hundred students. Most were covered in sweat, and there was concern about oxygen depravation as some students were beginning to feel faint. Several volunteers, including staff of the HAB, held stairwell doors open to allow fresh air in to the crowd.

Upon emerging, President Partington addressed the students, saying, "If Poskanzer does not meet with all of you here, then we are going to do this whole thing over again, except next time we will have twice as many people."

HAB Positions
The HAB office of Public Affairs responded to inquires by the Mid-Hudson News, saying, But, college spokesman Eric Gullickson said the committee is in place only to provide advice to the administration. “It’s an advisory committee that the vice president of student affairs put together himself, seeing an opportunity to get students’ input, of which 50 percent of the people on the committee are students, seeking to get input from them on the planning and development of the Student Union Building,” he said. The committee has no voting power and will not be making any decisions, said Gullickson.

Eric Gullickson was contacted by Wikinews for further comment relating to the demonstration and student concerns but declined the offer, saying, "I appreciate you offering us the opportunity to respond, however, we do not wish to contribute."

Aftermath
As students drifted off the concourse, organizers took the time to comment to local press and assess their performance.

SUNY Student Assembly Interest
Top officials of the Student Assembly took time to review the documentation of the event.

"Traditionally one might expect that a protest the size of the one which took place last Friday would cause a number of safety concerns for those involved." Nathan Arrowsmith, the SUNY Student Assembly Director of Safety, remarked, "But thanks to excellent organization on the part of the students and a surprising lack of direct confrontation on the part of the police we were able to see an amazing display of student solidarity without serious incident."

"I think it was crucial that the SUNY Assembly was made aware of an event such as this," commented Ryan Arnold, President of the Student Association at SUNY Fredonia. "Our administration is great at working with the students, however there are many SUNY Colleges and Universities that do not know how to go about such a protest that is essential towards their success with the administration."

Arnold sits on many administrative committees at SUNY Fredonia, including a seat as the Student Affairs Chairman, an opportunity that many students do not have at other institutions.

Holmes and Partington presented a slideshow, with videos, to the Assembly

WikiPaltz
Student Leaders set up a Wiki to gather information about SUNY New Paltz and to mobilize the emerging protest movement.

WikiPaltz grew quickly in the months after it was set up in July, 2005, and includes extensive coverage of the events.


text:
Talk:Possible end to strike, fines for BC teachers

It would help a lot if you include already to the title that the news is about British Colombia and Canada. What is BCTF? What governement you are talking about? Who has been on strike and why.
 * I've added a dateline template which solves your issue effectively. If reverted, please discuss or re-write so dateline isn't needed.

Typo
editprotected "independant" => "independent" Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --SVTCobra 22:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Hundreds of SUNY New Paltz students demonstrate, storm administration building

Original Reporting
I, Justin Holmes, attended and spoke at this event, including from the roof and in the Haggerty Administration Building. I am the Chair of the SUNY New Paltz Student Senate, and the primary administrator of Wikipaltz, the free database about the politically peculiar community of New Paltz, NY.

I am in some of the photos, and can provide verbal or other statements to verify the authenticity of my reporting.

I can be contacted through the media mentioned on my website: http://www.justinholmes.com (unsigned by Justin Holmes)

Also used * (moved from in the article)--Cspurrier 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I, Stephanie Adika, attended this event and made the comments posted. I am the Vice President of Academic Affairs & Governance of the SUNY New Paltz Student Association. Stephanie Adika 01:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Do the two of you have any idea how childish this article looks, or how completely inappropriate it is for either of you to be involved in writing it? This is not a news article, this is a tract. And it should not be on Wikinews. It makes you and your organization look foolish, and it makes Wikinews look bad for letting you play in the sandbox.

 * Wikinews is about news reporting. Journalism. I, for one, would appreciate it if you though of it that way, rather than as place to flame a burner or tag on an alley wall. - Amgine / talk 02:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Amgine is obviously very upset about this article - to the degree that Amgine has edited the Main Page of WikiPaltz, albeit only for a minute, attacking me personally, saying, "Justin, your article is about as poor a reflection on you and your organization as this edit is of me."

 * Amgine provided no suggestions or even points of criticism until I went and posted on http://journowiki.org/w/index.php/User_talk:Amgine specifically asking for help in making our article and our movement more legit. At this point, Amgine responded with a few remarks, not without a touch of condescention and insult, on my talk page on WikiPaltz.  I tried to respond to these concerns, but was treated only with personal attacks henceforth.

 * As for the concerns posted here, it's quite clear at very least that there's less than consensus on how "completely inappropriate" it is for us to be writing this article. Again, Amgine has no suggestions whatsoever or even indications as to specific parts of the article that are problematic.  I don't know how to begin to reconcile this problem without having some idea what is so bad about the article.

 * I think there may be a fundamental disagreement here on the concept of neutrality. As far as I've ever observed, no person in the world is neutral, no matter what they may say.  Professors, Journalists, Police Officers, Judges, and many other folks in the world are supposed to be "viewpoint neutral" but I don't think that there is any such thing in the human soul as neutrality.

 * Neutrality comes, in my view, from the collective agreement and consensus on issues - a phenomenon we have all experienced in dealing with Wiki. For someone to say that I should not engage other people in a Wiki environment on issues of my own experience is to suggest that the only people who should be a part of this community are "neutral" people, and while I'm only 23 years old, I haven't met one of those yet.

 * I would love for our state-appointed and funded Administration to show themselves here and work out the facts of the dispute so that we can arrive at a truly NPOV article. I think we're very close.  However, the HAB won't do this - they will continue to hide behind a public affairs office which spreads lies and twists the ideas of the student body.  Therefore, we hoped to make use of a  resource where the power of numbers and consensus trump the "man with the loudest megaphone" environment we are used to.

 * I knew in writing the article that my own biases would seep in - as a human I expect this in everything I do in life. However, I hoped that the WikiNews community would question instances where my writing was POV, and indeed they did.  I worked to make changes - usually within minutes - to satisfy the NPOV requirements, and in reading this article, it's really hard for me to see how it falls so far short. Justin Holmes 05:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I am impressed with Justin's ability to respond with such civility on this talk page. Good for you,Justin. Neutralizer 13:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I fully agree - Justin's approach, which is anything but "childish", does him great credit. I'm disappointed that a new user, who has obviously put in a lot of serious thought and time into this piece, has been subjected to such unmitigatingly negative comments that in my view are, or come close to being, personal attacks. If an editor has concerns then they should make them in a constructive and friendly way. I'm really quite surprised that someone with such experience should think that this is an appropriate way to talk to a new user. I'm sure that the last thing any of us want is to drive people away from this project, but I fear this will be the effect if we are not able to be a bit more positive and welcoming. Rcameronw 23:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand Amgine's concerns and agree that all links to this groups Wiki are innappropriate and should be removed. I checked a few of them out and they aren't exactly NPOV which would be the standard that we'd expect from Wikipedia links. In terms of the group writing their own article, I don't see the problem with that asusming it's NPOV, which at the moment it clearly isn't. What the authors need to do is get someone to go straight to the HAB and interview them about the demonstration. If they decline the interview then get some older comments and try to give as much space to their position as possible. One or two quotes are not enough. Remove your Wiki as the source. It's inappropriate. That said, I understand that Wikinews is about NPOV and accuracy, but origianl reporting is HARD and the Wikinewsie who takes it on doesn't generally have the benefit of large news outlets distilling the information that the rest of us do when we write articles. They should be cut a little slack, and the rest of us should be actively improving the article. To the authors: It's imperative that you try to interview the HAB and give as much time to them as you did to your own position. The rest of us will edit when neccessary. If you want to publish an original article you have to be prepared to do all the work. If you're uncomfortable with this get a volunteer from the student paper. --Wolfrider 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * CommentI note Wolfrider's comment below;
 * "It still seems tilted to one side, but I agree with you that it would be difficult to get an official opposing viewpoint. Plus, it's such an excellent example of original reporting. I think it's fine. --Wolfrider 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)"
 * which begs the question, what changed Wolfrider's opinion? Perhaps it was just the persuasiveness of Amgine's argument or perhaps someother information we can all take note of. Just curious? Neutralizer 17:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What changed my mind was taking into consideration Amgine's comments and then re-evaluating the story based on them. I can see where his charge comes from, and there is a legitimate issue there. As such it should be dealt with. Also, he mailed me a suitcase filled with small unmarked bills. 40 grand. Untraceable. Thanks my man. --Wolfrider 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see any way or how this article could be considered childish, compared to all the three line articles that often get published around here. Lets Remeber also to be Nice to each other and not bite the new comer. I like this article. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:26, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Justin Holmes and Stephanie Adika are officers in an organization which is currently, from my very unknowledgeable position, losing in a struggle to gain/retain control over some form of student union building on their campus. Their reporting is akin to plastering WN with their campus handouts - it is not reporting. And no one intimately involved in a dispute should pretend to "report" on the disagreement; it is unethical for them as a participant in any form of negotiations and unethical to pretend to be able to address the topic neutrally. - Amgine / talk 22:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * However, this is a community based news service. It really doesn't matter who started the reporting as long as the community writes it conform with Wikinews policy. If the article is ammended and is no longer in violation, it is a legitimate piece. --Wolfrider 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Although I think Amgine's comments may be a little strong, they were, in all effects - appropriate. The article is poorly structured, poorly sourced and unbalanced.  Issues were not addressed, they were complained about.  Journalism is something this article doesn't represent - this article is nothing more than a self-appraisal by the members of the student union.  Writing an article about something you did is not a good way to be objective.  You can choose to be journalist or article subject, but you can't be both.  --Mrmiscellanious 23:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm neither disputing nor agreeing with the concerns. If editors have concerns then of course they should raise them. The issue I have is that those concerns were raised in an unfriendly and unhelpful way, likely to deter users from coming back in the future - and I do not think that personal attacks are ever appropriate.

Rcameronw 23:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good Job
Very nice article with lots of picture.☺ Good Work. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * ditto above. congrats. Neutralizer 19:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wonderful work. Congratulations. --Wolfrider 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree - GREAT original reporting! --82.141.53.251 05:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Is there any chance this article could be the second lead or featured article on the main page? What is the process by which articles are selected for this distinction? Justin Holmes 20:41, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikinews as a whole attempts to direct its reporting towards an international audience. This would be best as a "Feature story" in that regard. I'll make the change. To Justin Holmes, the links to make changes to the leads is on the "Write/edit article" page found on the left column navigation box. -Edbrown05 22:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

POV
While the point of view and requests of the students are explained, the administration's arguments are not. Submarine 22:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Could the author add this to the article? --Wolfrider 22:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try - honestly, the campus office of public affairs has been a bit abusive to students, and I'm not entirely comfortable trying to express their arguments. I wish they would do it. Justin Holmes 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Now the tag, perhaps Submarine or Wolfrider can lift this back to developing. -Edbrown05 22:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I'll lift the tag Neutralizer 22:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have added the Administration's position as they gave it to the newspapers. I don't know what else I can really do to try to make it more NPOV.  Any suggestions? Justin Holmes 22:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok I just added some stuff Gullickson said and removed the tag. Hopefully that wrinkle is out of the way of this great story now. Neutralizer 22:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Justin Holmes, who is a part of the story, made a comment on my talk page which I think is a newsworthy part of the article so I have added that comment as a quote from him in the article and used my talk page as the source. If anyone feels that is not appropriate, feel free to edit it out. Neutralizer 22:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It still seems tilted to one side, but I agree with you that it would be difficult to get an official opposing viewpoint. Plus, it's such an excellent example of original reporting. I think it's fine. --Wolfrider 00:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Never say that it is too difficult to get another's viewpoint. That is lazy.  There are still quite a bit of items that are questioned, though.  For instance, a few items:

 * Seems to be a contradictory ("not offered a seat, we were offered 1 seat") statement?

 * You have misquoted me. Read the quote you copied - I said, "we were never offered *such* a seat," refering to the HAB's assertion that the Student Association was to be afforded a seat on a six-person commitee alongside two other students.  Even if this were the case, it would be unacceptable.  It would still mean only one student government official, and two students selected by the HAB.  Furthermore, the President is no longer discussing that committee.  We gave the HAB a chance to organize the committee with the proviso that it would consist of a majority of students.  They declined that oppurtunity, so the Student Senate, which I Chair, will go forward with the project. Justin Holmes 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems great, but it would be nice to add in what the counter-points are.

 * I think you may be mistaken about the current conflict. The Students and the HAB were united all year during the 2004-2005 academic year in calling for the renovation project.  The conflict arose when the HAB tried to take control of the project.  Imagine the inverse scenario:  A $10 million capital project comes in to renovate the Administration Building and students try to start a committee with 4 students and 3 administrators?  The students would never behave in such a brash way.Justin Holmes 07:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Expand and descibe these items more? Unaware of the issue.

As well as there is extremely low text of the other side's positions, which isn't very sufficient to the large amount of text for the student's sides.

So, no tagging of NPOV or anything, but just a few items that I think should be cleared up. --Mrmiscellanious 04:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm finding myself commenting on more issues than I would like to on this page. Of course I have positions on these issues, and I have no problem expressing them, but if this article is going to contain futher details about these issues, I'd like to get some quotes from other student leaders.  I'm not sure that these issues should be covered in serious detail here - they each warrant articles in their own right, and I'm certain that they will each be covered in detail on WikiPaltz in time.  I'm going to wait until at least Monday, when the Executive Board Executive Board meets and I'll see if anyone wants to either comment for this article or start new ones.  Justin Holmes 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair. I've taken this story back to Developing stage, as it seems you are planning to add more to this article.  --Mrmiscellanious 02:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow what a week
It's 6:38AM Sunday morning (I'm still awake of course) and we have been working pretty much constantly for days with little sleep. R.J., Jenny, Claudia, Colin, and I are in Binghamton at the SUNY Student Assembly conference. Today, we showed pictures and videos to the SUNY Student Assembly, a state-wide legislative body of student government leaders.

We received a solid standing ovation. I snapped a few photos - I'll put them up when I get back to New Paltz. Justin Holmes 10:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand
Holmes is a major participant in the events at the school so I think his comments are not only fair game but add extra juice to the story. I like it ! Neutralizer 23:27, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

WikiPlatz links
In my opinion all links to www.wikiplatz.com are innapropriate, and unless someone produces, before I finish my sandwich, a pretty good reason why they should stay, I'm going to remove them. Inline links to one party of a dispute is not NPOV. - Borofkin 03:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I have mixed feelings. Since its original reporting, perhaps the links are just part of the original report. I am concerned that a lot of people put a lot of work into a published story and then, over a day after publishing, two editors come in with edits within 3 minutes of each other ( 02:18,02:20 and 02:21 ) and completely turn the article upside down without any talk page discussion. I think the people who have worked so hard on this article should have a bit of time to respond to what has been happening to the article in the past hour or so. So, now that the suggestion is being made to drop those links, perhaps we can let the article rest in developing overnight until the original reporters have a chance to respond; what's the rush? Neutralizer 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * How about reading their front page? Do you understand the term p0wned? Used? - 24.85.85.76 03:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope; what is pOwned? Neutralizer 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see what you mean; but I don't really see a problem; we are used as sources often? Neutralizer 03:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I just think they should have a chance to defend themselves; particularly in regards to Amgine's edit, and now that it's back in "developing" I think we have plenty of time to talk about it and let everyone get involved here on the talk page before doing anythig else. Neutralizer 03:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to cut them a little bit of slack considering the work that goes into original reporting. This article needs to be seriously cleaned up, though. - Borofkin 04:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't sure about the WikiPaltz links. Of course I would never have linked to a conventional website in the way that I linked to WikiPaltz, but since WikiPaltz is Wiki, I didn't see the problem - folks link to WikiPedia all the time from WikiNews.  If it is a serious offense for POV watchdogs, by all means let's remove it.  I want to be in absolute compliance with NPOV guidelines.  Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss (somewhere) the POV implications of linking to other Wikis?  As for the accusations that we were "pOwn"ing, I'm really sorry if we gave that impression.  I have the utmost respect for WikiNews - I wake up to it every morning.  I was so excited at the prospect that we had made feature article that I went a little overboard on the cheesy announcement on our Wiki - capital letters with H2 on the main page.  It was a bit corny, but I don't think it amounts to "pOwn". Justin Holmes 05:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * One comment I'd make is that a link from WP to WN is just a traditionally link between wikimedia foundation projects - links outside the list of projects, even to another wiki, would fall under the same POV guidelines as any other link. Lyellin 13:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent (hopefully) NPOV edits
Although I feel strongly that links to WikiPaltz are not only appropriate but of added value to this article, I have eliminated them in the interest of satisfying what seems to be a consensus that they constitute POV content. However, I really think a discussion should ensue in water cooler or somewhere about when linking to outside Wikis is appropriate. If such a discussion already exists, please post a link in this space.

In addition, I have eliminated the picture at the end of the article, which Amgine said was merely "mugging for the camera." While I think it is still legitimate content to show that organizers were very happy with the event, I understand that this is walking a very thin line and I'd like to be very safe about making this article NPOV.

As for more content from the HAB, the fact of the matter is that they haven't said much and won't say more for the time being. As a student government official, it's very difficult for me to get any information from directly from the HAB that would make sense to post here. Of course our student newspaper is working on this, but they won't put their reporting here - they'll put it in the paper. You must understand that the HAB is meticulously tight-lipped when it suits them, and now is one of those times. You may not like that there are only a couple of quotes, but there really isn't more to post. Which parts of the article do you think need HAB reaction?

When the HAB speaks again, we'll post it either to this article or to a future one with more relevance as news.

Specific Conerns Need to Be Addressed
I think everyone who has concerns with the article should go over it and bring light to them here. That way we have something to work on other than very general "It's unbalanced" or "Unethical." To the author: please provide us with an email of the HAB, or HAB members. Wikinewsies can then email them to ask for a response to the article, or the student's position in general. If they choose not to respond that will be what we quote in the article. If a method of contacting the HAB for their opinion is not provided the story should not be published. After we get word (or don't) we should then vote on publishing the article and go with whatever decision is made. The vote should only take place AFTER we have an opportunity to contact the HAB. --Wolfrider 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Great idea. I would really appreciate if someone else could contact the HAB and provide their viewpoint - to me, that's how neutrality is achieved: by gathering a plurality of views, included those which are most biased and passionate, and formulating them into a consensus document.

 * Contact info for the HAB: I'm not exactly sure where in the HAB to direct you, so I'll give a few ideas:

 * The Office of the President of the HAB - Poskanzer himself probably won't respond, but they'll direct you to a place where you can get comments, probably to public affairs - poskanzer@newpaltz.edu

 * The Office of HAB Public Affairs - Eric Gullickson, HAB Spokesman - gullicke@newpaltz.edu

 * If it would be prudent to provide more or other contact info, let me know and I'll fetch it. Justin Holmes 01:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I sent a letter to Gullickson and asked for his response a number of issues in the story. I also gave him the URL of the piece so he can look it over and respond to anything directly. I haven't emailed the Office of the President of the HAB as it's late and I have to go to bed. I'll post his response if/when I get it. --Wolfrider 02:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I made a small corrective edit to remove the reference to the wiki at the school as being a voice exclusively for the students. Justin has assured me that anyone can contribute to that wiki. Neutralizer 03:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If they do not do so, however, it is a voice exclusively of the students. Therefore, your "correction" is factually wrong, and qualifying ascription is removed from the article. - Amgine / talk 03:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Amgine, I wonder how you would know noone other than students has ever contributed? Neutralizer 03:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * While I don't particularly like the phrase "student's take" (perhaps "student's point of view" would be better), the wiki is hosted on servers of "The Student Association of SUNY New Paltz" -- http://www.newpaltzsa.com/senate/w/. Based on the URL, the site is assocated with the student senate in some way. While the wiki may be open to editing by anyone (Amgine, perhaps unwisely, proved that!) it is apparent that, almost exclusively, students and student supporters are the editors. Why not rephrase the deleted edit to indicate that the Wiki is generally oriented toward students and necessarily represents their point of view? --Chiacomo (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Good thought, but I would try to be even more factual by simply saying what Justin said; "WikiPaltz is open to editing from students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community members, and anyone else. So far it’s mostly been students and faculty"...and let's not mislabel faculty as being students for the sake of making a point. Neutralizer 03:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How's this; "Student Leaders set up a Wiki to gather information about SUNY New Paltz and to mobilize the emerging protest movement. WikiPaltz grew quickly in the months after it was set up in July, 2005, and is open to editing from students, faculty, administrators, alumni, community members, and anyone else. Thus far, most contributors have been students and faculty." Neutralizer 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The whole bit about "...students, faculty, administrators, alumni..." could be shortened to "community members and the public at large". Of course, I'm certain that if members of the administration began to edit and attempted to prominently feature their lies and distortions, they'd be shunned and blocked (as is the right of the administrators of WikiPaltz, unless they have an NPOV clause in their operating procedures). --Chiacomo (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow, that's very presumptious. I assure you, if administrators began editing, they would be given the same respect as students and faculty.  We feel that we have the power of right on our side, and we would absolutely welcome HAB input on our Wiki.  Generally, we enforce NPOV on all pages except those which describe events or people (ie Professor reviews, police encounter reports, etc).

 * We do not have any and (I hope) will not make any "rules" for our Wiki. We hope that NPOV and input from all parties will be respected because editors feel it's just, not because the rules say so.  If people vandalize or violate copyrights, we may suspend them in the future but thus far, the only bans have been of spambots.

 * The reason I said "students, faculty, administrators,...." was because I wanted to be transparent about the fact that it has mostly been students and faculty so far, so of course the bias is against the HAB. The HAB certainly knows about the Wiki - the Chief of Police told me that he monitors it, which I think it great.

 * Bottom line: If a Wiki is the source of information about a conflict, and all parties of the conflict have access to it, it should be a completely legit source. the above was written by Justin Holmes

 * Palestine. Please note there is no article "Palestine" on Wikipedia. - Amgine / talk 04:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment; I assume the edit by Amgine above was put here in error. Neutralizer 14:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it was in the nature of a refutation, or rebuttal, of Mr. Holmes's statements. If a Wiki is the source of information about a conflict, and all parties of the conflict have access to it, it should be a completely legit source. Wikipedia is a prime example of why this is not true. On topics over which there is no great conflict or debate it is a very useful resouce. Those topics which are in dispute, however, range from unreliable to, as in the example of Palestine, completely non-existant due to the massive POVioring. -

 * Sorry for goining in the middle of the conversation. but Plastine does exsist (your probaly looking for Palestine (region)) So I don't understand your example. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm certain you have the best of intentions, but the student POV is evident throughout the site. I'm not saying that it shouldn't, or that it is in some way wrong. Please excuse my presumption, but it would be interesting to watch how the wiki would respond if adminstrators began to edit and insert their own POV up to prominently linking from the front page (with big pictures and headlines). Don't mistake me: I'm proud and pleased that students are standing up for their rights/beliefs and am pleased as punch that they're using Wiki to aid in their endeavors. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please, I'm being really sincere right now: I would love that. Every student would love that.  The HAB has basically nothing of value to say.  Their arguments are a joke.  They treat us like we are completely naive and like we'll comply and be co-opted by whatever they say and do.  I would love (so much) for them to put whatever picture they can find on the front page that they think will bolster their view of the situation.  so much.  Eric Gullickson: you may well read this on account of the fact that you were contacted by Wikinews to comment.  Think about this.  Come and edit WikiPaltz - present your side.  Seriously.  Bring it on. written by Justin Holmes

 * Chiacomo, I can never understand why anyone wants to presume anything about something that has not yet happened.. Aren't the issues challenging enough in their present and historical context without presuming, speculating about future possibilities? Isn't that how the war in Iraq came to be..by speculating about what kind of hidden weapons someone may have and what their future intentions might be if they had them? Neither you nor I have any idea what would happen if the admins at the school were to embrace the wiki. If I were to guess, I'd guess it would be a healing thing; but I could be wrong..so what's the point? All we know for sure is that right now the wiki is open and free; and we know that because, as you so deftly pointed out, Amgine proved it. Neutralizer 14:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't matter whether or not the Wiki is open to anyone "in theory", what matters is what the Wiki represents, as you say, in its present context. While school officials might choose to participate "in the future" I think we should all take Neut's advice and focus on the Wiki as it stands now. And at the moment, the content on the Wiki is largely representative of student views, therefore the "student's views of event" disclaimer is warrented. --Wolfrider 14:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

where is this story going?
I liked this story for what it was. Now perhaps trying to go or become something else. Too bad.

If the HAB gets involved with this, then start a new story. I've already lost the thread of this one after all the gobbly goop that's been written. -68.232.153.54 15:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Reading through this discussion does not make me proud of wikinews. This article IMHO was one of the best original reporting i've seen yet on wikinews, and the original author did respond in a very civil and honest manner and did show alot of patience even when confronted with harsh criticism. But what this article really highlights is IMHO that there is that wikinews is lacking some important component which is almost essential for original reporting: while for most articles the strict NPOV guidelines improve wikinews, for certain kinds of original reporting different guidelines are necessary. What wikinews IMHO needs is a way to write "Opinion", but with a high focus on information, substance and original reporting, instead of pure rethorical propaganda. Of course such articles should be clearly tagged as such. --82.141.52.191 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This contributor has a good point. Let's just publish it as is and anyone who wants to do a new story based on new info can do so. Neutralizer 15:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As it stands now the story does not conform to Wikinews NPOV policy. I'm awaiting a response from the HAB and only after it arrives should we publish the article. This story is trying to become balanced and as such the HAB's view is a necessary component that needs attention. Wikinews is not about providing a forum for student activism. --Wolfrider 15:42, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * If the HAB reads that statement, they will never respond. If they know they can keep this article from being published by not responding, they won't respond.  That is really absolutely unfair - it gives them an ultimate filibuster.  It's Tuesday at 12:42 right now.  They could have gotten back to you 100 times by now if they wanted to - their whole mission is to instantaneously spread whatever propaganda is needed to uphold these policies.  I must protest this development - I thought that there was consensus that if they chose not to respond, we would put that into the article and publish it.  Justin Holmes 16:44, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually made it clear in my letter that publishing of the article would go ahead with or without their comments. We'll simply add that Wikinews gave them time to respond but they declined. Time to respond is at least 24 hours. --Wolfrider 16:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Limitations of this Article
Obviously, this article is purely the result of local news, and the issue involved is very myopic and does little to affect anyone outside the SUNY campus. I must argue that the POV of this article is strongly biased towards the students, and was obviously written by a SUNY New Paltz student in order to serve their own interests, and in essence brag about their "achievement". I do believe they did a good job documenting the article and made an attempt to cover the story, but in the end, this is a very minor story about a small, little-known northeast college and an isolated event of student protest that has no chance of spreading to other campuses, since the issue at hand is purely a local one.

While I praise the effort that went into the article and recognize that good intentions are at work, I don't think this article could make it to featured status, and that in the future if people keep writing articles about New Paltz - it will either cause a lack of interest in these purely local events, or tarnish the reputation of the campus, since the articles are obviously written by rather rebellious students who seek to defame the administration of their college. This 'bad news' and information about New Paltz, a rather little-known town, will do much to bias prospective employers of New Paltz graduates as the gay marriage controversy, creating the image of an extremely liberal town immersed in drug subcultures. I hope the writer of this article takes this into account before painting this picture of New Paltz before the entire internet community. To qualify my rather unexplained 'immersed in drug subcultures' segment, one can draw that conclusion from observation of the pictures of some students, as well as the fact the President of NORML is featured in the article prominantely with high-ranking Student Government officials, creating the image that the pro-marijuana segment of the student population is highly prominent.

Response from Gullickson
I recieved the following email from Mr. Gullickson.

"Mr. Currie:

I appreciate you offering us the opportunity to respond, however, we do not wish to contribute.

Thank you.

Eric."

I see no more reason to continue to hold the article back from being published. Consensus? --Wolfrider 22:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Emailing one person isn't trying real hard. And I'd request Mr. Holmes to do this work; it should be rather educational to him to teach him more about journalism.  --Mrmiscellanious 23:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree most emphatically that Mr. Holmes should do the work. This article is part of Wikinews, and the responsibility to fix it up rests equally with everyone in the community. - Borofkin 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see the point in asking Gullickson again. And I note the "we" in wishes not to contribute. -Edbrown05 02:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Three to one against. 5 to one since I think we already know what Neut and Holmes votes will be. I'll add that part in and publish it. --Wolfrider 02:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * With all due respect, I did not see a vote. Therefore, how could it be a consensus?  --Mrmiscellanious 20:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * My assumption was that Ed and Boro had wanted the article published, it sounded like that was what they were voicing. So, again, do we have consensus on publishing the article? (And if there is a more official way of doing this, let me know MrM.) --Wolfrider 21:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I wasn't voicing an opinion on publishing of the article. I have no opinion either way. - Borofkin 07:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Image replaced: Image:Students at SUNY.jpg
Please replace Image:IMG 2090.JPG with Image:Students at SUNY.jpg, bad named duplicate at Commons. --Martin H. (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Typo
editprotected "thier" => "their" Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Justin Holmes

Great beginning
please write more about this event. Neutralizer 16:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hoping you don't percieve my intrusion as an imposition, I am trying to demonstrate to you the text-to-image wrap around behavior when then use of tables is not present. -Edbrown05 19:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, I just got back from an errand and got your message. You responded to my previous message in the 'proper way' it's done around here... but your signiature was missing. You sign by concluding with 4 tildes (~) which leaves your user name. I checked the 'History' tab at the top of my 'Talk' page to be certain it was you.

 * I addressed your format concern in the SUNY story, I hope, by removing the table mark-up language. -Edbrown05 20:51, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews needs you
We desperately need more gutsy reporters. Please get as involved as your schedule allows. Neutralizer 22:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * see what I mean? wikinews needs you. Neutralizer 11:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Your question
I will have a look in a few minutes; unfortunately, our population as a whole is drifting ever more toward the application of polarized labels and categories which are adversarial. It's something you will have to live with for a long,long time. It's an embracement of conflict as the preferred condition and has been promoted by totalitarian regimes throughout history as a way to fertilize enemies, thereby causing the sheep to rush to the side of the protector State. Bastardized Hegelian philosophy is alive and well in the halls of power; good vs. evil, christian vs. muslim, conservative vs. liberal, socialist vs. capitalist, student vs. school, thesis vs anti-thesis= synthesis...and the scary thing is, our leaders really believe in it; so it's only to be expected that your school's wiki would be inaccurately labeled as being on 1 side or the other by one of our average citizens; the ability to think and reason is an endangered entity. Neutralizer 03:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Also placed on Neut's talk page: I considered that when I made the change. My view was that the Wiki, while techincally open to submission from others, in its current form represents the view of mostly students. Any evidence to the contrary would be appreciated and of course warrant another look. Perhaps raise the issue on the talk page and see what consensus decides? --Wolfrider 03:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep up the good work
Just a note to say that I'm also really glad you've engaged so constructively with Wikinews over your student protest story. I personally feel it's very positive to have some original reporting on the site, and I'm glad that you've turned to Wikinews to try and give this issue a wider public profile. Please keep up the good work! --Rcameronw 11:30, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Justin Holmes


text:
User:Optimix~enwikinews

Wikipedia Optimix page

title: User:Optimix~enwikinews


text:
User talk:65.190.139.230

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 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!

I'd also like to remind you that you can't post copyrighted stuff here without permission. Please see Copyright. Happy editing Bawolff ☺☻ 19:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain myself well
Can you please find the place where it says it is a press release and is not copyrighted and can be used? the only thing i could find is from: http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/copyright

 U.S. and foreign copyright laws protect the content on this web site. WalmartWatch.com and The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics invite you to view, use, download and distribute to others, without charge, content that appears on this web site provided that you give attribution to WalmartWatch.com and/or The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics, as appropriate, by including the following statement on any such copy: “Used with the permission of WalmartWatch [or The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics].” You may not modify any content on this Web site for any purpose, and you may not copy, download, store or distribute any content on this web site for any commercial purpose.  (emphasis added)

This prevents it from being used in a wiki (i think) Bawolff ☺☻ 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That and press releases are not suitable sources and should not be used on Wikinews. See What Wikinews is not --Wolfrider 00:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:65.190.139.230


text:
Taiwan to violate Tamiflu patent due to vaccine shortage

October 22, 2005 The shortage of the antiviral, Tamiflu, has prompted Taiwan to begin work on copying the antiviral without the consent of its manufacturer and patent holder, the Swiss pharmaceutical company Hoffmann-La Roche. Though officials have requested permission from Roche, they are not waiting on a response to begin work, citing the need to protect the public.

In an interview with Reuters, the Director of the Division Clinical Research of the National Health Research Institutes (NHRI), Su Ih-jen said “We have tried our best to negotiate with Roche …. we have shown our good will to Roche and we appreciate their patent. But to protect our people is the utmost important thing.”

NHRI will produce the generic version of the antiviral. Taiwan will not market the drug commercially, planning to manufacture one to two million doses, only enough to have adequate stock in country. Officials say they can manufacture the antiviral more quickly and at less cost than Roche. One million doses of locally made Tamiflu cost about T$200 million (US$5.9 million), compared with T$1 billion if purchased from Roche. It will take approximately 3 months to manufacture one million doses.

Several other countries have also petitioned Roche for the right to make copies of Tamiflu.


text:
Talk:Wikimedia Foundation and Answers.com announce partnership

Just a copy of a communiqué between two organizations about some minor partnership. Not really newsworthy. Submarine 22:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, while this is not in anyway big news, it is news --Cspurrier 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me - Wikimedia Foundation has an entry for this Answers.com press release on Wikipedia. Therefore, if it's news at Wikipedia (which doesn't really carry news articles), then it's news relating to Wikimedia in general. If anything, I'd argue that it's news here and not a valid article there. Karen 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


text:
User:SouthEastUS

Male Straight White Moderate Income Born June 14th, 1980 Lives in Raleigh, NC, US

title: User:SouthEastUS


text:
User talk:SouthEastUS

Users who seek to complain without being willing or able to work toward a solution have no business here. It's unproductive and irresponsible. SouthEastUS 23:18, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Press Releases

 * "Once that press release or PSA is sent out, you cannot take it out of circulation, and you can't control its use. It has been publicly distributed, and it is probably public domain under the copyright law. Anyone who has it can use it for any purpose." (D.R. Yale and A.J. Carothers, The publicity handbook : the inside scoop from more than 100 journalists and PR pros on how to get great publicity coverage : in print, online, and on the air, Chicago, Ill.: NTC Business Books, 2001, p. 66.)

 * "Companies (and indeed organizations generally) produce many documents. Some of these are in the public domain, such as annual reports, mission statements, press releases, advertisements, and public relations material in printed form or on the World Wide Web." (A. Bryman, Social research methods, Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 376.)

 * "information that has always been in the public domain but was previously inaccessible to most people - because it was held in some special place, or released only to specialists. Press releases, for instance, once landed only on the desks of journalists. Now anybody can read press releases on a company's Web site." (F. Cairncross, The death of distance : how the communications revolution is changing our lives, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001, p. 80.)

You should be aware that press releases are copyrighted material. The only copyrighted material which may be posted to Wikinews are those which are freely licensed in a way compatible with the CC-by 2.5 licensure (which is what Wikinews articles are licensed as.) - Amgine / talk 05:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That's ridiculous, a press release is specifically released by virtue of it being a RELEASE. This is why embargos are put press releases, to make it clear when the document is released to the public.
 * SouthEastUS 05:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Journalists also write articles in newspapers, which are released. This does not change their copyright status. In most parts of the world it is not even possible to release all copyrights. Instead, copyrighted works are licensed in a variety of ways to make it possible for people to use them. Most press releases are flexibly licensed, but not in a way which makes them compatible with Wikinews. Still, Wikinews can host an article *based on* the press release, though it will undoubtedly also require additional sources (WalmartWatch is not considered an unbiased reliable source) to corroborate factual statements. - Amgine / talk 05:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll email creative commons and see what they say. SouthEastUS 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think Creative Commons will issue a legal opinion on whether a certain piece of text (with an obvious copyright statement) can be transferred to another site under another license. As I recall, Creative Commons doesn't issue a legal opinion on any point -- it's up to lawyers to do that. If you are passionate about this particular story, why not simply rewrite the article and add additional sources? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * As a reply to your message on my talk page... IANAL, but some wikinews administrators and editors do have a reasonably or very good understanding of the licensing restrictions/requirements of material submitted to Wikinews. This case is pretty straightforward. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Look what I found: Talk:News release SouthEastUS 06:08, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * A paper press release generally does not contain a copyright warning at the bottom.. I don't dispute that press releases are meant to be distributed and copied from. The problem is not with Wikinews, it is with the source from which you copied it. If the release is in fact in the public domain (which means it can be used by anyone for any purpose and in any way) or is licenesed in some other way that is not consistent with the source site license, it should be stated on the release. Else, we must assume that the everything appearing on the site is copyrighted and licensed as is stated in the disclaimers, etc. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Newspapers don't issue press releases, press releases are issued to newspapers. Press releases predate the licensing that would set your heart at ease, not to mention they are designed to be short and to the point. If it says "press release" at the top of the page, it does not need to say "release" at the bottom as well.

Please remove the copyright violation unless you can find some evidence that all press releases are not inherently public.

SouthEastUS 06:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, you misunderstand me, I referred to a "paper press release" -- that is, a press release issued on a physical piece of paper. Before this "internet" thing (and yes, even today) press releases have been issued on sheets of paper with the word "Press Release" or "Media Release" at the top of the page. They generally also include a date on which the information is to be circulated and a media contact for additional questions. Press releases issued in physical form ("paper press releases") generally don't have a copyright statement at the top (or the bottom). I have no doubt that the source site for this article MEANT to release the information. They did not, however, release this information in a manner than can be copied verbatim into Wikinews. You can rewrite the article with the information contained in the press release (which is how even more traditional media reporters process press releases) -- please feel free to do that. As it stands, unless a site's license is compatible with CC-BY, no material from that site can be copied diretly to Wikinews. Period. More broadly, Wikinews discourages what is termed "copy and paste" stories from other sites (you'll sometimes see this abbeviated on Wikinews as "C&P", or "C&P copyvio"). If you read the link you provided above (to Wikipedia) more closely, you'll probably gain some insights into why Wikinews (even though we're licensed under CC-BY rather than GFDL) can't publish press releases directly. Again, I fail to see why, if you are passionate about this story, why you cannot simply rewrite it. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Look I totally agree that it is bad journalism to cut and paste a story. It would be much better if the story was re-written. I can't argue this. I made some changes to the release, but I did not completely rewrite it.

However, bad journalism is better than no journalism at all. Cut and paste news is better than no news. Others can add and rework the story once it is posted.

The release being posted on the website is irrelevant. It is still a release, and it still conforms to any standard of being open and public.

While it is not a good practice, is a common practice for traditional media reporters to publish press releases. It has been a common criticism of media coverage of the Iraq war that news outlets regularly published White House press releases verbatum.

Let me know if you find something that suggest otherwise.

SouthEastUS 07:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The release being posted to a website with a published statement dictating how the release can be used that is not compatible with CC-BY is relevant. There is nothing in the statement describing how press releases are different from any other content on the site... From the above linked page: "You may not modify any content on this Web site for any purpose, and you may not copy, download, store or distribute any content on this web site for any commercial purpose." Since content from Wikinews will be modified (that's a wiki) and CAN be used for commercial purposes (so long as the requirements of the CC-BY license are met), this content can not be copied directly to Wikinews. Please do not press this issue further. If you want to include information from this release (and Wal-Mart's on documents), please feel free to write a new article without copying content directly. --Chiacomo (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay you win. For what it's worth I didn't get the release off the website. I got it cc'd to me in it's release to the Raleigh News and Observer. I can assure you the email did not request any "used by permission."

SouthEastUS 07:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:SouthEastUS


text:
User:Nemmy~enwikinews

AIM

 * 1) Kick the Can 97

MSN

 * 1) nemmy97@hotmail.com

Email

 * 1) nemmy97@gmail.com
 * 2) revengeofthenemmy@yahoo.com

title: User:Nemmy~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Nemmy~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 23:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 Nemmy. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Nemmy~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nemmy~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Ccruz~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 23:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 Ccruz. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ccruz~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 23:14, 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) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ccruz~enwikinews