Talk:Main Page/Archive 49

This is an archive of past discussions about Main Page. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

I understand that Wikipedia intends to be fair, and some non-Christians "won't know what BC means", inspite of it being used in school and in history records for over a hundred years, that's why I'm not going to rave and demand that we rid wikipedia of [[BCE]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm] but next time maybe someone should put BC as well, at least with the featured articles like Ta-Yuan, so people will understand what you mean (I for one made the grave mistake a while back that BCE implied the time millions of years before Christ). Chooserr

Anyone reading Wikipedia will be educated enough to know what BC means. BCE is really just being "politically correct". Nelson Ricardo 11:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

in my view, the order of preference is:

1. BC, the unmarked, neutral, traditional convention in the English language.
2. BCE, an attempt at in-your-face PC, equivalent to bold faced disclaimers of religious neutrality at the beginning of every article
3. BCE/BC, a horrible example of PC gone wrong, amounting to approximately "we try to be neutral, and BCE tries to be express that, but in no way do we want to insult Christians or traditionalists, but we don't want to imply that BC is used by Christians exclusively. please don't feel insulted, we'll add the Hijra year, the Unix epoch and the Anno Mundi next week, too".

dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My two florins on this topic: BC is inherently POV. BCE may be politically correct in some circles, but that does not take away from it being a useful way to distance ourselves away from a direct reference to a quasi-historical event about which the vast majority of the world's population could not care less whilst at the same time not trying to introduce a completely new method of dating events. This method is an obvious, efficient, and reasonable solution to a problem to my POV, but that is a POV, nothing more. If anyone can get 6-billion+ people to agree to a new system that is not based on religious ideas, let me know and I will adopt it without a second thought. Good luck. ::grin:: BCE and CE works for me in the meantime.

Actually, when I think about it, I find BCE more contentious than BC. BC means "Before Christ", and while some might disagree with use of this event for the era, no one disagrees that BC means exactly what it means. BCE on the other hand means "Before the Common Era", so it presupposes that the birth of Christ is the event which is important enough for all the humanity to be used as the common era—with which many would disagree. Political correctness went all the way round to kick itself in the butt :) Nikola 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Unix epoch looks sort of fun, dab. ::laughing::

A minor anecdote: I had a paper as an undergraduate that was given a reduced grade when I used BC as a dating mechanism. Go figure. ;) --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

well, opinions will continue to be divided on this. BCE is the exact same 'mechanism' as BC, the extra 'E' is just a half-assed attempt at saying "it's not what you think it is!". It's just convention anyway. Jesus was born in 6 BC, so nobody at all is counting from the birth of Jesus, we're just counting from the year 1 as defined by the Carolingians. "CE" can stand for "Carolingian Era" for all I care :) Anyway, the 6 billion are irrelevant here; using the English language and the Latin alphabet is "pov", and using an established abbreviation within the English language is just sort of a sub-pov of that. dab (ᛏ) 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• How about making it selectable in the Preference date format, That way wikilinked dates will be presented the way that doesn't offend the reader (or if it's a get-mad day he can choose the opposite and be offended all day long).  ;-) hydnjo talk 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

we used to have {{BCE}} and friends, but this will only shift the controversy to which form a first-time user with no customized stylesheet will be presented with. I am all for 'semantic' configurable solutions, but the template was voted down and deleted. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I should have realized that something that obvious would have come up before my instant of insight. --hydnjo talk 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What about the rights of sane people//? ie ppl who don't believe that the magical space hippy exists/existed at all? -- ���The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.171.246.155 (talk • contribs) . 04:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

what about these? They are free to expand "AD" as "awesome, dude". The question is not whether a magical space Nazarene existed, but whether Dionysius Exiguus existed, since he invented the calendar era. dab (ᛏ) 06:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that both are accpetable and whoever first wrote the article's preference should be used. 12.220.47.145 17:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

this is not policy, it's sort of an armistice, and a recommendation. dab (ᛏ) 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Its the only rule in place, and should be followed. An arbitration community decided on it. 12.220.47.145 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Christ means "Messiah", it's silly to say "everyone agrees that BC uses this as its starting point", because not everyone agrees Jesus was the messiah. I suggest BJ (before Jesus) as a compromise between BC and BCE. Babajobu 08:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the BJ suggestion. If that proves unacceptable to Christians, then maybe 'BS', or 'Before Saviour' might be an alternative. 'AD' also needs updating - who knows what Anno Domini means anymore? Some kind of pizza chain? I suggest 'Period Of Saviour', or 'POS'. If we absolutely must retain the Latin, then it should at least be jazzed up a bit to reflect modern culture. How about 'Far Out! Anno Domini!', making this the year 2005 FOAD? Ok I'll stop now. --Last Malthusian 13:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How about AC? :-D --CAPS LOCK 00:01, 1 December AC 034 (UTC)

BCE is used in academia and the scientific community. I know it would be very inappropriate to use BC in any of our History PHD's or Masters papers, or any of our published journals as well. —preceding unsigned comment by 202.7.176.133 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 2005 December 1

This is a perpetual argument on Wikipedia. I can't find the record of previous debates just now, but our current policy is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras. FreplySpang (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else, I definitely disagree to 'BJ'. That can only lead to sophomoric jokes.

We can't just invent these things, I support 'AD' and 'BC', as they're the ones used by the most people in the world today. -- Hexagon1 03:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nodody is inventing anything; "BJ", "BS", etc. are what are known as jokes. As to BCE/BC, if English Wikipedia can have some articles in British English and some in American (and it does), then there is no reason on earth to standardize this stylistic decision either. Leave it up to the original editor. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

In the did you know section on Samuel Andrews, "a English-born chemist" should be "an English-born chemist". Graham/pianoman87 talk 05:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It would be correct to write "a chemist". Adding the adjective 'English-born' in front of the noun 'chemist' should not alter this. L. Johnson 12:12pm (EST) 29 November 2005

Pianoman is correct. The use of a or an is determined by the following sound: for consonant sounds, a is used; for vowel sounds, an is used. The part of speech of the following word is not relevant. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It certainly sounds better but I had been taught otherwise. L. Johnson 2:36pm (EST) 29 November 2005

The blurb currently runs ...that according to Breton folklore, not completing the 600 km long Tro Breizh in one's lifetime would condemn their soul to repeating a tour of equivalent length every seven years from within their coffin? Note that "their" has no antecedent. Should be changed to "...not doing the thingummy would condemn a person's soul to repeating a tour..." (or sweeter still, "...to repeat a tour...") Doops | talk 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I see this was never fixed. Now to all eternity the edit history will record our shame. Doops | talk 21:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's really simple question! But I agree with UP person

The news section needs to be updated with:

[[Image:Angela Merkel PD3.jpg|100px|right|Angela Merkel]] Dr. '''[[Angela Merkel]]''' of the [[Christian Democratic Union]] is elected the new [[Chancellor of Germany]], as the first woman ever.

This happened at 11:00 (European time), i.e. less than five minutes ago. Molwok 10:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Would be nice if anyone could take care of this.

Done.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 12:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

== fazê-los == —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.240.138.38 (talk • contribs) .

Just a note that the above is Portuguese and means "make them". Nelson Ricardo 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

How about adding some info regarding the recent state assembly elections in Bihar, India --128.211.244.81 18:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The story about Sharon's new party re-directs to another page. The link may/should be re-written doktorb 22:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. The Tom 19:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The blurb for the Sanhedrin article in Did You Know.. uses the word "principals" rather than the correct "principles" ... LeoO3 16:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added a request here at the Village Pump about adding RSS to the Main Page.--Steve Marquis 00:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

does this belong on the main page?

I have updated the Kibaki page with information on this development.--Gozar 01:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've posted this at Current events as per guidelines. Please post a proposed headline for ITN on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Many thanks. -- PFHLai 04:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Beginning in the 10th century, the arrival of Europeans led to conflicts with the Natives and among the invading Europeans in the New World." should read "colonizing" vs. "invading". Also "has gone to war only within large, UN-sanctioned coalitions such as in the Korean War, the Gulf War, and the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan." is incorrect because of Canada's participation in the Kosovo War, which had no U.N. sanction.--M4-10 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement "The victorious Americans looked to extend their republic and launched invasions in 1775 and in 1812." is false as written; there certainly existed no victorious Americans in 1775- prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In addition, while there was some conflict in and over areas that are now Canada during that timeframe, the description of the situation in 1775 as an invasion of Canada is too arguable to be presented as a declarative statement of NPOV fact. --Noren 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"There certainly existed no victorious Americans in 1775" - you do realize that the revolution started in 1775 with the Battles of Lexington and Concord, right? (...and that Concord was a resounding American victory) Raul654 19:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I concede that there were individuals identifying themselves with the name Americans who had won local victories against British troops in 1775. Describing these Americans in 1775 as a republic, as the paragraph did, is erroneous. I should have said that there existed no victorious American republic to attempt to extend itself in 1775. --Noren 03:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I request that Category:Art and Category:Philosophy be added to the Row Of Links at the top, and for Template:Ten portals links to be used in Template:PortalPage instead of the Template:Eight portals links. I think the reasons are pretty much self-explanatory, and I don't see any reasons not to have those two extra links. Infinity0 18:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Today the featured article is military history of Canada on the top left hand side and the top news story is the next Canadian election on the top right hand side. Comments on whether this could induce an apprehension of bias in North American coverage are welcome. Slac [[User talk:Lacrimosus|<small>speak up!</small>]] 19:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the best way of countering this is to discriminate against featured articles and news items appearing on the main page from North America. (is sarcasm welcome too?) --81.154.236.221 21:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, yes. This is the best way of countering systemic bias (I am not being sarcastic). Encyclopedias are meant to to tell people about things they don't already know about (now I'm being slightly sarcastic). Slac [[User talk:Lacrimosus|<small>speak up!</small>]] 00:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

This is obviously a pure coincidence. Neutrality dictates that we do not go out of the way to place many similar topics on the main page at once, but also that we do not go out of the way to keep it balanced. The featured articles are more or less random, and the news items are dicated by what's in the news (as hard as that is to believe). — Dan | Talk 23:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I scheduled the military history of Canada featured article three days ago... so assuming I have no psychic ability to see the future, the overlap with In-The-News is simply a coincidence. Raul654 07:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured is only a half of it - nobody's talked about placement and scheduling the In the News, which, to my mind, always seems to be filled with elections. Slac [[User talk:Lacrimosus|<small>speak up!</small>]] 00:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The In the News item added today about the non-confidence motion in Canada's Parliament is a little misleading in its wording. It says should the vote pass it will trigger an immediate election. In fact it will trigger an immediate election campaign, not the vote itself; I believe Canadian law says the minimum length of an election campaign of 35 days or thereabouts so the actually vote won't take place for at least a month. 23skidoo 19:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Caught and fixed. The Tom 21:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I please get some information on Zaire? I need it for a report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.231.77 (talk • contribs) .

Update: I found the following information from the top of this page you just edited

• For questions, find out where to ask them.

And this, from the bottom of the page you typed your question into

• On discussion pages, please sign your comment by typing four tildes (~~~~).

I hope that helps. --Afterword 21:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I love you Sherurcij 08:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Koizumi set to pave way for female emperor - This seems like big news to me. In short, a government panel has recommended that female heirs be allowed to succeed to the Chrysanthemum Throne with the title of Emperor, and Koizumi is planning on introducing a bill in the Japanese Diet next year. Shouldn't this be on the main page? - Exitmoose 01:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. When headlines have been posted on Current events, when relevant pages in Wikipedia have been updated, please draft a headline to feature the updated articles for the MainPage and post it on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. -- PFHLai 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Could someone with admin privileges please add something about the death of George Best to the 'In the news' section? You can just copy the text from Current events here.

Thanks, File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignore that. I've just found the guidelines. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 14:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think frankly it should be in "recent deaths", not ITN, since the death wasn't due to foul play nor does it have any political consequences, etc. -- Natalinasmpf 20:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

He's one of the most notable footballers of all time, even if his article doesn't do him justice at the moment. It was a bit embarrassing that it took so long to get him on if anything. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. I bet if Muhammad Ali died he would be on the front page? And I myself would be arguing for him to BE on the front page. Jooler 10:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it's the main story in the news here in the UK and I would guess in Ireland as well. Leithp (talk) 10:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that no deaths were ever put on the main page, due to their lack of real relevancy. I'm sure assassinations of world leaders and the like would be exempt. -- Shrinkness 20:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place for this... but I was just wondering what happened to the featured picture section.

• Featured pictures are shown on weekends (UTC Saturday starts less than 3 hours from now), while Did you know.. is shown on weekdays.--Pharos 21:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this'd be way too US-centric or just not important at all, but it could be noted for November 25th that it is Black Friday today. -VJ 23:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, personally I think this would fall under "way too US-centric".--Pharos 23:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The front page needs to be more Americanized. There should be an "Americana" section. Lotsofissues 00:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate you. (Kidding, of course)Sherurcij 08:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, why not Americanize this page for the benefit of us Europeans. After all, we have adopted Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Independence Day, so why not Black Friday as well? We spend our workdays online shopping at Amazon, drink Bourbon or Budweiser in the evenings while we watch The Simpsons, Futurama, Friends, and Sex and the City. Yeah, let's Americanize Wikipedia; we have done it to everything else in our life. Well, I'm off to Starbucks for a Latte, then lunch in the Kentucky Fried Chicken. (By the way, anyone want to buy some dollars?)Wackymax 08:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea what Black Friday was until I read this comment. It really is only a US thing, heh. --Chaosfeary 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page open for modification by anybody - I mean anybody can for example ruin it or delete other users' comments. It makes no sense; it is a bad design choice. I am very disappointed by this. —preceding unsigned comment by 129.241.111.45 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 2005 November 26.

One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is to assume good faith on the part of anyone wishing to contribute. As a result, the vast majority of Wikipedia is open for anyone to modify. This is not to say that a page could not be locked down if a problem were to develop, just that until a problem develops we are better off giving people a chance to help improve things. --Allen3 ^talk 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That is very nice and correct to assume from anyone wishing to contribute. However, this page is open to everybody, not only to those who want to contribute, but to completely any idiot around the world (and believe me there are millions of them). When you lock the discussion page, people cannot comment on it anymore. This is what I am talking about... —preceding unsigned comment by 129.241.111.45 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2005 November 27.

I think he's talking about the talk pages, the fact that anyone can modify anybody else's comments. Well, one good way to check for fraud is the "history" button on the top- plus stiff penalties for those folks who try. Borisblue 04:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can check, and revert. But when you post your comment somewhere on some page are you supposed to be checking it all the time, if some idiot has changed it in some way you would never write it, not to say just plainly removing it... (for example)? —preceding unsigned comment by 129.241.111.45 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2005 November 27.

It's an imperfection, yet it allows legitimate corrections. We hope good users outnumber bad users. Afterall, if this page is locked, we won't be having this dialogue so conveniently. -- PFHLai 17:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the blurb should definitely make mention of the fact that the controversy was because they were Al Jazeera facilities in an allied country. Simply wanting to bomb AJ facilities is not newsworthy; wanting to bomb their headquarters in a country that is allied to you, is. Sherurcij 05:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

When a democracy like the US starts intentionally targetting journalists to bomb them (anywhere), yes, it is newsworthy. Raul654 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Free nations don't attack each other." (GWB). "when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace" (GWB) -- "War is Peace" (The Party) -- strange days dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"The featured picture for today (2005-11-26) is an image of a US soldier in combat firing a rifle, taken by a US Air Force photographer. At a time when much of the world is sick of American imperial aggression, do we really need this glorification of their armed forces? I think we are now owed a featured picture showing the bravery of some of their opponents, such as Iraqi freedom fighters."

• This contribution from me was removed by [[User:Raul654|Raul654] who called it "blatant trolling". On the contrary; the use of Wikipedia's main page to reproduce propaganda images published by US armed forces is itself blatant trolling. Whatever happened Wikipedia's NPOV policy? Has it been ditched in favour of support for US imperialism? 213.94.245.1 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The image would have been used if it were Australian or Israeli certainly, and probably would've had just as much an objective chance if it were Pakistani. The beauty in it isn't the nationality of the subject (which would be rather close to racism, to claim we should or shouldn't have a picture up there because of one's background), but because it captured the ejaculation of a shell casing with its smoke plume with a very fast shutter speed. Sherurcij 17:02, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (Stop laughing at the word ejaculation dammit, it's a legitimate word!)

I think you may mean 'ejection'. :) Raven4x4x 09:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

213, if you have a high-quality photograph of an Iraqi freedom fighter, please upload it to Wikipedia and nominate it at WP:FPC. Or perhaps you can persuade your favorite non-US government to release its works into the public domain, an select photographs from there. We're not going to stop using US pictures just because other governments won't supply us with photographs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, you have no Interwiki-Links on your main page. I find that's not good. See also de:Hauptseite We have all Interwiki-Links on the main page. That's important for globalization. With kind regards Matze6587 16:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

5 Wikipedia in other languages

Sorry, that's good so. Better than ours. Matze6587 17:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you get the news of the 6.1 temblor in Iran the epicenter of which was Bandar Abbas and Qeshm Island?

--anon on 27 November 2005

You mean 2005 Iran earthquake ? Yes, a handful of people died in this tragedy. Please feel free to expand the article. -- 64.229.221.143 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Last time we had a crown copyright image on the main page - I think it was David Blunkett in the news - somebody said Wikipedia was obligated to caption it with the words 'crown copyright'. Since Image:Lord_goldsmith.jpg is similarly crown copyright, should somebody go ahead and do this again? --Afterword 22:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Congresswoman Jean Schmidt was mentioned in passing in the front page article about Tom Brinkman. After her embarrassing speech in the U. S. House of Representatives this past week, her appearance in the national body politic of America is likely to be a short one. After calling the most decorated military member of Congress a coward, she was forced to retract her words

Just for the record, because someone is almost certain to claim that this article has been scheduled because of the Schmidt controversy -- the Brinkman article has been requested since early August; I was rather slow about scheduling it. Raul654 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone concerned that the recent featured 'articles' about pop stars and indie movies could be written by advertisers? The underestimation of the severity of this issue is disheartening. The articles on the Stefani song and Cox movie were corporate advertisments, even if they were written by fans. The potential abuse of wikipedia to advertise products is a real possiblity-if this hasn't occured already. How do we know if interns at corporations aren't encouraged to edit articles to plug products? I love wikipedia, but if I continue see advertisements posing as a featured article, with so little discussion about its questionability, my love will become disdain. Please help. I want to love.Vonsnip 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

as long as the articles are good and objective, what's wrong if they want to write us some articles? If they aren't good then we won't feature them and we'll fix them instead. I don't think there is evidence that companies have been editing their own articles (but I find it hard to believe that some employees haven't looked at their company's article) Broken S 03:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured articles go through a long vetting process. It's not just a single user's decision as to what goes on the Main Page, there's a thorough review of each nominated article and many cleanup phases before they're considered ready. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a slightly optimistic take on the process. --Afterword 03:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I mean, often i see an FA on the main page and look at the archived peer review and request for featured status. It might be an article about Jamaican vineyards, written mainly by a resident of California with access to a website and two books, and then looked over in the peer review process by a stamp-collector, three computer programmers, a historian, one Jamaican if we're lucky and a few other people, all of whom will have supported it. One or two might have corrected violations of the manual of style, another might have requested more pictures and the principal author found some before it reached featured status. Still, about 6-12 people will have read through it, overwhelmingly unqualified to recognise false information and unwilling or unable to check the references, and most crucially they will have been unable to spot major omissions if there are any, e.g. Jamaican vineyards suffered massive droughts two years ago and no wine was produced. No matter the amount of good faith and earnest attention to style and prose peer-reviewers show, they are far too rarely qualified to ensure that FAs include all the most important information on their subject. It is 4am here so I will stop this wholy-incoherent semi-rant and go to bed now, thank you --Afterword 04:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of you are talking about, with the exception of user Zoe. I am not disputing the quality of prose in the aforementioned articles or their factual content. What I am concerned with is wikipedia being used as a means and new forum for advertising. Are you familiar with viral marketing? What criteria is the "long vetting process" using to ferret out potential advertisers posing as general users? Is this a concern at all in the vetting process? Of course things that are obviously advertisements will get edited, but in my view the two articles referred to earlier clearly had the invisible hand of a PR rep somewhere in the process. I do not oppose the inclusion of products, pop songs or pop films, but seeing two featured articles in a two week period that describe items currently (or soon to be) available to the consumer should raise eyebrows (the Stefani song is making a push top the charts, while the Cox film is up for DVD release in late December, perfect for Christmas). If you doubt that marketers are licking their chops at wikipedia's potential for advertising you are naive. Wikipedia is the perfect testing ground for viral marketing. That there is no evidence of this occuring is not reason enough to ignore a potential problem that exists. Will someone actually interested in discussing this write, instead of someone's confused banter about Jamaican vineyards (I'm kidding Afterword) Vonsnip 06:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter if potential advertisers are posing as general users? If the topic of the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then I for one am grateful for any help in improving the quality of the article (not turning it into a non-neutral advertisement, of course). Besides, current items are what people find most interesting and will have the most interest in working on. If there are other articles you'd rather see featured, please help to improve them to featured status. Or, if you are concerned that the articles themselves are not neutral or contain promotional material or advertisement, feel free to contribute to the commentary at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. That way you can ensure that advertisements don't pose as featured articles, and you can help strip out the offending language. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Vorsnip, I do not believe that an article written solely to advertise a product could ever become a Featured Article. Take a look at the Featured Article Candidates page, and look at the level of discussion and criticism that is gone into. It seems clear to me than any article that sounds like an advertisement or marketing spiel would get a swarm of oppose votes very quickly, hence it would not end up on the main page.

There are other mechanisms in place that make this sort of thing difficult as well. A completely un-encyclopaedic advert would probably get deleted, and there are plenty of other users who would re-write the article into something more suitable. If an advertiser continually reverts the re-written article back into advert form, or constantly writes advert articles, they will probably be blocked. So while I can see some possability for this, I feel you are over-estimating the danger. Raven4x4x 09:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose the question might be around how much the article has changed between featuring and appearance on the Main page. There's certainly a "window of opportunity" (horrible phrase) to slant it more favourably in this period. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the use of "fiercely" in the blurb about Tom Brinkman. According to Webster's, "fierce" means "violently unfriendly or aggressive in disposition", which seems POV, unless this guy is actually a rabid animal or something. I wouldn't know.

Substituting something like "staunchly" (similar to the first paragraph of his article) would do the job just as well, and without the negative connotations of "fierce".

-- Ultra Megatron 04:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

American Heritage Dictionary: fierce (fîrs) adj. fierc·er, fierc·est. 1. Having a savage and violent nature; ferocious. 2. Extremely severe or violent; terrible. 3. Extremely intense or ardent. 4. Strenuously active or resolute. 5. Informal. Very difficult or unpleasant. 6. Savage or threatening in appearance. --fierce“ly adv. --fierce“ness n. Raul654 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If 'staunch' does not mean 'fierce' and you (by your own admission) 'do not know' if Brinkman is 'fierce', how can you know he is only 'staunchly' right-wing? --Afterword 04:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Tom Brinkman is one of several thousand state legislators in the US. Does he really merit featured article treatment considering that there is nothing particularly noteworthy about him? The only reason I can think for making him the featured article is that he is considering running against Jean Schmidt in OH-2 and wouldn't mind the free Wikipedia advertising.

-- Ortcutt 08:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

He is noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Featured articles are chosen based on the quality of their writing, not how important someone feels the subject is (aside from those who work on the article). If there are articles you'd rather see featured, please assist in bringing them to featured status. See Wikipedia:Featured articles for more information. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I see the comment I posted on this page a few hours ago (about 3 threads up) rings true: Just for the record, because someone is almost certain to claim that this article has been scheduled because of the Schmidt controversy -- the Brinkman article has been requested since early August; I was rather slow about scheduling it. Raul654 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC) Raul654 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Are we going to see secret reasons about every featured article? How about just accepting them for what they are: a featured article without other intentions. Boneyard 09:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I know the Main Page is already super-cluttered (and being redesigned) and such a thing is probably a silly suggestion, but I'm going to suggest it anyway. As the past few months have seen many debates such as this, I wonder if we could perhaps have some sort of notice concerning the independent article selection procedure on there. Perhaps even just a link from "Featured Article" so people can get to the details quickly. Jellypuzzle 11:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Or people could just quit assuming that this is all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. That might help too. Kade 19:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Seriously, what's with all the obscure Southwest Ohio politicians recently? --155.45.81.25 18:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the fault of hard-working obscure Soutwest Ohio wikipedians who are interested in politics Borisblue 05:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Apparently some "hard-working obscure Soutwest Ohio wikipedians" also happen to be right-wing neo-con fascists promoting their agenda anywhere they can, including on Wikipedia. But hey, life is political, so Wiki is also political. steve_meiers 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Pick a two-week period. Now find fourteen of the most untraditonally encyclopedic featured articles and spill them on the front page day after day. The talk page will go mad for days but finally the whiners will move away from their ideal. Lotsofissues 11:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The vote was actually 171 for to 133 against, not 131 against. 128.171.90.200 00:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It says...

A motion of no confidence, defeats Prime Minister Paul Martin's minority government by a margin of 171 to 131 forcing an immediate election campaign.

... and nowhere it is stated what is the county in question!

(Yes, I know it's Canada). The Ogre 00:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• All Your Base Belong to Us--Ewok Slayer--(Talk | Contribs) 05:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't look now, but we seem to be neck and neck with a certain 24-hr cable/web site. It must be the coincidences on the Main Page. --Ancheta Wis 05:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

...in Alexa rating? Or what? Raul654 05:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest Alexa rating as of 05:22 29 Nov 2005, when we spiked up (in the last few weeks it seems to be a weekly cycle correlated with homework) and they spiked downward (perhaps correlated with Thanksgiving?). --Ancheta Wis 11:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the latest upward spike corrosponds with the $50,000 worth of new servers they just installed. It's a well known effect that whenever wikipedia installs new servers and the site becomes faster, the traffic spikes and pretty much wipes out all the new gains :) Raul654 13:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Raul654 - I think that you should add that to your "laws." – ABCD^e✉ 15:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Full text searching is fine for many occasions when finding information; but having a well designed classification system can be invaluable in approaching relevant information from a different direction - and Wikipedia does not have one. The current categories are a mess - how do we improve this? —preceding unsigned comment by Ncameron (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 November 2005

Please voice your concerns at Wikipedia talk:Categorization or at Wikipedia:Village pump. Talk:Main Page is intended for discussion about the Main Page. --64.229.178.118 20:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly recommend something more relevant, like the cover of William Gibson's Neuromancer, or Blade Runner. Kade 18:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Something to do with copyrights. See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 29, 2005. -- 64.229.178.118 20:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

i was wondering who king solomon was so i looked him up. it turns it means peace in hebrew, as salam (as in islam) means peace. intresting connection!

Bold textI was wondering who King Solomon was so I looked him up. It turns it means peace in Hebrew, as salam (as in Islam) means peace. Intresting connection!

The correct term here is "under way," not "underway." The combining of the who words is an adjective form.

Really? In the "In The News" section, sandwiched between Canada kicking out its PM and the summit to find a successor to the Kyoto Treaty, we find... Mozilla's releasing a Firefox update? What the heck? How does this qualify as "in the news"? Just because some admins use it? Can't wait till admins start posting "High Point <!--my alma mater, baby!-->wins a crucial Big South Conference men's basketball game against UNC-Asheville, 72-66", or any other fringe, non-newsworthy topic that has some basic element in reality and may be newsworthy to a small fragment of readers, but has no real spot in "in the news".

All this to say, could someone take it down (and maybe post something more newsworthy in its place)? Matt Yeager 06:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see you ponying up anything that could be more newsworthy. Moreover, I don't think there IS anything more newsworthy going on right now (for an Anglocentric Wikipedia), so let the Firefox thing stay. I think you're going to have to do better than "Firefox is well-known with the m$ sux crowd" to prove that this is somehow favoritism. Kade 06:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Not favoritism, unnecessary-ism. Gah, you made me make up a word. Here's three things that are more newsworthy: [1], [2], and, say, [3], all of which probably matter more to more people than an upgraded Firefox. (Alternately, just use old news stories.) Gah. Again. Matt Yeager 07:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Isn't KDE 3.5 even more important, considering that it's the most-used desktop on the second most-used desktop operating system? It's also considerably larger, a browser being only one component of the project.Tommstein 07:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Firefox notability isn't anywhere near the same level of the other items. If we allow Firefox we'll have to allow KDE, Gnome, Windows Vista, Mac OS X upgrades, etc ad nauseam. --Bk0 (Talk) 10:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but Firefox is rad! Babajobu 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So is street luge, but are we to mention street luge tournaments in the news when they happen? 203.132.66.236 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Street Luge is not nearly so rad as Firefox, obviously. Babajobu 11:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I bet Street Luge 1.5 would at least be compatible with the Wikipedia Edit Extension. Jellypuzzle 11:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the Wikipedia Edit Extension? Please provide a link. Babajobu 11:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

To quote our own article on Firefox "Wikipedia editors using Firefox can even download a customised toolbar". Sadly this toolbar has not been updated to version 1.5 yet which is amusing as it's probably used quite a bit by the people who put the article in ITN. Jellypuzzle 11:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My attempt to add Wikipedia to the search engine in the upper right hand corner doesn't even seem to work on Firefox 1.5. And it screwed up my chatzilla, temporarily preventing make from participating in Wikipedia's IRC channel. Babajobu 11:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Why was the USA Today story on Wikipedia removed from ITN? I thought it was rad! Babajobu 08:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This e-letter was written to the last and most influential person to pass judgment against my mention in Wikipedia (he is known as User: Kschutte, and he holds a B.A. from Cal. State Univ. in Sacramento. It is shown to you because of your involvement in this troubling case of character defamation!

I thank you for proving to me beyond all reasonable doubt what it is that is really wrong with the world in which we live. You will, with the utter conviction and confidence that comes from years of hard mental work, be certain that one of the world’s problems is that of people like me, people you might think are malcontents, dysfunctional misfits, and radical non-conformists. To some extent, given that I am by no means an anarchist, there is much to worry about people who really do fit those labels. I do not. Yes, I am a non-conformist to some extent but not malcontent nor diagnosable as a dysfunctional misfit. I will, with equal confidence and conviction (imbued in me by laypersons, many of whom have had the quality of their lives improved upon by what I had to relate to them in the form of philosophical and practical advice, and some whose lives were saved in part due to my requested intervention), be certain that much of the world’s problems are the result of too much power, authority and influence being entrusted to a certain number of academics whose tendency to belittle the lives of non-accredited intellectuals is but only one of numerous repressive ways by which such academics serve the interests of an elite few (too often at the expense of society and the environments). You will it find it quite convenient to ignore my words as the ranting of a person of trivial consequence, ignoring the true meaning, depths and importance of my words, but I will write them nonetheless, if only as a means to vent my fury. Have you ever wondered why there are no major efforts to constantly, regularly remind the public at large about the need to ask the big questions, to dare to philosophize, to engage in deep introspect??? Is it any wonder that so many people right here in America live in such abject poverty and crime infested neighborhoods, when the highly educated elite have made higher education a very big, very exclusive, excessively costly, profit-making business out of higher education??? Why, if the upper class of America really cared about the lower, working class there should at least be signs, posters, billboards and public service announcements constantly inviting each and every citizen to ponder every and all major question that has always been on the minds of all true philosophers throughout the ages! Shamefully enough, instead of such major efforts at generating wisdom and enlightenment in the masses, all of which could be financed and made possible by a combined effort involving major institutions of higher learning, government and the private sector, we live in a world that not even Plato, with his elitist ideals concerning poets and philosophers, would approve of. In his times all that was required to be recognized as a philosopher was to sit out in public, be accessible and invite people to ask questions, to discuss opinions and observations, to engage in philosophical debate and discourse, and for that dedicated philosopher to show true love and respect for knowledge and wisdom. True, a professor of philosophy may also be a Philosopher, albeit most are far from the mark, for they live in their own disconnect, their own non-inter-disciplinary world of often convoluted abstractions and overly-complex constructs. These diploma-dependent praise-addicts are so disconnected and unaware of the real world and its everyday miseries that, insulated by the pseudo-paragons of their respective institutions, they cannot seriously consider the possibility of someone being a true auto-didactic intellectual genius. Perhaps without intending it, absent of any real malice, you have added your all-powerful voice to what I can only describe as a “mob of yuppies and overzealous PhD.s.” who may think that they have succeeded in disenfranchising me from Wikipedia, when all that has really happened is that a clique-mentality-controlled Wikipedia has played foul with wrong person and is about to find out just to what extent things have gone really wrong. This systemic problem spells disaster for Wikipedia as it now stands. Wikipedia’s days, unless significant changes are made and certain editing pro-deletionist users are weeded-out, are now numbered. Even so, I am making an effort to understand where your concerns really lie, for even I recognize the indisputable fact that the world would also be in grave danger if respect for qualified authority, professionals, experts, specialists and even, yes, technocrats! However, when such empowered formally accredited persons start mocking, bullying and dismissing the views of an auto-didactic intellectual, who really is recognized by some PhD.s as a true Philosopher in his own right, and whose only fault (if it really should be called such) is not having had the means (time, opportunity or money) to acquire a serious, advanced-level, well-structured formal education, then we must all watch out! For in so doing the illusion of an advanced civilization is then revealed to be a big, fat, and brutally cold lie, whose cleverly devised legal systems, rules of conduct and social expectations are simply there to create a vast construct whose only purpose is to protect the vast wealth and related interests of a select few! As I read your brief annotation to the debate I asked myself how can it be that a man of your professional background, significant accomplishments and well-above-average intelligence, someone who has shown great compassion for autistic persons (I’ve looked into your credentials, curriculum vitae, etc.), how could such a person, never having taken the trouble and courtesy of offering me a private audience over the Internet (you could even have called me) or at least making the honorable effort of contacting one, two, three or all four of the prominent individuals whose numbers I listed, how could you make a statement such as this: “ Even if he were notable in some other language (which I'm sure he isn't), he oughtn't be added to an English-language encyclopedia until he has reached multinational (i.e., multilanguage) prominence.” ??? The words I find most shocking are “which I’m sure he isn’t” !!! That kind of assumption stated with such certainty is by no means appropriate for someone of your caliber! That I am not listed in The Philosopher’s Index should come as no surprise to anyone with a real knowledge of my biographical record, and it has nothing to do with which languages I’ve published in or been interviewed. I am not a peer-review-dependent formally accredited PhD. who teaches the philosophical views of true Philosophers. I am a true Philosopher, whose main set of ideas are highly advanced and, as some of my friends and colleagues feel, are probably before their time (avant-garde). Anyway, I just thought I’d let you know what I think about your input and the sum effect of your fellow Wikipedians. Lastly, I am compelled to take all this to the media and hope that it will cause great condemnation and generate calls for a thorough revision of Wikipedia policy and practice, as well as a major detailed investigation into what I and others (including former Wikipedians) see as a dangerous bias on the part of the current gate-keepers of Wikipedia.

I kindly request that no one should write about me on Wikipedia without my personal consent in writing. I was mentioned herein for over three years, after passing an initial line of inquiry and verification, but no more. Wikipedia does not deserve to have the right to mention me, as it is no longer living up to its original intent and reputation. I forbid anyone from further attempts to defame my character, and I have informed my solicitor in London to find the means to enforce my request, if need be. However, allow me to say this in closing: Wikipedia can still be, once more, a respectable source of information and an invaluable asset to our global cultural exchange. Good luck and good night!68.48.73.93 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It may sound like I am making fun of him; and I am, but I'm also sincerely curious. What would he be most likely diagnosed with? Lotsofissues 13:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

An allergy to punctuation? 203.166.111.34 04:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

In a lot of places across Wikipedia, Hindi is written in the Devnagri script as हिन्दी. This pronounces as Han'di, which is obviously wrong and disrespectful. The actual spelling is िहन्दी. Please correct this, as this is a huge spelling error. Sabretooth 14:11, Wednesday November 30 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not a Hindi speaker, but we have a fair number of native Hindi speakers here, and I rather suspect our spelling is correct. Words aren't always spelled precisely as they're pronounced.--Pharos 14:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The spell is perfectly correct as i see it..and i speak and write in hindi as well

It is correct, but Windows sometimes positions the characters incorrectly; see the box I just added . — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (put direct link in to avoid categorizing this talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sabretooth has made a very pertinent observation. A few days back when I first opened the Hindi pages I soon moved away from it, precisely because of this jarring error across the pages in several words. The "Rahsva" "ee" should be positioned before the "H" followed by the "N" as suggested earlier. Another word I noticed moments ago is "Vishwavidyalaya" # दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय - similar error. There are numerous others. KnowledgeSeeker has a point but surely there may be a method for rectifying this problem when it occurs so frequently. Thanks.Pictowrit 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, one solution is to switch to a better operating system or convince Microsoft to repair their faulty implementation. And of course, be sure that {{IndicText}} is placed on pages with such text. Other than that, what would you propose? We cannot force downloads on users or change their computers' settings. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

another option is to quit using Devanagari altogether. Really, what use is it? IAST is completely isomorphic to Devanagari, and can be read by untrained readers. Using Devanagari (instead, or beside IAST) adds no information, but leads to endless "corrections" by people with broken browsers. [this suggestion is obviously not intended for the Hindi version of Wikipedia, but for the spelling of Hindi/Sanskrit words on English Wikipedia]. Other than that, just don't use Microsoft products, there are lots of reasons apart from this particular one. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The post from 68.48.73.93 13:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC) ignored the note on the top of the Talk page. The screed from 68.xx does not belong on this page. --Ancheta Wis 14:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How did this flag of Hong Kong article get to be the featured article?

It was a blue Union Jack ensign (!!!) with the Hong Kong coat of arms (!!!) on a white disk centred on the outer half of the flag.

CORRECTED: It was the UK Blue Ensign “defaced” with the Hong Kong Arms, (Armorial Bearings), on a white disk centred on the outer half of the flag. The 1876 design featured a colonial badge, showing a local scene instead of the Hong Kong Arms.

NOTE: The current emblem is not the armorial bearings. It replaced the armorial bearings used before 1997. The best option is to have two linked articles - "Hong Kong Emblem" and "Hong Kong Armorial Bearings. Anyway "Coat of Arms" is both ugly and technically incorrect - Armorial Bearings (NOT Armorial Bearing) is correct; so ALL "Coats of Arms" should be altered! This is not pedantic - since the correct terms should always be used. Likewise a "Crest" is the thing on top of the helmet NOT the shield from the armorial bearings! Also an emblem can easily be replaced by Armorial Bearings, and visa versa - at the order of the ruling authority at the time! Skull 'n' Femurs 15:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Why is the PNG version of the flag on the front page? An SVG version is available and would help Firefox 1.5 users (the final version is now out) reduce download times. Andrew_pmk | Talk 20:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The stars in the svg version become tiny dots at 100px. I thought the png version with slightly bigger stars would be better. Turns out it isn't that much of an improvement. ... :-( -- PFHLai 23:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The image is showing incorrectly, with some kind of distortion at the bottom of the text in the image. Osgoodelawyer 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "The Red Army invaded Finland, but were stalled at the Mannerheim Line" should read "The Red Army invaded Finland, but was stalled at the Mannerheim Line." There's one (singular) army, as evidenced by "the fighting ability of the Red Army was put into question" in the introduction of the Winter War article itself. -Rebelguys2 18:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It can go either way. The Red Army is one army but contains many men. The 'was' you referred to is in relation to the Red Army's fighting ability, and fighting ability is singular (well, it's uncountable, but treated as singular - like 'the milk has gone off', rather than 'have gone off'.) --Cherry blossom tree 18:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I just searched for the first instance of "Red Army was;" I guess I should pay more attention next time. ;) Thanks. -Rebelguys2 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I think was sounds slightly better, too, but were doesn't make me scream. It might be a British/American thing.--Cherry blossom tree 19:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The Red Army is a singular thing. It contains many men, but men alone do not an army make. The Red Army was stalled at the Mannerheim Line. Osgoodelawyer 19:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you promise to keep the first two sentences in there, I propose we put that up instead. Kade 22:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Collective nouns can take either singular or plural verbs or pronouns. Using one or the other is a preference for the initial writer and it's Wikipedia policy to stick with the original writing style. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the verb tenses, the comma in the sentence is unneeded because the construction is not a compound sentence. The second clause is dependent and therefore does not require a comma to separate it from the first independent clause. See Comma (punctuation) under Grammmar point 2. -Scm83x 20:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be flogging a dead horse here, but the Red Army is not a Collective noun. Osgoodelawyer 20:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

British English allows singular nouns that represent plural concepts to be treated as plural (e.g. team, England (when referring to an English team), army (sometimes)). It's idiosyncratic, but also true. Nevertheless, quite why the Winter War should be under British style is beyond me. [[Sam Korn]] 23:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Geographical proximity of course! :) --81.154.236.221 23:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I've changed 'were' to 'was'. Thanks to all for pointing this out. -- PFHLai 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks PFHLai, but what about the comma I mentioned above? -Scm83x 23:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Just fixed that, too. -- PFHLai 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

So, essentially, you just broke wiki-policy by 'correcting' from British English to American English, rather than leaving it in the style of the original writer? "When America finally joined the war, the RAF were fighting bravely." It's acceptable, just not what you're used to. —preceding unsigned comment by 57.66.51.165 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 2 December 2005

User:57.66.51.165, have you checked who the original writer is ? That was me. Okay ? -- PFHLai 22:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't, no. I still think it's weird to change something like that (that is correct, to a different style, implying that one style is more 'correct' than another), but it's slightly less bad if you wrote it first. Blah. 20:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC) —preceding unsigned comment by 88.144.21.145 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 2005 December 3

Why is correcting my own mistake bad in the first place ? The accusation by User:57.66.51.165 (same person as User:88.144.21.145?) that I broke wiki-policy is false, as the policy simply doesn't apply -- "the original writer" was correcting his own mistake. It was not about which style is more correct, but which style "the original writer" chooses. -- PFHLai 18:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The did you know has this:

...that Jack Jouett, known as the "Paul Revere of the South", saved Thomas Jefferson and other Revolutionary leaders in Virginia by warning them of a British cavalry raid meant to capture them?

Can anyone make a link to Paul Revere article too? Because some people might not know who that is. -- WB 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, BanyanTree 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So Rosa Parks was known as the "Mother of the Modern Day Civil Rights Movement", was and is mourned by millions, and respected by millions more. Does anyone else feel we could use a better photo of her than that mugshot? Moriori 03:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the reason she is known as the "Mother of the Modern Day Civil Rights Movement" and is mourned and respected by millions, is because she was willing to be arrested for her beliefs.--Pharos 03:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

So what's the reason why a photo of Parks the person, the achiever, the much admired ray of hope for oppressed minorities in many countries, is used at the top of her article, and not a mugshot?. Sheesh. Make room tabloids, Wiki's coming to join you. Moriori 03:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And explain why there are six photos used on Nelson Mandela and none of them show him during his years in prison. Moriori 03:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Considering how long he was imprisoned, I would say that's an omission. As for Parks, it's not "tabloid" to show her being arrested. That photo of a woman arrested for sitting on the wrong side of a bus helped spark the modern American civil rights movement.--Pharos 03:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit. She spent most of her life working for civil rights, but you insist on portraying her in a mugshot which was taken a year after she refused to give up her seat. So much for NPOV in Wikipedia. But, if that makes your day, then amen. Moriori 06:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which POV are you alleging? Doops | talk 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is absolute POV bias to deliberately illustrate this person with a mugshot taken a year AFTER her bus sit-in, a photo that is not the featured one in her article. The photo has nothing to do with her "sitting on the wrong side of a bus". It is a tabloid journalism at its best. I don't live in the US and have never been part of any civil rights movements. I am absolutely amazed that anyone could deliberately select such a negative and irrelevant photo to portray someone who achieved so much. It is very disappointing for Wikapedia. Moriori 07:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, Moriori, I'm perplexed. What is the bias? The photograph seems quite appropriate to me. Perhaps we could understand if you explained what point of view was being pushed by the use of this photograph. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The Main Page feature is about a woman who pioneered work in civil rights etc. The mugshot photo used in the feature was taken THE YEAR AFTER she refused to give up her seat in a bus. It has nothing whatsoever to do with her refusing to give up her seat. It has nothing to do with her personality or conduct during most of her life which is widely applauded internationally.In my view it is POV to portray her as a "criminal" rather than as a "normal" person as she is shown in the most prominent illustration at Rosa Parks. That mugshot is not representative of the person Parks. Knowledge Seeeker, answer me this. If we had a Main Page feature tomorrow on Nelson Mandela, would you support it being illustrated with a pic of Mandela behind bars?

• "It is absolute POV bias to deliberately illustrate this person with a mugshot taken a year AFTER her bus sit-in, photo that is not the featured one in her article." - Using the top image in a Featured Article as the image that will appear on the main is discouraged, and the vast majority of Featured Articles do not use the top image. The point of the main-page FA blurb is to draw in readers with an interesting glimpse of one of Wikipedia's best articles, whereas the top image in the FA page itself should be more encapsulatory and general. -Silence 10:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[responding to Moriori's comments of 7:35 UTC] OK, as I see it you are making several different arguments against the illustration. I realize that my restatements of these below aren't exactly in your words, but I think they mirror the points you are trying to make:

1. It is sensationalist, tacky, not in good taste to have a mug shot. Dignified encyclopedias should have dignified photos.
2. It is misleading; the reader will assume that it's a December 1955 mugshot, not a February 1956 one.
3. It is humiliating to Parks to show her in a mug shot. As a great achiever, she deserves a glorious photo, not an ignominious one.

My responses (note that I am in no way been involved in the FA process nor in the writing of this particular article; my views are those of a pure outsider):

1. This would be true of most people. However, where a person's arrest is, arguably, one of the defining moments of his or her life, a mug shot becomes relevant. Far from being a tacky tabloid picture, the mug shot can be the most vital and vibrant way of capturing the fact that this isn't some dry, academic subject — but a very tense risky time for Parks.
2. Actually, this could be a valid point. The article isn't (unless I'm missing something) clear right now: what exactly was she booked for in February 1956? If it was for something unrelated then the picture should go.
3. I think this argument, if indeed you are making it, doesn't necessarily reflect the actual views of civil disobedience martyrs. To have been arrested in a just cause is, arguably, a source not of shame but of pride. It is entirely possible that this photo was one of Rosa Parks' favorites.

As far as I can see, arguments 1 & 2 have nothing to do with the serious charge of POV; they're just the kind of good faith editorial discussion that goes on among reasonable people. Only the 3rd one could involve POV; you appear (again, I am sorry if I am misinterpreting) to be alleging that editors with an anti-Rosa Parks POV are using this picture to demean her. If that is your worry, I think you can put it from your mind; as I've suggested above, it's my impression that the heroes of the civil rights movement would have viewed such a photograph as a badge of honor, not of shame. Furthermore, even if Rosa Parks didn't see it this way, even if she personally hated this photograph and would rather be pictured in a more photogenic way — even if this is the case, a charge of POV would only be valid if the wikipedia editors knew this and intentionally included the photograph to spite her. Otherwise, it's, again, simply an editorial discussion.

In short: if you want to argue against the photo on editorial grounds, fine. But charges of POV are uncalled-for. Doops | talk 08:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Moriori wrote: Knowledge Seeeker, answer me this. If we had a Main Page feature tomorrow on Nelson Mandela, would you support it being illustrated with a pic of Mandela behind bars? As far as I'm concerned, such a photo could very well be appropriate. If spending years in prison is an important part of who you are and what you're known for, then it's not irrelevant. And it's not necessarily negative; if your imprisonment was unjust, then I would argue that there's no shame in being imprisoned. Of course that's not to say that a photo of Mandela behind bars is the only possible illustration. But if I were FA director, I would be looking for interesting photos. Mandela behind bars, Mandela shaking hands with De Klerk, etc. — interesting. Mandela posing for the camera — boring. Finally, bear this in mind: for children too young to remember apartheid, an image of Mandela behind bars isn't just interesting, it's powerful. This isn't just a dry topic of discussion on the Wikipedia; real people faced real consequences (like jail) for their stances — and this was only a couple of decades ago! Drama is not the exclusive province of the tabloids — they give Pulitzer Prizes for photos, you know. Doops | talk 08:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I find that the featured article Rosa Parks is an extremely fitting choice, especially since today is the 50th anniv. of the Montgomery Bus Incident. Pacific Coast Highway 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No-one objects to the article being featured. But the POV choice of pic is tabloid journalism as its best. Moriori 06:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, I suspect that Pacific Coast Highway was just making a general remark. Probably no reference to your earlier comments was intended. Doops | talk 06:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right. However, the deliberate selection of a photo taken a year after the bus incident is absolute bias given the choice of illustrations used in the article. What is worse, the defending (above) of the use of that specific illustration indicates to me there may be something worse than POV prevailing here. Moriori 07:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what POV you are sensing. I'm not being rhetorical when I say that I can't figure out what you mean. Doops | talk 07:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, Moriori; where is all this hostility coming from? What POV is prevailing here? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I can understand where Moriori's coming from; this choice of photo emphasizes the criminality of Parks, rather than directly indicating the civil rights activism. Someone who has never heard the name "Rosa Parks" before might think it a photo of a common criminal before reading the article; the choice of images seems to suggest that Parks is such an iconic and commonly-written-about figure that it would be redundant to use one of the more common, typical images chosen to represent her, and seems based on the assumption that Rosa Parks' fame (plus, of course, the descriptive sentences next to the photograph which make the photo much clearer) will ensure that noone will misunderstand the photo as depicting a common criminal rather than a famous and widely-respected civil rights activist in the middle of a justified act of civil disobedience. However, Wikipedia shouldn't assume that readers already know the information being presented, and the most eye-catching image isn't always the best one.
• Despite all this, though, I disagree with Moriori in this case, and feel that the image is very appropriate, and could not be construed as "POVed" unless one already holds the mistaken assumption that breaking the law and being a bad person are inextricably linked. History shows this to be far from the truth; countless major revolutionaries and geniuses have been imprisoned, tortured, killed. And, as has been pointed out above, one could just as easily use an out-of-context photo of Parks in jail to support her as to criticize her.
• Incidentally, if Moriori wishes to personally ask the person who selected the image why he chose it, that person is User:Raul654. When I created the FA box currently on the main page (see Talk:Rosa Parks), I selected the image Image:Rosaparks bus.jpg (I considered the arrest image, but decided against it at the last minute for fear of it being construed as POV and endangering the article's chances of appearing on the main page; obviously my fear was misplaced) to use with the text because I found the image very symbolically significant and interesting. However, Raul replaced it with the one currently on the main page, and I can think of several reasons why he might have done so: (1) a mugshot has much simpler copyright status than a Fair Use image; (2) Rosa Parks is smaller and non-centered in the image I chose, and there's an anonymous white man in the image as well, which may confuse people who think that the man is somehow a major fixture of the article, as well as people who wonder when the photo is from; (3) the mugshot image is much more dramatic and clear, and will catch more people's eyes on the main page. That's just my speculation, but those three reasons satisfied me enough that I didn't, and won't, contest the new image choice. The image seems reasonably appropriate, NPOV, and interesting. We can't have every photo of every person be the same staged, muted, pleasant shot—that's not NPOV, that's boring. -Silence 10:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, that picture was chosen because it's only one of two free images in that article, the other being extremely low in quality. Raul654 10:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How about Image:Rosa Parks Congressional Gold Medal 1999 obverse.jpg (right) from the PD ? -- PFHLai 12:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Coins don't exactly make for good main page images, especially when pictures of the real live person are avaiable. Raul654 12:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if the available pictures are either low in quality or controversial (see above) ? And the mugshot may be 'fairuse' instead of PD (see copyright image tag there, and commons:Image:Rparksmug1.jpg) . -- PFHLai 13:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As the creationists have taught us, just because someone says it is controversial doesn't make it so :) Raul654 13:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh ? ... (I'm lost there re: the creationists...) Anyway, Raul, you are the boss when it comes to TFA. Just think about the coin (or the bus) if you decide to take that fairuse mugshot off the MainPage. Cheers. -- PFHLai 14:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to add that today is also the anniversary of Icelandic freedom from Denmark, i.e. the decolonization of Iceland. Important event, right? =) —preceding unsigned comment by 80.208.231.130 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 2005 December 1

I almost posted this. I didn't, because the Iceland page doesn't have much details on this event, and I can't find the Public holidays in Iceland page (See? It's red !) to confirm if this event is actually commemorated in Iceland. Is this Independence Day ? Freedom Day ? It would help if there is a page about this special day, with details on what happened that day in 1918, and how people in Iceland celebrate this over the years. Take pictures today ! We can use them on such a page. :-) -- PFHLai 13:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Mostly out of curiosity, how is it that the Main Page Talk has been included in the category Articles with Indic Text? CAPS LOCK 21:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

See #Important Spelling Error! above, in which {{IndicText}} was added, which I assume contains the category in question. - BanyanTree 21:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You may blame me. As BanyanTree mentions, I added {{IndicText}} to explain something, not realizing it would automatically categorize the page (although to be fair, it does contain Indic text!). I removed the template and placed a direct link, which I hope will fix the problem. Thanks for letting me know! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(1. dec) as a matter of fact i didn`t know, that children beaten up by their parents were 'naughty'. i thought it was a crime in some countries already.

I don't see any mention of parents at DYK. -- 199.71.174.100 00:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The original poster is probably referring to mattenklopper which is on DYK now. As far as I know spanking isn't a crime in most places. It's fallen out of favor but is still practiced by many people in the U.S... I don't know about the Netherlands. Either way, let's resist the urge to rewrite history. Unless someone's saying spanking didn't happen in the Netherlands in the past, we shouldn't remove this bit from DYK. Rhobite 00:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

ahh.. I* referred to the word 'naughty'. parents beating their children is a crime, even it isn't illegal. 'spanking naughty children' is a tasteless euphemism for violence against children. at least in my moral universe. the word 'naughty' implies, that the parents somehow have to beat them up, to better them. I*'d very much like it to be removed, the rest can stay as it is, especially, as the article itself makes no mention at all of this practice. thank you

POINT OF INTEREST: I love spanking my girlfriend. I've never beaten her up. You dramatic use of language is absurd. While spanking my gf is different from spanking a child, I've used it to show that we usually recognise the word spank as very much different from beating up, whether the context be sexual or punitive. --JohnO You found the secret writing! 03:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I have recently come across a site related to kendo (not mine) and I was wondering if it is allowed to be posted in the japan section. The site has been up for about 2 weeks and in that time has received a wealth of info. The site is http://www.international-kendo.com

Yuck! I vote no. Nelson Ricardo 05:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

A complete load of junk. More interestingly I've seen quite a number of sites like these added as linkspam and I get the impression that the sites are being created specifically for the purposes of spamming. Although they usually have a unique topic related domain name, they all follow a similar design with a reasonably well produced banner at the top with three columns bellow with an average article on the subject in the centre panel and a liberal scattering of Google-Ads (e.g. [4]). Is this just because people are using some common website design software, or is there something else going on. -- Solipsist 08:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence about the idiot who got caught doing something he knew would carry the death penalty contains a mistake: "...despite pleas of clemency" should read "despite pleas for clemency". --JohnO You found the secret writing! 03:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Fixed. Evil Monkey - Hello 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, so now people are idiots because they don't appreciate being given the death penalty for non-violent crimes? You must be real popular with normal human beings, pal. Kade 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Noted. --JohnO You found the secret writing! 12:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

One glance at the face transplant article reveals that there are many face transplant cases before the recent one by the French team. This recent surgery is the first successful mouth and nose transplant. Could somebody clarify the misleading note in the In the news? -VJ 03:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to construct a website like this in my company! I need your help to achieve this mission. Who can help me?

• Wikipedia is run on MediaWiki, which is open source. Good luck!--Pharos 06:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the case of Canadian Nguyen Thi Hiep or Dutchman Johannes van Damme], one doesn't even have a wiki, the other only a foreign wiki...I'm quite sure neither ever made "Front Page Wiki News". It seems there is a disturbing trend to report on our Main Page, things that are of very little significance on a global scale. Sherurcij 09:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Slow news day, perhaps? But I agree, the whole thing was sensationalized; I mean the US executed, or will execute, 1 or 2 blokes (plus the fact that it's the 1000th such execution in the US) but there's no mention at all.--Chinfo 12:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In the U.S. you can only be executed for a capital crime. There's really not any comparison. Kade 18:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is circular as a capital crime is by definition one you can be executed for. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is perhaps that we like to report what the media's reporting, rather than what we objectively decide is noteworthy. The media likes to sensationalize, that's how it sells advertising space. We should not be guilty of the same crime, or worse...simply reporting on the same things as the general because we fail to stop and think whether something is actually noteworthy. Sherurcij 13:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should get into the game of deciding if news items are noteworthy or not; I see the point of ITN as a section where people who hear about things in the news can get more information on them from Wikipedia. Therefore the two criteria for inclusion in ITN should be a) major English news outlet coverage and b) good references in Wikipedia. Demi ^T/_C 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that Australians do not choose to barbarically execute their citizens has something to do with why it is such big news. 220.235.174.222 00:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but "what Australians choose" isn't really top breaking news, anymore than Many Canadians enjoy the taste of mayonaisse and put it on french fries. I'm sure I needn't remind you that Australians "chose to barbarically murder their citizens" as recently as the 1980s, so your righteous indignation perhaps is slightly misplaced. But regardless of the morality of the situation, they had every legal right to execute him. He was given a fair trial, for crimes committed in their country, and is subject to their laws. I'm not trying to debate whether or not he should have been hanged, that is a moot subject, I'm merely saying that it's not exactly groundbreaking wikijournalism. Does he deserve an article, yes possibly...but certainly not on the front page. Sherurcij 01:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The last execution in Australia was carried out in 1967 203.132.66.236 05:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

But still legal, and therefore 'moral' in the eyes of the people, until 1984 :) Anyways, I'm not debating the death penalty, I'm debating whether a random drug trafficker being executed is worth front page news. Sherurcij 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

When did the law and individual morality become the same thing? 203.132.66.236 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is how South Africa restricts it's same sex marriages front page news? Isn't that what they choose to do like Canadians and mayonnaise. Front page news anywhere is always chosen subjectively no mater what media. The hanging has been front page news to Australians just as I'm sure the article on South Africa's restrictions on same sex marriage has been front page news there. Let it go.220.235.174.222 11:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Main Page currently reads, "Australian citizen Van Tuong Nguyen..." Am I the only one who sees something strange in this? -Naif 12:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see what is strange, but anyway, to put the importance of this story in context, this is the first time Australia and Singapore have had a major disagreement with each other (Singapore is the west's strongest ally in the Asia region). The issue of Van's death was raised at the recent 2005 CHOGM meeting]], and despite the Singaporean government hearing pleas for clemency from: the Queen, the Pope, John Howard, multiple Governors-General. A possible International Court of Justice case was considered and nearly raised by Australia, and all of these things were shot down by the Singaporean government. It mightn't be news to all individuals, but it was news to all governments around the world. Harro5 21:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I mis-counting, or does the page say "6 Sister-projects" and happily display 8 clickable logos? If there is a crux, it might be worth clarifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fastifex (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where the page says "6 sister projects". – ABCD^e✉ 16:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The Dec. 2 lead article on acetic acid was so gripping and relevant to the times in which we live that I kept reading it over and over for the rest of the day. I never realized just how far-reaching and pervasive are the impacts of any acid, let alone mere acetic acid. This was truly an epiphany for me, intellectually. We need more of this sort of thing to counterbalance some of the base topics that have been seen on the homepage in the past.

Sca 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Pun intended on "base topics"? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

aaaahahah, doubt it --81.154.236.221 22:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In my experience, it seems rather difficult to write a featured article on technical topics. Their impact is tremendous, resulting in an article that has to include quite a lot of material before everything reasonable has been covered... --HappyCamper 04:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Coming from a medical standpoint, I appreciate how difficult it is to write high-quality, detailed articles that are also accessible to laypeople. It's not easy at all. It's nice to see a science topic featured on the Main Page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I once read about a professor who refused to teach any principle that he could not adequately explain to a first-year undergraduate class. The idea being that something isn't really science until you can pull that off. Kade 18:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that—nothing about science should be inherently inaccessible, although of course the more complicated one gets in any field the harder it gets to understand. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, the article of the day seems to have been altered. Radically. Thought I'd bring this to someone's attention.