Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 17

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.

What's this 'ruling' nonsense. Parties don't 'rule' in a democracy. --84.67.26.101 01:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest better wording and post it at

WP:ERRORS. --PFHLai

06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not an error, and last time I talked about something on ITN on the Main Page talk page I got severely shouted at. --84.67.26.101 10:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

In Westminster systems at least (UK, Australia, etc) the term "ruling party" is used to refer to the party that has a house majority and therefore is "in government". --Monotonehell 11:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if this is important enough yet, but

The article has just been redirected, I think, due to "recentism". --theblueflamingo^Squawk 00:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A) You are looking for

WP:ITN/C, for candidate articles. B) Please be careful to mention Minnesota if this is posted. Until reading the article, I had assumed that the only I-35W was the 100+ mile division of I-35 that occurs in Texas. I hadn't realized there was a second split segment further north. Dragons flight

00:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that. I've never nominated a candidate. I'll be sure to mention Minnesota next time though. Thanks for telling me.--theblueflamingo^Squawk 00:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I created

I-35W Mississippi River Bridge. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak)

03:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why did the death of Ingmar Bergman not receive any attention whatsoever? If we can feature fairly localized bridge accidents, we could at least try to mention the death of one of the most famous film directors ever.

Peter ^Isotalo 04:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at

WP:ITN/Candidates#July 30. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

04:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The short answer is that there was no consensus that it met all of the

ITN Criteria. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

05:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does a highway bridge that collapsed killing 7 get onto the main page, but 2 bombings that killed 67 ([1]) not?

Because you haven't created an article about it yet. --Howard the Duck 10:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to sensationalize, but adding the facts that it happened during evening rush hour and that at least 4 people were killed (latest info I've read) might help to explain why this might be of international "interest". (To reply to the above question, bombings are unfortunately a lot more common than briges suddenly collapsing for no obvious reason. But that's not to say I believe it warrants Main Page placement.) - dcljr (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't need that info. This event was front page news on the BBC, in Australian news outlets I looked at, in Brazil (see the Portuguese interwiki on this article for references) and pretty much all around the world. Bridge collapses like this are very rare, and if the amount of international coverage of this isn't proof of "international interest", I don't know what is.

masterka

21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you're right and Wikipedia has to toe the line set by the actual news agencies, but as soon as I saw today's Main Page I thought, "Oh come on..." --84.65.21.21 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

U.S. vs USA

As the sentence is written, it is more common to say City, State USA and NOT City, State U.S. If we were discussing the something like the Sectary of State then it would be more common to say U.S. Secretary of State and not USA Secretary of State. Therefore, it should be written Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA (without the dots per MOS). Written with the other abbreviation is odd. —MJCdetroit 04:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree. USA is usually what's used after city, state, if the country abbreviation is needed. Jared (t)  04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I am going to switch it to USA. —MJCdetroit 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It is currently being argued on the Candidates page that "More than two countries is International": this seems an extraordinary definition to me (an international football match rarely has three teams in it :@) ) and does not seem to meet any useful purpose in this context. Is an item of importance in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, but nowhere else, really going to be given the same access to this column as one that is of importance in USA Canada and UK but not beyond these three? A brief look at the history of the column suggests not.
So are we to take "International" as meaning global? Is Wiki going to be brave enough to discount parochial interest, and the desire of Northern Hemisphere anglophones to see what most interests them given prominence, to only include those items that are reported with some prominence on a scale that can be described as international in the widest sense of the world? I would understand international news to mean that which is reported in the international news pages of "serious" newspapers in every nation (or at least every nation which has a press with reasonable degree of freedom as to what they report). I accept that confirmation of this would be an enormous undertaking, but maybe we should have some sort of a checklist of about 20 reliable news sources, either printed or internet based, which could be truly global in its scope (reflecting something of the breadth of economic, cultural, linguistic, political and religious variety), and establish an acceptance criteria of reports of some prominence in, for example, 85% of these sources. For many stories, this would not need to be checked (when the time comes for a new US or Russian President to be elected, for example, we can take it for granted that the items is global), but in the case of recent issues like UK floods and US sporting achievements, we would thereby have a criteria that gives an incontrovertible decision for or against. This also would ensure that this column is reflecting what is in the news, not being an alternative locus for reporting news events.

A criterion for inclusion must be something which can be called upon to close debates, not be the cause of them. Thus it it essential that it has an agreed definition, and I see no clear consensus on what is meant by international in these discussions. Kevin McE 12:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we use "international" instead of "global" is to let other news articles to be posted at the ITN. If we'd use global, there'd be very, very few articles eligible for adding. What is funny is among Britocentrists (LOL) is

are too parochial anyway, and won't concede the fact that there is a world outside. --Howard the Duck

01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you counting me among "these Britocentrists" (sic)? If so, I would ask you to retract immediately: I argued against the inclusion of the recent English floods, specifically because of its insignificance compared to the scale of flooding catastrophes on a global scale, and made no comment on the recent items that others have considered of US parochial interest. You have implicitly argued, through the hidden wikilinks, that Baseball (I assume this is the sport in question: those names mean nothing to me) is of global, not merely bi-, or tri-, lateral interest: am I to take it from this that you are in favour of a more global, rather than international in the narrowest sense of the word, relevance to the stories that make it on here? You seem to be arguing for globalism, while defending the vocabulary of bilateralism. (Although I would challenge your contention that players of a nationality participating amounts to that nation's participation, particularly in a team sport). As to your fear that we would be left with "very, very few articles eligible", I would ask you to read more carefully my proposed definition of international interest: I have emphasised this further in my reply to Monotonehell below. Kevin McE 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The British flood articles were good enough for ITN, IMHO. Anti-Britocentrism is not keeping each and every UK-related article off the main page, it's about keeping off the minor events such earthquakes less than 5 on the Richter scale, or the death of cattle on a relatively small cattle-producing country.

Ultimately, changing the criteria from international to anything else that require more nations to "care" or "cover" about will lessen significantly the suggestions that could be posted, and that's not a good thing. Also the definition of global would be much harder to define, as opposed to "international"'s relatively straight forward "2 or more nations". --Howard the Duck 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely that stories primarily of interest to only UK or US have far too great a chance of making it onto the ITN section: I think that defending the bilateral definition of international will maintain this situation, because common-tongue/expatriate/shared media issues mean that what is effectively local interest will be reported in both countries. I am intrigued that you suggest that having less stories of narrow interest would not be a good thing: why not? I have suggested a test for "globalism": please apply your attention to that rather than metaphorically throwing your hands in the air and saying that it is too hard to define. You give an example that would fit the description of "2 or more nations" (your putative international match between San Marino and Liechtenstein) as something that you would not want to see on here (and I acknowledge that a separate set of criteria are emerging for sporting events), and yet you want to defend this narrow interpretation of international. Let me put another hypothetical situation to you. Let us imagine that there is a duty on cuddly toys in Canada levied at point of manufacture or import. In response to this, some enterprising soul in Saskatchewan starts smuggling teddy bears over the border from North Dakota. Eventually, the ring is smashed and because piles of cuddly teddies and tearful children make good news footage, the incident gets considerable coverage in the two countries involved. The rest of the world ignores the situation entirely, but someone adds a paragraph at 49th parallel north and adds it to the candidates list. Would you be in favour of including that? Now imagine that a parallel situation exists in moving canvas from Tanzania to DR Congo. Economic relevance means it is reported in both those countries: lack of interesting video footage means that BBC/CNN etc ignore it. An editor updates Lake Tanganyika and puts it in the candidates section: would you be equally supportive of this? Do you think that both stories are equally likely to make it onto the front page of Wiki? Do you accept that a difference in access to ITN is evidence of systemic bias? Kevin McE 11:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

International does not only mean between two nations, the minimum is between two nations. There's a globe (er, world) of difference between those. As for the cuddly teddy bears, it meets the barest minimum, but as for ITN standards, there are other news articles may be of interest; and I don't think an encyclopedia article about teddy bear smuggling, much more canvas smuggling between two African countries, or a specific smuggling event in general; in fact the African example won't even be allowed to be on Wiki as OR. --Howard the Duck 12:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously no-one is excluding items that are of interest in more than 2 nations: I am simply arguing that the two nations is enough criterion is hopelessly vulnerable to bias. Can you explain why a smuggling issue between US and Canada would meet "bare minimum", but a parallel situation between two African countries would be OR? Kevin McE 13:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that I said the canvas smuggling won't even be an article. Now as per the 2 nations argument, this'll come into fore in sports events. The U.S. has a very big population; it's like half the E.U. With that said, let's say about 20% of Americans cared about the NBA Finals. That's 40 million people right there, now if a sizable number of people from other countries cared about the NBA Finals, even just one country, it will become "international", hence it becomes eligible for ITN. Whereas, the 2 football matches between Liechtenstein and San Marino may not be considered, since even if 100% of the 2 nations combined cared about that football match, and even if other nations cared (since when did the English care about a match between Liechtenstein and San Marino?), it'll be cookie crumbs as compared to the NBA Finals attention. That's the contention of the 2 countries minimum for the meaning of international is concerned, when it comes to sports events. Which can also be applied to other areas of interest. --Howard the Duck 13:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You are now trying to introduce another criterion by the back door: that of number of people interested. This exists nowhere in the policy. This is another drawback of your preferred international (2 or more nations) inclusion policy: a global inclusion (or significant global reporting, as I am suggesting) would overlook 2 small nations, but there is no formal recognition in policy of some nations carrying more weight than others. I did not say that either of the smuggling incidents would be articles, but that they would be additions, presumably well referenced, to the two articles that I mentioned. Given that sports events have their own additional criteria, I do not think they are useful examples. But let us clarify: are you saying that a bilateral story involving USA and Canada should be included, but a closely comparable one involving (for example) Benin and Togo should not? If so, what is your justification for this (with reference to established criteria)? Kevin McE 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Howard, your attitude about the comparative importance of countries is one of the two main reasons we have bias to counter in the first place. San Marino-Liechtenstein news, Togo-Benin news, and Tanzania-Congo-Kinshasa news is just as relevant as United States-Canada news. For the record, you might also be interested to know that Congo-Kinshasa's population is twice that of Canada. So why don't I see two Congolese articles for every Canadian one on ITN? Picaroon (t) 19:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd answer your points in reverse: ITN is an encyclopedia, we're not tasked to report each and every news event. I don't think we have a season article of either of the Togolese or Benin league, nor could the African Champions League be added (it's not the top competition in soccer).

Second, we could use African examples, so lets use an Asian example: what if the teddy bear smugglers were between Bhutan and Brunei (just ignore their geographic distance)? Would it be on ITN? How about a Tongan serial killer in Pitcairn Island? Frankly, you should point your frustrations to Wikinews, Wikipedia isn't the place to report each, and every news event. ITN only reports what the other news outlets are reporting, ITN doesn't report on its own. If no one bothers to create an article on the recent flooding on the Philippines then it won't be on ITN. --Howard the Duck 03:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that you are understanding my point at all. Despite the fact that I specifically excluded sporting examples, you seem to be reading a sporting context into the country combinations that I throw up as examples. I am not saying that I think that an incident that only is reported in San Marino & Liechtenstein, or Tonga & Pitcairn, or Togo & Benin, or Bhutan & Brunei, or DR Congo & Tanzania should be included: I am saying that they are not global stories, but neither are stories that are reported only in US & Canada, or UK & Ireland, or Australia & NZ: I would prefer not to see any story of such narrow interest only reported. But, the additional point that I am making is that if you allow a narrow interpretation of international, as you are defending, then stories that are of interest in any two countries in the world should appear on ITN as easily as those that involve large western English-speaking countries, and plainly they do not. Population of the countries involved is not listed as a criterion (and if it were, we would be dominated by stories of India and China, not USA and UK), therefore this seems to me evidence that the stipulation "international" acts to reinforce systemic bias. Kevin McE 09:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We're at the English Wikipedia, so we should take English language websites as the primary references for our articles. I'm not saying non-English refs are bad, but if it is non-English, then how can you understand and verify what the article and the references says the same?

Also, the 2 nations definition is a minimum, not everything that defines that should be at the ITN. In fact, the 2-nations definition is used primarily on sporting events, not ordinary news stories since these news stories won't even have an article, so there's no use worrying that they'll be on the ITN.

As for India and China, I believe India has a large-English speaking country, hence many people would be able to write articles about news events there, in fact several Indian-related FAs had been featured on the Main Page. As for China, I don't know. And do you honestly imagine that every news item that happens in Tonga concerning Pictairn should be at the ITN? In fact, the reality is these large Western countries controls international events, on most news on third world countries either about elections, coups or natural disasters. In fact, news about natural disasters among 3rd world nations would make it easier to the ITN since other countries (international) are willing to lend a helping hand to those affected (assuming the references are intact); natural disasters in developed countries aren't international unless it happens in the European winter. However, again, we shouldn't be worrying about CSB, what we should worry about is a lack of articles and contributors and suitable references in which articles could be written. --Howard the Duck 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You have clearly not understood a word I have said. No, I do not think that a story only of interest in Tonga and the Pitcairns should feature, and I said so explicitly in my last post here. What I am saying is that with a narrow interpretation of "international", there is nothing in the criteria to say that such a story should not feature. If you wish to enter debate with somebody, please read their comments and respond to what they are proposing, not what they are dismissing. Kevin McE 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

But why should an encyclopedia have an article about a random news story? There shouldn't be a problem in this, since clearly there won't be an article about a teddy bear smuggling ring, or a Liechtenstein-San Marino football match. --Howard the Duck 16:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, "International" is defined by dictionaries as "...of or relating to two or more countries...". But to the crux of your concern. The reason behind the International criterion is to move away from having many items that relate solely to places like the USA and UK. Not having such a criterion would lead to more effects of systemic bias. Changing the criterion to "Global" would leave us with very few items, as almost no items could be considered truly of Global interest. ("Asteroid will hit Earth in 2 days, expected to wipe out all life" might make it in ;) )

There is a clear consensus as to what constitutes International importance or interest. Although some candidates sit across a line which in some people's minds violates the spirit of the criterion. Out of interest, all of these that I can remember have been sports related (groan). For example, the NBA is clearly a US concern, but it contains one Canadian team. It has also be argued that the NBA is the top level of International competition, as many overseas players travel to where the money is. For this reason there is a further limit placed upon sports results; that is not only must it be an International competition, it must also be only the final, and only of the ultimate level of competition. --Monotonehell 11:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I cannot understand your reply at all. You quote a definition of international which is at odds with the definition that you use (and I quoted) on the Candidates page: are you taking international as being 2 or more nations (as you say here), or more than 2 nations (as you claim on the Candidates page? Either way, on the evidence of your own postings, it is clear that there is not certainty about "what constitutes international interest or concern": if there were, there would be far less debate on these pages. Indeed, having said that there is a clear consensus, you then refer to recurrent debates: there is debate because there is not clarity, and there is lack of clarity because the definition of the word "international" is open to more than one interpretation. You then defend the current position by saying that it avoids UK/US interest stories and thus protects against systemic bias: the entire thrust of my suggestion was to protect against the systemic bias towards northern hemisphere anglophones that results from allowing interest in only 2 or 3 (northern hemisphere anglophone, more often then not) countries to be deemed sufficient. I am confident that if a story, such as I suggested, were to be carried on, or proposed for ITN that meets all the criteria and effected 3 SE Asian countries but was not reported widely in the US/UK, we would have outcry from many editors here that "its not in any news report that I have seen", but it is easy to see justifications of "it is in CNN's breaking news so it must be important".

You seem determined to reject my suggestion by applying some kind of ridicule by extreme example about an impending asteroid collision. You apparently have not read my suggestion. I did not say that a candidate should be top front page news in every paper across the world: I said that it should be reported in international news pages on a global scale. That is what I would consider to be the evidence of "interest", if not "importance": by the current standards, any event in the life of a US celebrity who has a minor UK and or Canadian following (and therefore some report in the media in those countries) could make in, even if there is no record of any interest in the wider world. I am trying to guard against this, and therefore against systemic bias: you seem to share my objective in freeing the ITN slot from this, while defending a system that encourages it.

At present, there seems to be no process other than adversarial argument for establishing whether an item is of international interest: maybe there are more efficient methods of establishing wide international interest than that which I have proposed: I am not averse to criticism or counter-proposal on that. But at least what I have suggested is verifiable and NPOV, which are meant to be key characteristics of Wiki contributions, and cannot be said of much of the debate over inclusion seen in these discussions. Kevin McE 21:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion in this whole matter is that things are working resonably well at the moment. We don't tend to get into too much conflict precisely because we unfortunately don't have much stuff and we tend to miss most stuff that occurs outside the English speaking western world because we never get the all important significantly updated article. There have been loads of important stuff that was never on ITN or came on very late, e.g. Indonesia floods (never appeared), Indian floods (rather belatedly), Indian heat wave (never appeared), China floods etc. And these are mostly key stuff where I think there's little disagreement that they should be on ITN if there's an article that is up to scratch. For the more minor items the issue never arises. Were this not the case, things would probably get a lot more controversial with a lot more questions about selective bias for the English speaking western world and the US in particular. We have also mostly managed to avoid what Kevin McE appears to be afraid of IMHO, e.g. Anna Nicole Smith never appeared. So what I'm saying is that while I share Kevin McE's view that the rules and guidelines wouldn't work in a better world, fortunately (although unfortunately in many other ways) we don't. Nil Einne 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When writing the above, I was actually thinking about something like 'if a bridge in China collapses' as an example. I never wrote it but I didn't expect it to sadly become a reality so soon. However it does illustrate my point. We probably should have the China bridge collapse story on ITN. Except we don't even have an article yet from what I can tell and once we do, it's unlikely to be more then a stub. For better or worse, we are able to avoid too much fuss about what's ITN-'worthy' precisely because we very really get items that meet the article update requirements. Therefore even if we are perhaps a little to lenient in letting 'minor' stuff from the English speaking Western world on ITN, it's not too controversial because there's so little stuff that qualifies anyway. Nil Einne 09:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the extinction of the

You are looking for

WP:ITN/C, for suggested contributions. More directly though, how is this news? They were labelled "functionally extinct" over a year ago when a survey found none. Dragons flight

16:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and it was on ITN then. I don't see whats changed Nil Einne 18:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An earthquake with a magnitude of 7.4 hits Jakarta, Indonesia. (Sky)

No article yet from what I can tell but given the magnitude it could be significant enough for ITN if we ever get a good enough one. So it's one to watch Nil Einne 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Now we have 2007 Java earthquake, but it's a mini-sub-stub. --PFHLai 03:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately, it turned out to be nothing much anyway AFAIK Nil Einne 09:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does it seeem tnecessary to mention NASA launchings which, by the looks of the last few days, seem to be happening every day? Or, what is going on with the news reports? Simply south 21:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

High profile news with free (PD) photos. What else can we ask for ? (Besides updated wikiarticles.)

Would you prefer more elections on ITN, instead ?  :-) --PFHLai 03:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, no. ITN has officially turned me off to democratization. -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at [2], there's Kazakhstan and Guatemala to come. That would make good ITN reading! Recurring dreams 09:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Elections aren't my favorite topic (I hear ya', Tariq.), but the

first elections in Sierra Leone since the end of the country's civil war in 2002 might be good for ITN, too. --PFHLai

07:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot Jaimaica Nil Einne 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to place a note on the template, either in the hidden section or in the no include part, to remind admins to check the candidates' page and the talk page for ongoing discussions before adding or removing items? Recently there's been a few cases where something has been changed without reference to large discussions regarding them. Which makes us all look like plonkers. ;) --Monotonehell 16:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I confess.... I don't read instructions whenever I'm editing as a plonker. --PFHLai 07:12, 2007 August 14.

You and everyone else. XD I'm still confused at the instructions on the bottom of my packet of crackers - "turn to open" I've turned the damn thing more than 20 times and it's still sealed shut. --Monotonehell 14:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please add interwiki to ka:თარგი სიახლეები. tnx. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --PFHLai 00:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

{{

The article reads,

A series of four suicide bomb attacks in Kahtaniya, Iraq results in at least 400 deaths and another 375 injuries, most of whom belonged to the minority Yazidi religion.

The deaths and injuries did not belong to the religion, the people did. Possible improvements:

A series of four suicide bomb attacks in Kahtaniya, Iraq results in at least 400 deaths and another 375 injuries, mostly of people who belonged to the minority Yazidi religion.

A series of four suicide bomb attacks in Kahtaniya, Iraq results in at least 400 deaths and another 375 injuries. Most of the victims belonged to the minority Yazidi religion.

Matchups 11:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Try

WP:ERRORS. --74.14.22.104

15:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Try

WP:ERRORS or I'm sure someone will come along here and fix this. Cheers. --MZMcBride

15:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And the earthquake is a week past, why didn't you mention that one? --Golbez 10:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Old items move down the queue when new items are added to the top. No one's nominated any suitable new items for ages at

WP:ITN/C --Monotonehell

12:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please add some lines about the Greek fire disaster? More than 43 people are dead till now, and many others are missing. [3] [4] --KaragouniS 11:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an article for this? No article = no mention. --Howard the Duck 11:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

here it is --->

2007 Greek fires. Please continue the article as my internet connection has many problems due to the fires. See ya -KaragouniS

12:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a few more addition and it can be added already. You may nominate this at

WP:ITN/C if you're done (dunno where to get sources so I can't help that easily). --Howard the Duck

14:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is mostly a rhetorical question, there's been hardly any useful suggestions at

WP:ITN/C lately. We just had a load of "news stubs" created, which I tend to object to, and submitted. Personally I'd like to see more science and positive items, but they're hard to find. On top of that, generally the main stream media only cares about tragedy and I s'pose ITN candidates tend to reflect that pessimism. Besides, the apocalypse / rapture is upon us REPENT! --Monotonehell

09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was mainly a rhetorical question/observation. It just struck me that ITN is getting closer and closer to being "Disasters in the news". The discussion below is actually on-topic for what I was hoping could be considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind it's fairly rare we have about 5 different disasters of great magnitude at about the same time Nil Einne 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hijacking this thread;

Is there a different purpose that ITN can fill? Its current purpose has been tenuous ever since Wikinews was forked from ITN. Almost a year ago several of us discussed a move away from the current focus toward a more background info focus. But the holiday season occurred and the discussion was somewhat forgotten. Before I resurrect this discussion are their any other ideas where ITN could go? --Monotonehell 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Just disregard the international criteria; that way, more articles get to be added, and even before someone raises a question, the article is removed due to the high turnover of items. --Howard the Duck 14:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That would result in a mess of local news that interests no one except possibly the poster. It would be swamped with news resulting from systemic bias, sports results and so on. This would make ITN more like Wikinews and a news ticker than ever. This is what we should be moving away from. (IMO I guess) --Monotonehell 07:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd still like the criteria that it would still have to look an encyclopedia article, not a news article. For example,

Benicia-Martinez Bridge with some more improvements can be added to the ITN. These would signifcantly increase the number of ITN items that can be added. High number of suggestions were disregarded due to the international criterion, even though they were updated enough. --Howard the Duck

12:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you imagine the SCREAMING that would occur on Talk Main Page if that bridge item got into ITN? They would be baying for blood lol --Monotonehell 15:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the bridge was found somewhere outside the U.S. the screaming won't be that loud :p --Howard the Duck 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. Remember what happened when we happened to have a English football club on ITN? Indeed if there are too many non US items and not enough US items the screaming is likely to be worse since there are far more Americans then others (admitedtly this is extremely unlikely to happen but you get the idea hopefully) Nil Einne 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As long as we have a balance of local news from everywhere and once the criteria is changed they'll understand. --Howard the Duck 00:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. If the criteria are relaxed to allow local news, then systemic bias will throw any balance out the window. The reason we introduced the international importance/interest criterion in the first place was to introduce balance. --Monotonehell 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to dispose of the "international interest" criterion, but a slightly more liberal interpretation of it might not hurt. If a news item with encyclopedic merit and an updated Wikipedia page is prominently covered in the media of different countries, that should suffice to allow an item to be included.

Ultimately, what needs to happen for ITN to work better is to have more editors participating in the spirit of {{sofixit}}: that is, more editors who read a news story, update the relevant Wikipedia article and then bring it to ITN/C for consideration. I've tried to be such an editor sometimes, but it's easy to get distracted by other areas of Wikipedia. Perhaps we need to make ITN more appealing to editors somehow? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There's one problem with this: since U.S. stories are extensively covered by the news media, some of it will come from the wire references to the international/world section of a broadsheet, and this will ultimately lead to a predominantly U.S. dominated ITN. --Howard the Duck 08:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

One negative aspect of ITN I've noticed, is that it seems to encourage some editors to create news type articles in an effort to get a mention on the main page. Often these pages are left neglected, when they really should have been an update to an existing article. Any consideration we make needs to address that ITN is not Wikinews. Creating a load of stubs isn't something criteria should be encouraging. We are attempting to write a useful encyclopedia, part of that is the ordering and categorisation of that information. --Monotonehell 11:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested solution: ITN is to be used only for already existing articles that are updated by the news event, and not new "news articles" created/split off for the purpose. All the other criteria remain as is. OTOH, why not scrap ITN altogether? If we agree we don't want WP to turn into Wikinews, and that recentism is already a major problem, why encourage it? There are already enough

This was the line of thinking

last December but due to the holiday season and several points as yet unthought through discussion petered out. It's possibly time to revisit this discussion, although I think consensus on some points may have changed. --Monotonehell

08:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh...why the FUCK must things on WP be so long-winded? all your suggestions are good, I agree with every one of them. Can we just on with restarting the discussion and accepting the changes? Zunaid©® 09:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Many people hear about significant news events from the Wikipedia Main Page and our coverage can often be of very high quality. The traffic that we get on ITN articles shows that it is working at least to some degree in its current form. I think it would be very remiss of us to not include something on "In The News" because a new article had to be created - the Indian Ocean Tsunami, for example. You may want to consider renaming the block if you want to make a move like this. violet/riga (t) 09:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I note that this has been added directly rather than going via the Candidates page: I accept that admins have the authority to do this, but would anyone like to defend the international interest element of this? I can't imagine the chief government lawyer of any other nation being placed in ITN, so why this one? Kevin McE 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Attorney General isn't just the chief government lawyer; he's the head of the Justice Department, and is one of the most important figures in the president's cabinet. Also, this particular attorney general was the originator of many controversial U.S. policies, such as warrantless wiretapping and the designation of captured fighters as "enemy combatants" with no right to legal recourse. Guantanamo Bay would not have been established were it not for Gonzales' legal opinions. Because his policies have led to major international controversies, I think that his resignation meets the international interest criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Glerk! Okay I added this to the candidates' page from talk main page as I wanted some discussion about it, as I'm also unsure if it hits the International Interest criterion. --Monotonehell 15:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's currently one of the top stories on the BBC News front page, if that's any indication of international interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just going to mention the same thing. This bit of information certainly puts the icing on my cake, for the record. Jared (t)  19:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm also suprised to see this. Conscious 15:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone at least tell the reason why he resigned? --Howard the Duck 15:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Officially, he hasn't given a reason. Unofficially, it's because Congress has been increasingly critical of the way he's politicized the Justice Department, and because he gave a shockingly evasive testimony about the firings of several U.S. attorneys. Several Republican leaders called for his resignation months ago. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also echo these thoughts. I can't see how someone resigning is quite so important and certainly not of significant global interest. Based on this many comments I have removed it pending further supporting statements to include it. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, this is a very important. Using your logic, forest fires in certainly don't affect me, so why should they be on the template?! In any event, the person in question is a key figure in the United States, and one that has undergone much publicity over the tenure of his office, and I truly think that it is worth mentioning his resignation. We had Tony Blair's resignation on here, didn't we?! Jared (t)  19:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blair was a political leader of a country. The Greek fires were reported as headline stories on news programmes around the world and continue to be included. Whether it not it affects you is not relevant - it's whether it's significant and of international interest. I don't believe this to be. violet/riga (t) 19:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it a top story on the BBC News website's front page? —

David Levy

19:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A small link? Should we also feature:

• Afghanistan opium at record high
• Prescott to stand down as MP
• Arrests over Russia writer murder
• Public transport 'poorly linked'
• China girl completes 3,500km run

I don't think so. violet/riga (t) 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The international version has this as the top story (the one with the big photograph). Even the UK version (to which you're referring) lists the item under the heading "other top stories." —

David Levy

20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly pose the same question. It's definitely a matter of international interest; whether or not you choose to follow the story or US politics in general is up to you. Jared (t)  19:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm capable of detaching my own personal interests from what I think is best here, you know. violet/riga (t) 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

As silly as I find the whole "all countries, no matter how small and insignificant, must be treated equally" arguement, I cannot see a real reason why anyone outside of a given county would care about the resignation of a non-head of government and/or state unless there was a major scandal of international interest going on. Despite all of the ill-will against Gonzales stateside, I don't really see much of an international reaction, save a couple of articles on the Beeb and I therefore feel that it should not be mentioned in ITN. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of the resignation of Gonzalez since his resignation is related to investigations into policies he enacted and pushed through that are of international interest (namely, civil liberties violations). He was also responsible for providing the legal justification that enemy combatants were not protected by provisions of the Geneva Convention that barred torture. This is not just a matter of internal interest of the United States; this guy helped shape policy that the whole world has to deal with. --mav 19:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we need to give context rather than just say "so and so resigns". violet/riga (t) 19:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I still disagree with you, mav, but that is indeed a good point. Is there anything out there showing this to be a big story outside the US and BBC's international edition (the UK version still has that murdered 11 year-old as the top story)? If so, I'd be ok with re-listing. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the context part however... how about "United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (pictured) resigns over several controversies over actions during his tenure." This wasn't just any normal resignation afterall, this was preceded by many many months of accusations in congress and calls for his resignation from both sides of the aisle. Sasquatch t|c 19:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the context is important, but we probably shouldn't ascribe a specific motive to Gonzales, since he pointedly avoided giving a reason for his resignation. How about "United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (pictured) resigns after several controversies over actions during his tenure."? That's "after" rather than "over" — providing context without ascribing a reason. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming up with a few thousand articles through Google News on it... it's at the top of the page of the CBC (Canada) as well... I think it's of international interest as it's closely linked to the operation and image of the Bush administration (whether you like it or not, the Bush administration has a huge international impact) and it meets all other criteria (page has been updated, etc.). To say this isn't of international interest is quite misleading considering it's plastered all over the world's newspapers. Sasquatch t|c 19:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So you edit war instead of continuing discussions. Great stuff. ITCANWAIT. violet/riga (t) 19:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The only objection thus far has been over whether it satisfies:

3. It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest.

And I certainly came up with ample evidence that it does and provided a very clear justification for it... not really edit warring as I won't revert obsessively but there is rather ample evidence to the contrary of your claims... if you can find another story with this much coverage and hasn't been on ITN I'd be happy to oblige my mistake. Sasquatch t|c 20:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga, I'd be more careful with the accusations of edit warring if I were you. You removed the Gonzales item at 18:46, citing "several comments on the talk page"; it's true that there had been questions about the item, but there was hardly a consensus that it needed to go immediately. The "edit war" knife cuts both ways. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE. If there is any doubt about the accuracy of an ITN item especially when we are potentially annoucing something which may not have happened then it NEED TO BE REMOVED IMMEDIETLY. We should NOT EVER be annoucing someone has resigned when they may not have resigned. Consensus is not needed just resonable doubt. Remember this is wikipedia not wikinews. We don't need to annouce top breaking news especially when we may be wrong. It is far, far better to wait and get things right Nil Einne 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)Edit: I had thought VioletRGA removed the item because of comments on the Alberto Gonzales talk page suggesting we may have jumped the gun. Looking more closely at the time stamps, this is unlikely to be the case so I strike this out although I stand by the comments even if they didn't apply to this case Nil Einne 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But at the point when Violetriga removed the item, the resignation had been officially announced. There was no possibility that it might have been wrong. The only question at that point was whether it was of international interest or not. Some said yes, some said no. At that point, there was no consensus either way. Therefore removal was just as much against consensus as restoration. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I rectified my comments above but I disagree with this anyway. If an item is added to ITN before consensus is reached and there is doubt consensus exists then it should be removed until consensus is achieved Nil Einne 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because there were several people that commented here that it wasn't worthy of inclusion. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at that point you were the only one outright saying that it wasn't worthy of inclusion. Kevin McE, Monotonehell and Conscious had all questioned whether it met the "international interest" criterion, but they hadn't actually said that it didn't. But I'm splitting hairs. My judgement would have been to wait until someone else said that the item should go (as YoungAmerican did shortly after you removed the item); as it turned out, there was more evidence of international interest forthcoming, and the eventual consensus was that the item did meet the ITN criteria. I'm not condemning you for acting boldly, Violetriga; I just think that we can all improve our communication skills (and I include myself in that number). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When you remove the entry because of complaints that isn't of international interest, that's fine, but when another editor cites overwhelming evidence to the contrary and honors requests that the entry be restored, that's edit-warring? —

David Levy

20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed an item that several people had voiced concerns about. Sasquatch reverted that while the discussions were under way, which I think was a bit rude. I was too harsh with my comment though and I apologise. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't criticising your removal of the item. It was afterward that clear evidence of international interest was presented, and that's why I believe that the restoration was appropriate. —

David Levy

19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is also the top article on Le Monde and it is on the front page of El Pais. I'm starting to come around. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also on the front page of the Guardian (UK), Al Jazeera's English-language site, China View (affiliated with Xinhua News Agency), the Times of India... if all that isn't international coverage, I'm not sure what is. Objections like these are why we ended up with an ITN that was almost nothing but natural disasters last week. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Add Der Spiegel to the list as well... As I said, major implications to the Bush administration and how they'll run things... not to mention he's one of Bush's best friends. Just coming from a non-American (albeit Canadian) this raises even more questions into the running of the Bush administration. Sasquatch t|c 20:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

However there are a lot of things that end up on the front page of news sites that don't end up on ITN because they lack international interest Nil Einne 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How else should we measure "international interest", other than how the media of different countries cover a subject? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By considering factors such as, how long it lasts on international sites, what effect it has locally and internationally etc Nil Einne 20:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If something is front-page news in multiple countries, it's of international interest. —

David Levy

20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Anna Nicole Smith, the Madeline disappearance, the world cup while it's on, Rove et al? Nil Einne 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all of those generate[d] international interest. —

David Levy

20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well at least we know where you stand although from previous discussions it's quite clear many people don't agree in a number of these cases. True ITN did become a ticker during the last world cup but many people now feel that was a mistake. BTW, we can probably add the recent friendly fire incident in Afghanistan, the Bush-Vietnam comment controversy (presuming they meet the other requirements) to the list. Indeed speaking of friendly fire incidents did we ever feature the Matty Hull incident on ITN? I'm pretty sure we should have by the front page news criterion at least when the tape was leaked and probably also when the verdict was announced. Then there's also the state of the union address of course and probably China's NPC opening speech. Oh and let's not forget Chinese exports. Nil Einne 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that all of those stories should have been included in ITN. I merely acknowledged that they generate[d] international interest. As I noted below, there are other relevant considerations.

As for the World Cup, I was among those arguing against the score ticker, but it certainly warranted some ITN mentions. —

David Levy

23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems far too subjective to me, and open to personal interpretation and bias. I just don't see how a news item that's the top item for all major U.S. and U.K. sites, as well as Al Jazeera and Xinhua, can possibly be considered as failing to meet the "international interest" criterion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also helpful to compare different situations. How would the resignation of a person in a similar role in a different country be treated? This is not to say each situation is the same but by contrasting it provides context. How often do these sort of resignations happen? What was the importance of this person on and international and national scale? Note we never featured Anna Nicole Smith or the Madeline disappearce despite the level of coverage this generated. Heck even the Rove resignation probably received a fairly high level of coverage. Nil Einne 20:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How can the resignation of the attorney general, the author of the policies that created Guantanamo Bay, be compared with the death of a minor celebrity who was famous for being famous? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My point was these items were mostly front page news items all over the world when they happened therefore from the way to simplistic view of 'it's front page news' these should have appeared on ITN but thankfully didn't. Now that you appear to agree with me that we need to consider other factors. Getting to your second point, perhaps I'm confused but I'm pretty sure Guantanamo Bay was created a long time before he was AG (in 2005). He may have done some stuff before he became AG but the fact he did some controversial stuff before he became AG seems irrelevant when considering his resignation as AG. Only what he did as AG matters surely? Are you trying to tell me that if Bush decides to go back to being the governor of Texas say and they want him then we should mention when he resigns as the governor as Texas? Nil Einne 20:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No one has argued that front-page news automatically qualifies for ITN. Obviously, there are other considerations. In this instance, however, a supposed lack of international interest is the only objection raised thus far. —

David Levy

20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But my point was that the only real reason why these stories did not and should not have appeared in ITN were lack international interest reasons. In some cases perhaps the article was not up to scratch but in most cases it was and even if it was I think you'll still find many people agree that even if the article was up to scratch it should not be on ITN. The only other criteria that's really relevant is the death one but this only applies to Anna Nicole Smith and the death criteria is predominantly intended as a quick short hand to decide international interest. Anyway I'm guessing many people are at least please that we'll be turning ITN into a world cup ticker again in 2010 so there's one good thing to come out of this discussion I guess Nil Einne 21:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with your statement that it was a lack of international interest that kept those stories out of ITN. It seems far more likely that it was their relative lack of importance/exceptionality (or the perception thereof) at work.

I don't see how the Gonzales item has any bearing on how we handle the World Cup. The level of international interest surrounding the World Cup was never called into question. —

David Levy

23:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only one of those items that I would personally have objected to seeing on ITN is the Anna Nicole Smith story. You're right that this shows that mere coverage can't be the sole criterion; however, I really doubt that Al Jazeera and Xinhua covered Anna Nicole Smith in any detail. This story is getting substantial analysis and has obvious international implications. (Yes, Gonzales' authorship of the legal arguments behind "enemy combatant" status was prior to his time as AG; however, the point is that as an individual he's responsible for several Bush Administration actions which have had major international consequences, and now he's leaving the administration.)

As for the question of comparing a person in a similar role from anther country: I'd support the inclusion of a similar story for a significant individual in the administration of any major world power, if the individual were responsible for policies which have had significant international coverage. If, for example, the Russian oil minister or the Chinese official responsible for the Olympics were to resign under a cloud of scandal, and it was widely covered in international media, I'd support that being on ITN as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Um what cloud of scandal surrounding Gonzales? The ITN line doesn't mention any. As far as an uninformed reader is concerned it appears he's just some American they don't care about resigning for whatever reason. Note also oil and olympics are things of great international interest. Wiretapping and politicial interference in the judiciary not so much (particularly in a country where political interference is hardly unusual) Nil Einne 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That ITN doesn't mention the controversies leading up to Gonzales' resignation is a matter for what the item should say, not whether it should be there at all. Sasquatch and I were discussing whether the item should include more context above, but that conversation got swamped by the claims that the matter wasn't of international interest.

As for that question, I may be biased, but I think that the existence of news and analysis stories like these [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], all from non-US sources, shows that the matter is of international interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally not convince Alberto Gonazles should be on ITN. As far as I see it's largely an internal matter unlikely to directly affect international affairs much. Donald Rumsfeld I supported as I would Robert Gates. Dick Cheney yeah. Maybe even Condalezza Rice. But the attorney general? Who cares if he's supported illegal wire tapping in America? Nil Einne 20:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's an internal US matter, why is it getting front-page coverage on all the international news pages mentioned above? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See my commment above. Nil Einne 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

See my response above, posted more-or-less simultaneously with you. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how if its an internal matter changes the criteria which just says of "international interest." If we use this justification, then why would floods matter? Why would the FA cup matter? We've never had an ITN criteria that says it needs to affect international relations, just that it's being reported worldwide as important news (if its being reported, there's obviously interest). Sasquatch t|c 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

David Levy makes a good point above: what exactly is the objection to the Gonzales story? It seems patently obvious to me that the item meets criterion #3, "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." What's the problem here? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in all of my points above I'm assuming that the article is up to scratch. I.E. I'm saying whether or not these items are up to scratch we should NOT have featured them on ITN. Nil Einne 21:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who's saying anything about the article not being up to scratch? My point is that the Gonzales story meets all the ITN criteria, including "international interest". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The current entry looks good now - perhaps all it needed was context. I think in the future we need to ensure that it is obvious to those reading ITN what is so newsworthy about such a story. violet/riga (t) 12:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. In a case like this, it might have been good if someone had contacted DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs), who put the item up in the first place. It's a shame that he or she didn't participate in the discussion, which I'm guessing is because he or she didn't know that it was going on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia was premature in announcing the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. (Posting prior to the official announcement.) Please see discussion at Talk:Alberto_Gonzales#Jumping_the_gun? -- 18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's fairly common. We also tend to have items, predominantly US ones which appear on ITN way before the article is up to scratch. Nil Einne 21:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Was that the case here? The Alberto Gonzales article was in fine shape when the item was added to ITN. This is the diff from that time, and you'll see that it has a citation from the New York Times. Isn't that "up to scratch"? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(OP here) It's not necessarily that the Alberto Gonzales article wasn't up to scratch, but that saying "United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (pictured) resigns his post." was overstating the case, as, at the time, he hadn't made it official yet - the NYT was quoting an unidentified government official. I agree with the statement by 71.185.74.177 (in Talk:Alberto_Gonzales#Jumping_the_gun?): it would have been better to phrase the statement "The New York Times reported ...", at least until the official announcement. -- 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.121.200 (talk)

That's fair. Ideally, the item should have been phrased differently until the official announcement. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's the exact problem! IMHO we should NOT be quoting unnamed government officials in ITN. It doesn't matter how it's phrased or whether it's the NYT or the BBC or whatever, we simply should not be annoucing people have resigned on ITN when our only source is unnamed government officials. If perhaps it had been a day or more and every single news source had been reporting it at as fact and there has been no official denial then it may be okay to mention these sort of 'rumours' (which is basically what it is) but when it's only been a few hours and there has been no comment either way we should wait.

Also perhaps I didn't phrase my response well. I was saying there are two common cases (that's why I said "we also" i.e. there are 2 things I was discussing there). People post things on ITN before the article is up to scratch (e.g. the bridge thing, the VT shootings). And people also post things on ITN before the thing has been properly sourced/confirmed (this case). Both are equally bad IMHO and it'll be good if admins realise it's better to wait since this is the ITN of wikipedia an encylopaedia not wikinews; rather then to jump the gun in adding something which is not yet ready to be added for whatever reason. One way to do this is as Howard suggest's by going through ITN/C

Nil Einne 11:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It might help if you think of the ITN phrasing. Should we really say on ITN "According to several news sources, Alberto..."? Or worse "According to several news sources quoting unnamed government officials, Alberto..." No of course not. There is IMHO not good phrasing for ITN because we shouldn't be putting such items on ITN Nil Einne 11:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough — I suppose that it would have made sense to wait until the official announcement had been made. I didn't come along myself and add Gonzales' photo until after the announcement, at which point I saw people objecting to the item, and I may have overreacted defensively. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the requirement is that it should be added first at ITN/C for it can be added to T:ITN to prevent premature announcements. --Howard the Duck 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly not a bad idea. A lot of these complaints come from unilateral additions. But I worry that this extra level of "discussion" may bog ITN updating down even more. --Monotonehell 11:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If no one objects within a couple of hours then either no one cares at all or no one objects... a couple of hours won't hurt. --Howard the Duck 02:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so unless I'm wrong, Gonzales hasn't technically resigned yet. According to his article, he won't actually resign until September 17. Am I wrong, or shouldn't the headline be changed to reflect this fact? Sure, the difference is really minimal, but he's still in office for a few weeks before he's actually gone. Thoughts? -Platypus Man | Talk 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the item to "announces his resignation" and added some context, per discussion way up the page. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrible... the controversies had nothing to do with his resignation (especially at this point), yet stating this in the item listed makes it appear as if he resigned because of these controversies. This should be changed back to state the facts and leave out the extraneous material. --Melanoma 01:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that the controversies had nothing to do with his resignation; it's clear that he wouldn't have resigned had it not been for the Congressional reaction to the way he handled the firings of the U.S. attorneys. However, it's also true that he didn't admit that he was resigning under Congressional pressure. On the other hand, the President did complain about "months of unfair treatment" and said that Gonzales' name had been "dragged through the mud". He was clearly referring to the ongoing controversies (and putting the blame on Congress for investigating them, rather than acknowledging that there may have been any wrongdoing by Gonzales). If there's a better, more NPOV way of acknowledging the context, I'd be happy to change the wording.

It's also worth noting that practically all the news coverage acknowledges in the headline or lead that Gonzales resigned after Congressional calls for his resignation. Consider: The Washington Times (a conservative paper) leads with, "Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today stepped down after several months of battling calls from many in Congress, including some Republicans, for him to resign over the firing of eight federal prosecutors last year." The New York Times (liberal) opens its story with "Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, whose tenure has been marred by controversy and accusations of perjury before Congress, announced his resignation in Washington today..." The BBC story starts, "US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, embroiled in a row over the sacking of eight US attorneys, has formally announced his resignation." Reuters has "U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales announced his resignation on Monday after months of questions about his competence and accusations from Congress that he politicized the office to benefit President George W. Bush." The Wall Street Journal begins its analysis by saying, "The downfall of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was triggered by the Justice Department's firing of eight U.S. attorneys. But the brawl over his tenure turned on a far broader issue: the Bush administration's six-year effort to impose greater political control over the federal bureaucracy." In short, all the reliable sources, liberal and conservative, present the resignation in the context of the U.S. attorney brouhaha. It's hardly undue weight if we do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a free picture of Abdullah Gül at Image:Abdullah Gül (Brasília, 19.1.2005).jpeg. Any one object to me replacing Alberto Gonzales with him? He is the newest entry after all. Sasquatch t|c 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that myself, before seeing your comment. I didn't figure that putting a free image up accompanying the newest item required discussion beforehand. If I was wrong in that assumption, I apologize. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I was just checking to see if there were any objections as a courtesy rather than as a requirement. Sasquatch t|c 17:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, courtesy. I remember that, vaguely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)