This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
== Anti-Religious Dogma ==
Hm. Well, if you take one look at the talk topics involving religion/creationism/evolution, it's obvious that Wikipedia users have taken to openly assaulting believers in religious ideals, notably those calling for equal representation on the evolution/creation debate.
This has to stop. As much as I'd like to have such equality (as the modern, scientific society is plagued by intolerance and prejudice towards religion, I realize that it's not attainable without great strife (there's enough as it is).
However, I think that there should be serious consideration towards fighting against slander such as that presented in these talk topics. It's clear that not only will Wikipedia users refuse to accomadate these opinions (which is actually a very understandable point), they will then take pains to demean the deeply-held faith of the person who brought them up. This needs to be prevented. This qualifies as discrimination and it's plain cruelty, whether concealed thinly by sarcasm or thrown out in the open.
This HAS TO stop. why? Keep the articles any way you want, but stop this flagrant personal assault on other users and readers.
(Carbon-12, as it has been observed thousands of times in labs, appears to decay at a steady rate. To call evolution into question by saying that it might not (even though overwhelming evidence suggests it does) is illogical. The argument is also unnecessary, as this isn't a debate over evolution as a fact, but over creationism vs. evolution in comparison. Evolution is a credible, if not definite, hypothesis. Creationism is hogwash, repeatedly refuted in scientific tests. )
As noted in the article Intelligent Design there is “some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science).” If real science only partially understands a subject such as the origins of life shouldn’t comments about that subject acknowledge that? Just as the article goes on to note “empirical scientists would simply say ‘we don't know’ ... and list what is known.” Also, when someone makes all-encompassing statements (*all* or *none*) about a subject that is partially understood watch out for statements of religious faith. When scientists who dare to challenge the current dogma are implied to be unworthy of respect watch out for religious intolerance. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”-- Chandra Wickramasinghe. Evolutionary dogma is not anti-religious it is simply another leap of faith. Like Buddhism it does not require belief in a personal god but it smacks of religious extremism. Let’s stick to what science has actually proven and admit what we have yet to learn. -- 200.106.67.204 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Evolution is a theory. A set of facts may be presented to support a particular assumption/theory, but that does not necessarily move the theory to fact, especially if the item in question can not be replicated. This is he root of your biasness.
I don't believe in god but I'm not against religion either. I think religion has its value when it is used to promote goodness, but not when people become too fanatical about it. Now that genetic engineering is becoming a reality, I wonder when religion will be replaced by something else. As in evolution, everything evolves over time in order to survive and be relevant, I think the same thing may happen to religion too. When the tools become available to create or to customize new life or to extend life, what sort of morals will we have? Will religion become obsolete and get in the way of humankind's desires? Or will we become even more religious? [lackofsignature]
Greet to everyone, and sorry form my bare English. I read the debate over, and i would express my humble opinion. I think that the scientific evidence must prevail over religious or other thoughts, but we also must report the other points of wiev (with proper explanations). In an encyclopedia we should report any true information, but also the false information if they have a storically or social importance (e.g an urban legend or a famous fake). But we must define that type of information as without foundation. Olpus
Evolution and Judeo-Christian beliefs cannot fit together. One must cut out chunks of scripture and redefine the nature of God and sin to effectively match the two. With that, one must also stop believing in the inerrancy of scripture and subject it to the pressures of cultural change. So in the end, one only has but evolution and remnants of a few miraculous stories. Christians believe because of faith, not science. It is foolish to try to undermine their beliefs with science. Historically, persecution and discrimination have only served to make Christians stronger. Also historically speaking, Judeo-Christian beliefs always out-live the pressures of secularism and paganism. Hence the phrase coined by Nero himself, "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat." And finally, in looking at the nature of religion, I quote C.S. Lewis from The Weight of Glory, "No Christian and, indeed, no historian could accept the epigram which defines religion as 'what a man does with his solitude.'" So, good luck undermining over 6 thousand years of recorded history with a hundred or so years of science. Marxism is your only hope. Credo
How about a "most viewed" box on the Main Page?
I should mention before this gets too much commentary that this idea is not now (and probably will never be) technically feasable. The monthy statistics compilation was discontinued because it is so server intensive that it was causing a noticble lag when it was running (and this was back in October when our traffic was half or a third of what it is now). →Raul654 08:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I also feel compelled to clarify that a list of most-viewed pages would most likely be full of pages like penis and masturbation. Even if we were to introduce a feature like this, it would be more significant showing "bullet performers" whereby an article suddenly gets a lot more page views. - Mark 08:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thamks a lot for the feedback guys. I posted this same question a few months ago and never got a response. And you certainly made valid points.
I think it should be changed to something like "The Free Reference Library". Wikipedia has sections that parallel pretty much all the reference books on my shelves except the atlases. By the end of the decade it is likely to have a billion words or more, and the connection to the idea of a mere encyclopedia will be remote. It is much more than that. Osomec 14:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Osomec - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a general knowledge base, a periodical, a geneiological listing, a travel guide, or a compendium of original research. You would expect to find any and all of these in a library, and Wikipedia should not contain any of it. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a library. →Raul654 20:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not free. Not anywhere near being free. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
June 2, 455 anniversary date is contradictory on today's main page, as the article vandalism states the term vandalism "refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455."
CobaltBlueTony 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
...that the Terik language of Kenya is classified as endangered by UNESCO because the Terik people have increasingly become assimilated to the Nandi people in recent decades?
I've seen much more important issues get knocked back for inclusion in ITN, so what makes this event "relevant/important international news?" - 203.132.90.8
Some c**t has put it back. How is this remotely relevant to anything? And what is an "eighth-grader"?
So i guessed, but what does that mean? And why is this making the international headlines (on wikipedia only, remember)
The first thing I read when I visit Wikipedia is the lead paragraph of the featured article. Sometimes, although the article itself is fine, the lead paragraph is clumsily-written; most often, it starts up with a long, confusing sentence which tries to encapsulate the subject's attributes as quickly as possible. I usually find that the article has been speedily changed by other, quicker Wikipedia editors. However, the text on the main page remains as it was, a blot.
The example right now is Steve Dalkowski, a baseball bowler. The opening paragraph on the front page reads "Steve Dalkowski is a former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher, sometimes called the fastest pitcher in baseball history – earning him the nickname "White Lightning"". This is a clumsy sentence. "A former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher" is unwieldy, and the second half of the phrase doesn't match the fact of him earning his nickname with an action he performed.
Is it a cache issue, does it take time to filter through - presumably to stop vandalism appearing on the main page - or do administrators have to manually update the text, assuming they can? Could people double-check the opening paragraphs of things they feature? Apart from this issue, please carry on, you're doing a good job - and you, yes you, you're beautiful.- Ashley Pomeroy 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is often a victim of the "too many cooks" phenomenon. Everyone wants to get their favourite fact into the opening paragraph, or preferably the opening sentence, resulting in the mess you see at the top of so many articles. If you have a good idea how to improve matters, we'd love to hear your suggestion. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
The statement concerning Brazilian Clave' is not correct. In the composition of Samba enredo (carnival Samba) The direction of the Brazilian Clave' is the key to what is played by the rest of the bataria and on the melody of the song. Just like in Afro-Cuban music the Brazilian clave must be respected. Whoever wrote this article has not been to Brasil and is guessing at their assertion. In Brasil they don't refer the this pattern as the Clave' I've often heard it referred to as the Sincopia. Thank you Kurt Rasmussen
Hum, excuseme, but is the spelling bee contest important enough for the news on the main page?
May someone remove that story? :-) (left by User:Equinoxe
Look at the edit summary: [2]. This admin openly admits he was trolling. Unfortunately when someone responsible cleared up his little joke someone else added it back in again. ( 81.153.154.71)
The Serbeninca Massacre Photo has a mouseover the EU Flag.
Unless somebody is making a dig about the pre-NATO European peacekeeping effort in the Balkans, I'm pretty sure the image of thousands of corpses should not be labeled "Flag of the European Union".
Its link should be moved to the third from the second group of "Wikipedia in other languages". Adam78 00:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somehow the Main Page is sometimes late as compared to the Recent changes. I also noticed the difference last night when I wrote this suggestion. But now the Main Page seems to be up to date, too. Adam78 10:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it's actually 10042 now. -- 194.143.247.99 07:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)==Hungarian wiki==
now 10000 articles
Srebrenica Massacre has been transferred to Srebrenica massacre. In the news should be corrected. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It reads "It also contains work-arounds for to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."
which should read "It also contains work-arounds to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."
There's an un-needed for in there.
I don't understand why this is a featured article.
To be quite blunt, it's a bit like a cold call.
Feature articles for the Main Page are proposed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. If you think articles about commercial products are inappropriate for the Main Page, you need to make your case there. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with these observations advertising Windows XP hardly seems appropriate.
Steven Zenith 23:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The link to kernel in the featured article box needs to be piped. it currently goes to a disambig page. Bonus Onus 03:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
hey i know this is for wikipedia but if anyone is online with admin priveliges for Wikibooks someone has put up obscene pics all over the front page.
At the bottom of the Main Page is the template {{ newpagelinksmain}}, which expands to
All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 | Orphans: 5 | Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Does the utility of this section really justify its inclusion on the Main Page? I can't see the casual visitor being interested in any of these links. So I propose that we cut this template and make the Main Page a little shorter and tidier. Gdr 11:18, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
That explains the "New encyclopedia articles" links. What about the other links? Gdr 16:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
The same logic does not apply to orphaned articles. The point of putting links on the Main Page is so that the Google spider picks them up more quickly. I see why this applied to new pages. But I don't see why it applied to orphan pages. Yes, we want Google to pick them up. But for that any old link will do. So why is it necessary for Google to pick up orphaned articles more often, or sooner than, ordinary articles? Gdr 17:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Wouldn't Google find them if they were linked from some other page? Gdr 18:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Let me explain this as simply as I can. We want orphaned pages to be spidered by Google. So a set of special reports are made linking to them, and then these reports are linked from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. My point is that there is no need for the reports to be linked from the Main Page. As long as the reports are linked from somewhere (accessible via some chain of links from the Main Page) then Google will find them. So why does that somewhere have to be the Main Page? Gdr 19:56, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
So why do we want Google to spider the orphaned articles more often than other articles? What makes the orphaned articles so deserving? Gdr 20:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Explain. Gdr 21:44, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Yes, I have that feeling too. I understand all your points and have never doubted them. I am merely asking, why do the links to the lists of orphaned pages have to be on the Main Page? Why not on some other page? (I keep asking this question and you keep answering different ones! How can I make myself clear?) Gdr 22:29, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
[4] Gdr 07:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
But you never answered my question! What did you expect? All you had to say was "PageRank" and I would have understood. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Aha! A comprehensible answer at last. Thank you. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
I miss links to all the international Wikipedias on the Mainpage. All over the world it is common use to give a hint to Wikipedias worldwide in a list below toolbox. On the english site it's missing. What's the reason? Greetings and best wishes Paul 17:49, Jun 5, 2005 (CET)
Someone please fix the link (well, it's not broken, but direct links rather than redirects are definitely preferred). This is our front page.
The front page, as it is, seems to accept the Pentagon's contention ("confirms") that Qur'ans were "accidentally" mistreated fairly uncritically. Saying that it "claims" such might be better. When was the last time you accidentally urinated on a piece of scripture? — Vivacissamamente 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the first ship to have sunk in the Great Lakes of Michigan? And the captians name?
Main page (wikipedia.org) has a rather disturbing photo if you scroll down. Got quite a nasty shock when I saw it, it should be protected from future such vandalism, and that should be corrected ASAP, as it gives a bad image of the site
In an article about Wikipedia:Gaza Strip several editors object having any links to external photos. The photos in question http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza_surfers
Show visually the life in Gaza, both for the Palestinians and for the Israeli settlers who are facing an evacuation as part of Israel pullout plan from Gaza.
So the question is:
Should links to external photo sites be allowed from Wikipedia or the only use of photos on Wikipedia should be for photos that are loaded into Wikipedia. Maybe all external links should be disallowed? Not just photos .
What do you think ?
Dear admins! I tried accessing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but I was redirected to the Naruto characters article. Is it me or is it vandalism? KNewman 12:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Who came up with the "culture, geography, mathematics, etc" link nonsense at the top? How about an actual directory like Yahoo! ? The current links are probably one user's preferred subcategories. If you like arbitrary, please provide a link to "denture cream" as well.
He won by 185-182 in the third round of the election, and he’s hardly an “opposition leader” (with my emphasis on leader). -- Ralesk 00:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CELL LINE ORIGINATED IN THE FORM OF HPV. BEYOND THE FACT OR DR. GREYS RESEARCH. QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HPV FOUND IN 2000 YEAR OLD MUMMIES, AND THEN LETS GO BACK FROM THERE,THE STIGMA THAT FOLLOWS , AS SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, WITHOOUT MENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF DES TO MOTHER'S , AND GRANDMOTHER'S, WHICH INDUCED PERMANENT DNA CHANGES IN THOSE BORN TO THEM, IN MY OPINION THE REPRUCUSSION'S ECHO OF NEGLIGENT GENOCIDE, THERE IS NO ARGUEMNET TO THE FACT OF CERTAIN STRAINS OF HPV , AND THE ASSOCIATION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY, BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THE STRAINS, THAT AE NOT CONTRACTED IN SUCH WAYS, YOUR INPUT IS WELCOMED.
I think its something to do with Human Papilloma Virus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. It has few symptoms, but can eventually lead to cell mutation, and therefore cancer, especially of the cervix. Who ever it is might be talking about the human race supposedly being infected 2000 years ago plus and therefore being genetically altered, perhaps sparking off cancer in the human race??? Well, thats all I can offer. Dwilke
THIS SITE IS AMAZING... best website i have come across in a very long time thank u wikipedia... (i sound like an ad for wikipedia)
That's the problem with Wikipedia...people suffering from Forum Moderator Syndrome.
NE1 have more info on ghost-writing investigation @ NYT? Maureen Dowd involved somehow.
UPDATE: Carl Hulse identified as NYT bureau reporter as ghost-writer for several of MD's columns.
NE1 else know of this?
I saw an article in the new featured list a couple of days ago about a medieval Italian who converted to Islam and travelled widely. It showed a picture of a French translation of one of his books. I tried to go back to it yesterday searching on the name nicolò da conti. I completely failed to find anything. Did I spell the name wrong? Am I using the search facility incorrectly? Or am I just going crazy and imagining articles that don't exist?
Only the first two links work in the Encyclopedia orphans section at the foot of the page giving 1000 orphans up to Ca.
I think that there's a goof in grammar in the DYK section: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant?
It should be: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing in the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant? Dralwik 21:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the "pregnant" link should be pregnancy.
In the anniversaries section, the 2004 event is about a long-distance runner, with "long-distance" linking to "Athletics long distances", which redirects to Long-distance track event. Dralwik 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?
Retrieved from " http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"
Can we get rid of some of this B.S. on this page? Like the above entry and the CELL LINES one? Perhaps we ought also to delete most of the text on the ones asking for help and redirect them to the Reference Desk? Something to the effect of...
CELL LINES ---- "IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CELL LINE ORIGINATED[...]" Please direct your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk
Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, we'll just appoint you to determine what is B.S. and what is not.
I love censorship!
Personally, I like nonsense.
Furthermore, considering how much direction we do on THIS page to the Reference Desk, it might be a really good idea to put a link to the Wikipedia:Reference desk on the Front Page or perhaps in the sidebar. Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is this ruling party/opposition party nonsense. If this were the United States or Great Britain would anyone say opposition party instead of Democrats or Conservatives. Has anyone called New Labour the ruling party in place of its name in an encyclopedia?
Err, is Cherrapunji in India really the "wettest place on earth"? Is it even wetter than, say, the Atlantic Ocean? 'Cause that is what is suggested in the DYK section...
That's just beautiful, but IT IS NOT THE WETTEST PLACE ON EARTH! It set a world record for the most rain in a month. It set a world record for the most rain in a year (because of that month). But it is not "...the wettest place on earth."
Try, it is "the place with the record for the most amount of rain in one year/month." Accuracy, people. Please!
yourman, 03:56, 11 Jun 2005 (Korean Time)
In fact, you may call as wettest place (on land) since records have been kept for that region (Assam), cumulative rainfall is nearly four times, and occassionally 6 to 10times average rainfall for the subcontinent. Thus, annual rainfall between 160 to 400 inches makes it the wettest region on annual basis. Now, it may be not the wettest location on the Earth (including land mass), but it preserve the meaning of place (land mass) being wettest. It has approx. twice rainfall of Amazonian forests and Central African forest, owing to winter and monsoon rainfalls.
Eduardo Rodriguez is the new president of Bolivia, the #1 story of google news. Where is his wiki article? Sam Spade 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it ok for people to be wed at a young age?
You aren't allowed to write articles about the Church of Reality because they will be removed. It appears that the dominionists dominate this site. The claim on the main page that this is an open site for information isn't true when it comes to reality based religion. -- Marcperkel 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
how can one distinguish between what belongs to encyclopedic knowledge and what not? I'd like to have that link here - any link - we do not know, whether it will be important some day ... I'm new here, hope that's ok. gerda_badischl
The Macedonian Wikipedia currently has 1280 articles and should be introduced to the 1000+ section. Thanks! -- Ivica83 21:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Should the reference be the "then colony" or "former colony"? Cuz HK was a colony back then, not anymore :-) -- Madchester 02:17, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Quite breaking news needs to be added to the news section:
"The world's richest nations, the G8 nations, have agreed on a plan for debt relief for poor African countries."
Please insert images in the article if you have them because I don't know how to insert them.
Kind of images are a Japanese rock singer Kyosuke Himuro, a soul music singer Ken Hirai, a famous economist Kazuhide Uekusa.
If their images are vivid and clear, it's better. (Sorry, I can't write English well because I'm Japanese) 61.26.91.43 13:14 Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Wikipedia. This is one of the best things to ever happen to me. An infinite amount of knowledge all integrated into one website. I love this thing! You need to know about something? Just type it in. You need to know about something relating to it just click on one of the links in it's explanation. I could go on for hours on this thing just learning!! I love it! Thanks alot!
Is it just me or has there been a lot of American Civil War stuff on the "on this day" bit of the site over the last few weeks? This is a bit POV in favour of the US. -- Batmanand 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made several comments here in the past about changes I recommend to the front page. Until the protocols change (see my recommendation on my user page) the main page should IMHO change the banner proclaim to read:
The free-content Encyclopedia anyone can contribute to
instead of
The Encyclopedia anyone can edit
There also needs to be a clear public warning or clear directions on how to read or use the Encyclopedia - one that clearly states that articles can claim no authority. The main page should clearly state:
Contributions to Wikipedia are not authoritative and may represent the bias and ignorance of the author. The presence of a subject in Wikipedia may not present a balanced view of the field to which the subject pertains. The presence of little known historical or contemporary figures in Wikipedia does not signify that their contribution or their field has merit.
This can then say something constructive about the Wikipedia process and how to best read Wikipedia - but this should be balanced and not self-aggrandising.
Further, Wikipedian's must stop claiming either directly or by implication that the Wikipedia has the same authority as Brittanica or other professional encyclopedias - it does not, and it cannot have such authority because the process and protocols that provide that authority are absent. To make such statements is a violation of public trust in my view. It can and maybe should be prosecuted by public authorities. This may startle many of the fine contributors here, and I mean no offence, but I feel strongly that something must be done to address the issues and ensure the public is protected.
That Brittanica and others have liability disclaimers is not a defence.
Steven Zenith 03:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, my remarks were not intended to be threatening - only to observe a risk to the public - which may be considered significant. Your defensive opposition does not alter the case and is exactly the cause for concern :-) . The public trust is violated if there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public in ways that are harmful or potentially harmful. Various jurisdictions may consider they have cause - and in my view that cause may be legitimate. The claim protested for the general authority of Wikipedia is greater than at an individual web page. Individuals on the Internet can also see action from these public protectors for the same reasons, if it is willful. Ignorance is not a defence. Steven Zenith 09:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
In anycase, I am only asking that we be more upfront about what is already understood on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. My concern is for the public. Put the first lines of the disclaimer where they can be clearly seen - hiding them in the small print is irresponsible in my view. Steven Zenith 10:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
If any administrator/sysop can confirm that today is Shavuot, please add this Jewish holiday to the MainPage. It says so on Current events, but there is no mention on the Shavnot page. Thanks. -- 64.229.206.40 12:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pioneer 10 has not left the solar system, the first craft to do this will probably be Voyager 1. Pioneer 10 was the first craft to go beyond the orbit of Neptune (and Pluto). Some scientists content that this is the definition of leaving the solar system, but most agree that it will need to pass through the heliopause first. Zerbey 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
== Anti-Religious Dogma ==
Hm. Well, if you take one look at the talk topics involving religion/creationism/evolution, it's obvious that Wikipedia users have taken to openly assaulting believers in religious ideals, notably those calling for equal representation on the evolution/creation debate.
This has to stop. As much as I'd like to have such equality (as the modern, scientific society is plagued by intolerance and prejudice towards religion, I realize that it's not attainable without great strife (there's enough as it is).
However, I think that there should be serious consideration towards fighting against slander such as that presented in these talk topics. It's clear that not only will Wikipedia users refuse to accomadate these opinions (which is actually a very understandable point), they will then take pains to demean the deeply-held faith of the person who brought them up. This needs to be prevented. This qualifies as discrimination and it's plain cruelty, whether concealed thinly by sarcasm or thrown out in the open.
This HAS TO stop. why? Keep the articles any way you want, but stop this flagrant personal assault on other users and readers.
(Carbon-12, as it has been observed thousands of times in labs, appears to decay at a steady rate. To call evolution into question by saying that it might not (even though overwhelming evidence suggests it does) is illogical. The argument is also unnecessary, as this isn't a debate over evolution as a fact, but over creationism vs. evolution in comparison. Evolution is a credible, if not definite, hypothesis. Creationism is hogwash, repeatedly refuted in scientific tests. )
As noted in the article Intelligent Design there is “some complexity in nature that cannot yet be fully explained by the scientific method (for instance, abiogenesis, the generation of life from non-living matter, is only partially understood by science).” If real science only partially understands a subject such as the origins of life shouldn’t comments about that subject acknowledge that? Just as the article goes on to note “empirical scientists would simply say ‘we don't know’ ... and list what is known.” Also, when someone makes all-encompassing statements (*all* or *none*) about a subject that is partially understood watch out for statements of religious faith. When scientists who dare to challenge the current dogma are implied to be unworthy of respect watch out for religious intolerance. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution. It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.”-- Chandra Wickramasinghe. Evolutionary dogma is not anti-religious it is simply another leap of faith. Like Buddhism it does not require belief in a personal god but it smacks of religious extremism. Let’s stick to what science has actually proven and admit what we have yet to learn. -- 200.106.67.204 22:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Evolution is a theory. A set of facts may be presented to support a particular assumption/theory, but that does not necessarily move the theory to fact, especially if the item in question can not be replicated. This is he root of your biasness.
I don't believe in god but I'm not against religion either. I think religion has its value when it is used to promote goodness, but not when people become too fanatical about it. Now that genetic engineering is becoming a reality, I wonder when religion will be replaced by something else. As in evolution, everything evolves over time in order to survive and be relevant, I think the same thing may happen to religion too. When the tools become available to create or to customize new life or to extend life, what sort of morals will we have? Will religion become obsolete and get in the way of humankind's desires? Or will we become even more religious? [lackofsignature]
Greet to everyone, and sorry form my bare English. I read the debate over, and i would express my humble opinion. I think that the scientific evidence must prevail over religious or other thoughts, but we also must report the other points of wiev (with proper explanations). In an encyclopedia we should report any true information, but also the false information if they have a storically or social importance (e.g an urban legend or a famous fake). But we must define that type of information as without foundation. Olpus
Evolution and Judeo-Christian beliefs cannot fit together. One must cut out chunks of scripture and redefine the nature of God and sin to effectively match the two. With that, one must also stop believing in the inerrancy of scripture and subject it to the pressures of cultural change. So in the end, one only has but evolution and remnants of a few miraculous stories. Christians believe because of faith, not science. It is foolish to try to undermine their beliefs with science. Historically, persecution and discrimination have only served to make Christians stronger. Also historically speaking, Judeo-Christian beliefs always out-live the pressures of secularism and paganism. Hence the phrase coined by Nero himself, "Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat." And finally, in looking at the nature of religion, I quote C.S. Lewis from The Weight of Glory, "No Christian and, indeed, no historian could accept the epigram which defines religion as 'what a man does with his solitude.'" So, good luck undermining over 6 thousand years of recorded history with a hundred or so years of science. Marxism is your only hope. Credo
How about a "most viewed" box on the Main Page?
I should mention before this gets too much commentary that this idea is not now (and probably will never be) technically feasable. The monthy statistics compilation was discontinued because it is so server intensive that it was causing a noticble lag when it was running (and this was back in October when our traffic was half or a third of what it is now). →Raul654 08:03, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I also feel compelled to clarify that a list of most-viewed pages would most likely be full of pages like penis and masturbation. Even if we were to introduce a feature like this, it would be more significant showing "bullet performers" whereby an article suddenly gets a lot more page views. - Mark 08:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thamks a lot for the feedback guys. I posted this same question a few months ago and never got a response. And you certainly made valid points.
I think it should be changed to something like "The Free Reference Library". Wikipedia has sections that parallel pretty much all the reference books on my shelves except the atlases. By the end of the decade it is likely to have a billion words or more, and the connection to the idea of a mere encyclopedia will be remote. It is much more than that. Osomec 14:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Osomec - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a general knowledge base, a periodical, a geneiological listing, a travel guide, or a compendium of original research. You would expect to find any and all of these in a library, and Wikipedia should not contain any of it. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a library. →Raul654 20:53, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not free. Not anywhere near being free. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
June 2, 455 anniversary date is contradictory on today's main page, as the article vandalism states the term vandalism "refers to the Germanic Vandals, who since the 17th century were incorrectly thought to have ruthlessly sacked the city of Rome in 455."
CobaltBlueTony 21:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
...that the Terik language of Kenya is classified as endangered by UNESCO because the Terik people have increasingly become assimilated to the Nandi people in recent decades?
I've seen much more important issues get knocked back for inclusion in ITN, so what makes this event "relevant/important international news?" - 203.132.90.8
Some c**t has put it back. How is this remotely relevant to anything? And what is an "eighth-grader"?
So i guessed, but what does that mean? And why is this making the international headlines (on wikipedia only, remember)
The first thing I read when I visit Wikipedia is the lead paragraph of the featured article. Sometimes, although the article itself is fine, the lead paragraph is clumsily-written; most often, it starts up with a long, confusing sentence which tries to encapsulate the subject's attributes as quickly as possible. I usually find that the article has been speedily changed by other, quicker Wikipedia editors. However, the text on the main page remains as it was, a blot.
The example right now is Steve Dalkowski, a baseball bowler. The opening paragraph on the front page reads "Steve Dalkowski is a former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher, sometimes called the fastest pitcher in baseball history – earning him the nickname "White Lightning"". This is a clumsy sentence. "A former minor league left-handed baseball pitcher" is unwieldy, and the second half of the phrase doesn't match the fact of him earning his nickname with an action he performed.
Is it a cache issue, does it take time to filter through - presumably to stop vandalism appearing on the main page - or do administrators have to manually update the text, assuming they can? Could people double-check the opening paragraphs of things they feature? Apart from this issue, please carry on, you're doing a good job - and you, yes you, you're beautiful.- Ashley Pomeroy 16:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The opening paragraph is often a victim of the "too many cooks" phenomenon. Everyone wants to get their favourite fact into the opening paragraph, or preferably the opening sentence, resulting in the mess you see at the top of so many articles. If you have a good idea how to improve matters, we'd love to hear your suggestion. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
The statement concerning Brazilian Clave' is not correct. In the composition of Samba enredo (carnival Samba) The direction of the Brazilian Clave' is the key to what is played by the rest of the bataria and on the melody of the song. Just like in Afro-Cuban music the Brazilian clave must be respected. Whoever wrote this article has not been to Brasil and is guessing at their assertion. In Brasil they don't refer the this pattern as the Clave' I've often heard it referred to as the Sincopia. Thank you Kurt Rasmussen
Hum, excuseme, but is the spelling bee contest important enough for the news on the main page?
May someone remove that story? :-) (left by User:Equinoxe
Look at the edit summary: [2]. This admin openly admits he was trolling. Unfortunately when someone responsible cleared up his little joke someone else added it back in again. ( 81.153.154.71)
The Serbeninca Massacre Photo has a mouseover the EU Flag.
Unless somebody is making a dig about the pre-NATO European peacekeeping effort in the Balkans, I'm pretty sure the image of thousands of corpses should not be labeled "Flag of the European Union".
Its link should be moved to the third from the second group of "Wikipedia in other languages". Adam78 00:29, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Somehow the Main Page is sometimes late as compared to the Recent changes. I also noticed the difference last night when I wrote this suggestion. But now the Main Page seems to be up to date, too. Adam78 10:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, it's actually 10042 now. -- 194.143.247.99 07:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)==Hungarian wiki==
now 10000 articles
Srebrenica Massacre has been transferred to Srebrenica massacre. In the news should be corrected. -- Eleassar777 my talk 21:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It reads "It also contains work-arounds for to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."
which should read "It also contains work-arounds to avoid the "DLL hell" that plagued older consumer versions of Windows, which stemmed from inefficient software management."
There's an un-needed for in there.
I don't understand why this is a featured article.
To be quite blunt, it's a bit like a cold call.
Feature articles for the Main Page are proposed and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. If you think articles about commercial products are inappropriate for the Main Page, you need to make your case there. Gdr 11:13, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with these observations advertising Windows XP hardly seems appropriate.
Steven Zenith 23:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
The link to kernel in the featured article box needs to be piped. it currently goes to a disambig page. Bonus Onus 03:24, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
hey i know this is for wikipedia but if anyone is online with admin priveliges for Wikibooks someone has put up obscene pics all over the front page.
At the bottom of the Main Page is the template {{ newpagelinksmain}}, which expands to
All New articles: 5 10 15 20 25 30 | Orphans: 5 | Categories: 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Does the utility of this section really justify its inclusion on the Main Page? I can't see the casual visitor being interested in any of these links. So I propose that we cut this template and make the Main Page a little shorter and tidier. Gdr 11:18, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
That explains the "New encyclopedia articles" links. What about the other links? Gdr 16:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
The same logic does not apply to orphaned articles. The point of putting links on the Main Page is so that the Google spider picks them up more quickly. I see why this applied to new pages. But I don't see why it applied to orphan pages. Yes, we want Google to pick them up. But for that any old link will do. So why is it necessary for Google to pick up orphaned articles more often, or sooner than, ordinary articles? Gdr 17:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Wouldn't Google find them if they were linked from some other page? Gdr 18:32, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Let me explain this as simply as I can. We want orphaned pages to be spidered by Google. So a set of special reports are made linking to them, and then these reports are linked from elsewhere in the encyclopedia. My point is that there is no need for the reports to be linked from the Main Page. As long as the reports are linked from somewhere (accessible via some chain of links from the Main Page) then Google will find them. So why does that somewhere have to be the Main Page? Gdr 19:56, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
So why do we want Google to spider the orphaned articles more often than other articles? What makes the orphaned articles so deserving? Gdr 20:25, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Explain. Gdr 21:44, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
Yes, I have that feeling too. I understand all your points and have never doubted them. I am merely asking, why do the links to the lists of orphaned pages have to be on the Main Page? Why not on some other page? (I keep asking this question and you keep answering different ones! How can I make myself clear?) Gdr 22:29, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
[4] Gdr 07:51, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
But you never answered my question! What did you expect? All you had to say was "PageRank" and I would have understood. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
Aha! A comprehensible answer at last. Thank you. Gdr 22:46, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
I miss links to all the international Wikipedias on the Mainpage. All over the world it is common use to give a hint to Wikipedias worldwide in a list below toolbox. On the english site it's missing. What's the reason? Greetings and best wishes Paul 17:49, Jun 5, 2005 (CET)
Someone please fix the link (well, it's not broken, but direct links rather than redirects are definitely preferred). This is our front page.
The front page, as it is, seems to accept the Pentagon's contention ("confirms") that Qur'ans were "accidentally" mistreated fairly uncritically. Saying that it "claims" such might be better. When was the last time you accidentally urinated on a piece of scripture? — Vivacissamamente 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone know the name of the first ship to have sunk in the Great Lakes of Michigan? And the captians name?
Main page (wikipedia.org) has a rather disturbing photo if you scroll down. Got quite a nasty shock when I saw it, it should be protected from future such vandalism, and that should be corrected ASAP, as it gives a bad image of the site
In an article about Wikipedia:Gaza Strip several editors object having any links to external photos. The photos in question http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza http://www.pbase.com/yalop/mawassi http://www.pbase.com/yalop/gaza_surfers
Show visually the life in Gaza, both for the Palestinians and for the Israeli settlers who are facing an evacuation as part of Israel pullout plan from Gaza.
So the question is:
Should links to external photo sites be allowed from Wikipedia or the only use of photos on Wikipedia should be for photos that are loaded into Wikipedia. Maybe all external links should be disallowed? Not just photos .
What do you think ?
Dear admins! I tried accessing the Wikipedia Sandbox, but I was redirected to the Naruto characters article. Is it me or is it vandalism? KNewman 12:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Who came up with the "culture, geography, mathematics, etc" link nonsense at the top? How about an actual directory like Yahoo! ? The current links are probably one user's preferred subcategories. If you like arbitrary, please provide a link to "denture cream" as well.
He won by 185-182 in the third round of the election, and he’s hardly an “opposition leader” (with my emphasis on leader). -- Ralesk 00:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CELL LINE ORIGINATED IN THE FORM OF HPV. BEYOND THE FACT OR DR. GREYS RESEARCH. QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HPV FOUND IN 2000 YEAR OLD MUMMIES, AND THEN LETS GO BACK FROM THERE,THE STIGMA THAT FOLLOWS , AS SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED, WITHOOUT MENTION OF THE INTRODUCTION OF DES TO MOTHER'S , AND GRANDMOTHER'S, WHICH INDUCED PERMANENT DNA CHANGES IN THOSE BORN TO THEM, IN MY OPINION THE REPRUCUSSION'S ECHO OF NEGLIGENT GENOCIDE, THERE IS NO ARGUEMNET TO THE FACT OF CERTAIN STRAINS OF HPV , AND THE ASSOCIATION OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY, BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THE STRAINS, THAT AE NOT CONTRACTED IN SUCH WAYS, YOUR INPUT IS WELCOMED.
I think its something to do with Human Papilloma Virus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. It has few symptoms, but can eventually lead to cell mutation, and therefore cancer, especially of the cervix. Who ever it is might be talking about the human race supposedly being infected 2000 years ago plus and therefore being genetically altered, perhaps sparking off cancer in the human race??? Well, thats all I can offer. Dwilke
THIS SITE IS AMAZING... best website i have come across in a very long time thank u wikipedia... (i sound like an ad for wikipedia)
That's the problem with Wikipedia...people suffering from Forum Moderator Syndrome.
NE1 have more info on ghost-writing investigation @ NYT? Maureen Dowd involved somehow.
UPDATE: Carl Hulse identified as NYT bureau reporter as ghost-writer for several of MD's columns.
NE1 else know of this?
I saw an article in the new featured list a couple of days ago about a medieval Italian who converted to Islam and travelled widely. It showed a picture of a French translation of one of his books. I tried to go back to it yesterday searching on the name nicolò da conti. I completely failed to find anything. Did I spell the name wrong? Am I using the search facility incorrectly? Or am I just going crazy and imagining articles that don't exist?
Only the first two links work in the Encyclopedia orphans section at the foot of the page giving 1000 orphans up to Ca.
I think that there's a goof in grammar in the DYK section: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant?
It should be: DYK that 1980s horror movie actress Ellie Cornell nearly broke out of her typecasting by appearing in the 1992 film A League of Their Own, but had to drop out because she became pregnant? Dralwik 21:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And the "pregnant" link should be pregnancy.
In the anniversaries section, the 2004 event is about a long-distance runner, with "long-distance" linking to "Athletics long distances", which redirects to Long-distance track event. Dralwik 21:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rumors of investigation at New York Times regarding Carl Hulse of the DC bureau ghost-writing political columns for Maureen Dowd. Haven't seen documentation yet. Anyone know the inside information?
Retrieved from " http://journalism.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Current_events"
Can we get rid of some of this B.S. on this page? Like the above entry and the CELL LINES one? Perhaps we ought also to delete most of the text on the ones asking for help and redirect them to the Reference Desk? Something to the effect of...
CELL LINES ---- "IT WOULD BE INTERESTING, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CELL LINE ORIGINATED[...]" Please direct your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk
Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, we'll just appoint you to determine what is B.S. and what is not.
I love censorship!
Personally, I like nonsense.
Furthermore, considering how much direction we do on THIS page to the Reference Desk, it might be a really good idea to put a link to the Wikipedia:Reference desk on the Front Page or perhaps in the sidebar. Cigarette 13:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What is this ruling party/opposition party nonsense. If this were the United States or Great Britain would anyone say opposition party instead of Democrats or Conservatives. Has anyone called New Labour the ruling party in place of its name in an encyclopedia?
Err, is Cherrapunji in India really the "wettest place on earth"? Is it even wetter than, say, the Atlantic Ocean? 'Cause that is what is suggested in the DYK section...
That's just beautiful, but IT IS NOT THE WETTEST PLACE ON EARTH! It set a world record for the most rain in a month. It set a world record for the most rain in a year (because of that month). But it is not "...the wettest place on earth."
Try, it is "the place with the record for the most amount of rain in one year/month." Accuracy, people. Please!
yourman, 03:56, 11 Jun 2005 (Korean Time)
In fact, you may call as wettest place (on land) since records have been kept for that region (Assam), cumulative rainfall is nearly four times, and occassionally 6 to 10times average rainfall for the subcontinent. Thus, annual rainfall between 160 to 400 inches makes it the wettest region on annual basis. Now, it may be not the wettest location on the Earth (including land mass), but it preserve the meaning of place (land mass) being wettest. It has approx. twice rainfall of Amazonian forests and Central African forest, owing to winter and monsoon rainfalls.
Eduardo Rodriguez is the new president of Bolivia, the #1 story of google news. Where is his wiki article? Sam Spade 07:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it ok for people to be wed at a young age?
You aren't allowed to write articles about the Church of Reality because they will be removed. It appears that the dominionists dominate this site. The claim on the main page that this is an open site for information isn't true when it comes to reality based religion. -- Marcperkel 18:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
how can one distinguish between what belongs to encyclopedic knowledge and what not? I'd like to have that link here - any link - we do not know, whether it will be important some day ... I'm new here, hope that's ok. gerda_badischl
The Macedonian Wikipedia currently has 1280 articles and should be introduced to the 1000+ section. Thanks! -- Ivica83 21:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Should the reference be the "then colony" or "former colony"? Cuz HK was a colony back then, not anymore :-) -- Madchester 02:17, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
Quite breaking news needs to be added to the news section:
"The world's richest nations, the G8 nations, have agreed on a plan for debt relief for poor African countries."
Please insert images in the article if you have them because I don't know how to insert them.
Kind of images are a Japanese rock singer Kyosuke Himuro, a soul music singer Ken Hirai, a famous economist Kazuhide Uekusa.
If their images are vivid and clear, it's better. (Sorry, I can't write English well because I'm Japanese) 61.26.91.43 13:14 Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Wikipedia. This is one of the best things to ever happen to me. An infinite amount of knowledge all integrated into one website. I love this thing! You need to know about something? Just type it in. You need to know about something relating to it just click on one of the links in it's explanation. I could go on for hours on this thing just learning!! I love it! Thanks alot!
Is it just me or has there been a lot of American Civil War stuff on the "on this day" bit of the site over the last few weeks? This is a bit POV in favour of the US. -- Batmanand 18:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made several comments here in the past about changes I recommend to the front page. Until the protocols change (see my recommendation on my user page) the main page should IMHO change the banner proclaim to read:
The free-content Encyclopedia anyone can contribute to
instead of
The Encyclopedia anyone can edit
There also needs to be a clear public warning or clear directions on how to read or use the Encyclopedia - one that clearly states that articles can claim no authority. The main page should clearly state:
Contributions to Wikipedia are not authoritative and may represent the bias and ignorance of the author. The presence of a subject in Wikipedia may not present a balanced view of the field to which the subject pertains. The presence of little known historical or contemporary figures in Wikipedia does not signify that their contribution or their field has merit.
This can then say something constructive about the Wikipedia process and how to best read Wikipedia - but this should be balanced and not self-aggrandising.
Further, Wikipedian's must stop claiming either directly or by implication that the Wikipedia has the same authority as Brittanica or other professional encyclopedias - it does not, and it cannot have such authority because the process and protocols that provide that authority are absent. To make such statements is a violation of public trust in my view. It can and maybe should be prosecuted by public authorities. This may startle many of the fine contributors here, and I mean no offence, but I feel strongly that something must be done to address the issues and ensure the public is protected.
That Brittanica and others have liability disclaimers is not a defence.
Steven Zenith 03:45, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, my remarks were not intended to be threatening - only to observe a risk to the public - which may be considered significant. Your defensive opposition does not alter the case and is exactly the cause for concern :-) . The public trust is violated if there is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public in ways that are harmful or potentially harmful. Various jurisdictions may consider they have cause - and in my view that cause may be legitimate. The claim protested for the general authority of Wikipedia is greater than at an individual web page. Individuals on the Internet can also see action from these public protectors for the same reasons, if it is willful. Ignorance is not a defence. Steven Zenith 09:44, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
In anycase, I am only asking that we be more upfront about what is already understood on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. My concern is for the public. Put the first lines of the disclaimer where they can be clearly seen - hiding them in the small print is irresponsible in my view. Steven Zenith 10:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
If any administrator/sysop can confirm that today is Shavuot, please add this Jewish holiday to the MainPage. It says so on Current events, but there is no mention on the Shavnot page. Thanks. -- 64.229.206.40 12:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Pioneer 10 has not left the solar system, the first craft to do this will probably be Voyager 1. Pioneer 10 was the first craft to go beyond the orbit of Neptune (and Pluto). Some scientists content that this is the definition of leaving the solar system, but most agree that it will need to pass through the heliopause first. Zerbey 15:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)