Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 11

message: Pope Benedict XVI meeting Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople in Istanbul (Constantinople). Has anybody dealt with this? Do you realize the importance of a reconciliation visit some 1000 years after the Schism? If this is not notable encyclopedic news, then what is? NikoSilver 11:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking into account all the statements and negotiations that took place before the trip, his recent speech in Bavaria (that had as a side effect the muslims' anger), and also the facts that this is the Pope's second trip (the first one being his native Germany) and the first in a muslim country, i think it should be mentioned 'In the news'. Without also forgeting that this trip, for which the Pope was invited last year by the Ecumenical Patriarch, is meant to heal the wounds of the Great Schism, and this is its aim. Even today the Pope called the divisions among the Christians as a scandal for humanity, not to mention that they called each other succesors of brothers (Apostles Peter and Andrew) and their churches (Catholic and Orthodox respectively) as sister churches. Since the Pope is about to visit later today the Hagia Sophia and the Blue Mosque, i suppose it is quite important his visit in Turkey to be in the news. A quick look in BBC, CNN, the Greek, Italian, Turkish and German media (to list just some, cause it is mentioned on every station and newspaper in the world), will persuade everyone about that. Hectorian 13:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's notable, but is there an updated article that corresponds to the actual event? Nishkid64 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's covered at Pope Benedict XVI#Turkey (November 28 to December 1, 2006). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Afterthought — it would have been appropriate to add this when it was current, but the trip is past and it would be somewhat belated to add it now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, you did the right thing.  It's the rest of us — particularly the admins who are supposed to keep tabs on this page — who fell down on the job.  I was busy with other matters, and didn't check this often enough.  The only other thing you might have done is add the item to Portal:Current events, which is supposed to be a prerequisite for addition to "In the news". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -( NikoSilver 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benedict meeting Bartholomew in Turkey 

message: Seems like an example that fits the purpose of this template purfectly.  149.175.37.228 21:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it of international interest?  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell is that? Grandmasterka 22:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UCLA Taser incident, apparently.  I don't think it's quite important enough for the template, myself, but I thought I'd give others a chance to reply. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a great article, but unfortunately, it has no real international significance. Nishkid64 22:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCLA Taser incident 

message: Would it be appropriate to add the publication of the Iraq Study Group Report to "In the News", or is that too U.S.-centric? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would count as "international interest", although I'm sure others might disagree. Grandmasterka 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's something of major international interest, but I also don't know what others would think. I think it should be up there. How shall we word it? Nishkid64 22:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The Iraq Study Group releases its final report, describing the situation in Iraq as "grave and deteriorating" and making 79 policy recommendations.
—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been bold and put this on the template; if anyone wants to improve the wording, post here and I or another admin will change it. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed it wasn't linked to the Iraq War, and I was going to fix it, but I had to go to dinner. Looks like someone else got to it first. Nishkid64 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest that Chavez should move out in favour of :Image:ISG report cover.jpg.  Shagmaestro 08:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice thought, but that image is copyrighted, and I don't think we're supposed to put fair use images on the front page.  (I'm not entirely sure why that is, come to think of it, but I'm sure I've seen it objected to in the past.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Study Group 

message: His health had been deteriorating for the past few months. I don't think his death is that unexpected, given his age. I'm removing it from ITN, unless I see some opposition to this. Nishkid64 17:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been discussed on WP:ITN/C, and if I have interpreted the discussion correctly, Pinochet met criterion C, the effect on current events. He's still a Chilean senator, the trial against him was ongoing, etc. I endorse his death being posted on ITN. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 17:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has died, but it's current wording if awful. It doesn't even say who he is and you can see an unclosed ]. --TheTallOne 18:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) He made a statement a few weeks ago saying that he accepts all the blame for the tyranny after the Chilean coup in 1973. I had added it to ITN myself, but it was subsequently removed because it wasn't discussed much in the article itself. He knew he was going to die soon, and he made that statement, which is why I don't think his death should have been on ITN. However, I can see your reasoning, so I put it back up for now. Nishkid64 18:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I added the Chilean president bit. Nishkid64 18:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was originally going to put that, but I wasn't totally sure so I just didn't. Anyway, from your evidence, I've changed it to "Former Chilean dictatorial president" Nishkid64 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Please keep in mind that WP:ITN, perhaps more than other parts of wikipedia, has to respect the neutral point of view. There's also no space on ITN to deal with all the nuances, sources, references etc. as to what constitutes a dictatorship, which definitions are used for a dictatorship, why Pinochet meets those criteria, etc. What we can say for sure is that Pinochet held the office of the presidency of Chile. Whether his policies constituted a dictatorship is not for ITN. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put it in the first place because of NPOV, but I thought it would be accepted, since all of this was true. Anyway, I removed it now. Nishkid64 22:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His regime is often associated with dictatorship (a.o. by me), so it's not an uncommon association. But this is already described in the article. I don't think it is needed on ITN as well. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, at least now I know for the future. :-P Nishkid64 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What about "Former Chilean president Augusto Pinochet (91) dies one week after suffering a heart attack"? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  I've added the word "age" and performed the edit.  —David Levy 23:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good now. Nishkid64 23:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He was a dictator, and we all agree on that. However, we don't want to bring in POV into ITN, so we're keeping it as president. If people want to know if he was a dictator or not, they can go to the article. Nishkid64 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "President" is NOT neutral. "Head of state" is acceptable. Please change. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said on your talk page, he was the 30th president of Chile. I mean, I can go either way on this, but I think it's fine as it is. Nishkid64 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augusto Pinochet 

message: I've added an item about Kofi Annan's final speech in office.  In diplomatic terms, the speech is actually quite a strong rebuke of US foreign policy (and is noted as such by the BBC), but in the interests of NPOV I tried to reflect Annan's actual diplomatic language.  (Kofi Annan has, of course, been updated.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great addition to ITN. It's both internationally appealing, and it follows ITN candidate guidelines. Nishkid64 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the wording could be changed a bit to reflect NPOV. It seems to grant Annan's assumption that the U.S. has now abandoned its "historic commitments." Tfine80 22:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions for an improvement? (I had considered something like "...chides the United States for moving away from its historic commitments...", but decided that didn't accurately reflect his diplomatic language — even though that's how it's being universally interpreted.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As noted above, this text is blatantly POV and suggests that the U.S. has abandoned its commitments to human rights. /Slarre 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to say "...suggests that the United States has abandoned its commitments to human rights and multilateralism"?  Annan's actual words are "When it [America] appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."  My question above was a legitimate one: any suggested improvements would be welcome, and I'm sure that I or another admin can incorporate them. This is a wiki, after all. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just simply state that he criticised the U.S. in his speech? We don't need to go into details here. /Slarre 13:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, his criticism of the US is the aspect of the speech that major media sources have focused on, so I think it's not a "liberty" to do the same. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The use of the ad populum justification is inherently POV. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 06:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: While I don't think Kofi's speech deserves its own article, I do agree that there may be a bit of "editorializing" on ITN. --64.229.220.121 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said twice now, all suggestions for a more neutral wording are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ITN items don't have to stem from novel articles, just updated ones- although this often comes down to a matter of opinion, unfortunately. Annan's biography is updated to reflect his speech and therefore the piece is legitimate. I would certainly say it's noteworthy (to paraphrase the ITN guidelines, "of internation interest..."). It could be shortened, but he has obviously deliberately used diplomatic language and I think we should reflect that intent here as well when reporting- criticism is too strong a word in my opinion. Badgerpatrol 16:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be better to say "encourages the United States to follow its historic commitments" instead of "return to"?  He does say that the U.S. appears to have abandoned its own ideals and objectives.  However, I think that if we say baldly "Kofi Annan ... suggests that the United States has abandoned its historic commitments to multilateralism and human rights" it might misrepresent his constructive tone.  Once again, suggestions for a better, more neutral wording are welcome. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (pictured), in his final speech in office, encourages the United States to provide global leadership in the multilateral tradition of Harry S. Truman"? (Having read the speech; the current version most certainly can't stay... it's clearly POV and OR). Mikker (...) 21:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, "Outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan (pictured), in his final speech in office, encourages the United States to provide global leadership whilst respecting the principles of "collective responsibility, global solidarity, the rule of law, mutual accountability, and multilateralism"". (the last part is a quote from the speech, see this). Mikker (...) 21:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Mikkerpikker.  I can support either of these — but since it seems my judgement was a bit off in this case, I don't know that I should be the one to choose between these two alternatives.  Does anyone have a preference?  (They both seem accurate to me.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm... although the second version is somewhat better, it may be a bit too wordy. That said, the first version places undue weight on Truman - Annan praises him, but this story isn't noteworthy because of that. The second version more accurately reflects Annan's goal it seems to me. Mikker (...) 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made that adjustment, and linked most of the concepts Annan spoke about in his quote.  I was a bit unsure about linking to collective responsibility (doctrine), because that article doesn't have much about the application of the term in international relations, but I reckon people who know more about that than I do can take the opportunity to improve that article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's long because it's tough to be succinct and accurately reflect diplomatic language.  Any suggestions for a shorter version that's NPOV and accurate? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Outgoing United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan gives his final speech in office, widely interpreted as a criticism of the unilateralist policies of the George W. Bush administration."?  Is that better? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WEASEL. I'd go with the Truman version then... and, yeah, after seeing it on the main page, I think Centrx is right. Mikker (...) 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pharos has cut it down, and I suppose it's OK now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to carry on about it... but the current version doesn't make very much sense to be honest. What does it mean to "respect multilateralism"? It should either be "respect the principle of multilateralism" or "encourages the United States to provide multilateral global leadership." Mikker (...) 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And I hate to be overdefensive of my own language, but isn't "multilateralism" by definition a principle?  Discussion about the need to "respect multilateralism" is pretty common anyway, isn't it?--Pharos 00:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, multilateralism is both a description of a state of affairs and a moral princinple. Annan urged the US to follow the moral principle. Mikker (...) 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean, but isn't his intention clear from the context?  I don't disagree with you in principle, I'm just trying to reduce unnecessary verbiage.--Pharos 01:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (I think I'll make this my last post on this). I probably went too far when I said 'it doesn't make sense' but I do think my version is somewhat clearer. It's not that n.b. tho; I'll leave it up to you to decide, oh One With Tools. :) Mikker (...) 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I read the speech myself, and found the sections criticizing US policy (in diplomatic language) to be the most noteworthy aspects of it.  Perhaps it was an error to justify that judgment by pointing out that it was shared by major media sources reporting on the speech, perhaps not.  But I still maintain that if the UN Secretary-General chooses to use his final speech in office to criticize the United States, that is appropriate material for "in the news", and it is precisely because of that criticism that it is noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with you - many stories are notable in themselves and the media can't help but report them heavily, and I'm sincerely glad you read the speech - I believe you're part of the minority who actually have. I only wanted to stress the importance of resisting the temptation to follow major media focus simply for the sake of. I realize that such an ideal is difficult to adhere to in all the chaos of world events, but it's an ideal nevertheless. --Haizum    μολὼν λαβέ 08:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand and respect your concern, but since the name of the section is "in the news" there's going to be an unavoidable bias towards covering the stories — and the aspects of stories — that are, y'know, in the news.  Of course, Wikipedia aspires to an ideal of neutrality not shared by most media outlets, but a story is a story.  The speech wasn't notable because of Annan's reminiscences about arriving in Minnesota, or his expressed concerns about SARS and avian flu.  —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kofi Annan 

message: There's currently a discussion about putting up the Ipswich area murders. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#12 December. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipswich murders 

message: It is disturbing for me to see Wikipedia calling Pinochet a "president" on its main page. Only the pinochetistas call him that. If you read the international media, all call him a "dictator" or "general" or "head of state" but never "president." Can anybody please, at least, change it to "de facto president" or "de facto head of state"? It reads now like Wikipedia is taking sides. Thanks! ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chávez was democratically elected. Pinochet was not. There's a world of difference. ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We do (and should) call people by their official titles. The title "president" doesn't only apply to democratically elected leaders. (Witness Mugabe). Besides, alternative titles ("dictator" etc.) reflect a bias and therefore violates Wikipedia policy. Mikker (...) 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm changing it to "head of state", as that doesn't carry any POV (I think) with it, and it describes Pinochet better. Nishkid64 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough... hadn't thought of that. Mikker (...) 04:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pinochet

message: Should we change the picture to :Image:Lipotes vexillifer.jpg? ~ trialsanderrors 22:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like someone already got to that. Nishkid64 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: The wording of this headline is not entirely accurate, and the event of redeploying was not newsworthy in and of itself.  The event involved attempting to stow the port-side P6 array, which due to kinks, led controllers to try extending and retracting the array in an attempt to cause the sections to fold properly.  While this ultimately failed, the array is still just over 50% extended, which really doesn't qualify as "redeployed" (since it wasn't fully retracted to being with).  Besides this, perhaps the headline should be changed to reflect EVA #2, in which the spacewalkers performed a (apparently flawless) task of rewiring the station's electrical systems?  Perhaps, "Astronauts on mission STS-116 performed the first of two spacewalks to rewire the ISS electrical system for future expansion."  -- Huntster T • @ • C 10:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solar array redeploy? 

message: There is already a discussion here about notability, global interest and so on and I don't want to duplicate that, but I'm wondering about some procedural issues. As we all know, WP:NOT a democracy (nor should it be one) so I'm not going to count support vs. object; but it seems to me attempts at consensus formation with substantive arguments are deadlocked. People have provided pretty solid arguments both for and against inclusion on ITN (I happen to think the against arguments are more convincing, but maybe that's my pov) and it seems the debate won't be resolved one way or another. 
My question is: what happens in cases like this? Is the story kept or discarded? Should we perhaps look at adding something to the guideline? (Note, I am not concerned here about settling the Ipswich issue one way or another, I'm more concerned with how to settle disputes like these in the future). Mikker (...) 19:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the right place to debate about things like this, Mikker. Hopefully, you'll convince an admin or two to remove the bad item. Or, you can find better ITN candidates to help displace this bad item from ITN sooner. --PFHLai 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipswich murders - procedural issues 

message: Shouldn't that be "Suffolk police launch..." or "The Suffolk Constabulary launches..."? —ptk✰fgs 02:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it, as Suffolk police launch I believe is at least correct in British English. Next time, try WP:ERRORS (although it appears someone else has transcribed it there). -- tariqabjotu 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Tariq, for fixing my careless typo. --PFHLai 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suffolk police launches 

message: At the moment we have the first set of text for this story, which doesn't work very well in British English:
:Suffolk police launch an investigation on five dead bodies discovered near Ipswich in Suffolk, England.
Compared to the original submission which sounds much better:
:Police in Ipswich, UK are hunting a possible serial killer after five prostitutes are found dead within the last ten days.
Although I would advocate the following as removing some of the potential assumptions in the second headline:
:Suffolk police launch an investigation after 5 prostitutes are found dead within 10 days near Ipswich, United Kingdom
I think this would improve the item, but at least can we get away from "launching an investigation on five dead bodies" and can we have United Kingdom rather than England. We wouldn't just put Houston, Texas after all would we... Ian3055 23:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now: Suffolk police have arrested a man under suspicion of murdering 5 prostitutes within 10 days near Ipswich, United Kingdom --TheTallOne 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the suggestions. I've posted a similar line. I avoided the p-word out of respect for the dead. And I left out 'within 10 days' as I ain't sure when they died, though their bodies were discovered within 10 days. -- PFHLai 23:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ipswich investigation 

message: I know Shane Warne is a notable cricketer. I know he's made a massive impact on the sport. I know many people will fondly remember him. But is his retirement really that notable that it needs to be added to ITN? (And please don't say that it's more notable than five murdered woman in England...) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's the leading wicket-taker in international history. We put Schumacher up there when he retired. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and the blurb is better now than it was. It doesn't just mention his retirement, but it also makes it clear to outsiders why he is notable. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 02:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the retirement of an athlete is notable enough if the regular death of a famous person isn't. I just don't understand how retirement of famous athlete > death of famous person. Both are bound to happen eventually, but the second one is death! I am referring back to Template talk:In the news/Archive 10#Please add Friedman, when Friedman's death lost out to Ian Thorpe's retirement, because apparently a famous swimmer deciding he doesn't want to swim anymore is greater news than a famous person dying. Shane Warne issues one press release and he's In the news material. The guy is 37, obviously he's not going to professionally play cricket forever. I know a lot of famous people die daily, and am willing to agree that ITN shouldn't include "normal" deaths. But if this is to be the case, no more athletic retirements either! -newkai t-c 06:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't add the Warney entry, Harro5 did. Friedman is very famous, and I didn't express an opinion on him as I am not an economics expert, but Thorpe won the most world championships ever (11), and Warne took the most wickets ever (699) - so with those stats ready, it was quite straightforward. If some mathematician, who had the most cites or the most papers ever, were to die, I guess that would present a strong case also. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 06:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this guy is retiring, not even dying! For all we know he could pull off a Michael Jordan and be on the field again two years from now. Seriously, it's just retirement. All it means is that he won't be getting a 12th world championship. Oh, and I wasn't not accusing you of adding the entry, I was objecting to the entry being added! -newkai t-c 07:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very surprised that this actually made it to the main page.  Major sporting events (The Ashes, the Olympics, various Tennis Grand Slams, Golf majors etc) might be noteworthy news items, but the retirement of a particular player, however exceptional, is pushing the envelope a little.  After all, as newkai stated above, retirement is bound to happen at some stage in the life of a sporting champion.  By all means, put it in the article Shane Warne, but this announcement is not unique, unusual, spectacular, unexpected or global enough to warrant a listing on the main page.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 07:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just commenting on this: news covers individuals all the time, and the template has seen many individuals recognised for awards and achievements that are exceptional. Champions and athletes retire all the time, but a world leader in sports is something different. --Scottie theNerd 08:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not familiar with the process and guidelines of this template, but I would think this template should contain items gaining significant coverage in many news outlets. If his retirement is really that significant I don't see why not to include it.  - Tutmosis 16:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In countries which play cricket, there is hardly any bigger news. Front page stuff. It even beats the bushfires in Eastern Australia to the front page. Should've stayed on. That's the problem of cricket not being enough of a global sport... Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 00:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The American baseball leagues aren't global either, yet the winner of the World Series has been publicised here. We could compromise though: When The Ashes officially end, we could bundle the Australians reclaiming the Ashes as well as Warne's retirement, as he did announce retirement after the series. --Scottie theNerd 00:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The World Series isn't a global event, but I'd safely assume that people around the world know what the World Series is and probably have some amount of familiarity with the teams involved. If nothing else, they know it's baseball. I have never heard of this cricketer, and in fact, I have never heard of the Ashes. This does not make them (or him) any less notable, but there is a fine line between how Americans view non-American sports and how non-Americans view American sports. -- Kicking222 02:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the World Series is an event. I wouldn't object to the mention of who won The Ashes being placed in ITN, but we're talking about an individual player choosing to retire. No one chooses to win an event (hopefully). -newkai t-c 17:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Centrx removed it because Warn'e article wasn't revamped, as is required. Of course, we can do that now. IND + PAK + BANG = 1.5 billion people roughly.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have suggested Warne again today following his 700th test wicket. WP:ITN/C--HamedogTalk|@ 05:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shane Warne 

message: Somebody should add a line about the death of Saparmurat Niyazov. Rain74 10:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Niyazov 

message: The blurb about Abu Bakar Bashir has been changed from "The spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, Abu Bakar Bashir, has his 2002 Bali bombing conviction overturned by the Indonesian Supreme Court" to "Abu Bakar Bashir's conviction related to the 2002 Bali bombing is overturned by the Indonesian Supreme Court." I don't think it reads well in the passive form. Wouldn't it be better to swap the sentence around and make the sentence active: "The Supreme Court of Indonesia overturns the conviction of Abu Bakar Bashir for his alleged role in the 2002 Bali bombing." Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Bakar Bashir 

message: I would like to remind everyone that all images on ITN must be protected and just protecting the version at Wikimedia Commons in not adequate -- the 'local file' in English Wikipedia must be protected as well. Otherwise, vandals can upload anything they want with the same filename and spoil our MainPage. Thank you for your attention. -- PFHLai 16:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protecting ITN images 

message: The current entry on the fighting in Somalia is overlinked, in my opinion. It now reads, 
:In Somalia, heavy fighting between forces of the Islamic Courts Union and government troops allegedly reinforced by the Ethiopian military breaks out near Baidoa. 
Not all of those links are needed, especially not troops, allegedly reinforced, and military. Could someone either delink those three or explain why the template needs nine links in one twenty-four word blurb? Thanks. Picaroon 20:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somalia entry 

message: Regarding Resolution 1737 against Iran: isn't the news the passing of the resolution, instead of Iran's nuclear program? So shouldn't Resolution 1737 be bolded instead of Iran's nuclear enrichment program? Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same concern. Perhaps both should be bolded. Aran|heru|nar 04:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Earlier, the Resolution 1737 page was a mini-stub. Bolding that link would be inappropriate. It's okay now that it's a decent article. -- PFHLai 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 1737 

message: Here's a summary of what's happened since yesterday:
*Several language versions of Wikipedia have featured the death of James Brown on their equivalent to ITN.
*Several people have expressed puzzlement at the exclusion of this piece of news from the English version of ITN.
*A case has been made to exclude the news based on an interpretation of the ITN criteria.
I admit to not being a veteran of ITN discussions. But to me, the above indicates we should change the criteria to make sure that the death of an extremely notable person, such as Bob Dylan, Muhammad Ali or  Steven Spielberg, can be mentioned on ITN, even if the deaths themselves are relatively ordinary (e.g., heart failure).
To me, criterion 4 reads as if it should not be a barrier to this. But we've been told that there are precedents to the contrary, perhaps it should be spelled out in the criterion that the "new information" mentioned need not be exhaustive.
Criterion 5 perhaps should be modified to allow for the inclusion of "normal" deaths of extremely notable non-politicians. -- Mwalcoff 03:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your summary is accurate. And I don't see criterion 4 to be a barrier either. Iv'e only followed discussions about ITN very much on and off for the last two years, so I'm no regular either. It's actually strange to argue this particular case about an artist I don't like at all and never listen to. But that's beside the point. When someone really world famous die, we can and should put a link to the bio on him in our In The News section. I don't think readers expect to see lot's of breaking news about him in the bio either. I don't think that because I believe the readers know they are reading an encyclopedia and not a news site. Shanes 03:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And as we were discussing this Gerald Ford died and we'll have to discuss if he is notable enough or not. Sigh. Maybe this isn't such a good idea after all. Though if it's up to me he'll be up there In The News as well. Lot's of people will want to read about him the next days. Shanes 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We had this discussion when Milton Friedman died last month (whether Ford would be recognized given the criteria, being a former POTUS, and having changed the world...Friedman wasn't included).  If Ford isn't mentioned on the ITN, but there's something stupid about Paris Hilton or some celebritute, or some Pokemon, or some stupid swimmer in Australia no one's heard of saying he'll swim no more, I will hang the ITN editors by their balls and demand their removal. —ExplorerCDT 04:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've commented in the past that I support expanding the criteria to explicitly reference former heads of state.  Nonetheless, I doubt that many would dispute Ford's international notability, and I hope that the Gerald Ford article is substantially updated to reflect his death's ramifications.  —David Levy 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Infrogmation has added the entry.  I'm not going to fight this one, but I'll reiterate my hope that the article receives the update that it's due.  —David Levy 05:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And you'd be the first person I hang...with dental floss. —ExplorerCDT 05:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate your threats of physical violence.  I'll kindly ask you to refrain from making such remarks (and I'll seek administrative intervention if you do not).  I don't know if you're trying to be funny, but I know that I'm not laughing.  —David Levy 05:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What would be the criteria for "extremely notable" then? The examples you've listed are all American and well known in the West. Sure Muhammad Ali was a great sportsman, but once we start running obituaries in this template, I think we'll find that many people feel that others should be included also. What about someone like Sergei Bubka? He is one of the most legendary athletes of all time, but probably not as famous as Ali in the US. There are thousands of examples like this and I think we should be wary of transforming ITN into an obituary section. If the death is not an exceptional event then I don't think it should be added since the article will not have any major revisions. Wikipedia comes out on top for searches in Google for the people you mention, so I don't think anyone will have trouble finding the articles if they are looking for them. I think if we expand the criteria and we maintain the effort of countering systemic bias, this could get out of control. jaco♫plane 05:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I share exactly the above concerns.  By relaxing the criteria in question, we risk opening the proverbial floodgates to entries about the deaths of all sorts of arguably "extremely notable" people (undoubtedly leading to never-ending disputes regarding which deaths qualify).  As you noted, it's likely that we'd be left with little room for non-obituaries.  —David Levy 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe we could state that we never list more than one death at the time? Let's say that James Brown had been listed since yesterday, he would then now have been taken off and replaced with Ford. Maybe we can even make these entries stay much shorter. Just for, say, two days tops? Because, frankly, when they're dead not much more happen to them (despite all the current event-tags about how things "might change rapidly" people love to smear on top of deceased people's bios), except the funeral. So these kinds of news get old really fast and we can remove them sooner? Shanes 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes a lot of sense, Shanes, and I think it would be a reasonable compromise, except for one thing: what if two prime ministers die in a helicopter crash (as happened in Central Africa once, IIRC.) What if, on the same day, a queen dies of heart failure, and a junta leader is assassinated? It's because of the possibility of such competition for "the spot" which you propose ("my politician was more important than yours!") that leads me to doubt that it will work. Picaroon 05:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has all that ever happened on one day? Do you think the updates about and the quality of all the articles will be the same? Also, the current obituary requirements have no special way to resolve this either; all of these events would qualify under them, so the point is moot. It would be dealt with in just the same way as would any multiple major events, as it should be. —Centrx→talk • 06:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  The current ITN criteria allow more than one death-related entry to appear at a given time. —David Levy 06:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. —Centrx→talk • 10:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to type a reply very similar to Picaroon9288's, so I'll simply state that I strongly agree with Picaroon9288.  —David Levy 06:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It certainly is a tricky issue. One thing we can't have is sometimes using judgement to decide who should be in, and sometimes using the criteria. You can't fairly have both. I don't think we should have a limit on the number of people, but a time limit certainly. The 'one person per day' rule could work, if the only objection is multiple deaths, by combining them into one bullet point - i.e. "The President of Namibia and Prime Minister of Zimbabwe die in a plane crash while touring Namibia" or "The Queen of England dies of heart failure and Stephen Spielberg dies in a car crash". Iorek85 06:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If two people die by the same event, I would agree it wise to have them in the same line however the death of two world leaders is not a small event by any means IMHO. However if two people die in seperate events, e.g. Queen Elizabeth II (who isn't just the Queen of England) dies of a heart failure and Stephen Spielberg of a crash crash, I would suggest they both should be featured in seperate lines. Definitely QEII fulfills our criteria and I would suggest Spielberg does too (a death from a car crash would be unexpected and he's still a fairly noteable and active director). Obviously if Spielberg dies of a heart attack at the age of 102, this would be different Nil Einne 09:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: May I suggest using Portal:Current events as your "source of news", instead of ITN ?  Only well updated articles would "graduate" from there and get on ITN. --PFHLai 15:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikinews is another good news source.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Nil Einne.  —David Levy 15:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough.  All this effort by everyone involved in determining which articles should "graduate" is not needed, and may well be counter productive.  If any news item, important enough to make it onto Wikinews or the current events portal is not up to date, it will be within moments of posting it on the main page.  Even if there is NO article, it should be posted.  (Am I the only person who's been around here long enough to remember the discussions about the value of red links?)  Whenever we link to something on a wiki, we don't know what is at the other end of the link, and our main concern should simply be that we are linking to the article we intended.  Every link adds information and the potential to bring someone to a page that needs to be written, updated or corrected.  This is a good thing.  Please rethink your criteria. -- Samuel Wantman 07:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you just described is meant for Portal:Current events. ITN is a place on MainPage to feature well updated articles related to current events, not a news-ticker. If you want to change the raison d'être of ITN, that's a different story. --PFHLai 10:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to criteria?

message: Was Augusto Pinochet included in ITN or not? Because if not isn't that American-bias?--HamedogTalk|@ 16:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinochet's death was included.  See above for the resultant controversy.  —David Levy 16:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your comment may or may not be true but it isn't really helpful. Look below, we're trying to get away from the case by case arguments that we've been having of late, and try to discover a better way to construct the guidlines for inclusion to avoid these kinds of problems in the future. --Monotonehell 16:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamedog, do you know what American-bias is? Anyway, I think I was the one who added Augusto Pinochet to ITN (IIRC; maybe it wasn't me, but I know I did something to it), and it was on there for a few days before it was removed by another admin because he felt the article barely made a mention of his death. Nishkid64 17:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My question about (pro-)American-bias is that Ford is up right now but Pinochet was a bit dodgy being up there. Yes a admin did remove Pinochet Nishkid64 - try you - --HamedogTalk|@ 21:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response left on your talk page. I got confused about the ITN Pinochet candidates we were talking about. Nishkid64 22:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Wondering 

message: Perhaps this could be made easier (though it wouldn't solve the problem) if we were to have a small section on recent deaths on the main page. It would sit, as part, but just under, ITN, with a link to "more recent deaths" underneath, linking to the current recent deaths page. It could have three or four people, tops, and they could be replaced much in the same way the news is. They would be bullet points, not full sentences. listing name, why they are famous, and age; James Brown, singer, 75. Gerald Ford, ex President of the United states, 90. Iorek85 23:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A related suggestion

message: I can't tell whether this one has been touched, but the first point in the ITN criteria is not really a criterion at all. The fact that something has been added to Portal:Current events does not make it any more or less worthy of being on WP:ITN, considering anybody can add anything to the portal (although it may get removed at some point). Perhaps a better criterion would be something to the effect of...
:The story should be confirmed by multiple international news organizations including, but not limited to, CNN, BBC News, and al-Jazeera.
That might prevent what we saw with Saddam (note confirmed) and that might also prevent the placement of debatable minor facts (as has happened in the past). -- tariqabjotu 19:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think some of us might be getting that point backwards. It's meant to mean that anything that's listed in ITN should also be listed in Portal:Current events. So when it gets dropped from ITN it's still listed in the daily summaries on the portal... I think... *unsure*. The requireent of coverage by international mass media is listed in point 4. I'm not saying I've used the best language as yet, we still need to tweak it all. --Monotonehell 22:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrapping Point #1

message: 
A set of warnings have been added to the template, which is good. Can I ask someone to add something about also being careful when reverting to old versions of the template? Also, there is a typo: "Faliure" should be "Failure". Thanks. Carcharoth 19:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition to warning on template 

message: :Post moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (news) - BanyanTree 04:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need new news items to displace old news items.  Wanna help ?  You can post suggested new news headlines at WP:ITN/C. Thanks. --PFHLai 11:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: An article about the flood in Indonesia (not Malaysia, this one already on ITN) would be helpful. --PFHLai 12:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy at Haditha 

message: Assuming that Hussein is indeed executed this weekend, as seems likely, is it the sort of death that should be listed on the main page? I've heard some are saying we should list all deaths of former heads of state.  Would be good to be sure in advance, especially since a few articles are saying it might happen at dawn Saturday Iraqi time - less than 12 hours from now.  -- Pakaran 19:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would apply not because he's a former head of state, but because his death would have a massive impact on world events. This has no similarity to the Ford situation. --Golbez 20:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd think that Saddam's execution should go on ITN because of the massive international interest, much more than Ford. I doubt if the death of this former head of Iraq would have any impact on world events, as he has been out of power and in jail for so long, except the "end" of his many trials, and may be some demonstrations somewhere by his supporters. I hope it won't be an excuse for more violence in Baghdad. Anyway, I've already got a headshot of Saddam protected for tomorrow. (See WP:ITN/C.) --PFHLai 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think you're smoking something, Pakaran, if you even doubt for a second that this is ITN material.  Iraq is the world's big issue right now beacuse of a superpower in a quagmire, half of the world wants Saddam's head on a platter (including a lot of iraqis), half of them are saying his execution and the rush thereto is a shot against human rights, and many pundits say this might be the straw that breaks the camel's back in the ongoing Iraqi sectarian violence. And if you consider the U.S. invasion of Iraq to be illegal (like some people), Hussein is still the de jure head of state. Considering the criteria, he's undoubtedly ITN material.—ExplorerCDT 23:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Incivility aside, I agree with ExplorerCDT.  The "major international impact" already has been felt.  This one's a no-brainer.  —David Levy 23:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: * But you know David, there's only one sentence updated about his death...it doesn't meet the double-secret "substantially" criterion. ;-) —ExplorerCDT 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: No one's arguing. Someone just wanted to know if it belongs on ITN, and everyone else here has said that it definitely belongs. Nishkid64 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why isn't it on? VolatileChemical 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't been hanged yet. We're not going to speculate on ITN lol. Nishkid64 02:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam Hussein execution 

message: This is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker. News services are even waiting on it; an encyclopedia waits longer. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CNN  and the BBC  say he's dead, and the article has been updated. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the headline: "Hussein executed, Iraqi TV stations report". If they were confident it were true, it would simply say "Saddam Hussein is executed"; they are reporting that the Iraqi TV stations have reported, they are not themselves reporting it. —Centrx→talk • 03:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The BBC too has "'executed in Iraq'" with quotes around it, and end the first paragraph with "reports say." Their source is the same Iraqi TV stations. They also are not confident in reporting it on their own authority, and as an encyclopedia Wikipedia should be even less confident. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to CNN, one of Saddam's attorneys has officially confirmed it. Now it is verified. Picaroon 03:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I can double-confirm that. Senior U.S. military official has confirmed it, state-run news organization has confirmed. He's dead. Period. -- tariqabjotu 03:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Iraqi state television counts. Saddam's lawyer counts. US military counts. CNN citing non-governmental Arabic news stations, (in quotation marks at that), does not count. How's that? Picaroon 03:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that's fine with me -- I'm just a little bemused that Sky News was citing Iraqi state television, and we still reverted. But I'm not particularly concerned, as we're not a breaking news service, and we got it right eventually. :-) theProject 03:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the one hand, we have the natural urge to transmit things quickly and provide updates ASAP. On the other hand, we have the fact that we're an encyclopedia, not a news site. Our articles will be here for years, their stories will be archived in days. For the time between the first reports and the time where we've finally got a source that everybody can agree is authoratative saying it, we should use things like "Radio-XYZ reports" or "Fooian language news stations report" to head off updates. (On an unrelated note, I'm so tempted to put a pretty colored box around this section saying "this is an archived frenzy. Please do not modify it.") Picaroon 03:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was embarrassing. Additionally, please do not mention a time such as tonight on ITN, as time zones differ. Also, I found the use of Arabic language news outlets report incredibly insulting. If you don't trust a source, that's fine (a governmental source is preferred), but that sounded (unintentionally, I'm sure) like Arabic-language news stations are not to be trusted. Let's avoid that type of bias. And what's this?; we should probably avoid editorializing in templates transcluded on to the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 03:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I originally thought of it that way, but after reconsideration, I decided it was reasonable - we're going to have trouble confirming what they say. Unless we have someone here who speaks Arabic and has access to Arabic news stations, we're hearing what they report reported to us by other stations, presumably English ones - that's a long chain. So I don't think it was intended as a slight towards Arabic sources, no, although I certainly understand how it could seem that way. Picaroon 04:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: At the time, only Arabic language news outlets were reporting that Saddam Hussein had been executed.  Other news outlets were merely relaying the Arabic news outlets' claims (via precisely the sort of wording to which you object).  This reflected no bias or distrust.  It merely reflected the fact that (for obvious reasons) news organizations operating in the language most widely spoken in Iraq were the first to possess this information (even before official word was released).  This probably would hold true anywhere in the world.  —David Levy 05:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Does anyone mind if I de-bold the link to Saddam Hussein? Almost all of the info regarding the execution can now be found in the Execution of Saddam Hussein article. Khoikhoi 07:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The execution bit

message: The execution of Saddam Hussein item is a perfect example of whether we want the updates to ITN to be: (a) timely, but rushed and the wording thrashed out on the Main Page and edit-warred over while our readers watch, or whether we should (b) use the candidates page to carefully come up with an appropriate wording, check sourcing and all the other criteria, and then put the item on the Main Page.
In this case, admins who were following the news edited warred over whether the news had been confirmed yet. In fact it had, and the reverting admins were using sources that hadn't caught up with the news yet. But that doesn't excuse the re-adding admins who should have provided links to their sources, or at the least explained it in full outside of an edit summary.
Can these new guidelines being proposed above please address this concern, or address it in this section if you don't want to combine the discussions. Personally, I would much prefer we move to a culture where things are discussed amicably behind the scenes, either here or at the candidates page, and then the item put on the Main Page when agreement has been reached. The world won't collapse if Wikipedia is a few hours behind WikiNews and the world's other news sources. I would much prefer to see ITN updates done in a dignified, encyclopedic manner, rather than have people rushing to release 'breaking news' (we are not a news service) or striving to have us be among the first places to 'report' the news (again, we are not a news service). Carcharoth 15:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot, part of my reasoning for wanting all items to have to be discussed at the candidates page first, is that non-admins have to use that page, whereas admins who are not ITN-regulars can, while passing by, decide on a whim to add something to ITN and bypass the whole discussion and bureaucracy. Sometimes this is OK. Sometimes it is bad, when they trip up and get something wrong. I think admins should have to go through the same process to submit candidates for ITN that everyone else does. Being an admin is not a free pass to update ITN whenever you feel like it. Carcharoth 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think everything needs to be approved through WP:ITN/C. If an item is put up by one admin and sits there without objection, that ought to fine. If an item is put up by one admin, and then removed (or reworded) by another, it should head to a talk page – either here or WP:ITN/C. The multiple reversions by some admins (and the use of the rollback tool) was utterly ridiculous. As the folks on the Saddam Hussein article were saying, only when an official word came out from Iraqi (or US or UK) governmental officials should the execution have been considered "official". -- tariqabjotu 16:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with having a non-controversial candidate sit on the candidate page for a few hours first? The world won't fall apart if a candidate has to wait for a few hours. Have you seen how they do things for the DYK template? See Template:Did_you_know/Next_update. Carcharoth 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Carcharoth, I agree 100%, this was in the back of my mind when I drafted guidelines 1 & 3. I've since added a more overt sentence to guideline 1 regarding this. It's interesting to note that the Sadam ITN entry occured 16 minutes before the item was placed onPortal:Current Events. People are jumping the gun here. It's my hope that the proposed guidelines will move the focus away from trying to be a breaking news service to a more civilised service providing encylopedic background information for subjects in the public eye. --Monotonehell 18:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is going to stop people from adding the item to Portal:Current events and then immediately adding to WP:ITN. And again, the Saddam fiasco was ridiculous, but for the most part WP:ITN has been working fine. I agree with Carcharoth's sentiment as it relates to the Saddam incident, but there's no problem here. Nothing needs to be fixed because nothing is broken. Everyone should realize that if something is controversial it should come to the talk page and that it is best to wait for an official report rather than a mere some reports say.... -- tariqabjotu 18:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing, I think, is that controversial things don't go up without discussion. Having it appear once and then get yanked off and over to the talk page for further discussion is OK for, say, something like a controversial Reference Desk question, but for something appearing on the Main Page, I still think that everything should be discussed first. A self-imposed 2-hour timelag (if no-one objects after a candidate has been up for 2 hours) should be fine. Of course, at first, those who object won't be watching the candidates page, but they can learn to watch and object there, instead of edit warring on a template that appears directly on the Main Page. Carcharoth 22:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeliness of updates to ITN 

message: I've already created Deaths in 2007, but wanted to wait for the year change to alter the template...but I'm about to run off to a party sooooooo someone else please do it. :) Syrthiss 23:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember to update link from Recent Deaths