Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 23

This page 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.

“Large areas of southern China are hit by the worst floods in decades with Guangzhou and Shenzhen most affected, and at least 169 fatalities and 1.66 million people evacuated.”

Please change the wording! “to evacuate” literally means to make something empty, to create a vacuum. Buildings, cities and areas can be evacuated, but not people. —Bender235 (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to read the other dozen or so definitions for the verb evacuate to see which one applies here. --Stephen 10:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussable entry in issue states this: "A new constitution takes effect in Kosovo,...". The syntagma takes effect in this context surely is unverifed, it is also somewhat "weasel-wordish" if not even totally incorrect. I propose the following radical change : "Disputably legitimate constitution of Kosovo is proclaimed in Kosovo, whose February declaration of independence has been recognised by some and contested by many more United Nations member states." Maybe the inclusion of image (with proper resizement) could illustrate my previous statement. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 23:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

When I made the suggestion, I invited alternative wordings, acknowledging the sensitivity of the issue (see ITN/C). However, I would defend my phrasing over this. The BBC article used "come into force": my "takes effect" is consistent with this, but less aggressive in tone. Verification is never in the blurb itself, but the articles linked contain plenty. The less than universal acknowledgement is acknowledged in the headline: it is left for the reader to draw a conclusion as to whether less than 25% is an indicator of poor support, or whether getting 43 supporters already is impressive. The measure of NPOV is that the reader should not be able to find evidence of the POV of the writer. Frankly, I have no strong opinion on this, and can see the POV of both sides, but I acknowledge that the media that I "consume" may not be totally neutral. I would suggest, however, that it is more difficult to draw conclusions about my feelings on the matter than yours, and therefore that my phrasing is less POV. But I repeat, we should seek a wording that is acceptable to all. If we can agree an accurate number for "and is actively opposed by n others" I would have no objection. Kevin McE (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To Biblbroks, I'm going to have to emphatically say no. Your suggestion reveals your bias clearly, thereby not sticking to our policy of neutrality. It's really a non-starter. -- tariqabjotu 06:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the blurb now is bias, since it does make mention of the country's status, though I do think it could be made clearer that there is still alot of arguement over whether or not Kosovo is a country. We should put that it is a disputed territory somewhere in there. --PlasmaTwa2 08:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Kevin, Tariq and Plasma. The legitimacy of the constitution is unimportant, it's mostly tied to the legitimacy of the declaration of independence which is the important thing. By mentioning that 43 countries have recognised the declaration of indepence, we are recognising that the declaration is controversial. It is up to the reader to decide whether 43 countries is a lot. It would be improper to emphasise how many dispute the declaration of independence since in many cases that is unclear. Quite a number of countries have been ambigious. Many of those who oppose it oppose it because of the way it was done or because it was unilateral which is different from Russia and Serbia, who oppose it point blank and putting these together is hardly NPOV. (Note that to some extent the image Image:Kosovo relations.svg is OR which tends to be accepted in images, but not in the text of articles.) At best, I suggest we adopt something like Plasma has suggested and say it's a disputed territory. And world maps simply don't work on the ITN given the size limits so the image is no good for ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Although my recent actions may seem to some that I've lost some touch, I have to respond to this discussion precisely in order to defend my reputation. Kevin McE's arguments are: BBC's wording, reader's knowledge of number of countries in the world (some 200) and basic mathematics relations. To this I say: the

Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo article now reads purportedly came into effect, which also might be the consequence of my actions. But I agree with him to this extent: the wording and is actively opposed by many others is pointed to right direction. To Tariqabjotu I say this, in my POV my bias is evident only in the word more in the syntagma contested by many more and proposal of image to be included. To Nil Einne I say this: the legitimacy of constitution is IMO much more important than declaration of independence - I myself may declare independence, but if I proclaim constitution of my hypothetic country many more people in my surroundings will be affected than in the case of simple declaration of independence. I only concurr with Plasma Twa 2 conclusion, but then he never suggested a specific solution. Hope this input of mine is not to late. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk

08:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. I said that if we could agree on a number n, we might add and is actively opposed by n others (allowing direct comparison with the 43): I did not suggest and is actively opposed by many others, nor would I ever support such an unspecific comment. On the most pro-Serbian reading I can bring to the

evidence

, I would suggest a figure of 26 nations at the very most: it would be disingenuous to describe this as many in comparison to 43.

Otherwise, I would suggest that none of us are the best positioned to judge the impression of our own words on others in terms of betraying a POV: the most NPOV articles and blurbs, are written by those who are disinterested, but not uninterested. Whether the legitimacy or the declaration of the constitution is more important, apart from being, as you acknowledge, a matter of opinion, is irrelevant: it qualifies for ITN on the basis of the fact that it is in the news, and if your hypothetical declaration of independence or a constitution for your house were to gain widespread reports, as a serious news item, and generate significant international reaction, that too would be ITNable. Things are not suppressed from ITN on the grounds that we consider them undesirable: I would prefer that there had not been millions of lives disrupted, and untold thousands lost, by extreme weather conditions in Asia in recent months, but that does not give me reason to argue against their inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If you read my words carefully you could acknowledge that I haven't quoted you. Actually, I proposed the wording based on yours, which differs in one word. Exactly this word is what is subject to POV and on this issue I believe we do have an agreement. The alternative to word "many" could be word "numerous", for example.

As far as (un)importance of this blurb's inclusion is concerned (if I understood you correctly), I want to say this: I never had an idea to exclude this blurb. On the contrary. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You said "But I agree with him to this extent: the wording and is actively opposed by many others is pointed to right direction" (sic). The obvious implication is that the words in italics are my words. The key one of them was not. The item has now fallen off the bottom of ITN anyway, so the discussion is moot, but I would not consider numerous to be a fair way to compare a number less than 27 to 43. Kevin McE (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As you said it: obvious implication. But then if there is an obvious implication then there might be a non-obvious one - wouldn't you agree? I might confess that at first reading of your post, I assumed that you made a lapsus calami. However, when I reread your words and then my response, there was no contradiction in my statement to be found (to this extent: the wording "..." is pointed to right direction). And with or without respect to AGF principle my suggested improvement to the blurb was obvious. Whether the discussion is moot or not is a matter of opinion and/or principle, and whether 27 is the correct number for the countries who actively oppose it is a POV, if not even OR. Maybe simpler wording and is actively opposed by many is/was the optimal alternative. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A) That image of Paul Pierce is unflattering and rather lame for a Main Page offering (no offense). PLEASE find a different image. B) I am a bit taken aback that the Boston Celtics and Paul Pierce have made the ITN when I was told the standard is that there must be an international significance. What exactly is the international significance? Kingturtle (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sports are very popular, and many of the players come from different countries. If you have a comment about what sports go on ITN, take it to

Wikipedia talk:Sports on ITN. --PlasmaTwa2

05:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We'd always have this complaint when an American sports story, heck any American story makes it to ITN it's getting boring...

The Truth does remind you to either log out or register, though.

As for international significance, lemme tell you that Game 2 has the highest TV rating in the Philippines for any non-Filipino TV program for this year. If the Philippines is not too international for you, the people at Bologna are hoops-crazy too. If that's not international enough, I dunno what is. --Howard the Duck 08:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the fact that Canadians seem to like this game, somewhat, too. We even have a team, apparently. --PlasmaTwa2 09:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There has never been any requirement for international significance only international interest. What that many has come under various interpretations but we appear consensus to cover the top games in a number of key sports Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please add this biiig news: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfxZHRWDbfeivEfGI9Q0HSSPU5rg

Please see

WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C

14:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please could someone correct the reference to Sweden's FRA law from "FRA-law" to "FRA law"? This wouldn't be hyphenated in English, even though the Swedish construction would use a hyphen due to this being one long compound noun. Thanks, Pince Nez (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, dunno by who Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of bias of approval of any story that involves space exploration, regardless of whether they feature widely in news media. They are of course current events: I presume they are impressive cutting edge science, but the "ice on Mars" story is only 5th on the BBC's Science & Nature page: the Jason explorer was not in the top 26 stories on BBC's world news when it was posted. There is a difference between that which is new, and that which is news, and that does not seem to be respected here. Comments? Kevin McE (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a byproduct of almost anything online skewing slightly to the geeky. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blame Wikipedia. It's an encyclopedia. Anything educational MUST have a bigger chance of getting into ITN. Plus if Wikipedia was invented in the 16th century, we'd have New World exploration bias. --Howard the Duck 07:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And we'd still argue whether to post Columbus's death on ITN. --Stephen 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

These days, the best equivalent will be Edmund Hillary and we all know how that panned out... --Howard the Duck 07:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, leave it to Howard to pick scabs. -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Columbus finally reaches India. Brazil gets discovered. El Dorado does not get discovered. Wow, that would be fun headlines :-) --Tone 07:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bright side: America wouldn't exist yet, so we wouldn't have any arguements about bias. --PlasmaTwa2 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I take concern with the Pro-Commonwealth bias in this topic. ;). Spencer^T♦C 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, they're trying to alter history. · AndonicO ^Engage. 19:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai pulls out of the June 27 run-off presidential election after President Robert Mugabe's supporters attack his rally."

This makes it sound like the withdrawal is a reaction to the attack on the rally alone, rather than the overall climate of violence. Suggest re-phasing to something like:

"Zimbabwean opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai pulls out of the June 27 run-off presidential election as election-related violence escalates."

--62.136.113.60 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC). I really should remember to log-on LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Posted at Main Page errors. Spencer^T♦C 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I too questioned the original wording of this hook. I've now reworded it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Nishkid64

I'm in a bit of a rush but... Decisions by SCOTUS have an impact on international law and the rulings of other high courts across the globe. Any limitation to capital punishment (a global human rights issue) is significant in the U.S. and will be significant abroad. There's the justification for including Kennedy v. Louisiana in ITN. : - ) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The highest court in a major world power made a ruling about a major world issue (Capital punishment). That seems to have international significance to me. Prodego ^talk 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My problem is that this ruling is limited to child rape cases. Only two individuals in the US are directly affected by the ruling. I think your claim opens the floodgates for ITN items regarding changes, however minor they may be, in other world issues. I suggest we bring this up for a larger community discussion at

Template talk:In the news. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama}

) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the high quality of this article should stand in its favor in posting this.--Pharos (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Remember that article quality is not the only criterion for inclusion in ITN. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that allowing this to go up would set a dangerous precident for Supreme Court cases in the US and in other countries. Now if the death penalty was abolished completely, my view would change. I don't think that this really has enough international interest to go up. Spencer^T♦C 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. The death penalty has been taken off the table only for child rape cases. If we were talking about a more prevalent case type, then I would have to rethink my decision. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. IIRC we may have had the past case which resulted in the temporary suspension of the death penalty. I have no problem with that. And definitely if there was a complete end to the death penalty. There have been a bunch of other cases, especially those related to Guantanamo we have had. Other cases, e.g. one declaring laws against same-sex marriages against the constitution, a complete overturn of Roe vs. Wade etc and any case with a significant effect on the death penalty I would concur with including it. But this one doesn't seem significant in the overall course of things Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the tag for the "in the news" item about the recent (U.S.) Supreme Court decision reads (in part): "In District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court rules that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to bear arms..."

It seems to me that this is not really the newsworthy part of this decision; that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms I think is pretty uncontroversial and well-accepted. The interesting part about this decision (I think) is that it overturned a law that's been in effect in Washington, D.C. since 1975, and could similarly be used as precedent to overturn other handgun control laws in the states. To quote from the article about the decision:

"Therefore, the District of Columbia's handgun ban, which "amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms' that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense", and the requirement that any firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, which "makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense", is ruled unconstitutional."

Just my $0.02. Dgcopter (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is exactly what the ruling was. The bit in the 2nd Amendment about whether it defends an individual's right to bear arms, or only in the context of a "well-regulated militia", was never tested until now. The fact that they chose the former, rather than the latter, is, I think, the primary news story here. If you think that it's "uncontroversial" and "well-accepted", you clearly have not ever really paid attention to American gun politics. :) --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nothing here is notable enough for ITN. That said, Dgcopter got it backwards. The changing of the law part is insignificant, as every Supreme Court case affects legislation. The more important part is ruling that there is an individual right to own firearms. But how is this worth mentioning in ITN? It's not. As stated in the above thread, almost every state has already affirmed an individual's right to own firearms, and Thursday's decision will not have a very large impact on existing legislation. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No. What is significant about this ruling is that it is the first SCOTUS case in 225+ years about what the 2nd Amendment actually means. There are many people (myself included) who have argued that the "militia" phrasing means that people in state militias are allowed to have guns. What the ruling has clarified is that because the US has a right to raise an army, navy, etc. (i.e. a "militia") to defend the country against enemies foreign and domestic, the people have a right to guns in order to protect themselves against the army, the govt., or both. The case says that reasonable restrictions on the right are appropriate in some cases (just like you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, which restricts speech), but the restrictions on law abiding citizens owning handguns or keeping loaded rifles in DC are unreasonable. This ruling is pretty important, especially since, as noted above, the rest of the world views the US's position on guns to be completely insane. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A land transfer agreement to the

state of Jammu and Kashmir

.

Suggestions to tweak any text on the Main Page can be posted at

WP:ERRORS. --74.12.123.233 (talk

) 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

D.C. v. Heller should be removed from ITN. Only America's court cases would ever be shown. Why? "With consequences to existing laws." All SCOTUS cases have consequences to existing laws, that's why they're being brought to court. Why not report yesterday's court decision, which was a landmark case on the death penalty? ~ UBeR (talk) 04:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Featuring a split 5-4 decision by one country's court system is inappropriate. Shem^(talk) 04:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree with you. However, this ruling could lead to similar things happening all across America. I suppose, for a country of 300 million shotgun wielding people in hawaiian shirts, this is pretty important. However, if anyone tries to put the same things that will happen in Chicago and whatnot up, Imma' blow up Japan. --PlasmaTwa2 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ruling has very little impact on existing legislation. Your idea of 300 million armed citizens is clearly a distorted one. Nothing worthy of ITN. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why posting this should mean only American court cases would be shown. Of course, a judicial system is not unique to the US. There are highly significant legal cases in many countries in the world, and if we have decent articles on them, they should also be appropriate for posting.--Pharos (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This case obviously does not meet that standard. In fact, I think Wednesday's decision is much more important than yesterday's. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree. An actual SCOTUS ruling that the second amendment is an individual right is about as important as decisions come. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 16:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? Tell me the global impact of this decision. There's nothing worth noting in this decision. Its impact on existing legislation is not major. Almost every state already affirmed an individual's right to firearms. Compare that to Wednesday's ruling on the death penalty, which as a much larger impact not only in the United States, but perhaps the world as well. This decision definitely does not merit a mention ITN. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Globally, it might not be the most impacting decision, but on the grand scheme of things, its the biggest decision made by the US Supreme Court in a while, and thus is newsworthy in that regard. It should stay, in my opinion. Jared (t)  18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "in a while". Define this time period. Even then, just because US Supreme Court took a major decision after like 2 years it becomes newsworthy? What utter non-sense. That's being US centric. There are way more significant things happening around the world. --

talk

) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are only ten million people in Serbia, but no one seems to mind putting the Serbian election results on the main page. That's being Serbocentric. News of great significance to one country can be just as important as news of moderate significance to several countries; simply that the country happens to be the U.S. does not translate into rampant jingoism. Deltabeignet (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I created this template:

Neat! I added it to the procedures page. - BanyanTree 07:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

... was a copyvio. I swapped it for the first free photo I could find on any of the other ITN stories. If unsuitable please do swap for another.

It would seem to be a good idea to mention the 14 other hostages rescued in that particular headline. DandyDan2007 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Spencer^T♦C 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Weekend cross-strait charter flights (pictured) between Taiwan and Mainland China resume after 59 years."

OK, I know what this means, but it probably should be phrased better. MookieZ (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "resume after a 59 year absence"? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone should be working on a Wimbledon men's final story. Thanks,

On that note how about changing the pic to Rafa venus has been there a few days now. --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm not an admin so I can't do it...let's wait about 12 more hours, and if there's not a new picture, we can switch. Spencer^T♦C 23:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Spencer^T♦C 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be Israeli and American bases, right, not Israel and United States bases? Jared (t)  19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Israel and American military bases? American military and Israel? --Elliskev 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We should not be referring to specific countries or specific countries' military bases. This implies intended targets. We should only refer to the operating range of such missiles. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-07-09 20:27Z

That makes sense. --Elliskev 20:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The missile's range should be mentioned rather than intended targets. --

talk

) 20:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Although for the record, it should have been Israel and U.S. bases. It was Israel, the country, and U.S. bases (although, of course, Israeli bases as well). -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Can a link to
  Talk
  23:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just thinking that maybe sports news should be split from this and put in their own area. Simply south (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting idea and it would be nice to put up more sports (IMO), but I doubt it would ever gain the support. -14:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CWY2190 (talk • contribs)

During the Olympics, okay. (We had a dedicated subsection on ITN during the past two Olympics. I suppose that can become it's own section on the Main Page for a few weeks this August.) Otherwise, no. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 199.71.174.100, who make a good point. You might also want to look at our proposed (and used) framework for this at

WP:ITNSPORTS. Spencer^T♦C

22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Where would this sports section go? Perhaps someone could do a mock up of the page with a different sports section.

15

02:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support a dedicated sports section to accomodate the amount of internationally significant sporting news so long as it was done with respect to visual appeal of the main page. I agree with the above comment that a mock page would be useful to determine whether it should be added. Lympathy ^Talk 10:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If we needed space, I suppose we could check up with the DYK crew to add an extra one... Spencer^T♦C 17:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to continue this on the main page redesign proposal page. Simply south (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there'll be ample room for the Olympics if the regular ITN stuffs can be capped at 4 bulleted items. --PFHLai (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The picture sucks something fierce for the template. It's too small to make anything out really. It looks like a bunch of people eating at a wedding. Could we get another picture? Perhaps the logo for the 34th G8 Summit? --PlasmaTwa2 02:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Note:Picture removed as of now because of copyright issues on commons. Spencer^T♦C 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that Plasma - my fault :)

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

09:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please replace the image of the former Prime Minister of Grenada with Image:Tillman Thomas.jpg. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NGerda (talk • contribs) 22:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can use fair use images on the Main Page. Spencer^T♦C 22:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:AMAZONAS.jpg, which is used (under a different name) in this templatr is currently listed for speedy deletion as a copyvio of http://misscontest.blogspot.com/2008/03/dayana-mendoza-miss-venezuela-2007.html. Shouldn't it therefore be removed. Anonymous101 (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

{{

Not done:. Image isn't on the template, so nothing needs to be done here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Image was on the template but it was removed. Anonymous101 (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

InBev is identified as "Belgian," whereas Anheuser-Busch is identified as "St. Louis-based." Does no one else see a POV geographical bias there? Geodyde (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Anheuser-Busch is based in St Louis isn't of great relevance, so I don't see any harm in rewording it to "American brewer Anheuser-Busch". Hammer Raccoon (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For other POV, it's been taken aside the importance of the former AnBev Brazilian corporation, that should result in a Belgo-Brazilian company (if such term could be used, rather would be Belgian-Brazilian), not only Belgian. This should be taken under advisement, the bi-nationality of the corporation. axtschlag 11:09, 16 July 2008 (GMT:-03:00)

{{

I'd do it, but I'm not a sysop. I left a message on a couple of pages regarding this. Spencer^T♦C 02:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done by BanyanTree. Spencer^T♦C 02:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor nit, but as all the casualties, all nine, were American soldiers, we not just say nine American soldiers were killed in the attack?

What is the "international import, or at least interest" for the Mt. Okmok eruption? Is any eruption on the globe always mentioned in Wikipedia news? If not, I think this one in particular may not be very notable, since it occurs in a rather remote and sparsely populated place, even if it is part of the US. fudo (questions?) 11:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because it occurs in the US should definitely not automatically mean it is worthy of inclusion as you alluded to. I do sometimes worry that the English wiki is too US based, especially as many US policies are different to other major western countries. Lympathy ^Talk 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was worrying about, too.fudo (questions?) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently,

Are you saying that we need to add a citation that he has been accused of sodomy to the Main Page? It's not even remotely contested so I'm not sure how BLP gets into it. Bring it up at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard if you think you have an argument. - BanyanTree 23:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an argument. It's a question. --Elliskev 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... OK. The answer is yes, it should be on the Main Page, and no, we shouldn't add citations to the Main Page. (I'm very interested to see how your response won't count as an argument.) - BanyanTree 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not here to argue. I was simply asking a question, stating my opinion, and waiting to see if there were other opinions. What the hell? --Elliskev 01:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have never seen a citation on the Main Page. Instead, there are links to articles with citations. For example, the Main Page announcement of an arrest warrant request for Omar al-Bashir is also negative, but it has no Main Page citation either. Art LaPella (talk) 02:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

dictionary.com definition of argument. An argument does not necessarily have to be hostile. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. Look. Semantics aside. All I was asking was if negative snippets of articles, like the Anwar Ibrahim piece or the Omar al-Bashir piece might better fit the spirit of BLP by having a citation. I know that there is a citation in the article (at least I hope the article contains the same info - cited). Or, is the citation in the article enough? I'm guessing that the general consensus is that it's enough to have a citation in the article. Fine. Like I said, I wasn't arguing FOR a citation. I was stating that it was my opinion that it was against the spirirt of BLP, and asking for other opinions to weigh against mine. Now I have some. But, thanks for the civil responses, everyone. --Elliskev 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

No one intended to be uncivil; it has merely been a misunderstanding. And everyone apologises for that. Now, I too don't think a citation is needed on the main page as it is (presumably) cited in the actual article, and the blurb is factually correct in that it says the he is "alleged" to have sodomised a male aide. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it up at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Again, just for the discussion. As for civility, I don't need an apology. However, I don't think anyone deserves this kind of shit for asking a question. --Elliskev 20:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize this has been discussed before, but I have to say that I don't like the image placement for the ITN section. As readers, I think we are generally conditioned to expect that the top image will correspond to the top item in a list of item. Personally, I guess I am conditioned enough to expect this that I find the ITN section jarring - so much so that I usually avoid reading it (yes - I know there is a "pictured" caption to indicate which item is being illustrated). I did happen to look at it today, and I fleetingly thought that Wikipedia was asserting that Salman Rushdie had been crowned Miss Universe.

I understand that ITN is designed to follow a chronological order, but I think the aesthetics and readership experience would be vastly improved if we kept the illustrated item on top. Respectfully,

Um I don't mean to be rude, but if you actual avoid looking at ITN because you find it so jarring, I think you have problems you need to deal with IRL which we can't help you with here. As for your proposal, I think I've voiced the issues before and it sounds like you've read them or similar comments. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - perhaps I made that statement stronger than it needed to be. I find the layout confusing and I believe it diminishes the readership experience. Happily, I do manage to struggle through life nonetheless :).--

talk

) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what is implied by the original post but I think that it only takes seconds for the reader to understand the image relevance. This seems like nit-picking although if others find it a problem we should consider moving the text related to the image towards the top. Lympathy ^Talk 16:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a huge issue, but it has always bothered me about the main page. Looking back, this has been brought up at least three times fairly recently -

talk

) 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I would find it a real shame if we compromised on no image. I think that the visual appeal of the page is founded by the images and their locations. Lympathy ^Talk 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not have the illustrated item remain on top

I've looked through various archives, and it seems to me that there is a significant (though not universal) sentiment that non-alignment of the image is undesirable. To me, the best solution is to have the illustrated item remain as the lead item until a new illustrated item is added. The items are not dated, so I don't see a huge value in maintaining chronology - ITN is not a breaking news service. Having lead item illustration would also provide greater consistency on the page, as this is how DYK is generally structured. Any comments, objections, points that I am missing etc?--

The items are dated, though you just can't see it. If you view the source of the template and you look next to the bullet, you see a date. Spencer^T♦C 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• True. My point was that there was no visible dating, so that the chronology of the list would be disrupted for the reader by having one item remain on top.
• I will say that I've been watching ITN closely over the last few days, and the admins maintaining the list have done a nice job. It's clear to me now that this concern can be managed by more proactively adding "fresh" items with images to the top of the list and general awareness of this concern. The worst case is when we have a picture of one person at top, while the blurb about that person is three or four items down. If it's in the top two items, or when it's not a picture of a person, the issue is not such a big deal.--
  talk
  ) 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has just replaced the Miss Universe entry with one about the collapse of the Belgian government, saying the latter is more important. That's an easy assumption to make, but would most readers agree?

I'm not being critical of the replacement, but I think we have to ask what exactly "news" is for the purposes of "In the News." What makes one event more newsworthy than another? News outlets base their decisions largely on what they think their readers will be interested in. It may be regrettable, but outside of the Low Countries, far more people are interested in stuff like the winner of American Idol or the Eurovision contest than they are in the government of Belgium. That's why the birth of Angelina Jolie's twins was one of the top AP stories on Yahoo News the other day.

Now not all news outlets carry that kind of news. You won't find it in The Wall Street Journal. That's because they have a specific audience that is not interested in that kind of news. But in the news business, "news" is always "what our readers/viewers want," not what the publication thinks readers or viewers should want.

Where does Wikipedia fit in? Absent any kind of consensus on this question, there's no mandate to go with Belgium over Miss Universe or vice versa.

ITN has a bit of a geeky feel to it, with an emphasis on elections and changes of government (often in small or obscure countries), space news, business and sports. That seems to be what ITN editors are interested in. But is it what our readers are interested in?

If Wikipedia users are like the general public in Western countries, they are far more interested in JonBenet Ramsey and that missing little girl from England than they are in the government of Belgium, unless they're Belgian. That might be sad, but it's a fact. I've never heard people in the lunchroom talking about the government of Belgium.

Of course, ITN is not a news service. But if the point of ITN is to help direct people to information on things that they hear about on TV or read about in the newspapers, ITN entries should reflect what people will be searching for. Unfortunately, it's never been set out clearly what, exactly, is the point of ITN.

My opinion is that we should aim for something between the geekiness of where we are now and the low-brow nature of a tabloid newspaper. I don't think a lot of people are going to come here looking for information on JonBenet Ramsey, since there's not a lot of background information people wouldn't already know from TV. But I also don't think they're going to come here looking for info on the Grenadan elections or the dwarf planet Makemake, since they probably won't know or care that either thing existed.

I think the question we should ask ourselves when deciding what goes on ITN is, "Are people going to come to Wikipedia looking for background information on this topic?" If so, it should go on. If not, it maybe shouldn't.

We also have to recognize that there is no such thing as an objective standard of "world news." What is world news to a Canadian may not be world news to a Congolese, and as much as we try, we'll never be able to come up with an ITN that is equally relevant to all 7 billion people on the planet. Users of the English Wikipedia will be more likely to come from English-speaking, or at least English-using, countries and from places that are wealthier than the world average. (Too bad no one's ever analyzed where Wikipedia users tend to come from using the IP address of anons, as far as I know.) I don't mean to pick on Belgium, but it's a little country whose residents probably favor the French and Dutch Wikipedias, and, unlike Zimbabwe, its political problems won't capture the attention of the rest of the world unless the country splits apart. And even then, most Wikipedia users will still think Flanders is just a guy on The Simpsons. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The assumption that "...But if the point of ITN is to help direct people to information on things that they hear about on TV or read about in the newspapers..." isn't quite right. on

WP:ITNMP, it says that ITN is a "section on the Main Page for featuring up-to-date encyclopedic content reflecting important international current events". We feature up-to-date content. As for the Belgium item, consensus wasn't established on ITN/C, as there was no nomination. However, if the Belgium item was updated (which it currently does not), in addition to being well explain, I would feel comfortable having it on the Main Page. Spencer^T♦C

02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't want to make any statement on the worthiness of any of the items involved. On a purely procedural level, the Miss Universe item was posted without being put up for comment or review at ITN/C. It was in turn replaced by an item that was not put up for comment or review at ITN/C. Both of these actions were taken by administrators who are not ITN regulars. I think if any lesson needs to be drawn here, it's that ITN/C review improves the stability of the template by imparting a sense that blurbs have gained a degree of consensus and can't be removed or replaced at a whim. The other lesson is that drive-by admins tend to raise the level of drama. (Though I'd certainly be eager to see more admins be ITN regulars...) - BanyanTree 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to make ITN/C a requirement for something to be added to the ITN template? It would make sure that articles are sufficiently updated, and/or notable (i.e., that SCOTUS case a couple of weeks ago). Spencer^T♦C 02:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this as a proposal. For the longest time, there was so little ITN/C participation that admins were encouraged and even expected to find items and post blurbs unilaterally. Giving ITN/C say in effect gave veto power to the one or two users who wandered by that day, and at times the overall tone of comments has been remarkably negative, which further reduced the incentive for admins to treat ITN/C as anything other than an afterthought. I think it's a measure of how much participation in ITN/C has grown that we can even think about making it mandatory. Even so, there will clearly be occasional items which admins who are familiar with ITN guidelines can put up with confidence that they are totally uncontroversial, assuming that there isn't already a crowd of non-admins on ITN/C demanding to know why the admins are so slow and negligent in their duties.

As a halfway step, it would be worth clarifying the applicability of Wikipedia:Administrators#Reinstating a reverted action ("Wheel warring") to ITN. Specifically, that it is the responsibility of the unilaterally posting admin to make sure that an item is updated and of a significance to make it clearly uncontroversial, that reversion of the item is evidence that the poster has failed in that responsibility, and that a normal process of comment at ITN/C should be started. Also that consensus on ITN/C overrides whatever the result of an admin power struggle on the actual template, e.g. three admins who want something up lose against one admin seeking to remove and wait for discussion at ITN/C. (I just want my behind covered in case I get hauled before ArbCom for wheeling on the Main Page.) It's probably worth pointing out to admins that it's far less work and drama to just stick an item on ITN/C for 8 hours which will in most cases, assuming that the nominator has any sense of the guidelines, result in either expressed approval or silent boredom. - BanyanTree 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As an example, the recent addition of Radovan Karadžić without ITN/C discussion. - BanyanTree 04:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Spencer^T♦C 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard any complaints that we aren't popularist enough, or any clamouring for Angelina Jolie's pregnancy/childbirth to appear on ITN. I don't really think this an issue as in all likelihood both the Belgian government story and Miss Universe would have gone up given the correct procedure and sufficient updates on the relevant articles. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because we don't have circulation figures or Nielsen ratings to let us know if people are using ITN. Anyway, I think we really need a debate about what the point of ITN is. I don't think it should be merely a way to feature up-to-date content, because the source for up-to-date content should be Wikinews, not Wikipedia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiNews doesn't enter into it. It's an (occasionally) independent source. Current Events is more relevant to ITN. Also, regarding the lack of "ratings" we do have tools which could perhaps be adapted to the ITN nom process. (Could we get instantaneous stats from articles with specific tags?) My 2¢ is that any debate should be about what ITN is and not not. For example a vote on whether there should always be one science feature for balance and/or specialized nom procedure for science would be good. A vote on whether "enough" people care about Makemake would be bad. Potatoswatter (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's some view stats for 3 June ITN's, in case anyone was wondering. 1, 2, and 3. Spencer^T♦C 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This story has to go, it's not from South-East Asia. Consistency, people... Lampman (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

:D...didn't even notice that. Spencer^T♦C 01:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For long-running events such as the US presidential election and the Olympics, how about a link at the bottom to a portal on the subject? Like this:

• Mount Okmok on the island of Umnak in the Aleutian Islands erupts.
• IndyMac Bank is placed into conservatorship by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in one of the largest banking failures in United States history
  .
• Man Booker Prize
  in the first 40 years of its existence.
• Three members of the Turkish police force are killed during an armed attack on the United States consulate in Istanbul, with three attackers also dead.
• Indo-US nuclear deal
  .
• In
  general elections
  .

---

2008 U.S. presidential elections portal -- 2008 Summer Olympics portal

Recent deaths – More current events...

This would allow us to keep a long-running big news story on ITN for a while without having many instances of it in the actual ITN entries. Of course, the portals would have to be created, but that's not too hard, I don't think. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should mention this, there has been a conversation at

Wikipedia talk:Sports on ITN#Olympics and other multiple-sport events about how to handle the Beijing Olympics. While I don't think users would stand for making ITN feature a national election, even for the world's wealthiest country, for an extended period, your suggestion is actually pretty close to an idea we've been talking about. I suppose it's worth formally proposing at this point: - BanyanTree

22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually it was the US election that gave me the idea. During the primary campaign, there was a constant battle over whether to include the results of individual state primaries or whether to wait until the overall primaries were determined. This way, we help point those readers looking for information on this ongoing event in the right direction. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't see why someone who objects to a U.S. primary being temporarily placed on ITN would agree to a semi-permanent item to the US campaign. I may be wrong about this, but I can't imagine that non-American editors wouldn't see that as a blatant example of US-centrism on the Main Page. In my mind, the Olympics are a special case because basically everyone has a stake in it and it doesn't last too long. The other candidate would be the World Cup, but that would probably run into resistance from protesting Americans, and it's also nearly twice as long, giving editors who object on principle to any modification of ITN more time to be outraged. - BanyanTree 10:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, those editors need to stop worrying about where a news item takes place and instead consider only how many people are interested in it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with BanyanTree. I don't think people would stand for a semi-permanent US election link appearing on the main page of the encyclopaedia. The primaries alone went on for five months, and the whole process from first primary to election takes about a year. A link for that long would be excessive, especially, as BanyanTree points out, people objected to individual primary results being posted anyway. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I also think we could also have a long-term link for the length of a British, Canadian or Australian election. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Olympics feature during the Beijing Olympics

In the news

Pakistan condemns a United States-led air strike near the border with Afghanistan that allegedly killed 11 Pakistani paramilitary troops, in clashes that also killed eight Taliban militants. Amid an outbreak of tornadoes and derechos in central and eastern North America, a tornado hits a Boy Scout camp in Iowa , killing four. censure motion against Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda (pictured), the first such motion to be passed since World War II . Recent deaths – More current events...

The proposal (mockup to the right, based on discussion at

Portal:Olympics as an alternative.) It is further anticipated that normal ITN blurbs for the opening and closing ceremonies of the Games be posted, perhaps with an italicized link to the highlights page. The copyright for the Olympic rings logo passed into the public domain on January 1st of this year, its creator having died 71 years ago, so there are no copyright problems with its use. Hopefully I haven't forgotten anything major from the conversation at ITNSPORTS. What do people think? - BanyanTree

22:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks kind of wierd over on the right. Could you center it, maybe? And I have not kept track of the conversation recently, last time I was there they were talking about the sporting events from the Olympics that were on ITNSports and hence would be their own item like any other regular sporting item. IE the Basketball and hockey finals. Any news on that one? --PlasmaTwa2 07:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I didn't pay much attention to that conversation once people started arguing about which sport was most prestigious at the Olympics or which event was most prestigious for what sport, or whatever it was, and I haven't seen any relevant posts recently. - BanyanTree 10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer "Olympic scores" to "Olympics scores". jnestorius^(talk) 09:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "Olympic results" or "Latest results"? Lympathy ^Talk 09:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Latest" is a promise we can't guarantee keeping. Depending on how much screen real estate is available, something as verbose as "News from the Beijing Olympics" might work. "News" allows for things other than results, e.g. doping, protests, etc. jnestorius^(talk) 10:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec - unindent to respond)Olympics item centered to see if people like that better. Also, I've changed it to "Olympic highlights", to keep it in line with the name of the article it links to. I suggest we just name it after the article to prevent endless discussion over 'results v scores v highlights', and hope we don't link it to

Portal:Olympics... I don't think "latest" is needed, as it should link to an article with all the highlights and not just a selection. - BanyanTree

10:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Though I personally support such a mention, I have a question. I take it we'll announce the opening ceremonies, right? So does this go in at the same time as another Olympic-related item (unless there is a terrorist attack at the games, etc., God forbid), or will the opening ceremonies be a single day thing, and then be removed. I also take it that we will be waiving the Current Events guideline? Spencer^T♦C 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that previous discussion had hinted that just because the olympics highlights link is there, it would not preclude significant olympics-related items for making the main template. I hesitate to continue here, as previously (like Banyan said) this part of the discussion degenerated in "which sport is most important", but I think most of us can agree that opening and closing ceremonies, important world records, and basketball results (per WP:ITNSPORTS) could be included seperately. Also, maybe a final medal count of the top 3 nations? (China, US, ...?). But I do like Banyan's mockup. It may just be my browser image settings, but the SVG image is only displaying as a red square in the thumbnail version, as well as when i click on it. Any suggestion people? Random89 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming that any Olympics items in the normal queue would be treated as normal, perhaps being replaced if there was more than one or two at a time. I'm not sure we'd have to waive the current events guideline: I noticed that a large number of items on record breaking in swimming was posted during the US Olympic swimming trials, and I assume that this would happen for the Olympics as well. If anything, I would think we'd be more strict than usual to keep what will undoubtedly be many record breaking efforts from swamping the template. That's what the highlights page is for. If the Portal:Current events people tighten up their guidelines, perhaps in response to us adding an Olympics link to the top of their page <grin>, we'd have to ignore the guideline, but I assume that we wouldn't have to.

That basketball caveat, where it slips in as a replacement for another event, is bound to prompt some users to pop over here and demand that their pet sport be included, but I'm willing to go along with Random89's list. A final medal count can either be part of a "closing ceremonies" blurb or perhaps put on the Olympics line for a day or two before the line is removed. Also, I don't know what would cause those image problems. - BanyanTree 01:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming the same about normal items going through ITN/C, but it can't hurt to clarify things we see coming in advance. While we can't anticipate world records, we can anticipate someone winning the basketball gold medal. So maybe we should put that down somewhere to hopefully decrease some drama later on? (for people who don't know of WP:ITNSPORTS and who enjoy reacting with OMFG!!!!) Random89 21:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should get all these clarified in advance. Well, the gimmes here are the results of men's basketball, the opening and closing ceremonies, and what? If we have to get into a discussion about importance, I'd rather not. Frankly, if there are so many exceptions that there needs to be a list, then there's little point to the Olympics link, which is meant to reduce Olympics crowding out other items. After spending a lot of time trying to get a "no consensus=post" assumption on ITN to increase the ease by which items can be posted, I will probably IAR and expect any Olympics items to get a positive consensus before posting since we're already providing one-click access from prime Main Page real estate. - BanyanTree 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I like this set-up. I think it'll save a lot of Olympics-related headaches over what belongs in In The News.-Wafulz (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good start, but I personally would prefer a whole section on the main page devoted to the Olympics. Also, I'm not sure the Olympic rings can be used - the image is PD, but the IOC has very strict guidelines on when it can be used. --- RockMFR 17:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree; I don't really think that The Olympics needs its own section on the frontpage. A mention for the opening and closing ceremonies, sure. A mention if anything particularly newsworthy happens, why not? But a whole section? Overkill. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC).

I agree. - Shudde ^talk 07:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that ITN normally considers the breaking of a world record, especially in track and field, to be worthy of posting. Since this can happen multiple times a day during the Olympics, this proposal will almost certainly result in less Olympics Main Page space than there would be otherwise. Not to mention less arguing on ITN as to whether the shattering, for example, of the world record for two-man sculling is worthy of a post. - BanyanTree 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If a record is broken where that is particularly newsworthy, then sure. But most of the records that will be broken will be minor and probably not suitable for ITN. Does a really wide cross-section of our readership really care if someone shaves 0.01 seconds off of the record time in the 100 metre egg-and-spoon race? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You laugh, and then the five editors who are 100 metre egg-and-spoon race enthusiasts will show up and argue for days about how significant 0.01 seconds is given the recent advances in aerodynamic spoon design and how inspiring it was the the Latvian winner was able to come back to form after the horrible Yolk Incident of 2002. Inside the "where that is particularly newsworthy" part of your previous post lie weeks of acrimonious discussion. - BanyanTree 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Under 11 days from the Opening ceremony. I think we need to get this figured out sooner rather than later. I think it needs an entire section, but I don't know where to put it. I think you could cut ITN by a few items and cut OTD by a few. Maybe expand TFA and DYK. Should create enough space for a third section on the right side. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 19:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like an entire section dedicated to the Olympics but due to the time remaining I'm quite happy to accept the proposal given and work from there to appease all users. Lympathy ^Talk 19:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Chairperson (ugh)

Can we call Sonia Gandhi a chairwoman, or at least a chair, rather than use the god-awful "chairperson?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I always think chair or chairman sounds best despite the apparent sexism. Lympathy ^Talk 13:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

recurring items

Per discussion of how

here. Suggestions of additional items and review of items currently listed are always welcome. There is also ongoing discussion of implementation of Template:In the news/Important living people to coordinate deaths coverage that may benefit from additional input. - BanyanTree

03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

US presidential election

I think we should reconsider the IMO completely arbitrary policy that we should limit mentions of the US presidential election. If Le Monde, The Times and various Shimbuns are OK with putting US election stuff on the front page multiple times over the year, I don't see why ITN should feel differently. It is absurd that the biggest international story in the Western World over the past week, Obama's tour of Europe, should go unmentioned while we have Cape Verde (Cape Verde?) joining the WTO up there. I think we ought to put the Obama tour halfway down the current list (the news now a few days old) and not shy away from further US election mentions if they reflect big news items of wide interest. Specifically, we ought to mention the vice-presidential selections when they are made. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd worry more about ensuring stories like Cape Verde don't make it rather than Obama does. More Obama won't solve the problem of pointless stories making it. However, for what it's worth, the Cape Verde article wasn't substantially updated so the ITN item shouldn't be there under the existing rules. (And it's still posted!)
• Also, not all Obama items are equal. With such divisive Presidential candidates the running mates won't make as much difference. Perhaps it's better to wait until the 2008 Democratic National Convention, which is just a month away anyhow (and might coincide with running mate nom). Potatoswatter (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To make myself clear, I don't think all US election stories should go on. During the primary campaign, I think there was a legitimate concern that if every state's results were to go up, ITN would be dominated by campaign news. I don't know if the conventions should go up, they being nothing more than infomercials nowadays. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: The Cape Verde item had the five sentence minimum update, so it does qualify. Spencer^T♦C 13:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I count a whopping eight sentences. Why stand by such an arbitrary bureaucratic rule? A country with $60 million in total exports, over 50% going to a single country, can't meaningfully belong to any international trade org. It's like announcing they ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Such obvious mistakes make ITN look really stupid. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, look at the update on

Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#International Speeches. Not great. Second of all, do you really want us to mention every time the head of state a major country (and Obama isn't even that) visits a foreign nation? This trip wasn't even particularly significant insofar as Obama couldn't actually do anything a head of state could, like sign a treaty for example, as he isn't even President. So all he actually did was give speeches and meet people and not do anything of consequence. Just because the media is whipped up in an Obama frenzy it doesn't mean we should follow suit. Hammer Raccoon (talk

) 14:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that again gets at the question of whether ITN should be simply following the media or rather its own guidelines for what makes a story notable. Anyway, there was surprisingly little on Obama's trip in the article space, so based on that criterion, neither Obama's trip nor Cape Verde should have gone up. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about Cape Verde or whatever vendetta you have against that story; I'm talking about this one. Anyway, ITN clearly follows its own guidelines and doesn't simply copy the media. This particular story fails our

criteria for inclusion on both counts - updated content and significance. Hammer Raccoon (talk

) 11:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what about the Cape Verde item fails the criteria. It was updated, of international significance, and made all of the procedual criteria. Spencer^T♦C 21:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the Obama story. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrator category

I am creating the category

WP:ITN/C, someone can find a ITN admin whose done it before to put an item up. Spencer^T♦C

01:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I left the above message on several talk pages of some admins...please don't feel bad if I left you out, etc., this was based on this, and personal interactions. Cheers, Spencer^T♦C 01:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of California earthquake

A 5.4 magnitude that killed nobody and caused no serious damage? For real? Earthquakes in the 5 range are actually pretty frequent, and if this occurred anywhere else in the world it would probably not be listed. But because it's in California, it's notable? California gets earthquakes all the time. In addition, a 5.2 earthquake struck Illinois earlier this year (which is even more notable, in my opinion, due to its location in an area not prone to frequent earthquakes) and I don't believe it was posted in the In the News section. Years later, this will just be another earthquake. Completely un-notable. Please remove this. There are more pressing top stories in the U.S. right now than this, and plenty more events that have occurred that actually did kill people and affect lots of lives that Wikipedia never put in the In the News section. Abog (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame the silence that apparently now means enthusiastic support... --Howard the Duck 15:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Tempus at total solar eclipse

A total solar eclipse is visible from northern Canada (Nunavut), Greenland, central Russia, eastern Kazakhstan, western Mongolia and China. Could an admin change the sentence in A total solar eclipse was visible from northern ... The event ended several hours ago, meanwhile it's after sunset in the area the eclips occured. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet access at Olympics

The Reuters article[1] indicates that some restriction will remain in place concerning "subversive" and porn sites, so not "all" restrictions are lifted. Ekem (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan item

Am I the only person who feels this is another example where we were too fast too add something to ITN? This item was added here [2] & the version of the article here [3]. The article then makes the definitive claim that US officials have concluded Pakistan's ISI were involved. However the only source at the time at least in the article was the NYT citing unnamed officials. While I appreciate the NYT is a highly reliable source I still think particularly in such a controversial claim such as this, we need to wait for further sources. The current version of the article is better worded [4] mentioning it as a NYT report. Having looked into the sources available, some appear to have independently collaborated these claims from US officials so I think the item can stand even if the article is still a bit poor, but it remains an example where we should have waited IMHO. (Note that most media reports who have not independently collaborated the report say something like "US media reports" or "report in the NYT") Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Internet restrictions

The current wording of the blurb about the Olympics is not completely accurate: "The International Olympic Committee and Chinese organizers announce that all Internet restrictions have been lifted for media covering the Beijing Games." Not all internet restrictions have been lifted. Some sites, such as the BBC News website or the Amnesty International website, have been taken off the blacklist, but sites about e.g. Tibet and the Falun Gong movement are still not accessible. Some restrictions have been lifted, but not all.

Aecis·(away) ^talk

00:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Update on risen death toll

The India stampede article puts the death count at 162, I suggest the template be updated. __

talk

) 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest the article be updated first. The article's second sentence does say 162, but the next reference number is 2, which links to an article that says "at least 140" like the Main Page. The infobox says 152. If you click the reference for that figure, it says 145. So will the real answer please stand up? Art LaPella (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Solzhenitsyn

There is no justification for this addition. His death was not unexpected, and the article only has a couple new sentences regarding the event. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-08-05 13:07Z

Olympic highlights

In the news

Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi President Sidi Ould Cheikh Abdallahi (pictured) of Mauritania is deposed in a military coup d'état. Eleven highest mountain on Earth . An China leaves 16 officers dead and 16 others injured. Over 160 people die in a stampede at a Hindu temple in Naina Devi, Himachal Pradesh, India . The Internet restrictions have been lifted for media covering the Beijing Games . A total solar eclipse is visible from northern Canada, Greenland, central Russia, eastern Kazakhstan, western Mongolia and China. Olympic highlights

So are we still doing this? The page is now in place. Lampman (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't like the way the Olympic Highlights isn't aligned with the normal links below. Perhaps right-align it? —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems the latest change was done without discussion. This one's certainly less aesthetically pleasing than the last one, why won't we allow the original one? Lampman (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How about making the Olympic highlights link the very last to be listed? Preferably with a forced linebreak? --Howard the Duck 03:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Like this? Lampman (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think that we should be making it more obtrusive. The current layout looks fine.

Including the logo is excessive, and that particular image file happens to be stored in an /ad subdirectory (so it's mistakenly blocked by some advertisement-filtering software). —

David Levy

03:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The current layout is not fine, as it doesn't reflect the public interest for the Olympic Games. How about this layout w/o the logo? Lampman (talk) 04:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like "Olympic highlights" to be right aligned along with everybody else. You can try italicizing the link or give it a different color (probably the color is a bad idea) so that it'll be easier located. --Howard the Duck 04:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this? Lampman (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean the rainbow? It's rather distracting. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

How about italicizing it? The proposed setup w/o the colors look good enough for me. --Howard the Duck 05:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

BorgQueen already has italicized the link. —

David Levy

05:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks better. But I still say it should be the last one since Wikinews' link is of a different color. --Howard the Duck 06:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a deletion discussion for the linked article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights (closed as speedy keep while the article is linked from the Main Page). Kusma (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I too feel it has insufficient prominence. The logo, or (more subtle) multicolours would do, in my opinion. -Oreo Priest ^talk 15:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The current prominence is more than sufficient, especially given that

Wikipedia is not a news site, and generally not the best place to get your Olympics info. And are you sure you put your comment in the right place? It doesn't look like an answer to mine... Kusma (talk

) 16:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the highlights page is currently now on

WP:DRV. If it somehow gets deleted, who would be in favour of doing what we did for the 2006 Winter Olympics: putting the highlights directly on the ITN template?[5] Zzyzx11 (Talk)

20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or we can reuse Template:Olympic news that was used for the 2004 Summer Olympics. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the highlights page is deleted, it hardly seems appropriate to replace it with something functionally similar but more prominent.

Our past news wire-like coverage was a very bad idea and set a nasty precedent. I'm fine with the current link as a fairly unobtrusive alternative, but Wikipedia is not a news site and shouldn't be treated like one (no matter how major the event). —

David Levy

21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The other alternative, which I believe was briefly suggested previously, is to have the highlights page be located in the portal namespace, something like Portal:Current events/Sports/2008 Olympics. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent suggestion. Kusma (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympics

Wouldn't this be better?

The 2008 Summer Olympics is underway after the Opening Ceremony held at the Beijing National Stadium on August 8, 2008. DORC (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the 2008 Summer Olympics were already underway before the Opening Ceremony was held.

Football started two days early. --PFHLai (talk

) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Please correct or clarify

Georgian parliament did not declare state of war (=declaration of war). They declared martial law.--Dojarca (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

South Ossetian War drawing to a close

Yet the front page of Wikipedia is not updated? What is going on? I don't know how regularly admins check Wikipedia as I usually discuss articles that don't recieve admin attention but this subject has interested me and has seemed quite contentious yet from what I can see the front page of wikipedia appears to break its NPOV on this subject. The Russians have declared a withdrawal back to the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and yet the front page would have you believe they're presently on the road to Tlibisi despite the entire worlds protests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because you haven't suggested an update at

WP:ITN/C. –Howard the Duck

17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

and why's Musharaf's photo not been changed? Also need to propose? - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Suitably a free image. –Howard the Duck 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've updated it and added a free image. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Highlights (2)

This needs to be removed from the template for a while at least, as its presence here has caused the deletion discussion to be speedy closed. The debate looked fairly spirited, and no consensus was established. Since there is no possibility of completing the debate while the article is linked from the front page, it has to be delinked - otherwise there is no way of addressing this potential problem. Brilliantine (talk) 14:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we need something Olympic-related to link to. I personally think we should try to link to Wikinews' coverage of the Olympics instead of mildly violating

WP:NOTNEWS, but I am not an ITN regular. See also a discussion a couple sections above. Kusma (talk

) 15:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, or to link to the main WP page for the olympics. As well as

WP:OR off the main page, it makes the project look cheap as an encyclopedia. Brilliantine (talk

) 15:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a "highlights" type summary is inherently "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" as prohibited by

WP:NOR (what position is advanced?) Kusma (talk

) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What constitutes a highlight, to put it simply. Wikipedia deeming something to be a highlight is OR, as far as my interpretation of that sentence goes. Brilliantine (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the proposal to move the page into portal space above? Kusma (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no familiarity whatsoever with the portal namespace, so I don't have any idea what the rules are for things that go in there, or how it is generally used. I would be mildly concerned if it was used as a device to get around content policies. Brilliantine (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Having a quick read about it, it states that NPOV and OR are still applicable policies, so it would have to be structured in a way that did not violate those. Brilliantine (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The

WP:OR as badly as the page in question almost by definition. Kusma (talk

) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say 'as badly' as events are not directly being deemed to be 'highlights' (maybe indirectly though). I do have a problem reconciling Template:In the news with Wikipedia generally, though have never really put too much thought into whether anything should be done about it.

But it looks as if a 2008 Olympics portal might be a sensible suggestion. Google has quite a good one. Brilliantine (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I just point out that discussion on this link began

over two months ago, that the proposal above was subsequently advertised on Talk:Main Page, Portal talk:Current events/Sports, and Talk:2008 Summer Olympics and that the objections of the minority were that they wanted updates on the actual template. I would also point out Talk:2008 Summer Olympics has a couple newer conversations by editors, who apparently missed the earlier notification, about the need for a highlights/summary page. Also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Summer Olympics highlights was closed at about a 20-10 keep count, despite some users characterizing it as "no consensus". Some users seem to think that support for the page and its link from ITN is soft, which I don't see as a reasonable reading of past discussions. - BanyanTree

01:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was closed with the debate incomplete, for the reason that it was linked on this template. This is circular reasoning. Brilliantine (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought when you said above, "no consensus was established", you meant that no consensus was established. I didn't realize you meant something different. - BanyanTree 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The closure prevented there being any establishment of consensus by halting the rather active discussion. Brilliantine (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And the onus isn't on editors to have checked things out while they were being planned, the onus is on the articles to reflect policy and that this is an encyclopedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, if a group of Wikipedians editing a web of related articles identify a gap in their coverage, that gap is almost always worthy of an article. I don't know how you define "encyclopedic" in practice, but I find "identified as needing an article by multiple involved encyclopedia writers" to be an excellent guideline. - BanyanTree 03:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, the main problem, at least as I see it, is that the title Highlights is rather POV, and which is causing allegations of OR. Change the name to Olympics Coverage or 2008 Summer Olympics Results and that problem goes away. NOTNEWS is still possibly an issue (more for the former title than the latter), but one we can ignore for 2 weeks while the page has a functional purpose on ITN. Later on, WP:Olympics can do a good job of reformatting the page to something that will be informative down the road. Random89 07:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this again. WP is not a news portal and there is already a link to Olympics for those who are interested (in Phelps post). We don't have any similar tags for other events (though I remember having FIFA world cup current results for a while once) and so should not have them for Olympics. --Tone 09:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I object to that on 2 bases. First of all, previous consensus was reached at several places that it would be beneficial to include such a link. Second, that link was meant to stop a gazillion olympics stories from being show-horned into the main template. Also, as a side-note, that particular page is not linked from the Phelps blurb. For better or for worse, the Olympics dominates global news coverage, even though a war broke out during the games, it does us no good to ignore that. Random89 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the main article in the blurb. The highlights article itself is already problematic, according to the discussions. I know that we don't want to have all stories on ITN, just the biggest ones (such as Phelps and eventually breaking some of the most prominent World records - like 100m sprint). I have participated in the debates then. I agree Olympics dominates the news now but as long there is a link to them in another ITN blurb, I object having the second one. Any I am not in favour of changing the ITN template format as well just because of this. --Tone 10:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How about it gets renamed "In the Olympic News (ITON)", is that title less POV? I think some editors are using the title as POV when the article is clearly NPOV. It's well cited, unbiased and should be linked from the main page to at the least stop ITN being invaded by Olympic related articles. As consensus has been to keep it on the main page, can we leave it there until consensus is to remove it? Perhaps we should rename the article "Olympic News" and that will end this pedantic debate. Lympathy ^Talk 14:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we have "(

More Olympic highlights)" at the end of the Phelps blurb? The Olympics involve more than one sports and have participants from more than one country. Let's not have such a narrow focus. We can put this back to the bottom of ITN when this blurb scrolls off in time -- not sure when, though. --PFHLai (talk

) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, although I do agree that "highlights" is a subjective term, do we agree that there should be something on the mainpage for the duration of the olympics? I, you will not be surprised to know, would like to see something there. As far as I know, there was a consensus to not have "daily articles" but rather to discuss the events of the olympics at their respective National and Sport pages. This is fair enough, but it does leave a gap of information in chronological order. If placing the olympic info in chronological order is considered stepping on Wikinews' toes - then so be it. It's still encyclopedic. Please, can we return something to the main page ITN!

Lama

14:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about formulation of the posts: 2008 Summer Olympics: Phelps wins his 11th medal and so on... ? I would be fine with that since it gives a bolded link to the Olympics and does not change the standard template shape. --Tone 14:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The changing the layout was also agreed upon and has been standard in previous Olympics as well. It also means we are not restricted to always having one of our precious spots on in the news constantly devoted to an Olympics item (which I would be surprised if it wasn't already pointed out. - I see BanyanTree pointed out something related on 23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC) ) Rmhermen (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I misremembered. In fact this is the most subtle we have been about the Olympics. In 2002 no current events were on the main page (which also had no DYK, Anniversaries or FA). In 2004 and 2006 the Current events box had a separate section at the bottom under a bold Olympic header listing three recent event results and a link to the main Olympic article (so constantly 5 Olympic items in the ITN box.) Rmhermen (talk) 15:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I have restored this again as the weight of opinions and preparation argue for its inclusion. BanyanTree points out the participation in origanize this. I, myself, am considering working this into a featured list after the games are over. Rmhermen (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let is stay. The only question I have is whether it is necessary to have it in italic, it looks unnatural to me. --Tone 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I don't understand why it is italicized. Lympathy ^Talk 16:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On a minor note, I do believe it should be "Olympics highlights" with an "s" because the name Olympics is not being used as an adjective, they're both nouns. (Note that that is why the page is not

2008 Summer Olympics bids.) Jared (t)

  16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about this subject but as I understand it olympics is singular and olympic is plural in this instance. In which case "Olympic highlights" is completely valid. Lympathy ^Talk 17:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleh, I give up. If you want

WP:OR linked off the main page, though. Brilliantine (talk

) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? The highlights article has more references than say, this article. –Howard the Duck 04:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to read the lengthy discussion above. In it, I try to explain what makes the article OR. Brilliantine (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To say it is OR for the sole reason that "highlights" is a part of the title is suspect. Virtually every article is more or less "highlights" of its subject. Otherwise, an article would list what time

Vanessa Anne Hudgens took naked pictures of herself, what she are for breakfast on February 12, 2003, who is her fourth cousin on her mother's side and such. –Howard the Duck

16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic rings

A small Olympic rings could work well next to

Olympic highlights. Seems to have been out of copyright as of January 1 this year. Jw6aa (talk

) 09:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, that particular image file happens to be stored in an /ad subdirectory (so it's mistakenly blocked by some advertisement-filtering software).

Regardless, I see no need for an image, as the link alone is sufficiently noticeable. —

David Levy

09:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, its presence in the /ad subdirectory is due to the MD5 of Olympic_rings.svg being: ad47e70124ed214d4318ace951da3850 (begins with "ad"). This kind of thing can be resolved by adding an identical image with a different name e.g. a capital R makes the folder /b1. I disagree that it's sufficiently noticeable. Jw6aa (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need extra logos on the main page. The template footer already is too wide to fit in one line in many screen resolutions; adding rings would worsen this problem. Kusma (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This includes mine. There are two footer lines for On This Day and Today's Featured Picture. Maybe putting the "More current events..." link on a separate line would solve this. Jw6aa (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that uploading the image under a different name almost certainly would resolve the issue. —

David Levy

12:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

why no kashmir strike coverage?

so many people have died and no coverage? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarnath_land_transfer_imbroglio http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/13/india.hindu/index.html?iref=newssearch http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/08/16/kashmir.protest.thousands.ap/index.html?iref=newssearch

this should be in current events

the event in kashmir is same as with kosovo and ossentia.

You may suggest new items at

WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C

11:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Usain Bolt

Suggested text:

9.69 of and 19.30

seconds.

Not sure how the date works, though (August 20? August 16?) Thoughts?

☄

14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Support. Mention it on candidate page and tag it August 20. --Tone 14:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Done, and Nishkid has copyedited it to actually make sense.

☄

14:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think more should be added: he is the first sprinter since

Nergaal (talk

) 20:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The wording is quite long as it is...and the mention would only be adding more trivia. Spencer^T♦C 11:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's enough as it is. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

200-metres vs 200 metres

• Can the in the news article be changed to read without the "-" between 200-metres? The whole article uses the "200 metres" format and editors have come to the article removing them wholesale. Please read HERE for the wiki guidelines. Thank you. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also no comma is needed before respectively and shouldn't
    world records in athletics instead? This appears so full of errors for something that appears on the front page. Sillyfolkboy (talk
    ) 11:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Spanair flight: number of deaths

At least 153 people have died. Source:

talk

) 21:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Russia's souring relations with the West

I think we are missing a bigger story with potentially much more serious ramifications than any of the other stories currently making our news headlines section if we do not see a way to include this issue. __

talk

) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, shouldn't we have something about

Nato following the organisation's condemnation of the invasion of Georgia? BBC News 82.39.33.148 (talk

) 18:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The first question is, do we have an updated article? If not, thie discussion is going nowhere Nil Einne (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 South Ossetia war has nothing concrete that I can see. This is perhaps not surprising since although you may be right about the ramifications, it's a bit crystall ballsy. All you can say is "many people think it's going to have a significant effect on Russian's relations with the West" which is not even close to be worth and ITN entry. Looking back at it from 10 years, you could say "this is the moment when whatever happened" but that's with the benefit of hindsight. It's something you can cover in a news article perhaps, but probably not something you can cover well in an encyclopaedia. I'm not even sure how you'd word the ITN entry... Remember there's nothing wrong with us missing the big "news" story because as an encylopaedia we work best looking back with hindsight and ITN is not about the news. It's good if we have up to date articles which will let the astute reader find out about what's going on and guess what's going to happen, but we can't direct the reader to articles because this may be a big moment in history. If we have something concrete to mention like Russia halting cooperation with Nato then maybe but we still have to make sure it itself is significant (i.e. we can't include it because we think it's symbolic of a wider problem) and be careful to be NPOV about it. Nil Einne (talk

) 19:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, we do have something concrete, and Russia has declared it is halting cooperation with Nato (Novosti, World Politics Review). This is no prediction on what will happen. It has happened. Also, Russia had threatened Poland with use of nuclear weapons over the deployment of the missile shield. Of course, the

talk

) 07:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The key question is 'is Russia halting cooperation with Nato' ITN material? Remember this has to stand on it's own, not because it's symbolic of anything else. In any case, it's irrelevant until and unless the article is updated. Also, I don't think 'Russia threatens Poland with the use of nuclear weapons' is a good ITN item. Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Some numbers

Per Potatoswatter, I checked out some article traffic statistics on stats.grok.se for June. Here's what I found:

Yves Leterme (Belgian prime minister) -- 4,083 Miss Universe -- 62,223

Makemake -- 279

Disappearance of Madeleine McCann -- 7,182

Madeleine McCann

(redirect) -- 26,091

Man Booker Prize

-- 7,521 Booker Prize (redirect) -- 10,495

American Idol -- 211,079

Zimbabwean dollar -- 32,792 Miley Cyrus -- 713,556

Clearly the somewhat geeky selections of ITN don't reflect what many people are interested in. That's fine if we're aiming at a particular demographic, but not if we want to be of more use to Wikipedia readers at large. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

See I told ya we should've posted Miley's topless shoot... but in the end, ITN is not a news service. And if we're a news service, it'll be mostly serious/educational news that'll get in. If something really, really (emphasis on the two reallys) bad happens to Miley then probably that's the only time she'd be posted. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, UAAP Season 71 had more views (10,754) than 2008 Open Championship (1,219) but there's absolutely no chance in hell the UAAP will ever be posted unless I suddenly have admin powers and wheel war for the next week. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)We don't make geeky selections. We make selections based on how well updated an article is to reflect something current of international importance or interest. Also I suppose some of the comparisons are unfair. For example, Zimbabwe dollar has many more page views, than, for example,

Tropical_Storm_Dolly_(2008)

have in June? 0. It can certainly be said that there is more interest than that in something like this.

ITN, rather, draws interest to updated articles and encourages others to do so. See this interest at 1, 2, or 3.

The 2008 NBA Finals, I'd hazard a guess that it received the most views, but still look. Cheers, Spencer^T♦C 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Just found this out. "Makemake_(dwarf_planet) has been viewed 0 times in 200806" The article didn't even exist. Spencer^T♦C 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

But it seems that the "how well an article is updated" criterion is not the primary one used in

WP:ITN/C discussions. Instead, it seems to be some unwritten code describing what types of entries are appropriate for ITN: national elections, space events, natural disasters and so on. -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Plus

WP:ITNSPORTS. 119.95.21.132 (talk

) 03:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think the choice is made due to both international and historical significance. Miley Cyrus will be forgotten by most, whereas Dwarf planets can be historically significant. Rough example but you get my drift. Wikipedia is unique (in my opinion) that it is a more accessable encyclopedia than the hard-copy replica and is also a lot more up-to-date and therefor flash-in-the-pan news is available here but in the end the core value of wiki as I see it, is it's encyclopedic content. Lympathy ^Talk 13:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What's your point? Do you want us to put up the American Idol winner? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, they put up the Eurovision stuff, so... --Howard the Duck 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eurovision slips in as a multinational competition. I'll give only three chances to guess which nation American Idol is specific to. - BanyanTree 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Screw that. The AI Finale was broadcast live on our country, compare that to the 2006 World Cup that made it to cable 6 months after it was played. It could've very well met the "international interest criterion. But hey, since it's America and they love doing it by themselves Euros think it is not "multinational enough."

Trying to argue that the most watched sporting event in the world (something that a ninth of the entire population of the planet watched) isn't as notable as American Idol is futile. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't I was trying to say. I'm saying that if the rules were followed the AI finale has a shot of being posted at ITN; the World Cup comparison was to illustrate some people or nations plainly don't care. --Howard the Duck 11:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the final of the World Cup has just been pwned by an Olympic basketball preliminary round game. --Howard the Duck 19:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The claim coming from FIBA should automatically be treated with care and is opposed by at least one other apparently neutral source [6] (not an RS but the sources it links to seem better). While I appreciate the 715? million figure for the 2006 Final came from FIFA, I didn't find any sources conflicting that it had the biggest audience whatever the actual number. Note that according to this source [7], the US audience for the 2006 Final was higher then the US audience for the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion. According to this source, the 2004 Asian Cup Final and Semifinal had a significantly higher Chinese audience then the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion[8] and the 2002 World Cup had a Chinese audience about equal to the event that supposedly got a total audience of 1 billion. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting thing, according to this source [9] it wasn't even the largest Chinese audience for the Olympics as of 12th August! Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus the fact that David Cook is on pop radio all day on our place. Eurovision? Zip. --Howard the Duck 03:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Following claims to international fame or "obvious facts" amounts to BS. With only anecdotes and no

WP:RS or data, it's only possible to bicker. Potatoswatter (talk

) 04:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason I didn't post such numbers myself was that June was too long ago. Leterme, Miss Universe, Makemake, and especially new Z$ developments are all July stories. Makemake had a quite respectable showing for a highly technical software development tool, an obscure deity, and a misspelled song name. If you look at stats for Leterme's election in March, he had quite a peak of pageviews, although that's also partly due to ITN. That's why my suggestion is to implement some real-time statistics gathering to see what's popular. Simply making hour-by-hour pageview info available at ITN/C would encourage super-timely development and scrutiny of headline articles. But there needs to be a new database outlet. Trying to use hindsight on biased data won't teach us anything. (Although trying to claim you have an "international perspective" and that you know Belgium is "important" is much sillier. Just admit you're ignorant like everyone else—the knowledge doesn't exist!) Potatoswatter (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we don't have as much news about Miley Cyrus, because most of it gets removed from

Portal:Current Events (and subpages), which is where we get our ideas. And what appears on P:CE? National elections, space events, natural disasters, and so on. (Political events, especially). Let's see a sampling for July 23: Prime Minister resignation, Military stuff in Nigeria, EU, WTO, and a hurricane. Mostly what was said above. Spencer^T♦C

14:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you responding to me? What do you think of my suggestion or my criticism? You don't know whether Cyrus is more popular than any science topic because you don't have the data. I'm suggesting that data be made available. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If I might offer an observation, Potatoswatter appears to assume that items that are more popular should be more likely to be posted on ITN. Since that is not an assumption written into the guidelines of ITN, or assumed by anyone else in the discussion as far as I can tell, people seem to be talking past each other. Potatoswatter needs to make a convincing argument that ITN should reflect popular interest, rather than whatever he thinks it does now, before moving on to arguing about how we should measure popularity. - BanyanTree 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just reacting to the "Government collapse vs. beauty pageant" topic, which was introduced with "but would most readers agree?" So the notion isn't my contribution, quantifying it is. I don't think ITN reflects anything non-random now, but I do think popular interest should correlate well with anything on the main page. ITN purely as a showcase of newly-updated articles might now be outdated, since updates generally tend to be timely with WP's now-astronomical popularity. Perhaps if additional constraints were added to the existing ones, the system would be better constrained, hence less margin to attribute the final product to personal biases. Potatoswatter (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer an earlier question, my point was just to get some clarification as to what kind of thing should go on ITN to avoid future confrontation. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The rest of the world has its sights set on ITN so every entry about USA will be highly scrutinized to avoid U.S. bias. --Howard the Duck 04:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that articles with international significance should be preferred to national significance, regardless of visit count. For example, a World Cup is more important to this section than the winner of a Big Brother Lympathy ^Talk 14:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but I don't think there really has been any confrontation. It's pretty much a given that the top five news stories in the world at any given moment aren't going to include the words "Miley" or "Cyrus". I think the type of stories that go on ITN at the moment are absolutely fine. As a section of an encyclopaedia, things with more lasting significance should be given preference. Hence we should probably be more in line with the BBC News at Ten than Entertainment Tonight. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Usain Bolt relay

How come it doesn't include that he was a part of the 4x100m relay winning gold and breaking the world record?--EZ1234 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

New items may be suggested at

WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C

14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's VP

I'm not sure whether this is the place to report it or not, but in the current version of this news item, Obama's first name is misspelled. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that it's been corrected now. Even if the news piece itself is based on speculation.Qqqqqq (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not -- the AP reported it an hour ago, and CNN and MSNBC have reported that they have independent confirmation of it. Obama will be announcing it officially tomorrow morning by text message. Raul654 (talk) 05:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I say we wait until Obama makes it official. IIRC, Biden claimed a few days ago that he was ruled out as Obama's VP. What happened to that? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, doesn't this seem a bit too US-centric? It's a candidate's vice presidential selection! We don't have VP selections for any other country's presidential candidates. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The US is the sole superpower in the world and this campaign has been followed closely by many countries' mass media. That said, if ITN convention isn't to include this, I'd reject it. The convention will be up next week anyway. Does anybody know for sure what the ITN convention is here?--chaser - t 05:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was perfectly content with covering Obama's victory as the presumptive Democratic candidate on ITN. But, his vice president selection? It seems like we're pushing it a bit, in my opinion. There have been numerous complaints of US-centrism on ITN in the past, and I think adding the VP selection is just going to open the floodgates from disapproving editors. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to waiting a few hours until it's officially announced. On the other hand, the main criticism of ITN is *not* that it's too US centric - it's that it isn't updated often enough (the Lugo problem). And more to the point - let's ask ourselves - what is going to be a front-page story in every major newspaper in the world tomorrow or Sunday? Usain Bolt winning two gold medals, or Joe Biden being selected as the VP pick? Raul654 (talk) 05:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on this bit want to address some points... From what I've seen complaints are about equal 'it's too US centric' and 'it's not updated often enough' when it comes to ITN and I expect if we start allowing a large number of US centric items we don't currently because it's not updated enough, things will just get worse. Also, remember it doesn't really matter what the top new story is because ITN is not about the news (remember this is not wikinews). As it stands, whatever the merits of the item, I don't see a significant update so IMHO this was added to early if it should be added at all. BTW, whatever the case for this item I've seen an almost consensus even from those who argue we don't cover the US elections enough on ITN not to include either the Republican or Democractic conventions, baring anything unexpected happening Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern political conventions are (by design) the most heavily scripted events on earth. Nothing surprising happens at them (except possibly for the protestors outside). Nothing that happens at a convention is remotely newsworthy. The announceent of the VP, however, is both newsworthy and far from predictable. Raul654 (talk) 07:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced it. This is now getting major media coverage as the top story in NYT, Wash. Post, The Times, La Repubblica (it), Spiegel (de), and secondary story on Times of India. Clearly ITN material.--chaser - t 06:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC) And al Jazeera, Le Figaro, Le Monde, etc. It would be embarrassing for Wikipedia not to include this at this point.--chaser - t 06:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Confirmed by campaign [10].--chaser - t 06:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's probably very obvious to us, there is no mention (or link to the article) of the

United States presidential election, 2008 or the United States to provide context for this information. Somebody might be reading this thinking "running mate for what?". BalkanFever^{not a fan? say so!}

07:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree this should be up, since the article (Joe Biden) has now been updated and the updates sourced. I know that we had previously agreed to not include news of the conventions, but strictly speaking this isn't about the convention, and that was before the ITN system got modified to induce more updates. Random89 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We barely even cover candidate announcements for elections elsewhere in the world for ITN. I find it silly that a non-electable position being chosen by a Presidential candidate to be too far down the chain for a short list of important World News items. I'm sure the United States presidential election is of concern to a good portion of the world, but I don't think many of them give a damn about who the candidates choose as their vice presidents. The status of the article has zero to do with whether or not it belongs on ITN. The359 (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind you, when we were discussing the US elections before, we decided not to put every new thing on ITN, such as Obama/Hillary wins in XY state, just when the nominations are known. Now, this is the announcment of running mate, that is not even an electable position. So according to the previous agreement it shouldn't go up at all. And please, keep your discussions centralized at

WP:ITN/C. --Tone

10:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The office of VP not an electable position? Both of you misunderstand. As for the item going up, it meets all ITN critera, and comparing a VP choice to the winning of a primary state is a bit silly. Russeasby (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just saying that we usually have just one post per elections, eventually two for runoff cases. For US presidential elections, this is at least 3rd post already and even more will follow if it goes this way. US biase? Otherwise, the other requirements are fulfilled, no oppose to that. --Tone 13:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I see and understand your point. But I disagree. This argument has been made many times already. But I do not think anyone can deny, in the world as it stands today, the US elections are of far more international importance then most other elections. The US being the sole superpower (or primary bully if you see it that way), with the issues in the middle east and the US being the primary external catalyst there, the US elections are of extream importance to everyone and can affect the lives of most people alive today. You wont find the newest PM of most european nations on the front page of every newspaper internationally, much less his/her secondary. But you surely will find the US presidental candidate AND his choice for VP there. Its not US bias, its simply of extream importance to most of the world. Barring some insane incident, I cant see any reason why the US elections will mar ITN again until the general election, McCains VP choice is far less of a story internationally then Obamas is (and thats not my liberal bias, hang out outside the US and you easily see who gets more press). Russeasby (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've decided not to oppose this but I should point out it will never be accepted if we post this but don't post McCain's VP choice. It's an all or nothing here and it appears we're posting McCain's VP choice. Also I think the difference between this and most other election results is that is has no real long lasting significance. I can't remember who Al Gore's VP candidate was in 2000 nor am I sure who was John Kerry's VP choice in 2004 (was it Edwards?). Heck I don't even no who challenged Clinton in 1996. (Indeed probably the main reason I remember Gore is because of the extremely dubious going-ons in Florida and because he maintained a high profile afterwards. And Kerry because it's recent and Bush is such a wackjob.) Nor do I really care... They lost, so they are a tiny footnote in history, more trivia then anything. Yes people take an interest now, but not in the future. I'm sure this applies to a lot of the world. Most other things have much more long lasting historical significance. Who wins the election i.e leads the country for the next however many years definitely has great historical significance, but who the candidates are, not so much, who the vice presidental candidates are, even less. The election of a new leader for some other coutntry, even a small one like Norway/Suriname however does have long lasting historical significance (the 'winner' of a first round requiring a runoff far less so). The same with the "messiah" whoever she is, coming to Chicago, Kansas being wiped out by an asteroid, a plane crashing killing 153 million people, someone winning a record 8 Olympics medals in one Olympics etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did this even go up? The

WP:ITNMP. Spencer^T♦C

14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with you there. "[u]pdates that convey little or no new information beyond what is stated in the In the news blurb are insufficient...." - Mark 14:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not removing this item again but consider ti anyway. WP is not a news service and focus articles must be sufficiently updated. Regarding the above comment, McCain's VP choice is of exactly same importance as Obama's, regardles of the media coverage. So either include both or none (I prefer none and just have an item about the elections at the very day of the elections.) --Tone 14:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be having an inclusion debate if the article firstly doesn't meet the standards that are set out. And also, one of the two refs in the three-sentence paragraph is a blog link. Spencer^T♦C 14:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added significantly to that section. This should now meet

ITN's subjective standard of five sentences with a couple of refs.--chaser - t

15:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Spencer^T♦C 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me as well. --Tone 15:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

picture suggestion

I just returned from Springfield, where I had the pleasure to witness the Obama-Biden rally. I too a few pictures, and this is the one I would like to suggest to illustrate the news item. It still is a wikipedia exclusive and I think it turned out pretty well. --Dschwen 23:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

US-centric

Does this really meet ITN criteria or is it just another example of Wikipedia being US-centric?

I'm convinced that if the messiah were to make his appearance in Chicago or a comet wiped out Kansas City, some of our friends would want to keep it off ITN as too "US-centric." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Making extremely dumb claims, clearly in opposition to all previous history is not going to get you anywhere. (Yes I know this is rude, but ludicrious claims deserve such a response) Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Breaking news...an ignorant poster declares rediculous defence of valid criticisms. Don't start getting alarmist, be aware that there will be discussions from all points of view. I'm sure many US users would also agree that wiki can sometimes get US-centric but debate is the best form of resolution. Lympathy ^Talk 15:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please people, have a sense of humor. And I think it's fairly accurate that suggestions of U.S. events regularly get criticized as not international enough. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest using an emoticon (and perhaps elaborating in a more grounded manner) in the future. I couldn't tell whether your message was intended to be humorous or mean-spirited (and I'm American). —

David Levy

01:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, sorry about that :). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions of all events only affecting one country get criticised as not being international enough. I'm sick and tired of people pretending that the US is the only one who suffers here. I think it's more likely by far there will be criticism if a meteor knocks out Shanghai/Mumbai that it's just China/India then there will be criticism if a meteor knocks out Detroit or whatevr example you gave. And whether you like it or not, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE BY FAR WILL NOT OPPOSE AN ITEM IF A METEOR TAKES OUT DETROIT OR THE MESSIAH (whoever the hell that is) SHOWS UP IN LOS ANGELES AND IF YOU DON'T KNOW THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD BOTHER DISCUSSING. Making dumb claims in discussions then passing it off as humour doesn't cut it either. It appears to me that there was some good discussion here and you basically either couldn't add anything useful but wanted to say something anyway or perhaps just wanted to play the poor hard-done by American card. Whatever the case, dumb suggestions in serious discussions are usually unwelcome. Nil Einne (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)