Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 19

message: I'll cut to the chase: I don't think that the civil unrest in Villiers-le-Bel deserves to make "In the news". Granted, the riots are rather "spectacular", but in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty minor. I don't think that two nights of minor riots in a couple of small cities deserve to make the front page. This isn't L.A., after all. What's more, the front page of EN had nothing about similar events. (Attacks against police in Etampes in March, attacks against police , firefighters and public buildings in Saint-Dizier in October. Sure, the events in Villiers-le-Bel Monday night were on a larger scale, but things are really limited geographically. Aside from one significant incident in Longjumeau, in the Essonne, this stuff is pretty much confined to the Val-d'Oise. And with no prejudice against that département, I'm just not sure that this qualifies for front page status. Especially since things calmed down a bit last night. Let's not aim for the sensational in our selections for "In the news". --Zantastik talk 14:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see it stay up there; I've rarely seen anything on ITN about France. Its nice to see stuff other than sports and killings and such.--Isignbooks7 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN reflects Wikipedia articles, relevant to current events, that have been updated. It's not about listing the absolute top news stories in the world. 193.1.100.109 (talk) 14:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This highlights a persistent problem on the main page - the title In the news which people keep thinking is a news service. Simply renaming it Articles in the news or, better still (and tied in with the  template), Articles on current events. Bazza (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - the title "In the news" not quite appropriate. "Articles reflecting news" would be better ("current events" is too long, and "Articles on current events" isn't correct as it may be an article on a general subject, like a person, that has been updated with info about current events (i.e. updated with news). "Updated with" is two words, "reflecting" gets across the same meaning. zoney  ♣ talk 18:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think "reflecting" is particularly clear. "Current events" seems fine, though. I don't understand why you think it doesn't cover all articles which have been updated to reflect recent events around the world. Bazza 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  Please see archived discussion Template talk:In the news/Archive 8#Biting the bullet on the name issue.  --199.71.174.100 (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An archived discussion from over a year ago isn't much help now. The bullet wasn't bitten, which is why there are still people getting confused about the purpose of the misnamed "In the news" section. Bazza 13:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there was a more recent albeit very brief discussion here Template talk:In the news/Archive 18#Proposal to rename In the news to Current events. While I could be wrong, I think the point anon was trying to make is that it's helpful to consult the history and see what has been proposed before. If Monotonehell is correct and there was almost a consensus for 'Current EventsRead more about' then it may be helpful to start from there rather then proposing a different name which may or may not have already been rejected and may not be necessarily more acceptable this time. Whatever the case, it's usually wise for people proposing changes to be familiar with previous discussions even if the discussion didn't eventually lead somewhere and the problem remains. Nil Einne 06:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Just bringing attention to past discussions. Not everyone knows the history. --74.14.20.57 18:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France) 

message: Please note this now its own separate article. Someoine might care to link to it in here. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case]]

message: Sports records are broken literally every day (the New England Patriots are on their way to shattering a half dozen).  I honestly don't see why the Muttiah Muralitharan mention is there.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know very little about cricket (and sports in general, for that matter), but this appears to be a highly notable personal achievement (perhaps similar in importance to Barry Bonds breaking Major League Baseball's home run record).  As such, it would appear to meet the inclusion standards that we apply to sports.  —David Levy 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There seems to be a lot of bias for cricket on Wikipedia; if we allow cricket records, then we should post something like "The 2007 New England Patriots break an NFL record twenty-two team records and three individual records." — Deckiller 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is that a record with international interest? Whereas Bonds and Murali have both passed iconic records in their sports, the Patriot's records seem more of parochial interest to Patriot's fans and, at a push, followers of the NFL. We clearly can't include all sports records, but those that make headlines internationally are probably worth a mention. 137.222.184.150 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Test cricket is the highest form of the sport, this was deffinitely one of the two or three biggest records in that sport, and the sport is followed and played by people all over the world from England to New Zealand and many other countries throughout the world.  The Patriots records were team records, and for the record (no pun intended), if they go 19-0 that will definitely go in ITN.  Grant.alpaugh 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is sort of a given since all past Super Bowl results have been included on ITN.  --Holderca1 talk 14:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: A better analogy would be the most strikeouts, which if that record were broken would merit inclusion.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports records 

message: Why do we have the passing of a single bill by a national legislature on the main page? I mean, sure there are going to be some implications for two countries in the world, the US has enacted many kinds of similar laws with other countries over the last few years, and unless it's something multilateral like CAFTA or the like i really don't think this merits any mention. I'm sure that very few people in either country even know about this law, and this is reflected in seeing nothing on either CNN, MSNBC or (as a control) BBCNews websites concerning this. Maybe it's not ITN significant. Thethinredline (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  See my comments on the candidates page.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the USA-Peru free trade agreement 

message: This is a very bad choice of articles - utterly lacking in global significance, and not tied to any significant subjects that we can meaningfully use to add context. I wish we would remove it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't count on it on being removed -- it stayed in the Main Page for a long time already and admins won't really remove an item unless Jimbo himself does (when did Jimbo participate in ITN? Never, LOL). --Howard the Duck 15:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I second the opinion anyway. Potatoswatter (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as WP:EGG isn't violated, of course.  violet/riga (t) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't know if I agree with the view it isn't ITN worth, it seems to me your claim is extremely speculatory and crystal bally, not really a good reason to keep something on ITN (it reminds me of the time people we trying to claim some motorway pileup in the US was going to have a chilling effect on world commerce. Sure like that happened...) Anyway, how about this? Maybe an Indonesian competitor at the SEA games will lose to a Burmese competitor. This competitor will get so infruated that he or she will hold a grudge against the whole of Myanmar for the rest of his or her life. After obtaining the presidency of Indonesia, he or she will lead the country in an arms race eventually developing nuclear and biological weapons which said competitor will then use against Myanmar. These weapons, will undoutedly affect China and India who will retaliate. Seeing this, the US will panic and launch nukes against China and India who will likewise retialiate against the US. A doomsday scenario. Failing to mention the SEA games which started the whole mess is surely a significant shortcoming on our part, right? Okay I admit, this is a lot more far fetched then your story but in the end, they're all completely speculatory stories by wikipedia editors of what may happen because of some event. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: When the mall shooting first happened, I observed that it was the top story (not just a top story, but the top story) on multiple news outlet websites from around the world, including the BBC and al-Jazeera. The story may not impact the international community, but it was certainly was of interest to it. -- tariqabjotu 20:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall anyone questioning having the Finland school shooting on here a few weeks ago.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You're reasoning, while humorous is not A might reasonably lead to B which was mine, but instead was A might lead to B which might lead to C which might lead to D.  Hardly the same thing.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree, my stories is more far fetched then yours (as I pointed out earlier), in the end the are both the same thing. They are speculatory and crystal bally stories by editors about what might happen because of something that we have established did happen completely unsupported by any reliable sources. Also your characterisation of your story is inaccurate. We have only establish that a mall shooting happened (just as in my story we have established that a competitor from one country will lose to a competitor to another country in the SEA games unless you're trying to deny that this will definitely happen in a large scale multisport sporting competition). You're claiming that as a result of this American's might be so intimated in this shooting in one mall out of the thousandas and thousands of malls in the US and so they might shop less in the Christmas season which might mean the US will import less goods from overseas which might have a negative effect on the producers who produce these goods. Or alternatively you're saying they might shop more online in whichc case this will somehow negatively effect the US economy (rather then simply changing it) which again somehow after a long line of mights is going to negatively effect the world economy. In the end both have a long chain of might and may be-s. And as I have pointed out, even worse this is all coming from editors. We don't select stories based on editors opinions of what might happen no matter how cool or for that matter 'plausable' their stories sound to other editors. N.B. I reemphasise that I'm not arguing against the story being on ITN, just that the reasoning given by Grant for having it is IMHO seriously flawed Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but we'd better take a closer look at these SEA games....  Tempshill (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The only way for malls to lose money on the holiday season is when a big-time terrorist attack happens on U.S. soils (like what happened in 2001 -- it was the longest holiday season in a long time), not on a random shooting in the middle of nowhere. (The SEA Games example was cute though.) --Howard the Duck 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Tempshill (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mall shooting

message: I think it should be apropriated to put the news about the Earthquake of 4.9 points in the Richter scale that occoured in Brazil. It's the first earthquake in the country with registered deaths.
ManecoWifi (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it have an article?  Tempshill (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Earthquake

message: The article is called "Westroads Mall shooting", not "Westroads Mall massacre". Someone should probably fix that.   jj137 ♠ Talk 01:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe better to displace this old news with newer items from WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it will be replaced... there seems to be a current tendency to keep old news items on US events whilst ignoring current events from the rest of the world which have articles on them... --Bob (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm not denying there is occasionally a problem where an admin adds an item, of relating to the US without any real discussion when the item is of dubious international interest and/or the article is no where near up to ITN standard this doesn't seem to be an issue at the current time. The only articles which have been proposed to ITN which is definitely of ITN standard and probably of of sufficient international interest is Tropical Storm Olga (2007). Unfortunately this were proposed before the article was ready (first one was still in the sandbox) and has now been forgotten (which isn't uncommon). François al-Hajj and Dragomir Milošević are getting there but I'm not sure if they're the yet (and François al-Hajj definitely wasn't suitable for ITN at the time, the article had 2-3 sentences). The best thing we can do to avoid this unfortunate systemic bias (although bear in mind we only have one ITN item relating to the US at the moment) is to get the articles up to scratch as soon as possible and when they are, draw admins attention to them (preferably not before but if it is done before, do it again). I (with the help of others) did this with the South Korean oil spill for example and it was resonably successful. Complaining about articles not being on ITN when the articles are clearly in no shape to be on ITN is not usually particularly successful, articles don't just magically happen Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, the Stanley Cup story was removed when other articles were added during the routinary ITN rotation. Oops, NHL isn't American, move along... --Howard the Duck 14:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mall shooting 

message: The ITN entry on the Mitchell Report should be written as "Mitchell Report" (with quotes).  The official title is Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball which is obviously too long, and the "Mitchell Report" is an informal title, so the quotes are needed.  Thanks.  --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but I don't think it's that big of a deal if it doesn't get changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant.alpaugh (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: .—Random832 04:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mitchell Report (baseball)‎]] entry 

message: I could have put it there myself but I prefer comments and inputs from others, but the recent extreme weather in North America was responsible for at least 55 deaths weather-related and still counting. Should a line about this week's extreme weather (ice storm in the Midwest and snowstorms this weekend across a wide area) be put in the main page's recent news (yeah I know I may be late a bit but since the storm is not completely over in Canada I though it is not late enough)? It had international coverage with still the BBC and Reuters having coverage of the event  JForget  01:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should've been posted earlier but it seems too late. --Howard the Duck 04:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll post this to WP:ITN/C but how about, Winter storms leave at least 50 people dead throughout North America Merry Christmas from Sasha 23:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mid-December 2007 North American Winter storms]]

message: I recently noticed at the bottom of the template where it says Recent deaths that its actually: Recent deaths, shouldn't it be Recent deaths so as to prevent conflicts in the new year? Or I am confused?  — Noah¢s (Talk) 20:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date error? 

message: I think that the statement "the Schengen Zone of the European Union" is incorrect because there are some members of the Schengen agreement that are not members of EU (Norway, Iceland).85.1.31.49 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schengen Zone 

message: We have these pictures: :Image:Benazir_bhutto_1988_cropped.jpg (this one good for ITN), :Image:Benazir_bhutto_1988.jpg, in addition to the one that has been on her page for some time.  There are a couple more on Flickr under suitable creative commons licenses. --Aude (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Benazir Bhutto

message: A prison release for a convincted al-Qaeda operative? I can see how it might be of international significance, but I don't believe it's something so unique that it deserves mention on ITN. Thoughts? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated it because it is very important in Australia and its International relations. It had ramifications on Australian elections and foreign relations as well as many international human rights agencies. He was the first convicted under new laws etc. Make up your own mind. But it marks the end of a very significant event - not just for Australia. 124.183.120.229 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a value judgement such as "a prison release for a convicted al-Qaeda operative" is unsound to be honest - the circumstances are to date absolutely unique, in that all the others in his position were freed years earlier as their governments had, despite alliances with the US, taken a strong line on their citizens being held at Guantanamo and Australia's government had failed to. The whole thing came to an end only with the increasing desperation of the Government here in Australia which was on the nose after the rise of a new Opposition Leader three months earlier who (in the end successfully) threatened its 11-year hold on power locally, and it clearly was feeling the need to eliminate an electoral issue which had galvanised opposition to it within its own constituency. Orderinchaos 10:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for bringing that to light. I can now see how this is a major international event. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries :) Orderinchaos 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Hicks 

message: ^^ Nishkid64 was concerned above about the possible insignificance of David Hicks story appearing on ITN.  Fair enough because a lot of people may not know who Hicks is and the story behind it.......but the New England Patriots???
It's American football for gods sake..... not exactly international news worthy is it?!?
AussieNickuss (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello.  There is a conversation about this at WP:ITN/C.  --Edward Morgan Blake (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Nothing to do with more important. Benazir's Bhutto's death was longer ago then the record and there have been no significant developments since then (which is probably a good thing). ITN is in chronological order, not in order of importance. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New England Patriots 

message: We never really reached an agreement IIRC on including the results of the primaries (i.e. the candidate names) but that one I could at least understand even if I didn't agree with. But including mention of the start of the primaries? That's really going a bit far isn't it? Nil Einne (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We always post the final result of most elections, but certainly not the start of the election process. --Stephen 07:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, it appeared in the news way before any voting actually takes place. That makes little sense. Second, there's no way we'd ever focus on primaries for any other nation, so there's a bit of U.S.-centricity going on. ~ UBeR (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm neutral on whether these primaries deserve mention, they are certainly local in situation but global in importance.  However, a conversation on IIRC should have no bearing on what decision is reached here. Joshdboz (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC = If I Recall Correctly, not Internet Relay Chat. - Mark 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry if I interpreted that wrongly.  Apparently I'm ignorant of what IIRC stands for. Joshdboz (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iowa?

message: Apparently someone took it upon themselves to add the results of the Iowa caucus, but I don't see anything different from the above discussion. It's one of caucus, which would never, ever get attention here if it were from some other country. Perhaps which candidate the parties finally nominate, but definitely not one caucus. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One, two, three, four, I see an E D I T W A R :-( Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above and strongly support the item's removal.  —David Levy 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. ITN cannot, and should not be US-centric. As PFHLai has already stated, we should not be presenting every little aspect of the US Presidential race. nat.utoronto 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Which article is thought to have been sufficiently expanded to warrant inclusion on ITN?  There is very little comment about the results in either of the two bolded articles.  I would say that the inclusion fails in that regard as much as anything else - we really should only include things in ITN that show a good amount of coverage in the article(s).  violet/riga (t) 11:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to drop a line here, as I saw a bit of an edit skirmish in the history with regards to the US presidential election thing.  I have to agree with PFHLai and nat that the Iowa results should stay off the template.  I'll not be "reverting" anyone that adds it back in, but perhaps we should try to find some general consensus in favour of adding it beforehand, as reverting one another will only reflect poorly on us. gaillimhConas tá tú? 12:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to go to Wikipedia to find out how Ron Paul did in Iowa (no, I'm not a supporter of his, just curious), because I couldn't find out anything about that in this morning's Washington Post. So it's a bit surprising to me that the Main Page doesn't even have mention of a political event that is the front page of the International Herald Tribune. I wouldn't put it first in the ITN section, but at least near the bottom seems reasonable. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Things are always added in chronological order to ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Iowa Caucus results should be added to the latest news--mitrebox (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, one fiftieth of the nomination for the election of the US president? Don't be ridiculous - the presidential race would be up there non-stop for the next 11 months! Maybe when the two candidates are confirmed, and again when one of them wins the actual election, but not a single caucus. Modest Genius talk 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls remove the local news from ITN! --74.13.126.155 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the Iowa caucus is one of the most important caucuses in the presidential election, even more important than say, the California one. - Koweja (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly "local news" any more than the violence in Kenya is "local news." FCYTravis (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Top story on BBCWorld is not local news. End of discussion. —Verrai 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of days ago the top story on BBC World was 'New years celebrations go with a bang';  (I paraphrase). That doesn't mean it was deserving of ITN. Modest Genius talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Until you get to the final two, one from each party, this election is local news with little interest from outside USA. --74.13.129.44 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to play Devil's advocate... What exactly is the Kenya story if not local news? --Falcorian (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If an undefeated sports season qualifies, then a significant US political caucus should qualify as well. Bizzako (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There have been various reports and concerns that the Kenyan situation may degenerate into genocide and another Rwanda. There is a definite ethnic component of the horrific violence that's occuring in Kenya. And although Africa is sadly not new to violent struggles, Kenya was thought of as a relatively stable country until now. (As one report put it, Kenya was the place where refugees ran to not the place their ran from) There is definitely a big difference between the Kenya story and a result in on US caucus, a result which will basically mean absolutely nothing if Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee don't end up gaining their parties nominations. Do you honestly think 2 years from now anyone will care who won the Iowa caucas outside of any effect it may or may not have had on who eventually won the election? However even if the violence is Kenya peters out (we can only hope) the people who have been killed will still be dead and Kenyans and likely much of the world will remember the time when Kenya was on the brink of disaster Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, I'm against this being on the Main Page, but this is rather heavily followed in international circles (in fact, CNN International canceled their regular programming to carry CNN USA's coverage). This isn't the Super Bowl which is arguably parochial; the POTUS affects foreign policy of most countries. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was rather surprised to see the caucuses on the main page, and I'm something of a US political junkie-- have been watching it on CNN all night.  National elections belong here.  The Iowa Caucus does have certain implications for the US political process... but in the end it is a *preliminary* election carried out by the state of *Iowa*-- local news indeed, and definitely nowhere near as important as violence over a national election in Kenya.  Fishal (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because WP isn't an international media outlet (wikinews is, I suspect it's a top story there)? BTW, if he actually wins the nomination (which is all that really matters) I think there will be little disagreement with mentioning it (I'm personally unconvinced about mentioning if it's just say John Edwards and Rudy Guiliani but that seems unlikely, we'll probably either at least get first female or first black candidate from a major party) but he's still a very, very, very long way away from that. BTW, according to Racial demographics of the United States the U.S. is only 75% white... (sorry thought meant country when you said state) Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Although the increasingly front-loaded primary-season schedule means that the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are the two most crucial events in the choosing of US presidential nominees, and whoever wins the two of them will almost certainly end up as one of the two people who have a chance of becoming the next US president, this caucus is basically NN.  The United States of America, unlike Malta or the New England Patriots, is a fairly small nation whose president has had next-to-nil impact on the rest of the world for the last seven years.  To me, the real question is whether we should be maintaining articles on local celebrities like Obama and Huckabee in the first place.  Obama is a senator from Illinois, only one of fifty states, and Huckabee is a governor of another one of these states.  To my mind, this sort of thing is basically electioncruft and primarily of local interest.  It's unencylopedic to include this sort of shit, IMO.  Who really cares who becomes the next president of that shit country?  I don't really care if a bunch of major media outlets on other continents carried it as front page news - they probably feel obligated to do that, and no one really even wants to read it.  Also, so what if Obama is black in a nation that has never had a black nominee before, and got a strong majority in a nearly all-white state?  It doesn't really matter who wins; the winner will just be a puppet of the US corporate-military cabal behind the scenes.  Bravo, Nil Einne and other men of character, for keeping this sort of information off the Wikipedia front page and limiting it to where it belongs: the front pages and lead stories of various fraudulent house organs of the international capitalist class, from the BBC to Der Spiegel.  Now, how about those New England Patriots?  Speaking of grievances that I have, why the extremely short run for the following important ITN item: "Queen Elizabeth II formally opens the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London's St Pancras terminus, the new home for Eurostar trains (pictured) linking London with Paris and Brussels."  This seems like some heavy stuff.  And yet it only ran for a few days on ITN, only about ten times longer than news of the likely US presidential nominees, despite being about one hundred times as important.  WTF? 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all of history, I have found only one example where an event in an ongoing and lengthy process of government formation was included in ITN: "Belgian King Albert II intervenes to take state reform off the table in the 2007 Belgian government formation, which has lasted a record five months."  This is the only example, ever.  To be honest, I only clicked on one historical version of ITN to conduct my search and found this example without any effort at all, but it is likely the only example of its kind. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't understand is why USA-Americans feel the obsessive need to dominate this encyclopedia with their own localism, just as they feel the need to dominate other countries.  As long as USA-Americans are allowed to edit here unfettered, this encyclopedia will be no more than a compendium of their various local obsessions and complexes, as they understand little outside of their own borders.  And as long as they are allowed to contribute to ITN, it will be cluttered with babbling about the lengthy process of their government formation, and free of important information about trains in England (=important country, very European these days), events in the lengthy process of government formation in Belgium, and the New England Patriots.  I think we seriously need to consider some sort of action.65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone from the front page; stop beating a dead horse. If you feel that ethnocentricism is a problem in general, this is not the place to discuss it. Try the village pump instead - Chardish (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You might want to read what I said above. Specifically quite a few non-Americans have supported the inclusion and quite a few Americans have opposed it. This clearly isn't just 'USA-Americans feel the obsessive need to dominate this encyclopedia with their own localism'. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my entire outburst; the ban I received for talk page stuff was deserved.  However, the entire thing was extremely sarcastic, and I was protesting the removal (most outrageously, it came after the initial inclusion) of the Iowa caucus info.  It seemed like it was done to make a point, and much less important items are included with much less controversy.  65.190.89.154 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Iowa? Again

message: ::Iowa Caucus results should be added to the latest news--mitrebox (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What, one fiftieth of the nomination for the election of the US president? Don't be ridiculous - the presidential race would be up there non-stop for the next 11 months! Maybe when the two candidates are confirmed, and again when one of them wins the actual election, but not a single caucus. Modest Genius talk 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls remove the local news from ITN! --74.13.126.155 (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Iowa caucus is one of the most important caucuses in the presidential election, even more important than say, the California one. - Koweja (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly "local news" any more than the violence in Kenya is "local news." FCYTravis (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Top story on BBCWorld is not local news. End of discussion. —Verrai 05:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of days ago the top story on BBC World was 'New years celebrations go with a bang';  (I paraphrase). That doesn't mean it was deserving of ITN. Modest Genius talk 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Until you get to the final two, one from each party, this election is local news with little interest from outside USA. --74.13.129.44 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to play Devil's advocate... What exactly is the Kenya story if not local news? --Falcorian (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If an undefeated sports season qualifies, then a significant US political caucus should qualify as well. Bizzako (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There have been various reports and concerns that the Kenyan situation may degenerate into genocide and another Rwanda. There is a definite ethnic component of the horrific violence that's occuring in Kenya. And although Africa is sadly not new to violent struggles, Kenya was thought of as a relatively stable country until now. (As one report put it, Kenya was the place where refugees ran to not the place their ran from) There is definitely a big difference between the Kenya story and a result in on US caucus, a result which will basically mean absolutely nothing if Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee don't end up gaining their parties nominations. Do you honestly think 2 years from now anyone will care who won the Iowa caucas outside of any effect it may or may not have had on who eventually won the election? However even if the violence is Kenya peters out (we can only hope) the people who have been killed will still be dead and Kenyans and likely much of the world will remember the time when Kenya was on the brink of disaster Nil Einne (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, I'm against this being on the Main Page, but this is rather heavily followed in international circles (in fact, CNN International canceled their regular programming to carry CNN USA's coverage). This isn't the Super Bowl which is arguably parochial; the POTUS affects foreign policy of most countries. --Howard the Duck 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was rather surprised to see the caucuses on the main page, and I'm something of a US political junkie-- have been watching it on CNN all night.  National elections belong here.  The Iowa Caucus does have certain implications for the US political process... but in the end it is a *preliminary* election carried out by the state of *Iowa*-- local news indeed, and definitely nowhere near as important as violence over a national election in Kenya.  Fishal (talk) 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps because WP isn't an international media outlet (wikinews is, I suspect it's a top story there)? BTW, if he actually wins the nomination (which is all that really matters) I think there will be little disagreement with mentioning it (I'm personally unconvinced about mentioning if it's just say John Edwards and Rudy Guiliani but that seems unlikely, we'll probably either at least get first female or first black candidate from a major party) but he's still a very, very, very long way away from that. BTW, according to Racial demographics of the United States the U.S. is only 75% white... (sorry thought meant country when you said state) Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Although the increasingly front-loaded primary-season schedule means that the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary are the two most crucial events in the choosing of US presidential nominees, and whoever wins the two of them will almost certainly end up as one of the two people who have a chance of becoming the next US president, this caucus is basically NN.  The United States of America, unlike Malta or the New England Patriots, is a fairly small nation whose president has had next-to-nil impact on the rest of the world for the last seven years.  To me, the real question is whether we should be maintaining articles on local celebrities like Obama and Huckabee in the first place.  Obama is a senator from Illinois, only one of fifty states, and Huckabee is a governor of another one of these states.  To my mind, this sort of thing is basically electioncruft and primarily of local interest.  It's unencylopedic to include this sort of shit, IMO.  Who really cares who becomes the next president of that shit country?  I don't really care if a bunch of major media outlets on other continents carried it as front page news - they probably feel obligated to do that, and no one really even wants to read it.  Also, so what if Obama is black in a nation that has never had a black nominee before, and got a strong majority in a nearly all-white state?  It doesn't really matter who wins; the winner will just be a puppet of the US corporate-military cabal behind the scenes.  Bravo, Nil Einne and other men of character, for keeping this sort of information off the Wikipedia front page and limiting it to where it belongs: the front pages and lead stories of various fraudulent house organs of the international capitalist class, from the BBC to Der Spiegel.  Now, how about those New England Patriots?  Speaking of grievances that I have, why the extremely short run for the following important ITN item: "Queen Elizabeth II formally opens the new Channel Tunnel Rail Link and London's St Pancras terminus, the new home for Eurostar trains (pictured) linking London with Paris and Brussels."  This seems like some heavy stuff.  And yet it only ran for a few days on ITN, only about ten times longer than news of the likely US presidential nominees, despite being about one hundred times as important.  WTF? 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In all of history, I have found only one example where an event in an ongoing and lengthy process of government formation was included in ITN: "Belgian King Albert II intervenes to take state reform off the table in the 2007 Belgian government formation, which has lasted a record five months."  This is the only example, ever.  To be honest, I only clicked on one historical version of ITN to conduct my search and found this example without any effort at all, but it is likely the only example of its kind. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What I don't understand is why USA-Americans feel the obsessive need to dominate this encyclopedia with their own localism, just as they feel the need to dominate other countries.  As long as USA-Americans are allowed to edit here unfettered, this encyclopedia will be no more than a compendium of their various local obsessions and complexes, as they understand little outside of their own borders.  And as long as they are allowed to contribute to ITN, it will be cluttered with babbling about the lengthy process of their government formation, and free of important information about trains in England (=important country, very European these days), events in the lengthy process of government formation in Belgium, and the New England Patriots.  I think we seriously need to consider some sort of action.65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone from the front page; stop beating a dead horse. If you feel that ethnocentricism is a problem in general, this is not the place to discuss it. Try the village pump instead - Chardish (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You might want to read what I said above. Specifically quite a few non-Americans have supported the inclusion and quite a few Americans have opposed it. This clearly isn't just 'USA-Americans feel the obsessive need to dominate this encyclopedia with their own localism'. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies for my entire outburst; the ban I received for talk page stuff was deserved.  However, the entire thing was extremely sarcastic, and I was protesting the removal (most outrageously, it came after the initial inclusion) of the Iowa caucus info.  It seemed like it was done to make a point, and much less important items are included with much less controversy.  65.190.89.154 (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From Talk:Main Page

message: This seems like non-news, for the following reasons:
#Oil is traded on the dollar, yes, but other currencies should be considered too in the interests of neutrality - would it be considered news when the price of oil hits 100 euro?
#100 dollars isn't a remarkable figure and isn't more remarkable than 99 or 101. People have a fascination with big round numbers but an increase from $99 to $100 isn't more remarkable than an increase from 98 to 99.
My 2 cents. Or, my 1/5000th of a barrel of oil ; ) - Chardish (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just to give my 2¢, US$ 100 per barrel is significant because, and this is according to several news programs I saw, the 100 dollars used to be considered the invisible barrier that the price of oil will not pass. If you think about it, the price of oil has gone from US$15 in 1999 to US$100 just a couple of days ago; all in less than 10 years. nat.utoronto 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Why no coverage of a barrel of oil hitting 67.85 euros?  I feel that this is a story which is vastly more important than the artificial $100 mark for oil prices, and also much more important than this parochial USA electioncruft about a rigged contest where some local figure emerged as a likely candidate for US president.  A story about the breach of the 67.85 barrier would be a SWEET-ASS story. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, ITN reflects what's in the encyclopedic articles, and Oil price increases since 2003 doesn't say much about the European market....  I don't think the US dollar figure is that important.  It's still a record high, no matter what currency you exchange/convert that into. --PFHLai (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But not every record high is notable. In fact, I would conjecture that no record high is notable enough for the main page. Numerical figures are not notable simply because they're bigger than any other figure of the same type. - Chardish (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually it's not the simple (although I don't disagree with the inclusion). Whether it's a record high or not does depend on the currency. If a currency has significantly improved in recent weeks, it's easily possible oil price was higher in that currency prior to this Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's another good reason this item needs to go - it's not a record high everywhere. - Chardish (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Aren't oil futures traded using American money? --Howard the Duck 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this was noteable. It definitely seemed to get a fair amount of attention in the media and as others have mentioned the US$100 seemed to be a psychological which many people were wondering whether or when it would cross. Perhaps this doesn't make sense but I'm not an economocist so it's not up to me to decide whether this does or doesn't. And the US$, even if this is stupid is still a key currency for much international trade including oil. Even if this is dumb, it is the main currency that matters at the current time and the one that people monitor for many goods including oil Nil Einne (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price of oil 

message: Why no coverage of this event?  18 dead, 4 injured.  As far as I know, 236,000 people may have participated in the rigged Iowa caucus, and millions around the nation may have watched, and newspapers around the world may have put it on their front pages, but not a single person died.  Why are the non-deaths of USA-americans considered so much more important than the deaths of 18 Venezuelans?  Think about what that says about our priorities.  The L-410 tragedy may be a random event with no wider impact, but 18 more people are dead than in the USA-American "caucus" event.  Why no main-page coverage of L-410?  It would make for a SWEET-ASS story. 65.190.89.154 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to see something included in the In The News section of the Main Page, you can propose it at WP:ITN/C. AecisBrievenbus 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 65.190.89.154, please be reminded that ITN is not a news service, but a place on MainPage to feature encyclopedic articles well updated with current news materials.  Is there an article about this plane crash in Wikipedia?  Please consider contributing in that article, and post a link in the headline at Portal: Current events.  Please let us know on WP:ITN/C when the article is ready to be featured.  Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Iowa thing was briefly added but was long removed which not much support for it to remain so it's kind of irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Try expanding Transaven January 2008 Venezuela Crash and then submit a headline to WP:ITN/C. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuelan L-410 tragedy 

message: Shouldn't 2008 Dakar Rally link link to 2008 Dakar Rally, not to Dakar Rally? Visor (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory yes. The problem is both articles are a bit of a mess with the main article at the time not even saying the event had been cancelled IIRC. Personally I'm not even sure this should have added given the current state but I'll just leave that as is Nil Einne (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the main article had a section on the cancellation, and at the time of posting the specific article had a factually dubious tag.  It's all better now though, hence the bold link was changed. --Stephen 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should have been clearer. By main article I mean 2008 Dakar Rally as this is the main article about the ITN item which is about the 2008 Dakar Rally Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dakar Rally 

message: It appears Search Wikia is going to launch a day from now (7th January). What do others feel about mentioning this? While it may depend on the coverage and article (the article currently only covers search wikia briefly probably as it should although things could change with the launch), I'm leaning towards no... Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it an international news story? That's what you should be asking. ~ UBeR (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's just a product launch with unknown significance.  When they acquire Google we may post it then. --Stephen 02:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search Wikia 

message: The road race cancellation has been the top item for 2 or 3 days now. Isn't it time to retire it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should know that the only way that happens is if we add new news, of which none has been nominated. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dakar Rally]]

message: I'm sure the answer is going to be a resounding "yes", but hear me out. I've been following the US presidential campaign process fairly closely, and am under no illusions about the eventual outcome's importance to the rest of the world. But it is only the election of a new President that has worldwide implications. Even if, say, Barack Obama gains the Democratic party nomination, we still won't know who the next President of the United States is. Yes the outcome of the nominations will increase the likelihood the US will have their first black/female/Mormon/actor President, but saying something might happen is just speculation, and nothing will be decided, or even have any bearing on the rest of the world, until November. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the US election process is so drawn out, that it _is_ big news when the nominees are announced.  It's still months from the actual election, so it won't be as though we are inundated with US Pres news.  Fishal (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not worried about being inundated with US President news, but why make the exception for the US? We wouldn't do this for any other country. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For starters, every country is interested about the U.S. elections since the U.S. is the sole remaining superpower. We can omit American sports, cultural and entertainment news but not this. Heck, even Kenyans are so in to it. --Howard the Duck 03:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. International importance for the nominations may be debatable, but C3 also mentions international interest, and that most definitely exists.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I don't doubt the international interest. Just as long as we don't mention any more primary results... Hammer Raccoon (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was originally opposed to mentioning this but I've changed my mind and can't really be bothered arguing the point in any case. Besides that, I don't think this is likely to be much of an issue. There is a general agreement if there is something particularly notable and unusual, for example the selection of the first female or African American/black candidate for a major party then we should mention it (as we did with France last year). It seems rather likely we will get one of these (yes I know no crystal ball and all that...) so I don't think there will be much dispute. This doesn't of course explain why we should mention the Republican candidate (barring something like first LDS candidate) but I guess mentioning one but not the other is just asking for a very, very ugly lengthy debate about wikipedia bias Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we even cover the Presidential nominees being selected? 

message: If the recent hullabaloo over whether ITN should report the results of the Iowa caucuses has taught us anything, it is that "In The News" desperately needs renaming. I know I'm the millionth person to suggest this, but the name really is a fundamental misrepresentation of the service, and it needs to be sorted. Having said that, I really don't have the answer right now.
Secondly, I believe that the amount of debating and repetition of the same arguments could be cut significantly if we had a page listing precedents of what has and has not appeared on ITN. My first ever suggestion to ITN was last years FA Cup final (see May 19 here). It was put up, but I was told that "common practise" was to not include such events. This is fine, but we should really write down somewhere said common practises. I originally brought up this  idea here but I don't think I put it in a prominent enough place, so I mention it here. I really think this would be a real timesaver. Does anyone else think this a good idea? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the purpose of the service then, if not to report news?  Fishal (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To provide access to encyclopedic information about current events. In that sense, ITN is similar to regular news media, but we're not a news ticker. AecisBrievenbus 23:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. It took me a while to get why if something was all over the news it wasn't necessarily ITN material, but I do now. Which is why the name needs to be changed sharpish, so we don't get arguments along the lines of "but look, its on BBC, CNN etc". News websites are 24 hours, and it is their sole purpose to report news, whereas we can pick and choose the most important stories, from an encyclopaedic perspective, when they come along. Anyway, the regular contributors know this, and I guess the reason "ITN" has stuck is because a suitable alternative hasn't been found. But someone must of suggested something better in all those discussions, surely? Any comment on the precedents idea? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Wikipedia on Current events"?  Too long?  "Current Events?"  Im not a regular contributor here, so I feel ill-equipped to comment on the precedents idea.  Fishal (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've come up with a pile of these in the past.  My favourite simple nip-and-tuck change would be to call it Topics in the news, which wouldn't connote that there's been a substantial change (because there hasn't) but add a little clarity about the importance of encyclopedicity in inclusion rather than simple newsworthiness.  The other day Topical topics popped into my head--shades of potent potables, I guess. The Tom (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about New Developments? Potatoswatter (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Topics in the News makes it sound much more like an encyclopedia and less like a news outlet, in my opinion.  Fishal (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Editors may want to check out #Removal of 2007 civil unrest in Villiers-le-Belises (France) and discussions linked to from there. Particularly Template talk:In the news/Archive 11#Proposal: restructure the section (User:Monotonehell) Nil Einne (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming, and precedents 

message: Cases like the Hillary case, as well as others such as Pavarotti, Friedman, Vonnegun, Brown, Ford et al recently have highlight the controversy of the ITN death criteria. So far, we have this proposal to reform the death criteria: Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will read through what you listed when I get the chance, right now I want to work a bit. Open to discussion on this proposal, it's just a suggestion to brainstorm over. However, I think it is important. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 11:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't think that there is anything wrong with having the occasional sports story on ITN.  If it pleases government/politics wonks that we make elections sacred, then I don't think there is anything controversial about having the occasional sports story ITN.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for more sports stories on ITN.  I just think we need a set in stone list because I get sick of every time a US sporting event gets suggested, the "US bias" card gets played.  The fact that some think the FA Cup should make it but the Super Bowl shouldn't is...well, disturbing. ---CWY2190TC 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm all for it, but we should kind of put a limit on, for exsmple, which former presidents and prime ministers can make it on. The way it looks now givs me the impression that every single former-head-of-state will make it on. I think it should be something like what someone said in a coversation above; they need to have a article about their death and funeral, like Ronald Reagan and Pierre Trudeau have. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is, by the time the funeral and so forth has rolled around, it'll really be old news, I'd think. Honestly, I'm not sure just doing any former head of state is a bad idea. Humm...have to give that more thought.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How much weight should comments by government leaders and other prominent public figures have? For instance, here the PM of NZ is quoted as saying Hillary was "probably the best-known ever New Zealander". Orpheus (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Death criteria and ITN

message: Whether KMT goes over or nearly 3/4 depends on whether or not you include NPSU as part of the pan-blue coalition or not.
Roadrunner (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but the wording "and its coalition allies" implies this, unless you want to argue to 4 NPSU and 1 independent arent pan-Blue....--Jiang (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed wording of KMT victory 

message: Is it just me who doesn't see the international interest for this story to be on ITN? It's not like this happened when he was a congressman, which might have made it bigger news. Also, it is considered acceptable for admins to unilaterally add stories to ITN without discussion? I know Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but it might be courteous to see if there is a consensus, especially on something that isn't completely obviously ITN material. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no idea about it until I came here.  It is a top 5 story (maybe?) in the US.  Probably not much international interest on this one.  Maybe Raul has an opinion why it should stay? ---CWY2190TC 21:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not mentioned on BBC News' Americas section, and I wouldn't say that it warrants inclusion.  violet/riga (t) 21:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  ITN didn't even note when a sitting Congressman was indicted. .  The indictment of an ex-Congressman seems less notable still. Coemgenus 22:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not notable international news. It's not even the top story in the U.S. right now. What Raul thinks is irrelevant. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur, removed.  --Stephen 23:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mark D. Siljander 

message: This article seems entirely irrelevant from a global perspective. Detainees are taken every day. Was there something notable about these particular people? If so, what? Are there any major news sources reporting this in the U.S. or Europe? If someone can't satisfy notability / relevance shortly, I'll be removing the entry. Far bigger events have gone without an entry in ITN. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely and support reverting this edit specifically. - auburnpilot talk 03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: CNN, which I would consider a major news source in the U.S., reported on it, as did the BBC (which considered it a top Asia-Pacific story) and AFP. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Australian Antartic waters, US organisation, Australian and British detainees, Japanese whalers.  Seemed to have international interest.  I'm not fussed if it's removed but ITN is a little stale lately.  But I don't agree with reverting the specific edit that would put Siljander back. --Stephen 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left it in simply because ITN would be too short without it. Shame there isn't more actual news, we really seem to be reaching lately... --MZMcBride (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Al Jazeera also consider it the top Asia-Pacific story (permanent link). Xia Hua seem to consider it the top world news story (permanent link. On the other hand neither Spiegel nor DW World mention it on their world/main pages at all (neither have Asia Pacific sections). Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On CNN, it has a total of 10 seconds of airtime, at least on the broadcast I saw. On BBC, it's either they didn't broadcast or I didn't catch it. I didn't even bother to check FNC since either they'll ignore this or they'll broadcast it on their top-of-the-hour bulletin (I watched TV in the U.S.'s overnight hours). --Howard the Duck 13:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MY Steve Irwin 

message: Append the words "causing no fatalities" to the end of the sentence describing the British Airways plane crashes. Most plane crashes are severe tragedies; this one is relatively minor. The notability question is an issue for another day, but since "plane crash" carries with it a connotation of a large number of deaths, it is important to point out that this caused no death. - Chardish (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Mark 07:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks for your attention : ) - Chardish (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causing no fatalities 

message: That plane crash image has been there for a while. How about adding the incredible image of MESSENGER's first image of the side of Mercury which was never seen by Mariner 10? Kingturtle (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That image was already there, before the plane crash picture.  Indeed a far better picture (and one of the coolest on ITN in a very long time).  But not sure there is much precedent to go back to a picture that was already shown. You wont hear me complain though if its changed back! Russeasby (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That airplane image has been there for over four days. Can we put Image:Coat of arms of Serbia.svg or Image:Robert Hunter 01 Pengo.jpg? Kingturtle (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your a bureaucrat, why are you asking us? Just be bold and change it! Russeasby (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

text: We generally don't like to put up images from older ITN items, even if the ITN image has been up for a while (although 4 days isn't really that long) so I wouldn't have recommened Robert Hunter. Coat of arms may have been okay, traditionally some people have objected to the use of such symbolic images since they consider them meaningless or not particularly illustrative but these objections seem to have disappeared in recent times. My suggestion would have been to try a combined (side by side) image of Boris and Toma. Perhaps it wouldn't have worked at 100 pixels but perhaps it would have been okay Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Because the last time I was bold here I was admonished for it. So I am choosing not to be bold. Kingturtle (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about a new picture? 

message: Just curious... why isn't the death of Heath Ledger in the top news, since that has basically been the top news item for the last two days? --From Andoria with Love (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heath Ledger 

message: The stock market has been going up for the last 2 days, yet we still have an article on the main page saying that "stock markets fall".  That was right on Monday (but please use the past tense fell) though it should be noted that the US markets (the largest in the world) were closed.  So for the DJIA -1.1% on Tuesday (not really all that large). up 2.5% on Wednesday, up 0.5% so far today.  That's higher than last Thursday ==> no crash story needed.
In general I'd suggest that stock market stories shouldn't be put in the news here - markets move too fast.
Smallbones (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki admins please stop linking current event news to newly created pages. This has happened twice in the last two days (stock and OMFG GAZA CRISIS 2008!!!!) with both pages having questionable notabiliy on their own. Link the event to a subsection of an approprate existing page. Linking to a new article just creates a bad article of dubious nature that is almost impossible to get rid of. If something becomes notable on its own and large enough, we'll spawn a new page. --mitrebox (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It annoys me to no end when people blame irrelevant problems on administrators. We're not the only ones who can edit around here; just about anyone can create an article, like 2008 Gaza crisis, or merge a page into another article if a new article is not needed. So, how about you actually do something about what you see is an issue instead of coming here and complaining to people who have nothing to do with the articles you talk about. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is part of the subprime mortgage crisis, which is a fountain of legitimate news, but you're pretty right. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading through here I noticed some discussion on ITN "criteria."  Are they listed formally anywhere?  I'd like to make sure that nothing like that crash story ever happens again on ITN.  It was a disaster - not the market, the story!  Lots of bouncing UP and down in the market, but the market ends the week higher, lots of selective sourcing in the article (stressing the downs), along with words like "crash" (and a crash template) "panic" "Black Monday."  In short the article in substance (if not always in form) was investment advice, and the advice was spectacularly wrong.  ITN had the story featured for a full week, and 55,000 readers saw the article.  This does matter - if just 2% of the readers traded on this advice, and lost just $1,000 each, that's over $1,000,000.  Why would we want to do this to our readers?Smallbones (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a criteria page, linked from the template at the top of ITN-related pages. It leads to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 17:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok that is a pretty formal page, clicking on the "discussion" tab puts me right back here.  Is this the proper place to discuss changing the criteria, in order to prevent ITN from putting panic style financial news on the main page again?  I did edit the article in question and would have argued for deletion, except a) that takes too much time, and b)there would be a circular arguement "if it's in ITN, it must be notable."  So is there a serious place to discuss this?Smallbones (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to get rid of the stock market crash story 

message: ...the Societe Generale entry was changed due to (my) libel concerns. Here's what I wrote on the errors section on Talk:Main Page:
:The wording of the Jerome Kerviel entry is extremely problematic.
:We say he "is alleged to be responsible for the loss of €4.9 billion as a result of fraudulent trading." This is dangerous on libel grounds. Under American libel law, you have no protection if you simply say someone "is alleged" to have done something. If you attribute the allegation to an official source, like the police or a court, you're OK.
:Secondly, the sentence is simply bad journalism (and ITN is written like news briefs). You've got to tell readers who's doing the alleging; otherwise, you're only telling half the story
I'm going to post a note about Kerviel and libel danger on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Hopefully, that will become a central discussion point for the issue of what to write about Kerviel on the various pages. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it better to say he admitted to it? Potatoswatter (talk) 05:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't know he admitted to it because he hasn't shown his face. Come daytime in France, the police are likely to charge him, and then we can say that. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely accurate, though, to say that he is accused, ITTRW, by SG of causing the loss.  While it is true that American caselaw does permit actions to be brought for what we might generally term "contributory libel" (in part, for repeating allegations made by another), there are only certain fact sets under which such actions may be advanced, and repeating allegations made to, inter al., law enforcement authorities is not, where those allegations are sworn, even if only by what we might generally term "citizen-informants" (that is, people who report crimes they believe to have been committed to police under such circumstances as they might be charged criminally were they to lie), as against by individual law enforcement officers, or, by and through district attorneys, grand juries, or courts, the state, and have become public records, is generally not actionable.  BLP, further, would not act to constrain our identifying Kerviel here, and any concerns about the legal liability of the Foundation or individual contributors are probably properly addressed to Mike Godwin; objections to the present incarnation of BLP (as being insufficiently strict, from a legal perspective, in situations such as this) may, though, it is true, be appropriate for VPP.  69.142.58.232 (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have read the VPP discussion before writing here; the discussion there already focuses on certain of the issues I raise, so all of what I wrote may safely be disregarded.  69.142.58.232 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before anyone changes it back... 

message: Novak Đoković wins his first and Serbia's first Grand Slam title in Melbourne on Australian Open. --Avala (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can propose new ITN entries over at WP:ITN/C. AecisBrievenbus 16:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AO 

message: "Denmark wins the 2008 European Men's Handball Championship, beating Croatia 24 - 20." - is that really important? I'd say it should be removed. - Simeon87 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a doubt.  A continental championship for a relatively minor sport (yes, I know it is an Olympic sport) should not be added.  The UEFA CL should be the only continental championship added. ---CWY2190TC 17:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The H-Cup is also mentioned annually. --Howard the Duck 06:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just about the least noteworthy ITN I can remember seeing. Is this a major sport in any country? Even the winning nations? QmunkE (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what I thought.  Especially since Suharto died.  That seems like a big news story.  I know that he's no Heath Ledger but the guy was pretty important.  --JGGardiner (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Heath Ledger and Euro Handball are more important than Suharto and Australian Open. --Avala (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with the ability to do it should remove this news item... - Simeon87 (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the others, this is a continental tournament in a relatively minor sport, certainly not fit for ITN. I seem to recall that this was proposed and rejected last year as well. AecisBrievenbus 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm European, and I didn't even know there was a Handball championship (let alone care). Get rid of it. --Joowwww (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It has become clear from the discussions here and over at WP:ITN/C that there is no consensus to include this. I have therefore taken the liberty to remove this item from ITN. AecisBrievenbus 23:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree, you seem to know surprisingly little about sports in Continental Europe. In the Nordic countries and parts of Central and Eastern Europe handball actually is a major sport. The story is also important enough to be mentioned on both the German and Danish main pages. You really shouldn't call it a minor European sport. --Thrane (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Netherlands, speed skating is massive, but in the grand scheme of things it is a tiny sport, so we don't include it on ITN. Pesäpallo is very big in Finland, floorball is big in Sweden, etcetera. That's irrelevant. All in all, handball just doesn't cut it. AecisBrievenbus 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important? 

message: Seems a tad pointless and perhaps even patronising to me.  Martinp23 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because people outside of Europe might not know what a "€" is. ---CWY2190TC 17:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people outside of America might not know what the "$" is, or at least which sort of dollar it refers to.  No "oh-in-case-you're-stupid-here's-a-wikilink" is provided there. Martinp23 18:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should always be listed as "US$1500".  If not, then it should be corrected. ---CWY2190TC 18:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vraiment? OK, makes sense then, however I do think it appear slightly strange to have just one character linked. Perhaps "€45435 EUR)" would be better? Martinp23 18:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the EUR  symbol Wikilinked? 

message: Link should be provided to 2008 Australian Open rather than the year 2008 and the Australian Open tournament. Also, could someone rate this article? Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "2008" links to 2008 Australian Open. ---CWY2190TC 18:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Open link

message: I think the blurb should note the length of his presidency, which is why he's ITN material:
:Suharto, president of Indonesia from 1967 to 1988, dies at the age of 86.
Mwalcoff (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean 1998 Nil Einne (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a clear typo. Anyway, it should be changed -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suharto