text:
Man claims Blue Man Group put camera down throat; allegations denied

January 30, 2008

The Blue Man Group issued a press release Friday morning refuting a man's claims that they forced a tube down his throat as part of a show.

Earlier this week, audience participant James Srodon filed a court claim in Cook County Circuit Court that members of performance trio forced a dirty tube down his throat against his will while he was part of a skit called "Esophagus Video."

The description of the incident is not true, says the musical performance group.

"We are shocked and surprised to learn of the allegations made in reference to one of our comedic pieces, 'Esophagus Video,'" the group said.

Srodon claims that he was unexpectedly approached and had a tubular camera forced down his throat during an October 2006 performance at Chicago's Briar Street Theatre. He claims he had his head was forced back and one of the Blue Men forced the tube in him. The joke is to show footage from the inside of the audience member.

The Blue Man Group says that nothing actually goes down anyone's throat.

" 'Esophagus Video' is simply an illusion," the group wrote in its press release. "A camera is held in an actor's hands, the actor's hands are placed near an audience member's mouth (not on or in). The live-feed video screen then switches to a pre-recorded medical video, resulting in the hilarious and absurd illusion that the audience is peering down an individual's esophagus. Because the camera never enters the mouth, the execution of this illusion could not possibly put anyone at risk of injury."

The group added the skit and skits like it have been performed for the past 15 years by them without complaint.

The Californian is suing on the basis that the alleged tube was unsafely dirty and that his experience being cornered gave him post-traumatic stress and nightmares.

Srodon also claims he lost fillings and dental work because of the tube. The suit is reported to be seeking damages of more than $500,000, however the group reported that they have not been served papers as of Friday morning.

The Blue Man Group has a lot of audience participation as part of their show and is a Las Vegas fixture. The music and comedy group came to public consciousness around 2000.


text:
Comments:Nikolić wins first round of Serbian presidential election

Problem of Serbia
The main problem is to resist the pressure of USA and NATO. They - the Serbs- must first recognize that Slobodan MIlosevic is NOT a murderer, but an i nternational hero, the same as Che Guevara. The murderers are the NATO chiefs.

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


text:
Comments:Scientists grow beating rat heart in lab

Ethics?
How long is it before scientists will begin growing full human bodies? And is that really ethical?

Whats Wrong?
Soon we will be trying to re-create dinosaurs. Has anyone seen Jerassic Park? People were meant to live and die. Why try to stop the natural process? Or hualt it for that matter? Why risk anothers life to save another? I say its wrong to make hearts. If you had one, i would think you would understand the consiquences of using or making one for another soul. Ya, its survival of the fitest but we have our limits and it seems like we are taking it a bit to far. Next it will be Resident Evil Exticntion.

__167.93.28.172 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


text:
Bush delivers final State of the Union address

January 29, 2008

President George W. Bush has delivered his eighth and final State of the Union Address to Congress and the American people. In the speech he urged the American public to support his Iraq policies and called on other politicians to take action to boost the U.S. economy.

Since 2008 is a presidential election year and he has already served the Constitutional maximum of two four year terms, he may not run again. Since State of the Union addresses are traditionally only given yearly in January, he will likely not give another one.

Rather than focus on the past, Bush talked at length about the issues that will shape his legacy - starting with the war in Iraq and his decision to send in an additional 30,000 U.S. troops.

"Some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt," he said. "Al-Qaeda is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated."

About half the speech dealt with foreign policy, with a heavy focus on the Middle East. President Bush talked about his hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, and issued a challenge to the government of Iran.

"Come clean about your nuclear intentions and past actions, stop your oppression at home, and cease your support for terror abroad," he said. "But above all, know this: America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf."

Bush also spoke of his determination to protect the American economy. He acknowledged many Americans worry the slowdown in economic growth could evolve into a full-blown recession, and he sought to calm their fears.

"In the long run, Americans can be confident about our economic growth," he said. "But in the short run, we can all see that growth is slowing."

The president called on Congress to pass the economic stimulus package the administration worked out with Democratic and Republican leaders in the House. And he urged lawmakers to re-authorize a program that enables the government to secretly monitor communications between Americans and terror suspects abroad without a prior court warrant.

On these and other matters, Bush said everyone should put politics aside.

"In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them," he said. "And let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and compete for results at the same time."

Two of the Democrats running for their party's presidential nomination — Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — were in the chamber for the president's speech.

The official Democratic response to the address was delivered by Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.

"Tonight's address begins the final year of this presidency, with new leaders on the horizon and uncertainty throughout our land," she said. "Conditions we face, at home and abroad, are results of choices made and challenges unmet."


text:
User talk:JustaHulk~enwikinews

Drop it
You're not getting anywhere with your campaign against Wilhelm/Cirt, and your description of the Wikinews community on Jimmy Wales' talk page is bordering on insulting. Without journalistic credentials or experience on this project I feel you are unqualified to assert what you do. So, please leave the issue alone and let us get on with the job at hand. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not misrepresenting sources
I'm afraid I'm none to happy with the changes you've made. I exchanged numerous emails with this woman from the Church, they all had "Wikinews Administrator and Community Accredited Reporter" as the footer and on several occasions I introduced myself as a journalist. It was only when I said I'd be quoting her she went "OMG! You can't". This is more likely as a result of her making up things than not being an authorised representative of the Church. If she answers email supplied via a form on their site she should be educated to spot media inquiries and redirect them, not be a clueless idiot who doesn't want to get in trouble.

In any case we do not have a surname, despite asking for one, and the press address she gave me was utterly unresponsive. I must assume that her comments are the closest we'll get to an official statement. If you can tell them to email me (they have my address, several times over) then we'll work from their side of the story. Nobody was misled, and your changes to the article are inappropriate. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where can I view the entire email exchange, please. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview
You've not made it particularly clear what your relationship with the Church of Scientology is, and as I recall from my days on Usenet they used to provide non-staff with "nanny" software to shield them from criticism. This leads me to wonder if you have some involvement, such as being a Volunteer minister or employment with the Office of Special Affairs. As you'd see from the emails I posted I made reasonable attempts to get an official response. In the case that you are a volunteer minister or otherwise involved with the Church could we interview you, or could you persuade someone with an official capacity to speak for the Church to agree to be interviewed? We want to know their position on this and my emails to their "PR" address (several of which I have not posted) have all gone unanswered. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am a Volunteer Minister (VM), and a member in good-standing of the Church and of the IAS, if that is of any value to you. A VM is someone, non-ordained (the Church also ordains ministers), that uses Scientology to help other people; it is what Tom Cruise was referring to when he spoke of stopping at car accidents - to, as a VM, tend to the spiritual trauma. I have no other "official" relationship to the Church, and I certainly do not speak on their behalf. I do, though, happen to likely be one of the most knowledgeable people that you will ever meet as regards both sides of the "Scientology/anti-Scientology" issue as I have been involved with Scientology for 30 years and have followed criticism of Scientology for about 27 of those years. I used to post on ARS in the early '90s and go back from time-to-time but that place is a waste of time as they are as set in their opinions as RTC is set in theirs.On a side note; I must say, Brian, that while you certainly did inform Laetitia that you were a reporter and certainly she should have taken that to heart, I also think that, in your desire to have an "exclusive" right from the Church, you disregarded her repeated explanation that she was not an official voice either. While your enthusiasm is understandable, and even commendable, you should not, as a reporter, allow enthusiasm to cloud good judgement. I tried to correct that in the article but Cirt (naturally) would not allow that and neither would you. So if I appear "ticked off" again at WikiNews, it is for that and the continued "local coverage" as the "Voice of Anonymous".Finally, there is no filtering software for Scientologists. That is just another anti-Scientologist myth. There was something offered about 10 years ago and I imagine that some installed it at the time but 10 years in internet/computer time is an eon and, when I recently asked an Ethics Officer at my org about it, he did not even know what I was talking about. That is the real problem, Brian, unknowing individuals believe anything a Scientology critic says while discounting completely most of what the Church of Scientology says. Why? They are both equally self-serving and you should be skeptical of both. --JustaHulk 22:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear JustaHulk: I hope you don't mind me butting in here. I am not a *critic* of Scientology but am a former Sea Org staff member who routed out; I used to work at INCOMM. I can tell you that the Internet Filter Program (IFP) is, sadly, alive and well, because I worked on the development of the Windows XP version of the new incarnation of software. The old one was a custom implementation of the Cybersitter engine which was rather buggy and crude, but the new one is a more advanced socket-level affair with API hooks to the operating system. I have no idea whether it is still distributed to public Scientologists or not but I personally suspect that it is only installed on Sea Org machines these days and is not broadly distributed. Still, it is very much in current usage, and "blacklists" of critical websites continue to be maintained by OSA. --81.96.184.204 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi IP. Your comments are certainly welcome. Brian was specifically asking about filters for non-staff, the idea being I guess that "rank-and-file" Scientologists like myself are somehow not allowed to look at the internet. That is not the case. I am not surprised that Church-owned computers are filtered. My own network in my "wog job" has a filter that often filters out critical websites as "occult" or even occasionally as "hate speech". It is not so odd that the Church filters out critical sites on their own computers, that is their right. The filtering software from about 10 years ago was on the same CD as the cookie-cutter website-making program, the "Scientology Online" program or some such. I may even have the CD somewhere. That is what critics refer to and it is old news but the critics continue to push it. --JustaHulk 03:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * An editor and administrator from Wikipedia has contacted me off-wiki to highlight that you, JustaHulk, have given wildly conflicting stories about your history with Scientology and were the subject of an arbitration case on Wikipedia. On that basis I would have to advise you that you have a serious conflict of interest when it comes to Scientology articles and should as a consequence raise your concerns on the talk page instead of making edits to them. I have emailed one of the arbitrators from Wikipedia to get further background on this case. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Brian, as a reporter, you might want to let me know what those "wildly conflicting stories" I have allegedly given, are. And as far as being "the subject of an arbitration case on Wikipedia", yes . . . except it was about my being harassed! So whoever that admin was, they are, to be blunt, feeding you a load of shit. I certainly hope that you, as a reporter, are not in the habit of believing every bit of crap you are fed. Because, as I just mentioned in a previous post, crap seems to be the preferred diet of critics of Scientology. ps. As a reporter, it would behoove you to check your sources before going "public" with them. And this is public, you know. If you want private, use my Wikipedia e-mail link (or here as I just enabled it here too). --JustaHulk 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You disrespect this project and expect to be treated courteously here? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You disrespect Scientology and the journalistic profession but I am still courteous to you. It ain't personal. --JustaHulk 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, my caution about believing everything you are fed and publicly indicating such was more to save you embarrassment than me. I have nothing to hide about my Wikipedia editing nor my Scientology involvement. I am, in fact, proud of both. --JustaHulk 18:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight? You've lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom and you're proud of it? You've trolled Jimmy Wales' talk page with disparaging comments about this project, and you're proud of it? Or is it more a case of "you're paid for it"? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Help me out with this one, please: "You've lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom and you're proud of it?" Mr. "Journalist". --JustaHulk 15:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No answer? Not surprising. I will hold my tongue (didn't expect that, did you?) --JustaHulk 04:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen your posts on a.r.s. You've admitted an involvement with Scientology yet persist in trying to edit these articles. If you do not want to stop this disruption bring an arbcom case. I will not - as an involved party - be able to participate in the decision making but I would happily call for you being banned as a "general pest" and "non contributory nuisance". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it? I've "admitted an involvement with Scientology" on ARS? That is my "lied to either Wikinews or the en.WP ArbCom"; that is my "wildly conflicting stories". Are you really this unable to admit a mistake?? Yes, I "admitted an involvement with Scientology". I AM A SCIENTOLOGIST. Notice my top-secret Wikipedia user page. w:User:JustaHulk which redirects to my older page. Look at the bottom - where it says "Categories: Scientologist Wikipedians". This really laughable - I wonder if anyone is watching this page? No matter. Go ahead and call for my ban - that will look really good. And after all my recent productive edits at Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests in numerous locations globally? I was just starting to get interested in helping out here. --JustaHulk 22:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds over 250 anti-Scientology protests worldwide
Please do not removed sourced, true information from articles. That is considered vandalism. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Constructive contributions
Here is a section where you could contribute to the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Brian. Though I would still liek you to retract your earlier charges against me. I am not editing much but I always can add a question or two. --JustaHulk - (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It kinda seems the case you're a Scientologist and have a bias, but I'm delighted to see you contributing constructively on our interview questions. There's also an upcoming interview with Tory Christman which you'll find a link to on WN:SOON. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I have a bias. We all have biases. The point is do we let our bias influence our editing. Do you really think I would have lasted 1-1/2 years and almost 10K edits on Wikipedia if I have any history at all of violating that precept. Don't you think there are lots of people that would have loved to see me slip up and get banned? I just wish more critics of Scientology could manage that as well as I do, i.e. not letting their bias influence their editing. Some do, but not all. And still waiting for you to retract the unfounded charges. --JustaHulk - (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering you're now editing constructively and appear to have stopped trolling Jimmy Wales' page on Wikipedia, I'll retract anything offensive I've said. However, at one point I was wondering how to bring an Arbcom case due to you dissing the project over on Wikipedia. We're a tight-knit community here on Wikinews and don't take kindly to being mocked in the manner you did.
 * By editing in pro-CoS questions into our interviews you're showing you can contribute constructively. That's great and shows that what may have been a knee-jerk reaction on my part was inappropriate. However, I would say leave Cirt alone for the moment. Jimmy Wales has emailed me directly about some of the comments you've made and we want to get the Church's side of the story as he has advised. They are unresponsive when emailed and this is most frustrating. My neighbour, who is a reporter for one of the Belgian national papers, has commented that he too cannot get an official response to things like the actions of 'Anonymous'. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately I cannot help you with "the Church's side of the story" beyond saying that (in my totally not official opinion) the Church's side of the story would likely be that they are involved with helping people and intend to continue doing that. I do not see the Church lending its name to either Anonymous or Jeff Jacobson by taking part in WikiNews interviews. I would suggest to the Church, however, that they treat WikiNews with the courtesy extended to any press outlet and if the Church has a press release or statement on the protests then they should send it to WikiNews as they do with other media. So if the Church notes my post here, then that is my suggestion. --JustaHulk - (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 31 hours for incivility, harassment, and edit-warring. Ral315 (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh. If I thought there were much sanity here I would appeal this. But I know better. --JustaHulk - (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the article again and see that all the know-nothing, unsourced, and clearly mistaken suppositions that I went to the trouble of correcting have been restored. And I have been blocked. Laff. Welcome to ED's poorer cousin! --JustaHulk - (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you misquote Hubbard? You have:"War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man and Man has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve."But the source says:"The bank-agreement has been what has made Earth a Hell—and if you were looking for Hell and found Earth, it would certainly serve. War, famine, agony and disease has been the lot of Man. Right now the great governments of Earth have developed the means of frying every man, woman and child on the planet. That is bank. That is the result of Collective Thought Agreement."What in the world is up with that? Quotes are quotes - not some (mis)interpretation of what the speaker might mean. Weird. I will bring it up tomorrow. --JustaHulk - (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey DragonFire1024

I lowered the block to 24 hours from when the first block was set as it is the first time you have been blocked so I think 24 hours is reasonable. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 06:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why thank you, Anonymous fellow. --JustaHulk - (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I hate more than Scientologists...
...are the ignorant people who seem to enjoy attacking it. I'll be honest, I think your religion is a scam with patent nonsense as its doctrine...but hey, I'm a Christian and Transubstantiation is no better. Claiming that your viewpoints are invalid because of Fair Game is like claiming my viewpoints are invalid because of the Spanish Inquisition. Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I appreciate seeing your voice in the Scientology debates at least as much as I enjoy seeing the "established users" arguing against you. For the sake of Scientology and for the sake of WikiNews, I hope you don't become discouraged and give up. Sherurcij 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I really don't have any problem with what people think about Scientology. To be honest, it is not something that is easily comprehensible to the uninitiated. You might not be surprised to know that I am very open in my private life about being a Scientologist (which private life has little to do with Scientology and is more about my career and being a dad) and Scientology is often the topic of the first in-depth conversation I have with people. I have yet to meet anyone that did not 1) understand it, 2) respect it, and 3) get something out of it when I explain it to them in person. There is just so much truth and applicability in Scientology that it never ceases to impress me. Of course, you will not get any of that from critics that focus only on shortcomings, shortcomings that exist in any humanoid group and some of which claimed shortcomings are outright lies. Thanks for the vote of support. --JustaHulk - (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not let the actions of some users put you off
Hi JustaHulk,

Thanks for your contributions to Wikinews. I am saddened to hear that some users are criticizing you because of you beliefs. I have warned some of these users and I hope that the actions by these users do not discourage you from editing this site. Your contributions have been helpful in maintaining a neutral point of view, and as a result, lessening the belief that this site is a promoter of Anonymous. I hope you will enjoy contributing to Wikinews. Please remember that the majority of out users do not think you are a murderer.

Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 19:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

A question
Are you interested in contributing to Wikinews or debating Scientology and getting into pointless arguments? At the moment it seems to be the latter. Unless this changes I may consider blocking you in an attempt to minimise the disruption that you have been causing. Contributors are being distracted from actually writing articles by becoming involved in long winded discussions with you. I'm not prepared to do this so don't expect me to feel compelled to reply to any comments addressed to me. Adambro - (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro, JustaHulk has made many useful contributions (eg.corrections).The most recent discussion was not started by him and he stayed reasonably calm considering it has been implied that he has been helping to organize murders. --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 20:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:JustaHulk~enwikinews


text:
Bank robbers take hostages in Venezuela

January 29, 2008 On Monday, four men entered a branch of Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria in Altagracia de Orituco, Venezuela, a small city south-east of the capital Caracas. Allegedly, the bank heist did not go as planned, and the men became trapped in the bank with police outside. In the resulting standoff, approximately 30 employees and customers were taken hostage.

Today, after the standoff has lasted more than 24 hours, with a helicopter hovering above, the bank is surrounded by hundreds of heavily armed police, television crews, and the victims relatives. The gunmen released a few hostages on Monday evening and two employees escaped, including a security guard who ran from the building as the gunmen fired shots at him.

The hostages, which are said to include a pregnant woman and small children, occasionally appear in the windows of the bank, ostensibly to show relatives that they are still alive. One hostage displayed a placard in of the windows. It read, "We are in real danger. They can kill us. Please help."

The hostage takers are demanding an ambulance in which they wish to be allowed to drive away with their stolen goods and a handful of hostages. Negotiators said they had turned down an offer to let them surrender in front of live cameras with guarantees that police would not fire a shot.

Police cut off running water to the bank, but have made deliveries of food, drinking water, and diapers. Some hostages have sent text messages to relatives and one even managed to place a phone call to regional radio station.

Speaking on Unión Radio, local security official Manuel Granadillo said, "They appear to be new at this. They could do something crazy and then anything could happen."

State-run media has largely ignored the standoff, while other outlets have been giving frequent and detailed reports. Crime is a growing political issue in Venezuela. Opinion polls have indicated that it is the number one concern of the population.

title: Bank robbers take hostages in Venezuela


text:
Template:Temp label/temp

  This template is copied from the English Wikipedia and as such it is licensed under the GFDL. It is a modified version of w:Template:Image label for overlaying temperatures on a map image.

For the template documentation, see w:User:Zondor/Labelled Map Documentation.

title: Template:Temp label/temp


text:
Template talk:Temp label/temp

 7

title: Template talk:Temp label/temp


text:
User talk:131.123.181.109

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --SVTCobra 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:131.123.181.109


text:
User talk:71.99.216.141

Hello,

Your recent contributions are considered to be spam and have been reverted or deleted. Should you believe that your contributions are not spam, please argue your case on your talk page, or in WN:ALERT.

Further spamming may result in a 24 hour block. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.99.216.141


text:
Wikinews:Proposal for wiki to develop news from embargoed material

This proposal document is to be presented to the Board of Trustees, should it reach community consensus. Please discuss the proposal on the talk page - this is a community effort!

Use
The wiki shall be used for discussion, development, and collaboration on stories that are not yet ready for the public eye, such as investigations, planned stories that have sensitive (non-public or embargoed) documents, or embargoed documents such as future-dated press releases or other news stories that have strict requirements. The wiki will be private, viewable by only those who have access - but active, trusted and eligible members of the Wikinews community can request access to the wiki and participate in the discussion, development, and collaboration of these stories. All involved in content creation within this framework must accept that the normal expected process will be for articles, their talk pages, sub-pages, and full histories thereof will be imported into the main Wikinews site. Exceptions to this should be rare and cases where items such as PDFs of government reports are privately shared prior to their official publication. In all excepted cases the copyright on documents should be reviewed to assess if it is possible to put them on the public wiki under fair use.

This Wiki is NOT to be used for any "normal" news articles - the Wiki is not anticipated to see any more than 2 or 3 developing articles per month. It is not a place for private creation of stories - that is the job of the Developing section. What it is for is to keep information out of the public eye until the embargo is over, or until it is otherwise ready to be made public.

Articles leaving this Wiki are not necessarily finished, meaning that some editorial review maybe required once the article is released to the public. Articles that leave this Wiki should not be marked as, but as  or.

Like Wikinews, any contributors with access to this Wiki are to follow all guidelines and rules outlined in Code of Ethics and all other Wikinews policies such as the Style Guide, Assume Good Faith (ASG) and following a Neutral Point of View. All Original Reporting (OR) written or obtained on this Wiki should be treated as all other OR that is written on Wikinews, and should follow all guidelines like any other OR. Please click here for a list of Wikinews' policies and guidelines.

This Wiki is NOT to be used as a host for photos, audio and other media under a free or non-free license and of course copyright-infringing material is NEVER allowed. Any such material uploaded to the site, should be immediately deleted once the work(s) is moved to Wikinews and or the appropriate project(s). Keeping the aspect of the "openness" of Wikinews, edit histories of all such articles along with discussion page histories, will also be moved into the Wikinews mainspace for the public to view.

At no time can work remain on the Wiki for more than one month unless it is under an embargo, part of an in-depth investigation, or material is awaiting replies from sources. Material should not become abandoned. Depending on the material's significance, it should be either speedy deleted or moved to the appropriate namespace on the Wikinews' editions.

Contributors granted access to this Wiki understand that all articles, edits, discussions related to the work and edit histories are private, all information discussed on this Wiki is private. Information that could potentially jeopardize an article, and embargo, or an investigation, should not be discussed off this Wiki. This includes posting information on mailing lists, IRC, Wikinews, etc. Any misuse of the Wiki or your credentials, will result in immediate revocation of access and use of this Wiki. Using and viewing this Wiki is a privilege, not a right.

Contributors from other languages
Contributors from the other Wikinews language editions (other than English) should create their own proposal(s) and policies regarding the creation and use of their own Wiki. Though the English Wikinews community respects their counterparts on other language versions, they are unlikely to be able to assess a foreign user's contributors effectively. This is why each request made for access must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. See specifics below for more information on who is eligible for access.

Reasoning
Wikinews is growing - and with this has come a significant number of new readers and new users. Our first priority over everything is writing news. Our best tool is Original Reporting and it's also when we are at our best. Presently, embargoed news is kept to the IRC channels, perhaps in private messages and e-mails or otherwise. This is not the wiki spirit, and it is time to change that. We cannot post these stories as developing here on Wikinews, as that is a violation of press decorum, and would strip us of our earned credibility and could jeopardize future notices of embargoed news from organizations. Having a private, comfortable and secure place where individuals or agencies interested in passing along a news story for us, giving us a statement, or talking with us, will increase our chances at receiving future notices. We need a place that active users can access to develop these stories in private, and then release them onto Wikinews where the proper copy/editing and review can take place.

Specifics

 * New wiki: http://www.wikinewsie.org/wiki/Main_Page
 * Viewable and accessible by only individuals granted access privileges. Access rights granted and revoked are viewable by anyone and logged on Wikinews or the appropriate language edition.
 * Access is granted to trusted contributors on a request basis and each request is evaluated on a case-by-case level. Access rights will be revoked once the story is moved to the mainspace of Wikinews. Wikimedia Board members and legal counsel are granted automatic access while office staff will be granted access only on an as needed basis. Office interns will be treated as per regular contributors and require similar recommendations and justification for temporary access. These requests should be documented like all other individual requests which will be publicly documented and viewable.
 * Permanent access will be given to no more than 5-10 contributors for maintaining the Wiki, deleting material, moving material and handling the granting and revocation of access(s).
 * Contributors should have at least two month's activity and a minimum of 100 edits in the main namespace on their Wikinews language edition to be eligible for access. Wikinews accreditation is preferred, but not required. Click here to read more about Wikinews credentials and how to obtain them.

Examples where this Wiki would have been useful
Feel free to add/remove to these examples, and add more examples.
 * Congressional computers continue to be used to vandalize Wikipedia
 * Huge interest takes Wikileaks offline
 * Libel case against Wikimedia Foundation dismissed

Votes
'Previously, a smaller proposal was sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Board in February 2008 and was rejected''. Please discuss starting a new vote for any further submission(s) to the Board.'''

 * Previous votes and discussions can also be found on the Water Cooler and the voting archive.

Please keep all discussion to the talk page.

 * per my talk page comments. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:164.116.22.137

blocked
I am dfsdgfsd I have not been blocked fdsgfdgfdgfgfdgfdgfhgfhgf

title: User talk:164.116.22.137


text:
User talk:164.116.22.138

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikinews. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked again...24 hours. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:164.116.22.138


text:
Wikinews talk:Proposal for wiki to develop news from embargoed material

I generally support this
I generally support this, but I think it could use a couple clarifications: I think all of thoose are examples of planned stories that should continue to use Story preparation. Thoughts. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Planned story. While what is a planned story. Does that include:
 * An obituary for a person who isn't dead yet
 * a base article for an election that hasn't finished yet
 * An article for a football game that hasn't happened yet
 * I agree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 09:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, the above examples should remain in story prep. An embargoed wiki is for cases such as stories from Wikileaks where we may need to share non-free documents and prepare a story out of the public eye. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Admission criteria
This proposal is very unclear. One month activity, does that mean that your first edit was one month ago, but no requirements for OR? I suggest much stricter criteria:

 * access is for administrators and accredited reporters upon their request
 * others who want access should request accreditation

Your thoughts on a compromise please. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree with a stricter criteria. Only admins and accredited users. Adambro 21:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree to an extent...there might be special circumstances...The lakota articles were a good example. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is locking out the wider community - thus it will probably be rejected by the board. We need to keep the wiki spirit. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree...though its not like a user of one day or an anon will get access. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if we're going to have anything like this it has to be fairly easy to get in. Someone who has been around for a month, and would be useful to have access should be granted. Thats not to say someone who edits once at the beginning of the month should be granted access. Common sense should be the overall rule. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a slightly different suggestion: make it so that access is request only, but access is granted to anyone who asks for it who has an account. But make the criteria for *banning* very low, so that even a minor infraction will get someone permanently removed. It seems to me that this would be more likely to be approved than a method that required limiting the group to a small number of select über-editors. That smacks of elitism, and could lead to abuse... or so the board will say.Gopher65talk 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Access cannot just be handed out on a silver platter to anyone who has an account though. The idea is to have trusted users have access. The information presented on this Wiki would be very sensitive, and we should not give someone access who has done little to nothing on Wikinews. I know it seems strict, but confidentiality could be at stake. We have to be the only news agency on the planet that posts stories on their website before they are even supposed to be known about. IMHO that is very bad, and unprofessional. So someone who has one edit on WN and no user page, or anything else, having access, could jepordize the future of receiving embargoed news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. I just don't want to see another bad policy like the one about board voting (which I can't do because I don't make "enough" wikipedia edits... maybe I'll start making one word edits like everyone else does!), or the one to become an administrator. Linking this kind of thing to "User must have XXXX edits and YYYY account time" doesn't guarantee anything at all. All it does is cause people to spam edits. I, for instance, copyedit a page by reading the entire page and listing all the errors it has as I go along, and then fixing them all in a single edit. I've seen others who would fix those same errors one at a time. Are they deserving of access and I am not? After all, we've both done the same thing.

 * As for original reporting, let us say that I live in a remote area with little crime, etc (I don't, but let's say that, just for my argument's sake). No real local news to do OR on. Instead I occasionally write a well crafted article about a subject I like. Maybe only one or two such articles (again, I've never done any OR, but let's just pretend:P). Does that disqualify me from access because I haven't hit the (say) minimum of "5 published OR articles"? Perhaps I should have published more-or-less meaningless local trivia as stories? Local obituary pages for my township, or local midget league sports teams news? I'm sure everyone wants to know how the local 6 year old hockey teams are doing:P. My point is that any arbitrary increases in entrance difficulty will only hurt potential legitimate users of this feature, while doing nothing to stop someone who really wants access. They'll just spam until they meet the criteria. That's just the nature of an open project.

 * The purpose of locks on doors is not to make entrance difficult, but rather to make it just difficult enough to discourage random people from breaking and entering. You can never completely secure an open building, or an open project like this one. Attempting to do so is like adding additional security to airports, and making people endure additional passport checks; you don't stop the criminals, but you do manage to make life hard on normal people.Gopher65talk 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well OR doesn't mean anything. The current revised proposal does not list a requirement to have done any OR. I can understand what you mean, and I think that if someone requests, then the request should be evaluated on a case by case basis. I don't want to exclude a good contributer as yourself. That is why access needs to be looked at strictly and not be given to someone just because. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

per Adambro's comments
"# User access control Managing access to this Wiki will be very difficult. Balancing the necessity for it to remain private with the desire to be as open as possible will be a constant issue. The process for granting access to users from other language Wikinews project would also be a problem. Considering that the English Wikinews accreditation process has turned into the Wikinews accreditation process, I would worry that the same would happen here resulting in users requesting access on the English Wikinews where the community is not realistically able to judge their contributions adequately.
 * 1) Value For any such wiki to be of any value it has to be limited to users whom which the community has build up a good level of trust. This means it would have to be taken more seriously than requests for roll back on Wikipedia. As an example I'd note that the recent instance where I'd have found such a wiki useful. An organisation emailed me an embargoed press release. If this was released relatively casually and subsequently made public this could seriously damage relations with this organisation.
 * 2) Content Developing stories on wiki is always preferable but where would the line be drawn? I would fear that there would be constant disputes about whether a story can or cannot be public and such discussion would not really involve the wider community.
 * 3) User class This would create another class of user and in doing so further alienate new users and serve to deepen any impressions of a cabal.
 * 4) Bureaucracy Trying to manage a private wiki, handling the requests for access and the disputes about content, would further distract Wikinews participants from writing news."

1) I disagree, in principle. The proposal needs *clear* guidelines (with community consensus) for exactly who should be granted access. 1 month with no OR? 3 months with at leats some OR? Accredited? Sysops only? This needs to be hashed out, not immediately rejected.

2) Ties in with #1.

3) I see a very clear line. Anything with information that must not be made public due to embargo or press decorum could use the wiki. Anything with no such restrictions should use Developing. It's relatively easy to distinguish this.

4) Ties in with #1.

5) Disagree. Doing sysop chores takes me away from writing news. Having to collaborate with 3 people over IRC in different private conversations takes me away from writing news. This is about refocusing back onto writing news, and giving us the ability to deal with embargoed releases in a much more efficient manner. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We need this...What do we do now?
After all the talk from Sue of wanting to give us this, what is the news? Are we going to get one? We were already denied once, because we needed to go through "committees"...whatever that means. So what do we do now? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that we should get a community proposal together, submit it to the new ArbCom (after the election) and have the ArbCom request it from Wikimedia - that's what the English 'Pedia did for this and this. Thunderhead 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive
I archived the last vote here: Proposal for Embargoed wiki/Vote Archive 1. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on the examples given

 * Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found
 * I disagree with this as we were not subject to an embargo and we should want people to copy us, it brings greater attention to what has happened. Wikinews does not aim to promote Wikinews, it aims to spread the news.

 * Chris Benoit mystery editor confesses: claims "terrible coincidence"
 * I strongly disagree with this one as the confession was already posted publicly on an opinions page so there was nothing to hide

 * Huge interest takes Wikileaks offline
 * Same as point one

 * Libel case against Wikimedia Foundation dismissed
 * If we has a put this in prepared stories and had a big notice saying the claims could be inaccurate there should not have been an issue with deletion.

Obviously this is just my opinion (which seems to differ from that of many Wikinewsies).

Also, if someone could list a case where Wikinews has been forced to not make some info public until a certain date that would probably make me consider supporting this. If this has not happened, we seem to be searching for a solution to a non existent problem. Anonymous101 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * News agencies being "forced" via embargo into not revealing a press release is extremely common. Every second press release given out by NASA is under a time-embargo. I doubt Wikinews has ever received an embargoed document though; they don't give embargoed releases to people who are untrustworthy (as Wikinews is by its very nature).Gopher65talk 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to read this. --+Deprifry+ 19:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I generally agree with the comments by Anonymous101, Gopher65 and Deprifry replied whilst I was writing this and I've not attempted to comment on their points. I asked DragonFire1024 who has recently been attempting to get some movement on this proposal to try to provide some examples where a private Wiki would have been useful but whilst he's done this, he hasn't explain why he thinks this is the case for these articles. Open collaboration is a core element of the Wiki concept and I think we need solid reasoning to endanger this through restrictions on access. There have been instances where it has been suggested that other news organisations have used content from developing articles. Of course whenever anything is contributed to Wikinews it is released under the CC-BY-2.5 license. As long these organisations comply with this then this shouldn't concern us any further. It is their responsibility to ensure that anything is appropriately verified but we should make this clear through the develop template. If another news organisations takes a story from us then they should be attributing us as the source and in doing so this promotes the project. If no attribution is given and the CC license violated then this is an issue for the WMF legal guys to take up I would think. Adambro (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deprifry, I am aware of what a news embargo is. My point is that as Wikinews has never received any situations like this so this is not a problem for Wikinews. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point is that we want to get embargoed press releases in the future, releases we're not getting at the moment for obvious reasons. --+Deprifry+ 20:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure we want to completely ignore the principle of openness so we can get a few news stored published a few minutes earlier? Anonymous101 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Anonymous101. I can't say I feel that getting sent embargoed press releases is something to get too excited about, I'm sure there are many other ways we can improve our articles without having to pander to companies who wish to make the most of their press release. Adambro (talk) 20:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting abandoning the principle of openness, the very fact that we're having this discussion attests to it. This proposal, still open to editing btw, strives to create a transparent process that moves the development of sensitive articles from cabalish backchannels like IRC or PMs into an organized environment, subject to policies created by the community. --+Deprifry+ 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro its not about that and I think you are smart enough to know that. Our title is Wikinews. That is our TOP priority. If that means having a spot for organizations to open up to us to better the quality of news we write, and they OR we get then I think thats incredible. I am here to write news, specifically more OR than recycled from other agencies. And I would like to increase that material, which is best for WN. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting aside the "Wiki fact" of being open and etc etc... We are a News Agency. That is our first and foremost goal. We are the only organization, to my knowledge, that prepares stories, on an embargo, ON site. Part of the reason, as Dep pointed out, that we do not get embargoes from big names is because we are expected to put everything, embargoed or OR or prepared, on site where everyone in the world can see, defeating the entire purpose of an embargo. IRC, IMs, private messages and so on are not ways to go. We have no spot where we can collaboratively put embargoed material on and have it ready in time for publish. We are a news agency, regardless of the Wiki openness.

The examples I gave are classic examples because all of them involved sensitive material that could have stood around before we jumped on anything. Perhaps if the anonymous user confessing to the Benoit edit, had a place where he could privately communicate with us without having every tom, dick and harry looking at what he is doing, we could have had a lot more to the story. In the Bauer example, we could have don ALL that on the embargoed Wiki, and saved everyone the trouble and embarrassment of blowing the entire thing out of proportions. If you want to argue the people from the office etc having access, see the specifics section on the proposal. Another unlisted example, and a prime current one is the article I am working on regarding a certain observatory. Yes it is the job of other media to cite us, but what is to stop them from not citing us? It has happened before, and by a very big named news agency. It would not have happened, if they were not looking through our Recent Changes stealing the stuff they very well knew they had to cite.

Its not about being the first, or the earliest. Its about telling a story, we can freely work on, by means of OR and what not, without breaching an embargo, using back room talks, and without everyone reading it before its published. We need this. You don't see CNN publishing their sources on exclusives, or the AP posting drafts on Google News...so why should we be any different? News people...News. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We should be different because we are a wiki that is meant to be open. We are not CNN or AP, there are plenty of sites like that. Our open model for preparation/publication of articles is what makes Wikinews different, and, IMO, better. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes us lacking in OR in the news department. By not having this or something similar, we are in the dark to exclusives and OR. I don't think writing recycled news all the time is going to cut it. And as long as we have the total openness, then we can't expect to get too much help or notice for great stories we otherwise don't have access to. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict twice) There is a lot there to comment on but to be brief, I think you are fundamentally wrong. We aren't a news agency first and a wiki second nor is free content something we should be sweeping aside in this misguided quest for news. The whole raison d'etre of the project is the collaborative creation of news available under a free license, in common with the other WMF projects. The core value of the WMF is free content, the work of each of the projects is just a strategy for delivering this. It is worth remembering that the failure of Wikinews would in no way endanger the work to further the values of the WMF. If DragonFire1024, or the Wikinews community as a whole can't subscribe to these values then neither will have much of a future with the Foundation in the longer term.

 * I am not aware of any other news organisations with have free content so deeply routed within their aims. This leads to other differences as DF notes but where we have differences this doesn't mean we should try to align ourselves with the way others work, that isn't possible, instead we should learn to face these new challenges and work within them. Copying others just makes us another news organisation. We are breaking new ground here. Adambro (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DragonFire, the whole point of a Wikimedia wiki is total openness. Not getting better exclusives. As I have said above, we are not CNN or AP, there are plenty of sites like that. Our open model for preparation/publication of articles is what makes Wikinews different. Anonymous101 (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We are here to write news. Period. Getting FREE material such as images and such is the goal of commons. OUR FIRST goal, on Wikinews, is news. The FOUNDATION'S main goal is free content, which we provide in the form of, yes you guessed right, news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez! It is common sense that we need a private area to allow us to accept embargoed material, stop tilting at windmills Adambro. I've phoned Darren Waters and been fobbed off because he was dealing with a "release from Whitehall that was embargoed until 6pm". I'm afraid we simply won't get these things, and we won't be publishing in a timely manner, unless we can work on the story out of the view of the general public.

I've worked on stories that have come from Wikileaks, and they frequently place a specific release date/time on them. You either ignore their embargo, or you work by emailing word or text documents around between a handful of contributors, retaining zero edit history and repeatedly having to merge changes into a document where people research different aspects in parallel. Transfer this process to a wiki that is not publicly accessible and you have all the power of MediaWiki at your disposal, and when the embargo expires the article - history and all - can be transferred over to the main site. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it commons sense to ignore the principles of Wikimedia when we are a Wikimedia wiki? Anonymous101 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Many governments, departments, and companies will prepare a press release or press pack in advance of an event and schedule a press conference or otherwise set a "do not publish before" date. Everything on en.wikinews.org is public, so there is no way to work on such material here. If we do not have somewhere we can work on this, and an ability to give assurances that we will not violate an embargo deadline, we will not be kept in the loop on such material. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Support from others
Here is an e-mail, detailing how Sue Gardner and Mike Godwin both support the need for such a Wiki. I quote Sue: "Just jumping in to add: Mike is correct, I believe, about the need for a non-public space for Wikinews to develop stories. During the investigative process, reporters need to explore ideas that they end up not publishing - the basic process of newsgathering requires it."

I quote Godwin: "What probably needs to happen is some kind of process in which initial versions of news stories are vetted before they're made publicly available for further editing." DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

thoughts on revised version
I definitly think the revised version is a step in the right direction as far as this proposl goes. Some specific comments:
 * The all info is private paragraph. I think the information on the wiki should be assumed private, but it does not have to be a state secret in its entirety. (for example in some cases It probably will be perfectly alright to say - we have been collecting information about blah event on the private wiki) and again in other cases it would not be. I think exactly how much information we would leak to the world about the private wiki is a tough question, but in some cases I think some limited amount is ok, as long as everyone is crystal clear on how much.
 * It can be clarified to say that all info is private until released. But I am not really saying that we cannot discuss it at all. The point you bring really would not reveal any information that would jepordize an article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * wmf board - board should have access. We (supposedly) trust them, and I think it would be more appropriate if they had permenant access (with that being said, they have to keep what they read to themselves). I agree with staff having access on an as-needed basis.
 * Maybe...I am not sure if I agree entirely. I cannot say I have a good reason but its just something IMO that makes me feel a bit uneasy...I am 50/50, but willing to compromise on it. ✅ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * hosting stuff - at first glance i though that local uploads should be disabled, and that images should be on commons, or not at all. but at second glance what about if someone gives us a pdf that has to be private. I'm unsure on this point
 * Good point. If something is to remain private, then I would proceed as if we were talking to someone who wanted to remain anonymous. As we have in the past, we can always say "Wikinews has obtained..." as we are not required to release any documents etc that we receive, if requested. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Examples of use - sorry, but I think we need more convincing use case examples. for example The benoit article - the IP left a talk page message and left. I doubt he would have said anything more with an embargoed wiki set up, etc.
 * Actually as I recall, he wasn't willing to talk because people were undoubtly on the trial to finding out who he was. I think that had he had a comfortable platform to discuss the incident, it would be more likely we could have gotten something more from him/her. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Content expiration - I think that if any content has no activity on it for about a month (unless of course its embargoed content, and we are waiting for deadline, I'm more talking investigations) then it needs to either be deleted or transfered to wikinews. We should have no abandoned content.
 * I agree 100% on this. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. Overall, I like the new proposal much more then the old one (and i didn't mind the old one either) Bawolff ☺☻ 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should reiterate even more strongly how the wiki would be used only in cases where it is absolutely needed. Make sure everyone knows where not just putting your average article on there.
 * I agree again. Thanks...benn trying my best on this. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Quiet collaboration versus cabal-esque back-channels
The section title should say it all, and sum up why having an embargoed wiki is a logical step in improving our access to material that is newsworthy and keeping publication timely.

At the moment the only embargoed material we get is sent to the scoop email address from Wikileaks. There is a great big banner across the top of the email highlighting a specific date and time after which a story on the item may be published. This is when Wikileaks goes public on the item, and for maximum impact they want to have other sources of news observe the same deadline. I will not go into great detail of other potential sources we could get material from, NASA has been mentioned, government departments and surveys are another, there are also generally pre-publication versions of scientific reports and surveys issued - to the press who promise to respect the publication date/time.

We are not getting this stuff. We can not get this stuff while all work is done on a wiki where anyone can read any page. We will not get this stuff unless we can show we have a mechanism to develop our story outside the public view.

Handling material we already get from Wikileaks is sub-optimal. People are sharing documents via email, passing round drafts in microsoft word documents, and there is all too frequently duplication of research. MediaWiki is the ideal piece of software to get around this and allow a small group of contributors to privately collaborate on a well-researched quality draft for transfer to a public wiki. The article need not emerge from the embargoed wiki in a complete, ready to publish form; the difference is stark. We either get that copy of a damning 500 page PDF report on global warming a week before publication and people have a chance to read it, or it gets noticed when it pops up in Google news and our coverage is shallow. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Your last point is reasonable but I certainly don't think it is a compelling reason to have a private Wiki and in so doing deviate from the general wish for openness. On the whole the main reason why organisations release embargoed press releases is not to do us a favour, it is really for their benefit. They want for their message to reach as wide an audience as possible simultaneously to maximise the impact. I can't see a really strong reason why we should sacrifice openness to help organisations with their own marketing efforts. Whilst it is nice in circumstances that you describe that we would be in a position to write a more comprehensive article I'd suggest that it would be a shame if we end up dedicating too much time to press releases by organisations intending to further their own agenda. I therefore can't say I feel that getting more embargoed press releases is particularity something to get excited about to merit a private Wiki. Adambro (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro: you seem to not understand one thing: We are a news agency. We are Wikinews. If we can score an excellent OR piece with an embargoed PR or whatever then there is no reason that we should not be able to have a place to work on it. I am here t write news. And right now, not having this Wiki greatly impedes our ability to write a lot of OR. Currently our main focus is recycled news from other sources. like CNN etc. The way I see it is people are not going to read us when they can get the same exact stories on CNN. We need to focus on more OR...and right now that is below minimal because no one is willing to give us anything because we do everything and I mean everything on Wiki. If you want to talk about openness then why are you not complaining about us using "back channels" or IRC or IMs or etc??? That IMO is much worse than having the trusted contributers, who I might are still collaborating, and openly amongst themselves rather than the whole of the world and CNN and FOX and etc to see. Getting excited for OR is my goal and right now, that is very scarce. We are putting ourselves in the dark to potentially good OR and good news articles. If we cannot do good and regular OR, then what are we really doing here? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * "I am here t write news". Well that is great but our project is more than simply news, it is free news. If you just want to write news articles then I'm sure you'll find other opportunities to do this elsewhere but to contribute here you have to accept that Wikinews is founded on a key principle of freely licensed content. Original reporting, I would agree, is really where we should be focussing in the longer term but I disagree that a private Wiki is particularly a key element in furthering this aim. I think we should instead start by trying to better equip our contributors to carry out real life original reporting. Could we get assistance from professional journalists in learning about how to take our reporting to the next level through master classes held at Wikimania or other events for example. I think there will be many excellent ways of furthering the project, having a closed Wiki doesn't seem to me to be one of them. Adambro (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Even the board uses a private wiki, and I resent your statement to go elsewhere to write news. We write news and that is our goal. Period. It happens to be free because that is the ultimate WMF gooal...the ultimate Wikinews goal is news. We simply cannot write embargoed material on Wikinews until able to. As to professional help, talk to Sue about that...among this Wiki, we were also promised those. We have tried that. And I know you have not been around that long to know what we have tried in the past. This is a news site. Goal #1 news. If that is not something you cannot accept then perhaps, in your own words, go "elsewhere." Also realize the other main goal, under writing news, of Wikinews is that we are a citizen journalism site. Not professionals. We don't have offices and desks and can walk over to the other contributer with private information. One of the journalistic ethics is to respect privacy and anon. And by not having a place to do our embargoed material, IMO goes against that ethic. I think above all ethics, then news, are the most important goal. Sorry you cannot see past that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to write news with no care for the values of the project then I would reiterate that it is you that should go elsewhere. The idea is not simply that we write news, it is that we write news within the the constraints of the core values which underpin this and every other Wikimedia Foundation project. Based upon your position it seems clear that you have your priorities wrong. I have a little experience of setting up MediaWiki websites, will you be needing any assistance in setting up your news site based upon the Wiki software? I'd be more than happy to help. Adambro (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't try and intimidate me or anyone else. If you don't want to follow journalistic ethics, then it is you who needs to go elsewhere. You seem to think that there will be no collaboration going on in this Wiki. You are mistaken, gravely. I call all the admins, accredited reporters and other a collaboration. I find it disturbing that you would rather use IRC and e-mails and back channels...something I am not willing to do. But since you are not going to change your mind, at all, then don't bait those who are devoted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You two quit bitching. One, I am well aware that the reason embargoes are used is for maximum impact relating to a message. Two, we will not get good source information if we do not respect our sources and their wishes. Three, free and non-public are not mutually exclusive. With the aim of an embargoed wiki being to develop for publication here I fail to see how we are going against WMF goals. If this proposed wiki is set up as I would like to see it, the full history and all revisions would be imported to Wikinews and the work that has been carried out in private will be revealed. It is clear to me that the values of the project that this would apparently violate have not been enunciated.

Adambro, you are arguing from a position where you have apparently taken umbrage with the examples where this is claimed to have had potential usefulness, and thus dismissed the whole proposal without offering one iota of constructive criticism. You are coming across as valuing your perception of the goals and principles of the project so far above the reality of the real world that we might as well all pack up and go home.

DragonFire1024, quit the drama! Yes, news is one of the top priorities for the project. Open and free for all to edit are also high on the list of values. The Benoit story is a dreadful example of a case where an embargoed wiki would have helped us, yet you keep shrilly bringing it up. Get over the fact that Fox likely read our work in progress and failed to do us the courtesy of giving credit where due. Leave moral outrage to the fundamental Christians, it has no place in the generation of news.

Virtually every government around the globe has gentlemen's agreements with news organisations, and this is something we should be trying desperately to break into. It is a cosy little club where the health minister approves a report on HIV for publication and at the same time as it is sent to the printers, a PDF goes to trusted press people who have agreed not to publish until the day the hardcopy will be made available to the public. An embargoed wiki is the tool we need to break into that 'club' and be carrying out real original reporting on complex issues with full access to detailed source documents.

The alternative is a stark contrast to this; Wikinews learns of these documents and publications hours after they are released (at best), and it learns of them from second-hand sources who have had a week or more to analyse the aforementioned documents, decide on which items are worth focusing on, pick quotes, and consult appropriate experts. We can then either regurgitate what other media have decided is important, or we can slog through the documents and be the last to publish anything on it - having done so in a very hurried fashion.

On the basis of this argument I will be strongly advocating the setup of an embargoed wiki when I get appropriate opportunities at Wikimania. However, there are aspects of this discussion page I would be ashamed to point any of the staff or board at. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A pointed question
Assuming that this gets approved, what do we do when the security of the embargoed/private wiki gets breached? Wikileaks had no compunction with publishing deleted stories from Wikinews. Who's to say that they won't do that with the embargoed wiki? Wasn't it clear that someone with sysop privileges helped them? As far as I know, we have no way of tracing who it was. --SVTCobra 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * This is one of my main concerns but this was brushed aside with little real explanation when I put it to DragonFire1024 on IRC. There seemed to be reasonable evidence to suggest an admin had been involved in providing a deleted stories to Wikileaks and in so doing fuelling the drama at the time. This kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated. However, there is of course no way to prove who was responsible nor would there be on this proposed private Wiki which would have even more relaxed access arrangements. If we so desperately need a private Wiki in order to suddenly convince outside organisations that we can be trusted with embargoed stories then we need to be confident in our ability to control this material and organisations won't send us these stories if they don't believe we can do so. If, or it appears so, we can't trust our administrators to behave properly and not risk bringing the project into disrepute then what hope is there. Adambro (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well like you said, we cannot prove it. So accusing administrators of misuing their powers without proof or evidence is just as bad. The point of this is to not make access relaxed. So instead of telling us why its so bad, why not give us ways to improve the proposal? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like there is a lack of proof that someone abused their power, there is only a complete lack of proof as to who exactly did it. --SVTCobra 23:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One way or the other makes no difference. Finger pointing isn't going to change things. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It remains a valid question. Since we haven't identified the guilty party, they will likely be among those with access to the embargoed wiki. For all the talk, no one seems to address the question: What do we do if the embargo is breached? --SVTCobra 12:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are posing a question I do not believe can be answered until it has happened. The only consolation I can offer is that the pool of suspects will be smaller than the incident where deleted Wikinews material was passed to Wikileaks. That is a clear-cut case where there were two possibilities. Either someone - not an admin - had the deleted material in their browser cache, or an admin read the deleted contributions. Of course, the latter seems the most probably explanation. We were put in a position where we had to move on from that and drop the matter to avoid creating a negatively charged atmosphere of suspicion and lack of trust.

For much of the material that I would expect to pass through an embargoed wiki I doubt there would be the same incentive to leak. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * If we are to use having a private Wiki as a way of improving our credibility then it is necessary that we think about these issues now. It won't do us any favours to turn around to an organisation and simply shrug our shoulders if information is leaked as seems to have been the general response to the deleted articles turning up on Wikileaks. It is all well and good to try to brush these kind of issues aside out of fear of increasing drama of the situation but unfortunately if these aren't dealt with then we're only setting ourselves up for a repeat of the problem in the future. I dispute DragonFire1024's suggestion that anyone is pointing fingers in discussing this issue. There certainly doesn't seem to be any real possibility of uncovering evidence to determine who was responsible in this instance but the evidence does unfortunately seem to make it likely that it was an administrator. It is right that we should try to determine the most likely source of the deleted articles so that we can minimise future risks.

 * We need in formulating this proposal to come up with robust measures that we can use in the event of information being made public so that if/when this occurs we can demonstrate to the relevant organisation(s) that we treat this kind of incident seriously. Now I'm afraid I can't currently think of any suggestions to deal with this issue but it is certainly something we should be considering.

 * Looking at the proposal in its current form, I don't think that is workable for access to be granted on a case by case basis, but I can see the merit of doing so, since surely this would require public discussions as to the nature of the private information to consider the request. However, this all comes back to the concerns I raised in January, that the creation of this Wiki would create an unnecessary burden of bureaucracy which wouldn't be outweighed by what it is we are suggested to be gaining. Adambro (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is suggesting that this issue be swept under the carpet, but there is a distinctly negative air and continual reiteration of a small number of points against the proposal - with little to no constructive input from those who have concerns. Yes, some of those concerns, such as this one, are legitimate. It is certainly far easier to knock things down than to build them, let's see more effort on the latter. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no way to deal with it since it has not happened yet. Yes it happened here and there is nothing we can do about it. And as brian says, we are reiterating something that is done and over with. The only way to give access is on a case by case basis. We simply cannot hand out access to anyone who wants it. And we certainly cannot give access to someone who has no reason to want it. The only way to stop that is case by case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to miss the point. This isn't about trying to deal with an issue that hasn't happened, it is about carefully planning how we should deal with it when/if it does and what we should do to minimise the risk. As you note, this issue has caused problems here but we can't simply accept this and forget about it otherwise the risk of it reoccurring remains. We've got to try to learn from this instead of just thinking if we forget about it the problem will go away. It won't.

 * You also don't really address my comment about how we would handle access to this Wiki. As I've said, if we are going to grant access on a case by case basis then surely this means we'll have to discuss the nature of the associated private material in order to justify the access. This doesn't mean I think we should hand access out on the front of cereal packets though, obviously we aren't going to "hand out access to anyone who wants it". Certainly, if we can find a way to make it work, carefully limiting access to those who can justify needing it might assist in minimising the potential for leaks. My next question would be that if access is to be granted on a case by case basis would it be possible to restrict that access to the pages relevant as opposed to users being able to view anything currently hosted there which could have nothing to do with their justification for access? Adambro (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point of this would be for only those with access to view the pages. If you don't have or need access, then there is no justification to look at pages as a curiosity. Is it technically possible? I don't know.

 * Of course it will never go away. But the reality of the situation is that it can happen to anything we delete. If someone is watching a page before its deleted, saves material etc...well the can do that at anytime. There is no way to prevent anyone from doing that unless we drop edit histories. I don't know about you but I learned a lot from it and I am pretty sure a lot of others have too. I also never said to forget about it, but we are dwelling too deep into something over a month old and we have gotten past that. Unfortunately all we have with each other is trust. But something tells me that not every admin or contributer is responsible. Besides this is not the place to discuss that situation in depth. Discuss ways of preventing it? Sure, but that is no reason to make this discussion page about it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 * On your first point, perhaps I caused some confusion. What I mean is that I would presume that there would be occasions when there would be multiple uses of this private Wiki ongoing at the same time but completely unrelated. I would be interested to know whether when we would grant a user access based upon their justification that we could limit them to only being able to view the pages relevant to their justification. This is rather than simply justifying access based upon one story and then being able to see all other stories currently in development.

 * On your last point I would agree. We don't need to discuss the Wikileaks issue too much beyond recognising that it happened and that it would be reasonable to suggest that an administrator, someone in a position of trust on Wikinews, might have been responsible. We should have discussed this issue more at the time and perhaps still should but I would agree that this isn't the right venue. The issue of edit histories and the saving of pages before they get deleted for example isn't relevant to a private wiki. We should focus on how we keep this secure and I think a robust access procedure is essential and this is what I would like to discuss. The basics of this have yet to really be pinned down I feel. For example, what process can we have for granting access that is as transparent as possible yet ensures that a proper justification is provided which would likely require discussion of the very material we're trying to keep private. Adambro (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can always elect an independent panel to monitor access. Maybe have ArbCom do that. That is about the only thing I can suggest ATM. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I understand why your suggesting that their be per page restrictions (principle of least access). I don't think thats workable, as the point of this is to collaberate. If we set up the wiki so that only two people have access to a specific page (this is ignoring technical issues, which seem to make such a plan not work), we might as well be using "cabal-esque back channels" Well the least access prevents leaks, as less chance of a bad person getting in, it also prevents accountability, as less people can see abuse. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

All administrators?
Are you serious? I cannot believe this proposal suggests all administrators from all Wikinews language editions should have access. This is - per the above comment - asking for the thing to leak like a sieve. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then how do you propose we offer access then? only accredited? That is virtually only the English Wikinews. I don't mind, but we cannot have just a handful of people. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this proposal happens, each language should have their own embargoed wiki, in my opinion. I cannot vouch for someone who obtained their sysop on a different language wikinews, so how could I trust them with embargoed information?--SVTCobra 23:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's possible then great, but that would mean they have to set up their own proposal(s) and policy and etc etc. If they can do all that then I agree. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, having a difficult way of wording it...mostly because I just feel that we are starting to single out more and more people. Not that its a bad thing, but we also don't need anymore talk of this becoming some kind of secret cabal for the elite. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I revised that section on languages as best as I could, as well as the specifics. Feel free to reword etc. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that if this goes through each language should/could be able to have its own embargoed wiki site. Cirt (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I revised it earlier to say that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay good, thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Limits
The proposal currently suggests "Permanent access will be given to no more than 5-10 contributors for maintaining the Wiki, deleting material, moving material and handling the granting and revocation of access(s)"

I think that limiting access to a specific number will create a cabal. It needs to be able to grow as Wikinews ... (hopes to grow). --SVTCobra 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We simply cannot have a lot people with total access all of the time. Doing so will IMO give more of the feeling of a cabal. We don't need to have everyone have access all the time. The idea is not to use it on a daily basis unless we absolutely need to. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Requesting access
So say someone wants access, how does the procedure for requesting access work? Adambro (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Post it somewhere on Wikinews, on a sub page. Since some of us including scoop get PR's or whatever that are embargoed, I imagine we will have to give reasons for wanting to use the Wiki. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All admins by default, I assume. This proposal needs to be completley overworked before we submit it. Thunderhead 23:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I substantially rewrote this proposal. If we are to expect WMF to approve this, we have to have a very detailed and very strict proposal with a solid policy system. If we want to submit a small few paragraph proposal, then we can forget them even considering it. I was also told that during Wikimania, that it just needs a few more tweeking, and we can then vote. I am hoping we can do that soon. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress?
What is going on with the Proposal for Embargoed wiki at this point in time? Cirt (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See above :-} DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Bush delivers final State of the Union address

caption during the speech or his speech? --72.87.57.201 22:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed what you meant. That is, if you were taking about the second image caption. --SVTCobra 01:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Bush you silly willy
Stop... put your gun down and take your head out of your bottom. Your the cause of the grief we are experiencing... You bring nothing to this nation worth commending! Your foreign policy is pile of self promoting, selfish bull puckey. Pick it up...and throw it into the deepest part of the Atlantic. I thank you, for putting all of our nations money into fighting and bringing this economic stress upon our nations people! That is exactly what I wanted to see from the leader of the most influential nation in the world!

 * It's not 100% the war, although obviously throwing away money hurts. It's really the general lack of competence.  Greenspan could cut interest rates willy nilly under Clinton since people believed that Clinton had appointed competent people.  But Bush's people have made just so very many stupid stupid moves : Brownie, small moves around the war, firing all the CIA people who knew about terrorists, poor timing of interest rate cuts, etc.
 * You can't just appoint some bunch of loyal idiots. They must occasionally make real decisions.  People notice if they all getting the tricky ones wrong.  People won't trust your economic decisions once notice that you've appointed idiots.  So the economy starts to crumble from lack of confidence.
 * It doesn't matter who wins the next election, they just need to appoint competent people who do their job, any of Hillary, Obama, or McCain will probably do so. That will spur on the economy more than any interest rate cut.   Nyarlathotep 13:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


text:
Mauritanian refugees begin returning home from Senegal

January 29, 2008 Mauritanian refugees stuck in Senegal for nearly two decades after fleeing ethnic clashes in their home country have begun returning to Mauritania under a U.N.-sponsored program. But many do not want to return.

There were goodbye ceremonies and welcoming ceremonies attended by officials on both sides of the Senegal River as more than 100 former refugees were ferried on motorized pirogues.

A spokesman for the United Nations refugee agency, Alphonse Munyaneza, explained international funding will help pay for resettlement.

"Each refugee returning back to Mauritania will receive a piece of land equivalent to 140 square meters for establishing a house. UNHCR and the government of Mauritania will provide construction material so that they can build a house," explained Munyaneza. "We will provide three months of food ration. We will provide a tent also."

Mauritanian refugee children broke out in song and laughter when officials arrived at their camps close to the border to get the process going.

There are more than 20,000 Mauritanian refugees in Senegal. Officials say the return program will extend over 18 months.

One of those happy to go is Haddy Sy. She says she left Mauritania after she was beaten up. This took place during a wave of ethnic violence that began in Arab Moor-dominated Mauritania in 1989 and escalated into border clashes, forcing tens of thousands of black, mostly ethnic Fula, Mauritanians into exile.

In the late 1990s, more than 30,000 refugees returned by their own means and some U.N. assistance. Sy says she is leaving behind many good things in Senegal, including a peaceful setting, but that she is still happy to return to her home country.

Since taking office last year, the government of the elected, post-coup President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi has been making efforts to bring home the refugees, including several thousand more in Mali.

But many in Senegal do not want to return home, like Yaraah Sow, who lives in the Dagana refugee camp about 400 kilometers northwest of Dakar.

He says he is still very bitter about what happened nearly 20 years ago. He said his father, who was a civil servant, was attacked by a mob and died of internal bleeding at the gates of a hospital after doctors refused to treat him. Sow accuses the military of seizing all his family's property. He says that two of his younger brothers died on the trip to Senegal. He says his children are now going to school and that they are better off in Senegal.

One of the refugee leaders, Mohamed Ali Sow, who left when he was 10, says he is studying at a university in Senegal to become a lawyer to defend the rights of chased out Mauritanians.

He says the return program has been rushed, because he says people who had their property seized, houses burned, and jobs taken away, should have guarantees these will be restored. He says until then, he does not think it is wise to go back.


text:
Indonesia reports 100th human death from bird flu

January 29, 2008

Two people, a nine year old boy and a 23-year-old woman from Jakarta in Indonesia, have died from the H5N1 Avian Flu virus marking the country's 100th death from the disease. Both died on Sunday, January 27.

"The woman died yesterday, but we just received the results that she's positive with bird flu. The total number of deaths is now 100 out of 124 positive cases," said National Bird Flu Center spokesman, Joko Suyono.

Nearly half of all humans that died from H5N1, have been from Indonesia. Nearly half of those infected in the country received the virus from poultry that was contaminated with the virus.

So far, 223 people from 13 different nations around the world have died from H5N1.


text:
Grass fires break out in wide area of Texas

January 29, 2008

In the U.S. state of Texas, grass fires spread across 2,000 acres of land, destroying at least two dozen structures in the process. The fires were fueled by gusty winds of up to 60 miles per hour.

No injuries or deaths have been reported. Residential areas in, , , , , and counties were evacuated as firefighters struggled to put out the flames. Fires were also reported in, , and counties. Many of these fires have now been contained, officials say.

In response to the fires, Texas governor Rick Perry activated the state's Emergency Operations Center at the highest level. In addition, 152 counties instituted burn bans.

Military aircraft were sent to the area to help douse the fires. According to officials, two helicopters are on standby in, waiting for the winds to slow down before taking to the skies with buckets of water. Six helicopters are on standby in Austin and  as well.

Sharolyn Holder, a North Texas resident, said, "My house is sitting back there with fire all around it. My son's house has already burned some. It's just so stressful."

Craig Civale of said that a lack of water contributed to the spread of the fires. "We've seen areas where fire trucks simply ran out of water, tanker trucks ran out of water, and had to stop battling the blazes at these homes; and pretty much watch them burn down until more water came to the area," he said.

Officials in Tarrant County believe that a fire in may have been started by a cigarette thrown onto an interstate highway.

Parts of and  were closed due to the fires.

The heavy winds had other adverse effects for Texas residents. Around 75,000 homes in the area were reported to be without power in the afternoon due to the wind knocking down several power lines.

Some flights at were delayed more than half an hour or cancelled after the wind forced officials to limit use of the runways.


text:
Venezuelan police arrest bank robbers, free hostages

January 29, 2008 The four gunmen who were holding as many as 60 hostages in a bank in Altagracia de Orituco, Venezuela, cut a deal with police that allowed them to drive off with five hostages after freeing the remaining.

The Governor of Guárico Eduardo Manuitt, in explaining the deal to media, said that the robbers would not be followed.

However, after the ambulance had been allowed to drive to the outskirts of Caracas, police surrounded the vehicle and arrested all four of them. The five hostages are said to have been freed, though there are no reports of injuries as of yet.

After the ambulance was surrounded, roadside negotiations were begun, Manuitt told state television. The gunmen released three hostages before surrendering their weapons, after which they were ordered to the ground and arrested. "This nightmare is over," he said.

The four suspects are said to be male and all in their twenties. They were armed with pistols and a hand grenade. They had threatened to kill the hostages if police stormed the bank.

Earlier estimates thought there were 30 hostages, but freed hostages have suggested there were as many as 60. Among the hostages were a pregnant woman, a two-week-old infant and several children.

During the standoff, hostage Vanessa Saavedra managed to call Colombia's Caracol Radio by cell phone, saying: "We don't want them to shoot ... We don't want them to open fire. Please."

The siege has called attention to the problem of crime in Venezuela. The country has been facing one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in the world. President Hugo Chávez has made promises to deal with the problem.