text:
Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

May 26, 2006

The human rights watchdog NGO Amnesty International described 2005 as a year of contradictions with signs of hope for human rights being undermined through "deception and failed promises" of "arrogant" governments. Amnesty International issues annual reports on the development of human rights issues, with detailed reports on the situation in every individual country. At the launch of its 2006 International Report, the Secretary General for Amnesty International (AI), Irene Khan, said that a number of governments have "paralyzed international institutions and squandered public resources in pursuit of narrow security interests, sacrificed principles in the name of the 'war on terror' and turned a blind eye to massive human rights violations. As a result, the world has paid a heavy price, in terms of erosion of fundamental principles and in the enormous damage done to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people".

According to the release report, Iraq sank into a "vortex of sectarian violence in 2005." Secretary General Khan warned: "When the powerful are too arrogant to review and reassess their strategies, the heaviest price is paid by the poor and powerless – in this case, ordinary Iraqi women, men and children." A 2004 Lancet study estimates that 100,000 excess deaths have occurred with roughly three times as many injured since the US-led invasion in 2003.

Continuing her criticism of international bodies, Ms Khan stated that "Intermittent attention and feeble action by the United Nations and the African Union fell pathetically short of what was needed in Darfur," referring to the conflict that a number of reports estimate has killed over 300,000 people.

Torture
The Amnesty International annual report claims that European governments have been "partners in crime with the United States," by defying the absolute ban on torture through the alleged use of extraordinary rendition.

The United Kingdom pursued "diplomatic assurances" to deport people to countries where they face torture. "Just as we must condemn terrorist attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms, we must resist claims by governments that terror can be fought with torture. Such claims are misleading, dangerous and wrong - you cannot extinguish a fire with petrol," said Ms Khan. "Powerful governments are playing a dangerous game with human rights. The score card of prolonged conflicts and mounting human rights abuses is there for all to see ... the ‘war on terror' is failing and will continue to fail until human rights and human security are given precedence over narrow national security interests," said Ms Khan.

Amnesty Key Demands
Amnesty International list their key demands in 2006: to address the conflict and end human rights abuses in Darfur; to negotiate for an Arms Trade Treaty to govern the trade of small arms so that they cannot be used to commit human rights abuses; that the US Administration close Guantánamo Bay detention camp, and disclose the names and locations of all ‘war on terror' prisoners elsewhere; and to insist on equal standards of respect of human rights from all governments, whether in Darfur or Guantánamo, Chechnya or China.

"The political and moral authority of governments will be increasingly judged on their stand on human rights at home and abroad. More than ever the world needs those countries with power and international influence... to behave with responsibility and respect for human rights. Governments must stop playing games with human rights," declared Ms Khan.


text:
Talk:Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror

Reason for the flag: Apparently there's been controversy over the article, and DragonFire1024 really insists on getting more peer review. He's been very angry lately, so let's help him with his article. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Reporting Notes
Edited from Amnesty International Report 2006. From press release, transcripts and report. --elliot_k 17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag
Reasons for NPOV tag: "Human Rights organisation Amnesty International says 2005 was a year of contradictions with signs of hope for human rights undermined through deception and failed promises of arrogant governments."

 * Nowhere near neutral statement, not attributed if it was a quote, and no denoting of it being a quote.

"At the launch of its 2006 International Report, Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said that powerful governments have "paralyzed international institutions and squandered public resources in pursuit of narrow security interests, sacrificed principles in the name of the 'war on terror' and turned a blind eye to massive human rights violations. As a result, the world has paid a heavy price, in terms of erosion of fundamental principles and in the enormous damage done to the lives and livelihoods of ordinary people," said Ms Khan."

 * No counter-balance to these lengthly and strong allegations/commentary, therefore not-neutral.

""Intermittent attention and feeble action by the United Nations and the African Union fell pathetically short of what was needed in Darfur," said Ms Khan, referring to the conflict that has claimed thousands of lives, displaced millions of people, and in which crimes against humanity continue to be committed by all sides."

 * No attribution of claims.

"Amnesty say European governments have been "partners in crime with the United States," by defying the absolute ban on torture and ill-treatment and by outsourcing torture though the transfer of prisoners to known torture states such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Syria."

 * No attribution of claims outside of the quotes. All of the bolded is speculation until attributed.  Again, lack of counterweight greatly outbalances this section as well as the rest of the article.

"The United Kingdom pursued "diplomatic assurances" to deport people to countries where they face torture. "Just as we must condemn terrorist attacks on civilians in the strongest possible terms, we must resist claims by governments that terror can be fought with torture. Such claims are misleading, dangerous and wrong - you cannot extinguish a fire with petrol," said Ms Khan. "When the UK government remains muted on arbitrary detention and ill-treatment in Guantánamo, when the United States ignores the absolute prohibition on torture, when European governments are mute about their record on renditions, racism or refugees, they undermine their own moral authority.""

 * No counter-weight of claims, just a re-write of Amnesty's PR... including their POV. This article has absolutely no balance to it, and as stated above, is little more than a rewrite of Amnesty's Press Release, which would violate WN:NPOV and WN:NOT, Sec. "What... articles are not", Point #1, "Wikinews articles are not press releases."  Please rewrite this article from a neutral standpoint, and add counter-weight to the claims issued by AI.  In addition, cite all your sources when you make the claims outside of the quotations.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As the headline suggests, this is an article about Amnesty's annual report. One would expect AI to have a POV. As far as counter-claims to the litany of human rights abuses the AI cite, well, I have yet to read any. I'd be very interested in "counter-weights"... Nevertheless, I've clipped some of the longer quotes, attributed some stuff and untagged the article. --elliot_k 03:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this is nothing but the Amnesty International's press release, and most of this content is just copied out of the press release. That transfers a lof of the POV that they try to make in the Press Releases, and when you copy, you transfer that POV.  Unlike PR publishers, Wikinews must conform to a neutral point-of-view policy.  In turn, we have an article that is mostly the AI's opinion on matters, mostly from the PR.  That would not be news, according to WN:NOT.  In addition, the article on Wikinews still does not attribute all the claims it makes.  In order for this article to conform to the Wikinews policies, it must provide different opinions and attribute all claims back to a source, other than what is undisputably fact (ex: "The United States and Great Britain led most of the forces that took part in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq").  Statements like "A 2004 Lancet study estimates that 100,000 excess deaths have occured with roughly three times as many injured since the US-led invasion in 2003." is considered opinionated without details.  "Roughly" can be misconstrued in great proportions.  There needs to be more content that is separate from Amnesty, otherwise this article will be tagged for NPOV again.  Wikinews simply does not allow articles that do not conform to the WN:NPOV policy.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm was simply reporting on what AI have said in their report. As far as I can tell, there are NO counter-claims to their report. It was released TODAY! I don't have the time to argue your particular political POV, MrM. And its politically motivated actions like yours that drive people like me away from this webspace. --elliot_k 04:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought it was counter intuitive to begin with Iraq and end with Darfur, maybe I read that wrong. -Edbrown05 05:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Elliot does have a point. I checked Google News and the U.S. (or any of the governments singled out) appears to have absolutely no response to this...not yet anyway, no doubt due to the timeliness of the story.  However, I'd imagine, with the influence that AI has, one of the targeted governments will fire a salvo back real soon, mark my words...most likely the U.S. government...you can call us warmongers, but NEVER call our human rights record into question. :)  I see no harm in holding the story a day or so to get at least a token counterbalancing statement from Condi Rice or whoever.   Aloha, KeithH (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

'''NOTE: I am pulling out of the Wikinews project. My reason is the political objectives of Mrmiscellanious. His blatant twisitng of Wikinews policy is entirely offensive. I've had enough. Wiknews is a good project. And I've enjoyed being part of it. But with people like Mrmiscellanious, whose political agenda is very clear from his user page, it is very difficult, extremely time consuming and mentally taxing to argue, edit and rehash a basic story to keep it published. It seems that any story that goes against his POV, will be turned into an edit war. I do not have the time to argue for days on end. I'd much prefer to create another article, than debate the merits of POV. I have been contributing to Wikinews, (some 120 articles since October 2005) and know full well what is expected of contributors. However, I feel that Mrmiscellanious abuses the policy to justify his own politcal agenda. Goodbye... ''' --elliot_k 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not have you here if you make comments like that, when a user was patient and detailed enough as to describe the issues of this article. This has nothing to do with my POV at all, but what you published is against the policies listed above.  The refusal to acknowledge the violations itself, and in turn making the attacks above makes me wish you farewell on your journies elsewhere.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are povpushing here to. I will ask for you to be blocked if you continue. international 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not engage in this type of behavior. There are actionable objections above, if you do not wish to acknowledge them, then please stop editing the article.  Please do not continue to disrupt the website by performing this behavior.  If you do not wish to engage in discussion here on the talk page, then I will have to ask you to stop reverting edits.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are objections MrM that you . Mainly, in this instance, what action have you taken on the article other than to object? That kind of interaction with working towards the delivery of a news story sux. It's not that long ago that you called elliot k "lazy", which then led to an unhappy exchange between the two of you which is now, yet again, being revisited in a new way.
 * Meanwhile MrM, you fail to respond to answerable objections that have been placed on your plate: why did you block Cowicide? under the topic on your talk page headed Cowicide has something to say, and MrM, why did you block Cowicide? under the water cooler topic heading Wikinews Censorship Aspect of Cowicide Ban, and Why are you blocked? on Cowicide's talk page.
 * Let me see if I can phrase this correctly --> Edit the article yourself to address your concerns. Outside of mainspace, please answer direct questions. <-- And quit wasting my time. -Edbrown05 05:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OR
Sometimes there is a problem with OR in that it comes close to breaking NPOV. I think the article as it stands is fine for publication - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

At the same time perhaps to address MrM's concerns have a quick look around for comments made against the report. If there is no opposition at this time, note that here under the OR notes - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I just did some calculations, and this article, by use of quoting the Amnesty International Press Release, constitutes 1779 bytes, out of a total 3335 bytes in total of article (excluding image caption and wiki-syntax), resulting in the Press Release quotations being more than 53% of the article itself. If this article provided a balance between the AI's position, and other opinions (recent archived articles can be sources for balance on many of AI's claims in this article), then I would have no problem with it.  But the fact that it only highlights AI's position on this is what is the major issue here - many groups have opposed the group's opinions, but they aren't even acknowledged here.  This constitutes in a large lack of counter-balance, which would not be allowed per WN:NPOV.  Even though this is Original Reporting, it still must also conform to the other policies, and I don't think this article is neutral.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Request for clarification: MrM, is this your remaining concern? --vonbergm 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * MrM, you say "many groups have opposed the group's opinions". I must assume that you are talking about the opeinions on the subject of the article. KeithH did a search a while ago and came up with nothing significant. I just did a search and came only up with Iran and the UAE denouncing the report and nothing official from the US (except some satire reporting). If you have found any response, feel free to add it. --vonbergm 22:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of counter-balance is only an issue if there is counter-balance. Your suggestion to use previous related news to "balance" this article is plainly silly. Neither repeating old news nor speaking for other people will help this story. For example, lately there has been considerable chatter amoung US officials about possibilities to close down Guantanamo (for example). Although I agree that it is quite possible that the US will denounce parts of the report, we cannot do this for them. I am removing the tag. --vonbergm 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

 * This is 53% quoting the AI Press Release. You're going to sit here and tell me no one, absolutely no one, in the history of mankind, has ever voiced opinion that differs from AI's opinions on the issues?  I find that extremely false, as all you have to do is search for the individual items AI states in their press release, and you'll have plethoras of opinions on the subject.  Counter-balance doesn't mean direct responses to the actual event, it means balancing of opinions by multiple parties in order to obtain neutrality.  This article does not provide any other opinions on the manner, other than Amnesty International's opinions.  This is absolutely a violation of the NPOV policy.  There are tons of specific quotes and events from individuals that can provide balance to this article.  This still does not solve the NPOV issues; in fact, it was just another revert.  I am finding it extremely difficult to actually hear a decent response from some users here.  Keith provided a description that he actually tried to find balance, to which I have to thank him for.  Above, I have stated what can be used as counter-balance (it is not limited to a direct response to the PR).  However, the reverts need to stop; if you aren't going to engage in discussion here, please don't start a war.  I have reverted this one last time, because this article absolutely needs some balance to it.  An article that is over half of its content being direct quotes from a PR certainly isn't news.  Let's find some balance here.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For example, a quick Google search brought me to an article about Rumsfeld from 2002, when confronted with the issue of combatants in the War on Terror, where he denies any mistreatment, an obviously different opinion than Amnesty. Things like this can and should be used as material to balance this article.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If I did not have this type of conversation with you before I would be sure you are kidding. What do you want the article to say? "Rumsfeld disagreed with allegations of mistreatment in 2002, it is unclear whether he diagrees on these current allegations." I hope you are aware that the article you gave has no reference to Amnesty International whatsoever. (There was an advertisement on the bottom of the page for AI though...) Unless I am really underestimating your sense of humor this is one of the worst justifications for a tag that I have seen. --vonbergm 02:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I find no humor in letting biased articles be published here, vonbergm. Note that I am absolutely serious when I bring up these issues.  This article only shows Amnesty's opinion on issues - that is promotion of their opinion, especially if you have no differing opinions in the article itself.  Please do not tell me you are OK with allowing a one-sided article.  Wikinews deserves better than that, and the policies here prevent any article from being published that does not conform to the site's policies.  This article is biased, over 50% of the text in this article is copied from Amnesty's Press Release.  It may now become clear to you why in the past I did very little collaboration on talk pages - when users such as yourselves try to mock individuals who try to bring neutrality to articles.  This is not neutral.  Please don't waste others' time if you are not here to help this article be developed.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Point-of-view of those criticised by report

 * Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros said, "Humane treatment of detainees in Department of Defense custody is, and always has been, the department standard. The standard of humane treatment applies to DOD personnel, as well as civilian contractors."

 * State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, "When we do return people to their home countries, we always go through a very, very careful and detailed process. And they have to be able to assure American officials and policymakers that they believe that these individuals will not be maltreated, will not be tortured."

 * McCormack also said, "In the years of Saddam Hussein's rule, Amnesty International was at the forefront of bringing to light human rights abuses that were perpetrated by that regime - terrible, terrible things. They did great work in that regard. But when it came time to put Saddam Hussein on trial, which is happening right now, they're absent. They've done zero, zip, nothing, to assist in those efforts."

 * McCormack also said, "Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay."

- Borofkin 03:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Do the contributors to this article agree that these points-of-view should be included? Please comment here, hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement and then have the article unprotected. - Borofkin 03:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Borofkin, thanks for trying to help out, but the quotes you got are irrelevant for the article. The article makes no mention of treatment of detainees in US custody, rendering points 1 and 4 irrelevant. Point 2 does not address the claim that torture happenes under rendition, but only states that there are "assurances" that maltreatment will not happen. Point 3 shows fundamental misunderstanding of the mandate of AI.

 * The goal cannot be to just include quotes from people with a different point of view. The quotes also have to be relevant to the article. Also, we cannot extrapolate from previous comments of people to what they think now. As mentioned above, the US administration seems to be a lot more amenable to closing down Guantanamo than they were a year ago. I agree that statements reflecting an opposing point of view addressing the article should be included. (The statements from Iran and the UAE I mentioned above are also irrelevant for the article.) --vonbergm 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about this: in the section titled "Torture", we include a paragraph such as "The US government has previously defeneded it's practises, saying that it doesn't send prisoners overseas to be tortured". There's nothing wrong with saying that a government has previously denied previous accusations. - Borofkin 04:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I will go look for a quote. --vonbergm 04:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Not so easy after all. Here a statement from Gonzales that again does not deny that torture happened: "We understand that our legal obligation with respect to all renditions is that we will not transfer someone to another country where it is more likely than not that they will be tortured ... the United States strives to meet that obligation in every case."
 * Previous wikinews does not seem to have any quotes, although I found this "While refusing to admit that the rendition policy even exists, the Bush administration claimed that they do not hand over people to be tortured in other countries, to get around US laws which prohibit such practices." I guess by now the US admits that they have a rendition policy (e.g. Gonzales' statement), but this also does not deny that people were tortured, but simply states that torture is not the (primary) purpose. `I will look a little more. Anyone who has a quote, post it here. --vonbergm 04:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Found a quote by Bush, this is probably as good as it gets: "We operate within the law, and we send people to countries where they say they're not going to torture the people..." Again, not denying that they were tortured, but just that the countries (e.g. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Uzbekistan) said that they will not torture. Giving up the search, google was not very helpful this time. --vonbergm 04:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we make it very clear that we are reporting on the report and not the actual events in the report, and make extra sure all claims are attributed properly, I do not think we need to include any quotes from other parties, unless they have quotes about the report itself. --Cspurrier 19:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cspurrier, I fully agree. (I was merely trying to follow up on Borofkin's initiative to find some "compromize".) To move beyond a purely philosophical discussion, do you believe that this article makes it "very clear that we are reporting on the report and not the actual events in the report" or that it needs modifications beyond the ones Elliot put in right after MrM first complained? --vonbergm 19:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I want to move beyond a philosophical discussion :). The version on that MrM posted his list higher up on this page, needed fixing. It appears to be in about the right shape to be published, however it does push the limits a tad bit. A little bit more about the report it self, may help make the destinction between the report and the actual events clearer. Such as how often it is published, how things are decide to be included and maybe a little more about Amnesty International.--Cspurrier 00:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although already implicit in the formulations of the article, I added a sentence to to make the nature of the report more explicit. I am not sure how much more background on AI, beyond what is there and the wikilink, is needed here. I guess one could mention the Nobel Prize, but really, that's what the wikilinks are for. --vonbergm 00:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hint: try wikipedia background
A bit of searching the wikipedia should find that most of Amnesty's claims are already the subject of extensive, NPOV, wikipedia articles.

What is news is the fact that Amnesty claims that these are important as part of Amnesty's summary of human rights violations during 2005.

NPOVing the wikinews article could be done by replacing some of the text which is quoting Amnesty by a link to the wikipedia background page and text which is the wikipedia article NPOV summary. In some cases the wikipedia article summary will be very close to Amnesty's POV, in some cases it will be somewhat different.

Possible responses to the report would be best from other organisations which are reasonably international and have some reputation for neutrality - e.g. if the Red Cross or the World Health Organisation criticises Amnesty's report, then that would be a useful alternative POV to add. There can also be comments by various alleged human-rights-violators around the world (political leaders in Saudi Arabia, US, China, Iran, Poland, ...).

Boud 03:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Why protected with a tag?
Please explain? Neutralizer 05:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the tag. It appears, reading the conversation above, that things may have calmed a bit and unprotection would probably be appropriate soon. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, why protect at all? As you noticed, after the 6RR block there is no edit-warring party left. I guess one could protect the article until the block expires so that the sole objecting party stands a fair chance of keeping this from being published for longer than a couple of minutes. --vonbergm 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The content on this page exemplifies my points
This kind of bullshit is exactly the reason I am considering leaving. Its nonsense. Arguing for the sake of it. Wasting everyones time. MrM is offensive beyond belief here. I cannot work with this sort of behaviour. --elliot_k 08:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with Elliot K here, Amnesty has a well known POV, reporting them expressing their POV need not be intepreted as an endorsement of that POV. The article could do with some background on Amnesty to highlight why their position makes the statements less surprising but reporting on the statements of an NGO is NPOV, provided you give enough information or links for someone to come to a conclusion about the bias of the source.  Consequently I am going to unprotect this article and ask someone to do an "according to Wikipedia" bit of background on AI. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes
Brian, please explain why you removed specific information from the article, like "powerful governments" and "a recent British Parliamentary Report". As you are aware, your edits part from the sources and do distort AI's statements. (Since you are editing the article I must assume that you read the sources, right?) Also, your "grandma" change does not make any sense to me. (Maybe because English is my second language?) --vonbergm 20:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My edits were to address the concerns that caused this article to be disputed, the prior version took the emotive statements of AI as fact and carried over their effort to force readers to a specific conclusion. The edit comment about my "grandma" was a reference to correcting grammar that I'd mucked up with earlier changes. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yap, got the grandma edit, I just wasn't looking carefully... Also, I am fine with the extra attributions you added, although I they seem redundand to me (but might aid the careless reader). I don't see how the previous version "took the emotive statements of AI as fact", it merely reported them. Your version however misreports the statements of AI. I guess one could argue that "powerful" is "emotive" (although a little far fetched), but how is "a recent British Parliamentary Report" emotive? --vonbergm 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The British Parliamentary Report isn't provided as a source, so any mention is second hand and would become awkward to word (eg, "AI cites a report from stating ".
 * I do not see how I am misreporting the statements of AI, I didn't touch the quotes and primarily worked on making their citation flow in a more readable manner.
 * "Powerful" wasn't removed as emotive, although you do have a point there. It is a judgement on the governments that AI is criticising.  I'll bet that Myanmar comes in for some damning criticism in their report, but I wouldn't characterise them as "powerful".  Mentioning that, the balance the article is needing is some of the non-western parts of the world the AI criticises being covered in the article.  Problem is, I ain't going to buy the report to find out the details they don't want to promote to grab headlines. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have a point with the British report. About the "powerful", are you suggesting that Mynamar had anything to do with "paralyzing international institutions"? This article can defninitely be expanded to give more detailed report regarding individual countries. This is only an overview, and AI has a well-known (and arguably justified) bias in putting a higher emphasis on criticizing so-called "free and democratic" countries. I think reporting in more detail on individual countries would be great. The individual country reports are freely available online, so please feel free to write more articles based on this. --vonbergm 21:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's approach this from a different angle, I've gone back and re-read the section of the article that used to refer to "powerful nations", it still implies "US and allies", but the current wording is slightly more circumspect. What I mean by that is that it essentially conveys the same information but does less to lead you to a predetermined conclusion. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As this is an article about the AI report, I would prefer to go with the language of the report instead of trying to interpret it. But I will not insist on this if this is what is keeping the article from being published. --vonbergm 04:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Going with the language of the report is accepting it at face value and effectively promoting/advertising the material for AI. Just because it seems neutral to you does not mean it is.  You have to in some way give background on the organisation that has collated this information before you can present it as the truth.  If an element of the various statements they've given to the press about this report they are trying to sell is an attack on several Western countries then you don't make it generically ominous by using terms like "powerful", you cite specific criticisms.
 * This leads into the primary problem with a news event of this nature and the reporting of it. To be reported fairly the entire AI report would have to be available to all Wikinews contributors.  It isn't, we're reliant on mainstream media quoting of the report, and the material that makes headlines for them is not representative. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * just to point out, that the entire report is available to all wikinews contributors, and is listed as a source. Doldrums 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you hinting that people editing the article and engaging in discussions should actually read the sources? --vonbergm 18:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Who? me? :) Doldrums 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The report is available under the Buy This Report option, and you're making snarky comments about sources? We don't use paid for sources, check policy if you don't believe me. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * from what i can make out, the report is available online via the country listing, regional overviews and key issues headings. Doldrums 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't immediately apparent to me that the report was segmented out there. Problem is, that makes selective reporting an issue of POV, you'd have to take the worst offenders from each continent or something like that to balance the aspects of the report that are covered.  What I have attempted to do with the opening of the article we have is make it clear the information comes from a source that has a specific POV.  The current Wikinews article highlights those who you would expect be held to the highest standards, that is biased when the report also details who are the worst offenders. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * no sweat. this is a tough article to create and get the pov right. agree that selective reporting of it (which is unavoidable, i think, given the length (and breadth) of the report) raises pov concerns. perhaps we can hande it the way i believe other news sources do - mention its findings regarding "big powers", worst offenders, and anything AI itself highlights as important. balance to be added by making a "good-fath" effort to find responses from governments (does not mean we wait indefnitely for the myanmar govt. to reply). anyway, that's my 2cents. Doldrums 19:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

POV
This whole article is POV IMO. Where are quotes from those who do not believe the report or whatever? Who is this group as it IMO is not "well known" as I never heard of them. This artice focuses soley on this report which seems IMO to be a report against governments. Is anyone going to call all the governments this report mentions for their view? I also don't see the news here, unless its to show how much some governments are hated, especially by this group. Jason Safoutin 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question "Who is this group", try clicking on the appropiate wikilink. --vonbergm 19:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did...my point is you cannot call something "weell known" when not everyone knows what they are. Jason Safoutin 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By that criterion nothing is "well known". But there is no point to argue as long as Brian, who inserted this phrase (to address NPOV concerns???), does not mind it being removed. --vonbergm 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Dragon, if this is your concern, which I in a glimps good faith interpret as philosofical, you must explain your argumentation much better to give it some merit. Untill that I sugest article should be published. Is there any 'actionable' concerns by other uses left that should be adressed before? international 19:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My concerns are valid. This report in itself does nothing but bash the governments it names calling them "arrogant". Unless you plan on calling the President and or PM of all these governments, then its all POV. You cannot bash them and call it NPOV without getting both sides of the situation. Jason Safoutin 19:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * the US state department has responded to this report. Doldrums 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * You can report on Amnesty "bashing" various governments within their report and remain within the NPOV guidelines. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You sure can. but its not within the guidelines. You simply cannot bash a government withou a defense. Jason Safoutin 20:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You are incorrectly reading my comment, "you can report on Amnesty bashing a goverment. You can't engage in any bashing yourself. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes you sure can, but for WN standards, its not a NPOV without their responses. Also where is this report? Is it all avaliable online? Jason Safoutin 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, please read the previous discussions before commenting. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good find Doldrums, we should have picked this up earlier. Only problem is, the response does not address issues raised in the wikinews article. The only specific response to the AI report is that "Nobody is being tortured at Guantanamo Bay." Only problem: There are no direct charges in the AI report that the USA tortures at Guantanamo, only references of torture w.r.t. Guantanamo are indirect: "Evidence continued to emerge of the torture and ill-treatment of detainees in Guantánamo," with some a little more direct accusations of torture (although vague and not specifically directed toward Guantanamo) "The final report of Naval Inspector General Vice-Admiral Church into Department of Defense interrogation operations worldwide, a summary of which was published in March, found “no link between approved interrogation techniques and detainee abuse”. This was despite the fact that many such techniques violate international standards that prohibit torture and ill-treatment."
 * I guess we could expand the "torture" section of the article so that the State Department's repsonse becomes somewhat relevant, so that we can include it. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot mention that a report, to which is not available fully, without paying, based on previous posts, calls any nation country or government "arrogant" and not back up a single defense to that accusation. Jason Safoutin 20:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, please read the previous discussions before commenting. --vonbergm 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you can, and I was mistaken - the vast majority of the report is available online by selecting the country you're interested in. What I am concerned about is what is in the report, but not available on the web.
 * I do find the demand for an official response prior to publication unreasonable. If the government does not have PR shock-troops working on this then it should not be a reason to delay the article until they can be bothered to issue a response.  If we publish with no response, a well-done response can have its own article. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Thats not NPOV. I read the previous comments. The quotes by officials prior to this report have no real basis in the article. They are not responding to this report or anything to do with it. If anyone plans on calling anyone "arrogant", I would want a defense as wellpovSelective reporting is not NPOV thats bias IMO. Jason Safoutin 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some Wikinewsies not only disagrea with you DF, they also seems to have another interpretation of npov/pov than you. Discussion goes in circels. This should be a concensus thing. Do we have to arrange a vote? international 20:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. This is about following policy and guidelines. I have noted my concerns, which are valid. If you choose to ignore them, then you have problems with NPOV. If anything bashes any governmewnt, then I expect a response as such. This so called report does nothing but bash governments. They may not want to be NPOV, but Wikinews is. Jason Safoutin 20:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I think I'm wasting my time here. My edits to the article were intended to provide guidance on addressing the concerns that had been raised - it was written as if we were Amnesty's press office.  However, tt must be clear that this is a report from a NGO and their POV is whatever it is.  Our article is now being opposed because material within the report has not been countered by the parties under scrutiny.  I think this is wholly unreasonable, if we wait around for governments to respond to things like this we'll delete 90% of our material because they ignore it.  Items like this Amnesty report should be covered as they are issued, if you have a problem with it expand it to cover other countries that are criticised, watch out for the government response and turn it into a story, etc.  For those opposed, I'm sure if it was the Great Firewall aspect of Chinese IT policy that was being covered you'd not want to delay publication until they issued a response.
 * On the whole, I think many of the people writing on this talk page need slapped with a wet fish, there is very little effort into the article and a great deal into posturing over the validity of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

publish
I will publish it now as I see a consensus for it and that DF:s argumentation to keep it unpublished isnt strong enough international 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless the NPOV issues can be fixed, then do not publish. You are not the only one on this Wiki international. Jason Safoutin 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fix the issues and see what other users think about it. Users dont understand your hardline point here. Els we are stuck. international 21:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Jason, alternatively
 * I have stated my concerns. I am sick pof repeating them. If you choose to ignore them then thats your problem. Jason Safoutin 21:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Take your chanse below DF or I will ignore your concerns as meritless disruption. international 21:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignore? Isn't that what you are already doing? Jason Safoutin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wait 5 min for a confirmation that you accept to contribute in an constructive way either by clearly comunicating your conserns below or telling us that you will start to edit the article. If not I will ignore your conserns as meritless and publish. If you then put article to develop without contributing or comunicating your conserns it is a clear act of disruption international 21:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you threatening me now? I stated my copncerns. This article is over quoted and all it does is bash counriries. It in no way whatsoever states ANY defense from those countries in relation to this report. Not a single one. I could care less what some guys said back whenever. He did not respond to this report. If you want to balance the POV of this article then you will find responses. Do not threraten me. If you do not want to pay attention to the concerns of others then what are you doing here? This is a community whether you like it or not. Jason Safoutin 21:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly itemize your remaining concerns here
Jason, the reason I asked you to state your concerns here is that it is extremely tedious to figure out what concerns you have left, as about half the concerns you raised were based on your inability or unwillingness to read the aticle, its sources and the existing discussion. So here comes the list of concerns and questions from your edits:

1. "Where are quotes from those who do not believe the report or whatever?"
 * This was discussed extensively above.

2. "Who is this group as it IMO is not "well known" as I never heard of them."
 * Just click on the wikilink to find out.

3. "This artice focuses soley on this report which seems IMO to be a report against governments."
 * Read the AI report if you don't know what it is about. Comments that are based on what things "seem IYO" are not helpful, read the sources so that you know what they are about.

4. "Is anyone going to call all the governments this report mentions for their view?"
 * You are certainly welcome to call any government you want. Wikinews does not have the capacity nor prestige to directly obtain responses from governments. The AI report has been widely reported in news media all over the world and we have to rely on responses from governments to these reports.

5. "I also don't see the news here."
 * AI issues annual reports of human rights records, especially concening prisoners, for each country every year. These reports have historically had a big impact on the public opinion and put public pressure on countries to improve human rights conditions -- sometimes with great success. This is why AI has received the Nobel peace price for its work.

6. "You cannot bash them and call it NPOV without getting both sides of the situation."
 * This has been clearly addressed by Brian.

7. "Also where is this report? Is it all avaliable online?"
 * This has been discussed extensively before. Commenting on a discussion without making the effort to first read previous discussions or the sources is unproductive and disruptive.

8. "You cannot mention that a report, to which is not available fully, without paying, based on previous posts, calls any nation country or government "arrogant" and not back up a single defense to that accusation."
 * Again, commenting on a discussion without making the effort to first read previous discussions or the sources is unproductive and disruptive. As was discussed under the same heading as your post, the full report is available for free online.

9. "The quotes by officials prior to this report have no real basis in the article. They are not responding to this report or anything to do with it."
 * That's exactly why these quotes are not in the article. Not reading the article before commenting on the talk page is unproductive and disruptive.

10. "If anyone plans on calling anyone "arrogant", I would want a defense as wellpovSelective reporting is not NPOV thats bias IMO."
 * Again Brian addressed this well. If a response is available but is ignored in the article, I fully agree with you, but we cannot let governments decide for us what news we can report, depending on what they dignify with a response.

--vonbergm 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

All of these conserns are either a result of misinformation or have been extensively addressed. So please,
 * No they have not. You may want to bash nations but WEN does not. There are serious POV issues here. If you choose to ignore them then fine. Do so. I refuse to sit here and repeat myself. If you do not want to even attempt a defense response then this will stay as NPOV tag. I could care less if this is annual or not. If you bash something, you get a response. Thats why we have WN:NPOV. BALANCED reporting. Not my problem if you do not like it. Jason Safoutin 22:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * you refuse to take any help from vonbergm:s effort. I publish as you cant present any actionable objections. international 22:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, after all the work I have done, please at least specify which of the above points have not been addressed. I numbered them to make it easier for you, so you just need to say 1, 2 and 5, for example. Or you could say "all", or "none", or list an extra concern that I overlooked (some of your statements seemed repetative, so I did not list all things you said). All I am asking for is a little bit of good will to help out an editor (that would be me) that has problems getting it. --vonbergm 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. I give up. Repetitive because you are ignoring me and my concerns. At this poiunt I am also choosing to ignore you two. You refuse to aknowledge my concerns, then I refuse to aknowledge you. Jason Safoutin 22:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I am meant as one of the "you two", but I don't think you can say that I ignored your concerns, after I went through the effort of itemizing them and summarizing the responses from the talk page. Either way, I don't think that listing some numbers is too much to ask for. --vonbergm 22:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

List your concerns here!
I'm concerned that Jason Safoutin will keep supporting non-actionable objections, then when asked for valid reasons will, in defense, "give up". This action perpetuates him as a victim and potentially gathers support for a misguided cause. Until rational reasons appear here for delaying this article, my opinion, which gives little weight to his, stands. The story is well written and sourced, except for a few wordy sentences masquerading as paragraphs. Karen 23:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you are wrong. I think you are violating NPOV but hey, you don't care. No one does. Well written? I think not. Jason Safoutin 23:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jason Safoutin, my edit was to correct the lack of doubling of the final consonant in "occur" when prefixing "ed" or "ing". Perhaps that's an American English point-of-view. My resource is http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=occur, which usually mentions British variations. I'm fairly certain I'm right, but will review any valid contrary evidence. The extent of my involvement in the NPOV discussion here is simply to support my side to bring consensus, bringing no other evidence to bear - exactly what you're doing for your side, your buddy MrMiscellanious. Your puckering claims that the grapes are sour each time you "give up" (but still go on objecting). If I didn't care about Wikinews story neutrality, I wouldn't bother with a note to say "Watch this one, he's constantly supporting non-actionable objections when an NPOV discussion takes place."

Since you're giving up here on the NPOV discussion, see if you can actually prove me wrong with other reasons the story isn't well written (i.e. support your claims) or research the spelling variations on "occurred, occurring". Like mine, your contribution might be small, but could better the story by being a positive contributor - working with others. Karen 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

 * As it stands this article is being published with nothing but POV. And IMO i am being forced to accept that POV. At least I know who the POV pushers are now. Jason Safoutin 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the point of view of the story is that it's stating what the Amnesty Report 2006 is saying - so we don't have to read the whole thing ourselves. File another story that disputes the report; that'd be contributory, indeed. I'm at least glad you haven't really given up, but I'm annoyed that you keep claiming you are. Karen 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Thats not how it works. If you want this published then you need to support BOTH sides. If you do not want to follow policy then walk through the door. As an administrator you should know policy and follow it. Jason Safoutin 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jason, this reminds me of the quite recent news of the person calling in to the police complaining that everyone else driving on the highway was going in the wrong direction... --vonbergm 00:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I support publish; articel is ok now. Yrtsihpos 02:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

AMAZING!
Phew... Reading the article now, and after all this "discussion", it seems little has changed since my last edit. DragonFire1024|Jason Safoutin seems unwilling to put a convincing case forward. It could be worthwhile to summarise the misinterpretation of the NPOV policy over this issue. So this kind of ludicrous nonsense can be sorted out. Perhaps the policy itself needs to be re-examined. --elliot_k 09:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * agree-need new NPOV-less chains for articels. Yrtsihpos 12:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously if consensus defies policy, then policy should be re-written, at least to clarify it so the majority can understand it. I don't see a problem with policy with this story - just how it's interpreted. Consensus usually is for adherence to policy, hence my continued opinion to publish. Karen 22:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:128.84.201.59

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 18:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:128.84.201.59


text:
Human to human transmission of the H5N1 Avian Flu may have infected seven Indonesian family members

May 23, 2006

The World Health Organization (WHO) said in a statement that all seven Indonesian individuals infected with the deadly H5N1 Avian Flu (Bird Flu) virus, six of whom have died, contracted the disease through "close and prolonged exposure to a patient during a phase of severe illness." All victims were part of the same family. A 10-year old boy is believed to have contracted the disease through his aunt and then spread the virus to his father. This is the first report of the virus spreading through a three-person chain.

According to the WHO, experts have not been able to find the birds or animals responsible for spreading the disease.

"Although human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out, the search for a possible alternative source of exposure is continuing," said the WHO in a statement on its website.

"All confirmed cases in the cluster can be directly linked to close and prolonged exposure to a patient during a phase of severe illness" and that the 32-year old father was "closely involved in caring for his son, and this contact is considered a possible source of infection," said the WHO in a statement.

However; the WHO also said that that tests performed on samples from the patients, "found no evidence of genetic reassortment with human or pig influenza viruses and no evidence of significant mutations. The viruses showed no mutations associated with resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitors, including oseltamivir (Tamiflu)"

They also stressed that "to date, the investigation has found no evidence of spread within the general community and no evidence that efficient human-to-human transmission has occurred." In January, DNA taken from two Turkish teens confirmed that they died from a mutated strain of the Bird Flu virus.


text:
New toll proposal on U.S. Interstate 95 nearing passage

May 27, 2006

A $5 toll proposal for travel on Interstate 95 is gaining momentum in North Carolina, and has passed this week in the Virginia General Assembly. Toll booths would be set up at the border between the two states to collect revenues estimated in excess of $150 million annually, money that would be split by each state to help pay for needed maintenance of the interstate highway.

Virginia has apparently changed plans to go it alone with road improvement priorities to the I-95 section at the approach and departure corridors to Washington, D.C. The state strategy of partnering with private, for-profit road construction companies, such as Clark Construction Group and Fluor Virginia Inc., necessarily meant the placement of revenue collecting toll booths where they are least wanted and most inconvenient, on the already congested interstate travel points near the capital city of the United States.

Two proposals to widen the Springfield Interchange Improvement Project with more high-occupancy-vehicle lanes near Washington, D.C. on the Virginia side come at a combined cost in the range of $1.5 billion for the state to complete. A public-private partnership to fund the improvements, looked at by Virginia's Department of Transportation in January 2005, has now taken on a less region specific funding solution in favor of an interstate solution.

As a practical matter, toll collection booths located at the North Carolina-Virginia state line would spare motorists in the most affected Virginia region the hassle and expense of toll payments, but it misses imposing a toll on roadway users who are most responsible for the needed improvements. That expense, as currently proposed, is passed on to motorists using I-95 for the longer haul.

North Carolina governor Mike Easley has remained opposed to a Virginia-North Carolina Interstate Toll Road Compact. The estimated $4 billion in needed repairs to I-95 in that state, where in some places the roadway is 20-years-old, places a stress on budget resources necessary for the state to perform needed maintenance.

Senator Clark Jenkins of Tarboro County in North Carolina proposed legislation "to get the discussion started about the concept."

External link

 * By entering the search query 'Pleasant Hill, North Carolina' in Google Maps search engine, Route 301 appears as an obvious bypass to the toll booths (if enacted).


text:
User talk:66.244.223.234

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Temporary Block
You have been blocked temporarily for your actions on the following page: Mark Adams. Your block will be up within 1 week. I suggest you look at our style guide during your inaccessable period to amend your methods of editing Wikinews. If you wish to speak with me directly, contact can be made by my talk page or contact can be made instantly via the IRC chat room.

 --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Trolling
Hello, please do not create comments pages with disruptive content, as you have done at Comments:Dalai Lama begins trip to Taiwan. If you do it again you will be blocked. Thank you. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:66.244.223.234


text:
User:Harej/Yet another Main Page design

Consider this design obsolete.

A more recent attempt at re-creating the main page.

title: User:Harej/Yet another Main Page design


text:
Talk:Turkish and Greek fighter planes collide in mid air

The Greek pilot has not been declared dead yet, so let's not kill the guy off before the search and rescue operation is concluded. Also, Flight Information Regions and national airspace are not the same thing.--Jsone 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think many people survive high-speed mid-air collisions. Nontheless, maybe he ejected in time, so let's give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt.PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] 08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the Times, the Turkish pilot ejected and was rescued by a passing vessel. The Greek pilot was killed.PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]]

Collision
Illegal occupatin of Cyprus? Violation of Greek air space? Dear Greek friend, come on get real, Cyprus divided because Greeks were about to mess up, in 1974, since then piece rules over for both nations's people in Cyprus island (you have to thank to Turks). Secondly, you reckon Turkish flight crew really violated Greek air space? If yes, why did not your air force shoot them down by SS-300 out-dated Russian ground to air missiles (perhaps SS-300s failed to launch LOL) while they were flying above the Greek island with a photographic evidence? 4 Turkish F16's were escorting a RF-4 that was in a training program (not loaded with geo-camera equipments) which was previously reported to NATO/AC. Before you make a comment, please be sure what the hell are you talking about. Thirdly, Greek pilots are good (individually, but in this accident Greek wingmen had to warn Greek pilot to safely eject just before collision). Also, your side claims that it had happened in Greek zone, whilst Turkish air-force denies as it occured International flight zone that has been witnessed by Egyption passenger plane also sat-tracking devices. Dude, listen, I know reality hurts but get real. We, Turks are also saddened by the death of Greek pilot and never wish, this kind of incidents take place.

Please do not be offended and try to be friends as we always regard Greeks as friends.

This is for the Greek pilot: Dear Illiakis, may your place be heaven and god bless your soul. My symphaties goes to your family and your loved ones. I wish non of this ever happened.

Greetings Alex the Turk

The native inhabitants of the Aegean Sea, the western coast of the Anatolian land mass, & Cyprus are Greek since antiquity. Turks only made their way westward through war & should be pushed back east in the same manor. They've destroyed Christian World Heritage sites everywhere that they occupy. They should have shot down the turkish plane upon conformation that it was just that.


text:
Audiotape of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden surfaces on Internet

May 23, 2006

A new audiotape of al-Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, has surfaced on the Internet.

On the tape, bin Laden claims that it was him alone who assigned the hijackers to perform the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and that Zacarias Moussaoui had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

"The truth is that he has no connection whatsoever with the events of Sept 11th, and I am certain of what I say, because I was responsible for entrusting the 19 brothers -- Allah have mercy upon them -- with those raids, and I did not assign brother Zacarias to be with them on that mission," said bin Laden who was speaking about the 9/11 highjackers.

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't number 20 in the group, as your government has claimed. It knows this very well," added bin Laden.

Bin Laden also said that Moussaoui confessed because of "pressures exercised against him during four and a half years [in jail]."

The Pentagon is aware of the tape and has confirmed its authenticity.

In April, bin Laden released an audiotape to Aljazeera saying that the isolation of the Hamas-led Palestine is a "war by crusaders and Zionists against Islam" and spoke of the "situation in Iraq, Palestine and Sudan."


text:
Police retrieve body of American tourist on hunting holiday in New Zealand

May 24, 2006 Police officials have retrieved the body of an American tourist who plunged to his death moments after stepping out of a helicopter while hunting in the Southern Alps, New Zealand.

57-year-old Clifford Wayne Senter, of New Hampshire in the US, died when he slipped on wet ground while exiting the helicopter, and plunged down a steep bluff near Lois Peak in Mount Aspiring National Park. He had been hunting chamois at the time.

Low cloud and fog has prevented search and rescue teams from reaching him on Monday night but a recovery team was deployed early Tuesday. The team found Mr Senter's body at the base of the bluff in the afternoon.

Police said that Mr Senter had been in New Zealand for a week on a hunting holiday, with his wife and two friends.


text:
User talk:74.56.19.154

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Notice of Article
Your recently-created article, Portal:Democratic Republic of the Congo, has been deleted in accordiance with the speedy deletion guidelines. The reason stated was: "Editorial: Violation of NPOV policy". Please view the links provided at the top of this talk page. If you wish to speak with me directly, contact can be made by my talk page or contact can be made instantly via the IRC chat room.

 --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:74.56.19.154


text:
User talk:85.156.219.126

Welcome to Wikinews! Thanks for creating Fernandez leave Marseille, we need more articles like this. There are a few issues that must be dealt with before it can be published. The most important is that it currently does not conform to our Style guide. Wikinews articles must meet certain standards. You may find the information at Writing an article to be useful.

Discussion about your article will occur on the article talk page. Please go there to start or participate in the discussion with other Wikinews contributors. Please keep at it and try to get this article published. Getting news stories that interest you published at Wikinews can sometimes be difficult, but you will find that it is worth the effort. - Borofkin 23:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:85.156.219.126


text:
User talk:124.111.245.59

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

Discussion about your article will occur on the article talk page. Please go there to start or participate in the discussion with other Wikinews contributors. Keep at it and try to get this article published, which can sometimes be difficult, but you will find that it is worth the effort. - Borofkin 23:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:124.111.245.59


text:
East Timor descends into further violence: Downer

May 24, 2006

On Tuesday Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer (Division of Mayo, Liberal) told parliament that the government has received fresh reports of violence in East Timor.

Mr. Downer told the Australian House of Representatives that he has received fresh reports of violence erupting in parts of the East Timorese capital, Dili, as well as other parts of the nation.

According to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), there were shootouts near Becora and Fatuahi on Tuesday involving the East Timorese military and militia.

Violence erupted in East Timor in April 2006 following the dismissal of 585 East Timorese soldiers for deserting. On April 28, 2006, five people were killed in violent clashes in Dili. An independent commission has been setup by the East Timorese government to investigate complaints by the dismissed soldiers. Mr. Downer urged the commission to "conclude its work quickly as a first step to the resolution of the current crisis".

Mr. Downer said that he had made it clear to the East Timorese government that Australia will assist in East Timor if requested. He said that the Australian military have a rapid response team, consisting of naval ships, aircraft and troops deployed in Northern Australia ready to go to East Timor if requested.

DFAT is advising Australians not to travel to East Timor due to what it calls an "extremely dangerous security situation". It advises that those who are already in East Timor consider leaving.


text:
Talk:East Timor descends into further violence: Downer

Original reporting
Written entirely from the hansard of parliament (transcript) and the travel advisory issued by DFAT - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Harej/Yet another Main Page design

Discussion before the aesthetics were changed
SO far, this has been the only redesign I support and like. The only thing I'd change is kill the  on the daily DPL. Its nice to be able to see everything for today. (Maybe when we're bigger a count = 5 would be good, but for now, thats killing half our stories, and we need all we can get. At least increase to seven) Bawolff ☺☻ 00:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. The only other issue is that when the day ends, the number of articles (in the today list), decreases abruptly. However you can't do much aboput that. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to do was include news from yeterday, too, but I wouldn't be quite sure how to do that. You could have something with CURRENTDAY minus one, but that won't always work (e.g. June 1 would become June 0). What could we do for that case? — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well you could do that with some fancy templating (you could make 0 turn into previous day, but it takes a lot of work), however I don't think DPL's work with templates. We could do it like how we currently do the days (bots), but only have two days. We could have two date categories on an article, but thats a messy solutions, on a road that proably isn't a good one to go down. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed - what I did was made the DPL based off of the Published Article category - that way, the news stays recent, and when a new day comes, perfectly legitimate news won't get wiped off the main page. — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 18:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this design. 22:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I much prefer this layout. The organisation by topics is much much better. --Skenmy(talk) 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

After the aesthetics have changed
How does the Main Page redesign look now? — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


text:
The Australia Institute identifies ideal sites for nuclear power stations

May 24, 2006

The Australia Institute, an Australian research organisation that some consider to be aligned to the political left, has released its analysis of ideal locations for a nuclear power plant in Australia.

According to the institute, they consulted with a number of nuclear energy experts and determined the best possible sites for a nuclear power reactor in Australia. These sites include the popular holiday destinations of Port Stephens in New South Wales and Westernport Bay in Victoria.

The institute identified sites based on the needs of nuclear power generators. They said the most important criteria is for the site to be on the coast so it has access to large volumes of water used by the reactor for cooling. The institute found inland locations are not suitable as "Australia’s inland water supplies are unreliable and are already over-committed."

The institute also reports that Port Stephens and Westernport Bay meet other desirable criteria, being near major electricity transmission lines and have good rail and port access for imported fuel rods.

The institute said that unused fuel rods would need to be imported, but "spent fuel will need to be stored in perpetuity". According to the institute, in Europe nuclear waste is often stored on the power plant's site.

Dr Clive Hamilton, executive director of the Australia Institute said that the government is yet to give an indication on potential nuclear power sites and there is only a small number of sites which would be suitable for a power generation reactor. “It is not clear whether the Government has yet considered where the proposed nuclear power plants will be located, but there are only a limited number of suitable sites. Other likely sites include the Central Coast and the area south of Wollongong in NSW, the  Sunshine Coast in Queensland, and Port Phillip Bay and Portland in Victoria”.

Mr Hamilton said that the institute had decided to investigate possible locations as there is little point having a nuclear debate where no possible sites are identified. “The Prime Minister has said he wants a national debate about nuclear power, but there is little point in debating it in the abstract”.

Mayor of Port Stephens, Craig Baumann is not impressed by the Australia Institute's findings. He said he would be opposed to any nuclear power facility being built in Port Stephens.

"I just don't like the idea of any power station, something like Vailes Point being stuck on the shores of Port Stephens,"

"Obviously the power station should be close to transport, obviously large volumes of water and the grid that it's meant to service" Mr Baumann said.

Mr Baumann did however suggest a possible location for a power plant. "I'd suggest that they move the ships out of Garden Island and stick it right in the middle of Sydney."

If the government decided on a location in Victoria for a nuclear power plant there would be some legal implications, requiring the federal government to overturn state law (which is difficult). Victoria enacted the Nuclear Activities (Prohibitions) Act in 1983 which states it is to "protect the health, welfare and safety of the people of Victoria and to limit deterioration of the environment in which they dwell by prohibiting the establishment of nuclear activities".

Under the act, nuclear power generation is specified as a prohibited activity.


text:
Talk:The Australia Institute identifies ideal sites for nuclear power stations

Original Reporting
Written from The Australia Institute's media release on their report and the Victorian nuclear prohibition act. The daily telegraph was used to source the claim that TAI is leftist. The ABC article was used to source the Port Stephens mayor's comments - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I attributed the leftist claim to "some" when I rephrased the sentence containing the claim - otherwise, the claim is stated passively. For clarity, you may want to attribute the claim directly - or just leave it attributed to "some". Those are my thoughts. Karen 07:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would leave it as some as more than just the Tele say this about TAI - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed photo
I removed a photo which I considered both to be irrelevant, and to have an editorializing caption. The photo depicted a random nuclear power plant with high cooling towers, obviously a hideous sight on a coast. Except that, as far as I know, a plant may not need those big cooling towers if it has access to a very big body of water... such as the ocean.

Unless one has access to the precise kind of power plant that would be built, writing "such as this one" is misleading anyway. Submarine 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I would assume that the cooling towers would still be needed. I was just trying to illustrate what a "typical" nuclear power plant looks like for our Aussie readers. Alot of us have never seen one. Second, Delta Electricity's coal fired power plant at Lake Munmorah is on the coast and has huge cooling towers (and does look hideous) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Deltas Munmorah plant has two rather large (230 foot) stacks, which are NOT cooling towers?! They are stacks for the exhaust from the boiler. Since Munmorah is on the coast they use the local lakes as a cooling body, and thers no need for cooling towers...places like Wallarawang require cooling towers but only because they have no large body of water to use. The two reasons the coal fired plants are built on the central coast is their beside major coal seams and large bodies of water....you really must get you facts right before writing what you think? Well thats what i think anyway. Also when the plants were built they were in areas that werent going to be heavily populated to ensure it wasnt such an eyesore, but the local government just builds houses closer and closer......if you ask me a power station is a work of art and an amazing one at that...nuclear power while quite simple is scary to me?

Nuclear Power Plant in Australia
Nuclear Power Plants in Australia, what next make it compulsory to smoke when you reach eighteen just to get more toxins into our lungs. There shouldn't even be a Nuclear Power plant in Australia. Did you see what happened in Chernobyl, what if the same things happen here. The majority of People who want power plants in Australia won't be affected by them because they're mainly adults, the future generations will be. Think of what your going to do to you children when there your age today, birth deformities, mutation, people being exposed to radiation and Health risks.Do you want this for your children, for their children to come.Would you want a nuclear power plant in australia if you were at that age and you had your whole life ahead of you, knowing what risks there were of a meltdown?

--203.52.130.139 00:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)DMH

Not many people realize the physics behind nuclear power plants. They only base their assumptions and fears on what the media tell them and they don't know why it happens. Everyone gets exposed to a certain degree of radiation, like sunlight and whatnot. It's all about moderation. It is said that workers in nuclear power plants get affected by not getting enough radiation because their workplaces are so guarded from any kind of radiation, i.e. a certain amount of sun radiation is good for us. As for whether Australia should have nuclear power plants or not, it's certainly a point that the reduction of CO2 gas in our atmosphere is indeed very significant. In the end, Australians should know the full implications of what a nuclear reactor in Australian land means, and what the physics behind it is.

SOLAR, NOT NUCLEAR
There really is no need for nuclear power plants in Australia because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to 'concentrating solar power' (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salt or other substance so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But with transmission losses at only about 3% per 1000 km, it is entirely feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity throughout Australia from the Australian desert using highly-efficient 'HVDC' transmission lines. A small portion of the Australian desert would be sufficient to meet all of the country's needs for electricity.

Waste heat from electricity generation in a CSP plant can be used to create fresh water by desalination of sea water: a very useful by-product in arid regions.

Researchers in Sydney are working on improvements to the technology to make it even more effective. See: www.physics.usyd.edu.au/apphys/ste.html.

In the 'TRANS-CSP' report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net. Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm. The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm.


title: File:24May2006.pdf


title: File:24May2006.sxw


text:
Sir Edmund Hillary angry with mountaineers who left British climber to die

May 24, 2006Sir Edmund Hillary, the New Zealand mountaineer and explorer, is angry with 40 mountaineers, including Mark Inglis, the first double amputee to reach the summit of Mount Everest, who left a British climber to die. Sir Edmund was the first person to climb Mount Everest, in 1953.

David Sharp, 34, who had reached the summit of Everest after two other unsuccessful attempts, ran out of oxygen on his way back. Sharp was found 305 meters below the summit, in a cave. He had apparently climbed alone.

According to Inglis, he was the first of 40 people to pass David Sharp, and his party was the only one that offered help. He radioed in to his base camp, but his expedition manager, "Russ," said, "Mate, you can't do anything. He's been there X number of hours without oxygen, he's effectively dead."

"The trouble is, at 8,500 metres it's extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive," Inglis told Television New Zealand.

Hillary faulted commercialisation of the mountain for the climber's death, saying that had a fellow climber been in distress he would have helped him even if it meant abandoning his own summit quest. "I think the whole attitude towards climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying," The New Zealand Herald newspaper quoted him as saying. "The people just want to get to the top. They don't give a damn for anybody else who may be in distress."

Hillary said that heading for the summit and letting people lie dying is not pleasant and he hopes it is not repeated.

Sharp's parents, for their part, said that they do not blame Inglis, or anyone else for their son's death; the other climbers had to look after themselves.


text:
Talk:Sir Edmund Hillary angry with mountaineers who left British climber to die

Who is Russ? --vonbergm 04:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A helper nzgabriel 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He is very helpful indeed. --vonbergm 06:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


text:
British sailor resumes around-the-world voyage after stop in Hawaii

May 24, 2006 British sailor, seeking to become the first person to single-handedly circumnavigate the globe in a north-south direction, set sail from Honolulu on May 17 after a nine-day stop for supplies and repairs to his boat.

Flanagan had spent his stay as a guest of the Waikiki Yacht Club, which arranged for emergency repairs to his boat.

Flanagan, 45, left England on October 28, 2005, headed south through the Atlantic and around the coast of South America. His boat, the 40-foot vessel Barrabas, suffered structural damage during stormy weather around at the southern tip of South America, as a loose wire cut a gash into the mast of his boat. He also suffered dislocated wrists while navigating through the storm.

Flanagan had initially sought to become the first person to circumnavigate the globe solo without stopping, but the stop in Honolulu brought that goal to an end. When Flanagan reached Hawaii, he had traveled 18,221 miles (29,318 km), becoming the first person to sail solo from Britain to Hawaii westward via Cape Horn.

Flanagan said it had been a dream since he was 15 to be the first to sail the world through the frigid instead of the more traditional Pacific/Atlantic route.

The next major landmark on Flanagan's journey is the. According to Flanagan, to successfully navigate the Arctic Ocean, he would need to reach the Bering Strait by July 15. He hopes to travel along the northern coast of Russia to the United Kingdom, conditions permitting.

External link

 * Alpha Global Expedition


text:
User:Naturaldigital

User: Naturaldigital Web: Naturaldigital

title: User:Naturaldigital


text:
User talk:82.38.233.66

Wikinews is not to be used for self-promotion
Your article related to Hiroshima Babies has been deleted per our Speedy Delete guidelines. Wikinews is not to be used for self-promotion or advertising. Please refrain from this in the future and check out the content guide for what is allowed and not allowed on Wikinews - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:82.38.233.66


text:
Major fire breaks out at Istanbul airport

May 24, 2006

A huge fire that started in the cargo area has engulfed part of Turkey's Atatürk International Airport in Istanbul. All flights to and from the airport have been diverted and major fire-fighting efforts are in progress.

Hundreds of people have evacuated the area, which is about 1 kilometre away from the passenger terminal.

A witness told Turkish news channel NTV that the blaze broke out in the cargo area of Terminal A, presumably due to an electrical spark, at around 12:30 UTC. The area in which the fire is raging is near the location of the fuel depots. Unconfirmed reports suggest that there were about 250 cargo-handlers present there but most of them seem to have escaped unharmed.

Thirty metre high plumes of smoke are rising into the air and the billows can be seen from all over Istanbul, which indicates the severity of the inferno. Several fire engines and ambulances are rushing to the scene even as aircraft overhead try to douse the fire in an attempt to prevent it from spreading to a hotel nearby. The airport, incidentally, is located very close to a military hangar.


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/May 24, 2006

The time is 17:30 (UTC) on May 24th, 2006, and this is Audio Wikinews News Briefs.

Major fire breaks out at Istanbul airport
Turkey

A huge fire which started in the cargo area has engulfed part of Turkey's Atatürk International Airport in Istanbul. All flights to and from the airport have been diverted and major fire-fighting efforts are in progress. Hundreds of people have evacuated the area which is about 1 kilometre away from the passenger terminal.

East Timor descends into further violence: Downer
Australia

On Tuesday Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer (Division of Mayo, Liberal) told parliament that the government has received fresh reports of violence in East Timor.

Former chaplain at Guantanamo tells about abuse and underage prisoners
United States

James Yee, a Muslim chaplain formerly stationed at the Guantanamo detention camp, spoke at the University of California, Davis on May 5. The UC Davis Center for the Study of Human Rights in the Americas (CSHRA) hosted a forum about the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Yee, who earlier said that journalists and congressmen who visit Guantanamo prison don't get a real unsanitized picture of conditions there, told about his personal experience, what prisoners and interpreters told him during his time as Guantanamo chaplain, and what happened afterward.

The Australia Institute identifies ideal sites for nuclear power stations
Australia

The Australia Institute, an Australian research organisation that some consider to be aligned to the political left, has released its analysis of ideal locations for a nuclear power plant in Australia. According to the institute, they consulted with a number of nuclear energy experts and determined the best possible sites for a nuclear power reactor in Australia. These sites include the popular holiday destinations of Port Stephens in New South Wales and Westernport Bay in Victoria.

Sir Edmund Hillary angry with mountaineers who left British climber to die
New Zealand

Sir Edmund Hillary, a New Zealand mountaineer and explorer, is angry with 40 mountaineers, including Mark Inglis, the first double amputee to reach the summit of Mount Everest, who left a British climber to die.

Police retrieve body of hunter
New Zealand

Police retrieved the body of an American tourist who plunged to his death moments after stepping out of a helicopter while hunting in the Southern Alps, New Zealand.

British sailor resumes around-the-world voyage after stop in Hawaii
sports - sailing

British sailor Adrian Flanagan, seeking to become the first person to single-handedly circumnavigate the globe in a north-south direction, set sail from Honolulu on May 17 after an nine-day stop for supplies and repairs to his boat.

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

title: Wikinews:Briefs/May 24, 2006


text:
Fishermen make "very rare" find in Siberia

May 24, 2006 In Siberia, fishermen made what experts are calling a "very rare" discovery. A complete and nearly intact skeleton of a mammoth has been found in Krasnoyarsk, Russia off the shores of a small lake. The skeleton became visible when waters from a recent flood receded.

"It happens very rarely. I've been in the area 14 years and this is the first time. The bones are usually spread around over a wide area. The find has retained a backbone, a skull with teeth and a tusk and other anatomic details," said Alexander Kerzhayev, deputy director of the museum and archeologist in Novoselovo, Russia.

Kerzhayev also said that the mammoth appeared to have lived until about 50-years old. "It was an adult mammoth, judging by the size of bones it was at least 50 years old," he added also saying the mammoth appeared to have died from being sick.

However, Kerzhayev also says that the museum does not have the resources to retrieve the remains and that "no one seems to care" about the discovery adding that small portions of the animal could be retrieved.


text:
User talk:Barz2100

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

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

Additionally, thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Jason Safoutin 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Barz2100


text:
User talk:82.5.18.178

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:82.5.18.178


text:
User talk:139.142.6.223

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 20:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:139.142.6.223