Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Kyrgyzstan bias

(moved from candidates page) How is Kyrgyzstan always making the front page? It has not even been requested here? Might we have an editor with an agenda? How many English speaking people are interested in the Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan and its actions? Not enough to warrant front page coverage I propose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.104.225 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 January 2007

The solution then is to work current events articles in your country so that it'll be posted at the ITN. --Howard the Duck 11:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anonimous user. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another biased ITN

Nearly three hundred people are killed during a battle between insurgents and U.S.-backed Iraqi troops in the Shi'a holy city of Najaf.

The vast majority of the "people" killed are part of an apocalyptic religious cult, yet the headline wants you to think that "people" is mainly women, children, and uniformed combatants. This is a victory against a patently evil militia, yet it's all about the collateral damage and civilian casualties here on Wikipedia. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't know cultists weren't people. Preston 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know childen and malicious insurgents could be equivocated. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you do. As they are all human beings, they all fit under the term 'people'. The more you know. Preston 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, your implied premise is, "if the statement is factual, then it is not biased." Please use logic from this point on. Thanks. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I'll use logic from this point forward. Logic dictates that I should not argue a troll. My mistake. Preston 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing what alternative you suggest for the item. Nearly three hundred people and evil militamen cannot appear on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in facts, not ad-hominem straw man attacks. 300 people is who? The insurgents? US troops? Did 300 US troops die in the battle? Did 300 children die in the battle? Who died? Who had the tactical victory? I spit on the idiot that created that vague and inherently biased headline. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ironic is the fact that you start off your statement with a declaration that you are not interested in ad-hominem attacks, but then end it with that. I don't see the ad-hominem attack to which you were referring. I said I was interested in hearing the alternative you suggest, and you have yet to provide that. If you want to learn more information about who exactly died in the article, take a look at the article that is in bold; the information is covered there. In The News is supposed to showcase how current events have affected Wikipedia articles, with a quick blurb on each subject. The word people is wholly correct and unless you provide a suggestion for an alternative (as I requested in the "ad-hominem straw man attack"), you probably will not see that changing. -- tariqabjotu 02:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why even bother trying to spin? I happily spit on the fool that created that ITN headline. That person isn't you. Your ad hominem came from a hyperbolic suggestion of a revised headline (that you stuck in my mouth). Saying "people" is equivocation, so it makes sense to just simply state the numbers from each side. It's deliberately disruptive when you try to play ignorant and claim you don't know what a better headline would be. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is ever a headline that indicates the number of US troops killed in a single day, you can be damn sure I'll change it to "people," which is wholly correct. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I did add the headline, but that's irrelevant; your suggestion that you'd spit on the fool / idiot / [insert pejorative here] that added that headline is clear incivility. So stop. I know you did not suggest the headline, but you said in your original post that this is a victory against a patently evil militia. I was pointing out that the kind of language you used to describe the majority of those killed in the battle is biased language and especially no less biased than people. Wikipedia is not about deciding whose purpose in the battle was legitimate and whose was not. The fact of the matter is that nearly three hundred people in total – from both sides of the conflict – died. They are all people. Period. No one's playing ignorant here. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to take sides; I'm sure there are plenty of Wikipedians that support the insurgency. What I called for was a clear breakdown of the numers of people instead of making the battle look like it was a toss-up. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the article, not because of any concern about the blurb, but because the article appears to be {{TotallyDisputed}}. I thought it was normal that articles with "red alert" pages were not put on the main page.. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Justice. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the points you have raised here, Haizum, the way in which you have brought it is completely unacceptable. Your remarks that you "spit on the idiot that created that vague and inherently biased headline" / "happily spit on the fool that created that ITN headline" are outrageous personal attacks. If you have something to say, do so calmly, rationally and civilly. But don't ever insult or attack others. Wikipedia is not a chatroom and most definitely not a boxing ring. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness, it could just have been a misinterpreted B.A. Baracus impression. "Ah spit on de crazy fool who wrote dat Wikipedia article, Hann-ah-bool!". Just raising the possibility....Badgerpatrol 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report - "very likely"

Is it better to replace "very likely" with greater then 90% chance. "very likely" isn't very quantitative, and in this case the term means "greater then 90% probability" (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report). So why not be clear? - Shudda ^talk 02:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I went with "very likely" for two reasons: one, it's a direct quote from the IPCC report, and two, 'it is "very likely"' is much shorter than "there is a greater than 90% chance". But if others think the percentage is a significant improvement, I won't oppose a change. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Image suggestion

Would it be a good idea to replace Federer with a crop from Image:Sadriyadistrictbombings.jpg? It's rare that we have a freely licensed image actually connected with an event in ITN, as opposed to merely an image of the participants in that event. However, some people might think that a photograph of a survivor isn't sufficiently connected to the story, or might be inappropriate for the front page of Wikipedia. I need to run some errands, so won't be able to crop and protect a copy of the image, but I thought I'd mention it here as a suggestion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's actually not a free image (it was improperly tagged before), so this is no longer an option. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I should have realized that having a freely licensed image of that quality so quickly was improbable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, since that's no good, how about using an image like this to illustrate the global warming story? We could put (glacial retreat pictured) at the appropriate place. Failing that, we could even use a graph like this, although I'm not sure how that would look at 100px. Actually, let's see:

Nah, that's probably no good. I guess I just think we should be able to do better than a photo of a tennis player from a completely different tournament than the one he just won. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Guinea correction?

User:Davdavid posted to Talk:Guinea that "human rights advocates have been saying 60 people were killed by security forces during the strike, and a figure of 59 dead (more than half of them shot in one incident) has been confirmed by the Minister of Health, as reported in this Reuters article. [1]." The main page just says 'at least 59 deaths'. --Cherry blossom tree 16:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this news being ignored?

This news item needs to be on the main page on the news section. Why isn't it?

[2][3]

I dont know why the media is ignoring this. Please consider.--Zereshk 21:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to what the world's media are doing, but the first reason this item isn't in the "In the News" section on the main page is because nobody's proposed it, with a link to an updated Wikipedia page, on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. If there's an updated Wikipedia page, please suggest it there, and it will be discussed on its merits. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed, and is now being considered there. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to the claim. The "international" coverage is nothing to write home about and the associated article had little detail. Add to that the fact that the claim's factuality is disputed and the existence of articles such as this one and I believe it does not deserve a place on Wikipedia's Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Loss of shortcuts

Am I the only one mourning the loss of the T:ITN and T:ITNT shortcuts? They were never linked from too many pages, but they seemed like decent shortcuts for people just trying to reach Template:In the news and Template talk:In the news. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since these were part of a mass nomination and the deletion argument was predicated on their lack of use, having at least one of them should be fine. These are certainly useful given the lack of any link to the template from the main page (which is as it should be). —Centrx→talk • 03:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know that there are WP:ITN and WT:ITN?-gadfium 04:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. But I don't see why another one is a problem. After all, this and Template:In the news, are in the template namespace, not Wikipedia namespace. -- tariqabjotu 04:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Delete the Superbowl ITN entry now - hey, it's almost a week ago

Get real, that event is now almost a week in the past, and it's lacking global importance in the first place anyway. I strongly suggest to get it out of ITN immediately. MikeZ 08:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree on all counts. I've taken it out. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The admins might as well remove the Italian football thingy as some teams are now playing with people at their stadiums. --Howard the Duck 12:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the Super Bowl, but I'll note that "global importance" is not an ITN inclusion criterion. —David Levy 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with its removal, to say that the Super Bowl lacks global importance is unfounded. Okay, no more beating of the dead horse. --tomf688 (talk - email) 16:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes I think our criteria for ITN have gotten so ridiculously high that we don't include enough. There has only been three new ITN-worthy events in the seven days since the Super Bowl!? -newkai t-c 05:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding suggestions

I'm not as active here as I was formerly, as I found that regular updating often involves too much work writing articles oneself. This is an arduous multi-step process, and it would work better if it could be broken down. So I suggest a new type of subsection in the daily sections on the suggestions page: "Potential items". These would be ITN-worthy events whose items have not been sufficiently updated, but that probably could be with a little work, and would include one or several links that could be used to update the article. If we had such a system, I think I would be able to contribute a daily report to it of 3 or 4 potential items.--Pharos 20:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems a lot of admins have abandoned ITN recently. Perhaps because it's a thankless job which attracts constant complaints. I'm unsure about your suggestion however. Does it seem a little too close to news gathering and reporting? --Monotonehell 21:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't abandon it because of the complaints really, just because it was too much work updating it all myself (including the articles) when there were no appropriate suggestions. Several times I've gone about half-way through the process of researching "viable" items and given up. Of course there would be no original reporting, just a survey of the Current Events page and major news sources for "viable" items.--Pharos 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Soon I'm going to resurrect the near consensus discussion we had before Christmas regarding a change to ITN's format and criteria. Your idea could certainly be incorporated as part of that process. (the reason it was abandoned was we still had two or three issues to resolve and then the holidays came up...) --Monotonehell 21:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to "death" criteria

Please take a look at WP:ITN/C (Feb 8 2007) for discussion relating to the (non-)inclusion of Anna Nicole Smith's death in the ITN template. Apparently there is support for the idea that the "death" criteria should be expanded to include notifications of "notable deaths" in fields other than science or politics. Ekantik ^talk 05:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a topic of discussion in the revised criteria we talked about before Christmas. Like I said above, I'm going to resurrect that discussion soon. I just have a load of "real" work to do before I can put in a good few hours thought over the two or three final issues we had before I re-propose the changes. --Monotonehell 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A major thing to note is that the death criteria were added because of a surplus of obituaries crowding out other news items. We have the opposite problem now: We have very few items to put in the news, and some death items would be fine. —Centrx→talk • 18:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. Take Britney Spears for an example. She is not in a high ranking office of power at the moment, I'm not sure she qualifies as a key figure in her field of expertise, and I don't think her death would have a major international impact that affects current events. Yet her death would be highly notable, and would probably be put up, despite the criteria. The problem with the current criteria is that they are focussed on the higher levels/echelons of institutionalized societies. I think that that scope is too limited. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If this discussion is ressurected then I'd like to ask if someone could please inform me on my talk-page, as I would like to participate, thanks. Ekantik ^talk 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Alpine skiing: which is wrong?

What are we doing with that piece of news on the Swede Alpine skiier? I'm posting this on February 12: the specific article we have on the competition in question, in the relevant sections, says that one of the events will only happen tomorrow (Feb. 13) and the last one, only on February 16. So either the specific article is completely wrong or we are conjecturing the future here. Since the Main Page is far, far more visible than the specific article, I thought it best to post this here. Redux 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Anja Pärson is not the first to win all five gold medals in one championship, noone has ever achieved that feat. She is, however, the first person to win five titles in her career. See the infobox underneath her picture in her article. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Humm, I see. Perhaps it is that what the entry is attempting to convey. We need to rewrite it then, I got the impression that it meant that she had won all five events in the current (2007) World Championship, which is reinforced by the fact that the competition is ongoing and Pärson has won all of the 3 events that have already been contended. I suppose this wouldn't have confused those initiated in the sport, who are familiar with the leading athletes, records and trivia, but for the uninitiated, such as myself, the current entry seems to be saying that she won all 5 in 2007. Redux 13:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost completely ignorant to the whole sport, but I understood what was meant. --Monotonehell 15:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I never got that impression either. -- tariqabjotu 23:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Baghdad blurb

Why was the blurb about the Baghdad market bombing removed? It doesn't really improve the Main Page balance. But more importantly: in about an hour's time we'll get quite a long FA. Instead of removing a blurb, we probably need another blurb to maintain the Main Page balance for tomorrow. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I did remove it to balance the page. But once the new article comes in it should be added back. I don't see any story that could be added besides that. JACO PLANE • 2007-02-12 23:10

I've got something that might be useful: the Dixie Chicks winning five Grammy Awards. I will bring up at WP:ITN/C. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are the Dixie Chicks ITN?

Seeing as the BBC and other news networks have and will not report on a country music band winning grammys, why is wikpedia? Given the small amount of headlines given in ITN, I think this one is particularly unimportant and only of very specific interest: thus it does not meet the criterion. Djlayton4 05:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Grammys are the biggest music awards in the world, comparable to the Academy Awards for film. As such, the Grammy Awards are highly notable. Regarding the coverage of the Dixie Chicks victory:

BBC: Dixie Chicks earn Grammys triumph
CNN: A 'Nice' night for the Dixie Chicks
Fox News: Dixie Chicks to Country: Nah-Nah
Der Tagesspiegel: Dixie Chicks räumen fünfmal ab

Just a few links to press coverage of reliable sources focussing on the Dixie Chicks. A ecis^Brievenbus 10:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Also from the Aussies: Do mention the war: Chicks blitz awards --69.6.157.3 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention ITN's been stale lately, and the deaths/obits criteria is hard to please. --Howard the Duck 07:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Album of the Year - the most prestigious annual award in music - was won by a country music band. It's almost like a foreign film winning the Oscar. Ok, so I exaggerated, but c'mon. Xiner (talk, email) 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dixie Chicks have won Record of the Year, Album of the Year, Song of the Year, Best Country Performance By A Duo Or Group With Vocal and Best Country Album. The first three are among the most notable Grammys that any band can win. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

UNICEF Report on Child Welfare

Today UNICEF unveiled a report on the welfare of children in 21 of the richest nations in the world. The full report can be read [[4]]. I believe this would be worthy of main-page news. Mathteacher1729 14:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion — in future, please make suggestions on the candidates page. This page is meant to be about maintainance of ITN.
Is there an updated Wikipedia article on this report? That's one of the criteria for inclusion in ITN.

Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

An item?

Romano Prodi just resigned. That seems pretty important. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

International Crisis Organisation

Who on earth are they? They don't look notable enough to have their opinions voiced by ITN. --90.240.102.48 00:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the articles? They're a well-regarded international non-governmental organization. The government of Turkmenistan didn't allow international observers to monitor their election; in the absence of monitors, NGOs like the ICG are as good as it gets. If we remove the clause indicating that reliable international organizations consider the election fraudulent, we would give the false impression that Berdimuhammedow was elected in a legitimate election. Which, by all accounts, he wasn't. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing opinions with facts. --90.240.102.48 04:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

And we'd be doing the same thing if we merely said "Berdimuhammedow was elected", because "elected" implies some sort of fair democratic process. Doesn't it? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So is that an admittance? --90.240.102.48 16:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's an admittance that I was trying to reflect a neutral point of view in ITN. If I had added the statement "Berdimuhammedow was elected" without any qualification, that would have placed undue weight on the dubious claims of the government of Turkmenistan. It is possible that the mention of the ICG's views put too much weight in the opposite direction. Since the item is no longer on ITN, the discussion is moot, but in future it would be helpful to suggest an alternative wording, if you disagree with the wording of an ITN item.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice tactic you have here, waiting until the item is gone before you respond. I hate admins. --90.240.102.48 13:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

that's okay, we hate you more :* --Golbez 14:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

For what (little) it's worth, anon, I honestly didn't notice your comment of the 16th until the 23rd. Did you have a substantial comment to make, or did you just want to bitch? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 15:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, like you so convienently said, the discussion is moot, so I can't possibly comment. --90.240.102.48 01:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Add Blizzard, Remove Grammies

The 49th Annual Grammy Awards are old news now. Can we replace it with something more timely and news-worthy such as the Eastern North America Valentine's Day Blizzard, which has killed 16 people and dumped over a foot of snow or more across much of the Ohio Valley and Northeast, glazed over Virginia in a sheet of ice, and spawned tornadoes in New Orleans, becoming one of the most violent February blizzards on record. --Abog 01:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really the best place for this discussion: WP:ITN/C would be better.
I'd support adding the blizzard iff it's being given substantial international coverage. We didn't highlight the flooding in Jakarta a few weeks back, and it would be a bit US-centric to add the blizzard now if it's not of sufficient international interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Update: a Google News search shows that it's being covered in the UK, Canada and Australia, but not many other countries. I'd like to hear other opinions about whether this is ITN-worthy or not. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Channel News Asia

Turkish Press

News 24 South Africa

Although these appear to be older news stories from yesterday (the death figures are lower), it is indeed an international-reaching news event. --Abog 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just a point (again) items in ITN are only "removed" by newer items added to the top of the list pushing older items off the bottom. There's currently 3 older items than the Grammies story. --Monotonehell 03:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah — if something is replaced it'll be the Dutch cabinet. (Government, that is, not item of furniture.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

lol you leave my dutch cabinet alone, it's where I keep all my clogs, peffernusen and bittleballen! --Monotonehell 06:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing better than making fun of us Dutchies, is there? ;) A ecis^Brievenbus 17:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This story may prove interesting. Xiner (talk, email) 18:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

North Korean flag

Isn't it out of place beside the North American blizzard item? Caerwine Caer’s whines 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is used for another story below. --Howard the Duck 17:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It turns out North Korea is not developing nuclear weapons, they are developing a weather machine. —Centrx→talk • 18:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Man, I'm glad the Korean flag was replaced with the current image of carnage on ITN. That picture really hits you with the lethality of the blizzard. --90.240.102.48 19:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a slightly more dramatic image. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Storm of International importance/interest ?

Criteria No.3 for news entries stipulate that "It should be a story of an(sic) international importance, or at least interest". It appears to me that the storm in the United States and the resultant loss, however unfortunate, is only of national importance to a particular country.

It does not appear prominantly on websites of some (random) international news agencies such as BBC(UK), NDTV(India), Japan Today(Japan) or Buenos Aires Herald (Argentina).

Could someone help me understand how this is of international importance /interest.

Thanks.Chocolate Horlicks 07:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above contains links to coverage of the blizzard in international media. Also, although it's no longer on the front page of the BBC's news site, it was there for a period yesterday. (Their most recent story is here.) I believe that it was prominently displayed on other international news sites yesterday (when it was fresh news — it's mostly over now). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks. Chocolate Horlicks 03:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

interwiki

please put an interwiki link to yiddish template.

[[yi:אקטועלע ארטיקלן]] thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yidisheryid (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Added, but that link seems to be to a blank page. Is there a typo? (I can barely sound out Hebrew with the vowels, and so wouldn't be able to tell if it was misspelled or something.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The מוסטער (template) namespace was missing; I have fixed the interwiki link so it is yi:מוסטער:אקטועלע ארטיקלן. -- tariqabjotu 05:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture problem

a big tragedy has occured and the train bombing picture has not yet been displayed on main page pl change it.User talk:Yousaf465

Pl find some Pic which can be used on main page and place it there.User talk:Yousaf465

The problem is that we can only use freely licensed images on the front page, and there don't seem to be any of the train bombing. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Specificity of images

British soldiers in Iraq

I had added Image:Land Rover Defender 110 patrol vehicles Crop2.jpg to ITN to illustrate the British troop withdrawal story. David Levy (talk · contribs) removed it, in part because I had made it too large (at 110 px — fair enough), and in part because "unless those specific soldiers are among the 1,600, the image is misleading". I'm not sure that the latter reason holds up. It was illustrating the concept of "British troops in Iraq", not claiming that these specific soldiers were among those being redeployed. I tend to think that a photograph illustrating one aspect of a larger issue is better than a generic one of a politician, or a flag. What's our guideline on this sort of question? Do we have one? What do other people think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather have a picture of Romano Prodi back on ITN. --PFHLai 17:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there were license problems with the Prodi images that were up earlier. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this one, Commons:Image:RomanoProdi cropped 2june2006 049.jpg (right) ? --PFHLai 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit blurry, but I'm OK with it if others are. It seems slightly odd to replace a picture accompanying the first ITN story with one accompanying the third, but I suppose Blair is more overexposed than Prodi, and he's not really what the first story is about. Use your judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I've updated the Prodi story with Napolitano's refusal of Prodi's resignation, I've put PFHLai's Prodi picture up. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's User:Jollyroger's Prodi pic. I just cropped it. BTW, Image:CycloneFavio 2007Feb22 annotated.jpg (left) may be another option. Either one is better than Blair's pic, I suppose. --PFHLai 22:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The Prodi pic is probably a better choice. It's always good to feature a photo by a fellow Wikipedian on MainPage. --PFHLai 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Timing of election items?

What's our practice been for posting items about elections in progress? I was thinking of putting an item about today's election in Senegal up, but then thought that it might be better to wait until after the polling has closed. What has the precedent for this sort of thing been? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, standard practice is to not mention elections in ITN until they are resolved and the results can be verified (Unless some extraordinary event has interrupted the process). Doing so is a bit too close to reporting news. --Monotonehell 12:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

79th Annual Academy Awards/Oscars

Add Oscars. The ceremony is currently ongoing. Real96 01:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Add this to the "In the News" category, once ceremony is over with, because that will lessen the probability of WP:CRYSTAL violations. Real96 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1) IMO not a hugely major thing, 2) There's no news to put up yet, and 3) We have a Candidates page. --Golbez 02:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Superbowl results were listed on the ITN talk page, recently. I think tomorrow or so, when the Oscars are over, an administrator will add the link to the page, since the Oscars are a major event relating to the film industry. Real96 02:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This should certainly go up; it is of international interest, especially because this year's Oscars have an especially diverse and multi-national group of nominees. -- tariqabjotu 02:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can wait until there's something to actually say about it. --Golbez 03:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I meant after it was over. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm expecting "Why didn't you include the BAFTAs (and/or insert my country's film award) previously" comments a little later lol. --Howard the Duck 08:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

awkward bold

Am I the only one who finds the bolded text unhelpful in the headlines? Right now it is: Serbia cleared of genocide charge; Martin Scorcese wins Academy Award; etc. The verbs are bold.

But to know to what the verbs refer you must first know the nouns. At first glance, someone won something and someone was cleared of something. I want to know that Serbia and the Academy Awards are in the news right now. Just 2 cents. Potatoswatter 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The bolded links refer to the wikipages with the updated materials. --76.64.76.106 05:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Serbia's acquittal

The current text is unclear. In the article, it says "The Court also noted that while the Belgrade government has no connection to the genocide committed in Srebrenica in 1995 and such a genocide did occur, there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country" but the wording in ITN is confusing. Also Serbia did not violate International Law by failing to prevent genocide but by not handing over individuals accused of the crime[5]. I would amend the text as follows:

From:

The International Court of Justice clears Serbia of direct responsibility and complicity in the Srebrenica massacre, but finds the State violated international law by failing to prevent genocide.

To:

The International Court of Justice clears Serbia of genocide in Bosnia, but finds the State failed to prevent the Srebrenica massacre and violated its international obligations by not handing over individuals accused of the crime.

Regards, --Asterion^talk 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've copied this over to WP:ERRORS. We may get a quicker response. It's good for suggesting any tweaks of the text on Main Page. --76.64.76.106 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The present text is horrible. It implies that no genocide occured whatsoever, when in fact the ICJ once again confirmed that the Srebrenica massacre was indeed a genocide. Live Forever 14:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The blurb says that the court has cleared Serbia of genocide. This can be explained in two directions, the first being your explanation that no genocide occurred in the first place. The ruling of the court states that genocide has occurred, but that Serbia was found not guilty of this. This is the other explanation possible with this wording. To use an analogy: if a defendant is found not guilty of murder, it doesn't mean that the murder was not committed in the first place. It might indeed mean that the death did not constitute murder, or it can also mean that another person is believed to have done it. A ecis^Brievenbus 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The verdict clearly states that Serbia's offence was one of omission (failure to prevent the crime) rather than commission (actively carrying out the crime). I've modified the wording accordingly. -- ChrisO 14:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dow went down 400 points

Why isn't this on there??? http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/070227/f22e4630baad29bd4d6c044dfc3359fa.html Richardkselby 00:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, for several reasons;

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an newspaper. We must have an updated article on Wikipedia to include an item in the news, "In the news" is actually short for "Wikipedia encyclopedia articles that have recently been substantially updated with verified information that is currently being talked about in the news." Many people make this incorect assumption due to the potentally misleading name.
In the news works by people making sugestions at WP:ITN/C. This item has been suggested, but as per my first point, there isn't a wikipedia article as yet. --Monotonehell 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

DAMN!!!!, no wonder that there're all these entries about parlimentary elections on the ITN that I don't care about :) Richardkselby 22:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal of troops in Iraq

The front page currently reads:

"A plan to withdraw 1,600 British troops from the multinational force in Iraq is announced."

But Denmark announced almost at the same time to withdraw 460 troops. I think this should be mentioned, so I propose this instead:

"A plan to withdraw 1,600 British troops and 460 Danish troops from the multinational force in Iraq is announced." --Maitch 15:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - but this item will fall off the front page as soon as a new item is added. So probably by the time someone makes the change it will disappear. --Monotonehell 17:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tomb that challenges some elements of Christianity?

Fellow editors, does anyone know the name of the tomb that was recently unearthed that allegedly shows that Jesus was not resurrected and that he fathered a son? (I just saw a segment about it on The Daily Show.) Does it have an article, and is it ITN worthy? I would certainly think it would be if it had a good article. Grand master ka 06:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at the candidates' page this was suggested a while ago, but at the time the article was little more than a stub. It has been updated since, but the whole thing is pseudo science and media propaganda so it's not really verifiable enough for ITN. --Monotonehell 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that page before I posted here and didn't find anything about it. Where is it? I just wanna see the article... Although if it was rejected before it probably isn't going to be ITN-worthy now. Grand master ka 07:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

'Twas under Feb 26 Talpiot Tomb seems like it's a rehash of a discredited claim from 5 years ago or so that's been resurrected (pun intended) for the purposes of promoting the "documentary". --Monotonehell 07:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Paraguayan Dengue Fever Outbreak

Over 15'000 people have been infected with dengue fever in Paraguay and it seems to be way out of proportion this year...Its also spreading to other countries...Whoever can edit the template itself, remember these 15'000 people...10 are reported dead though the toll is suspected to be much higher.

There needs to be a substantially updated article associated with the event in order for it to be on In the news. —Centrx→talk • 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2007 Denmark Riots

All over the international newsmedia right now, hope it may find a spot on this template. --Hojimachong^talk 07:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dismabig link

There is currently a link to Reform Party. It should be a link to Estonian Reform Party. Could an admin fix this? Thanks, --Islomaniac 973 22:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

lack of info

can you please put american lawyer Lewis Scooter or whatever, instead of just his name, as most people have never heard of hime, or the palme affair. since this is english language, not US.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.75.70 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Something is wrong with Lewis Libby link

Perhaps it's something with my browser (though I purged the cache and tried both Firefox 1.5 and IE7), but Lewis Libby appears as a redlink under the following conditions:

On main page only; seeing Template:In the news in isolation, as well as this talk page, it's OK.
I'm logged out;

When I log in, everything is fine; when I'm logged out, clicking on the link from the main page gives me the "action=edit" page. Can someone please check this? Duja► 09:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like there's anything wrong with your browser, because I'm using IE6 and I'm getting exactly the same thing.--Phil500 (Talk / Contribs) 09:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it fixed now? I logged out and it seems fine Nil Einne 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this had something to do with the deletion? [6]? This was only 2 minutes but it was not that long before you encounter the problem. If your sure it's not a caching problem, are you sure your ISP doesn't use a transparent proxy? Potentially it was wikiside and something needed to be purged or was out of sync, perhaps like the time you have new messages wasn't disappearing for anons for a while (although I don't know what caused that I'm guessing it was some sync issue wikiside) Nil Einne 17:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Indonesia events

The airplane accident and the earthquake are unrelated, so shouldn't they be listed on separate bullet points? Kelvinc 18:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

They are related by country. It makes the point all the more notable that Indonesia has suffer so much calamity recently. --Monotonehell 21:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose. It's just that the impression I get from reading that line is that it's suggesting the earthquake caused the crash in some way. Kelvinc 02:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

To me it didn't say that. Most reports I've seen have also mentioned the two together in a similar way since these two occured in the same country even if there was no causal link between the two. Note if we didn't mention the earthquakes in the same line, I doubt there would be justification to mention it at all since the article is still not really ITN material Nil Einne 09:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ungdomshuset still relevant?

This news item is rather old, the riots have completely stopped, and the story has (almost, but not completely) been dropped from the local media (I am from Denmark). Perhaps someone could find some more current news to place there instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.237.10.244 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

We are always looking for more current news. See WP:ITN/C for recent candidates. Add some new ones if you can. --74.14.16.251 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Items in ITN move down the list as newer items are added. They aren't removed on a case by case basis, they are "removed" when they drop off the end of the list. --Monotonehell 00:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cricket World Cup

After the first match yesterday, this event - involving teams from 16 nations and watched by millions around the world - will be going on for the next 6 weeks or so. Like the Olympics and the 2006 Football World Cup (example) can we have a short line, like this:

The 2007 Cricket World Cup continues in the West Indies.

-- ALoan (Talk) 11:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is already being discussed on the candidates' page and to some extent on Talk:Main page. Generally with sporting competitions the standard practice is to only mention the final result when that becomes apparent. Citing the football isn't a good precedent as that was an aberration from the guideline, which caused a LOT of argument and lead to reaffirming the guideline I mentioned above. When the Cricket World Cup is concluded and the article is updated then it can me added to ITN. --Monotonehell 11:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry - was not aware that there was a candidates page. Thanks for letting me know. I will go there. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

KSM image

is not PD. I have retagged it. Whoever's in charge here, please take steps to move that off the mainpage. - NYC JD (interrogatories) 16:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is always the image of him in as he was arrested, but putting that on the main page might open up a can of POV issues. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: I neither posted the image or the caption. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I doubt it's really PD. I've found a recent article in VoA with the same image, and it's tagged as a photo from AP. I don't think it's suitable for use on MainPage till its copyright status is sorted out. -- PFHLai 23:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, this is getting interesting. As I see it, copyright status would depend on whether he was captured by Pakistani or American sources, which last time I checked was still a secret. The 9/11 Commission Report, which is probably better vetted than any VoA article, credits an image of Bin Laden to Reuters, but gives no credit on its KSM image.--Pharos 00:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

See more investigation at commons:Image talk:Khalid Shaikh Mohammed after capture.jpg.--Pharos 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

KSM wording

Other users and myself have expressed the opinion that there is a problem with the current wording of the KSM piece, although it was okay in this version. Tariqabjotu hasn't edited in an hour and may have gone to bed before my last response a few minutes ago, so could someone else have a look at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? We may be wrong but if so it would be nice to have consensus about that. — coel acan — 05:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I still feel a change has to be made. "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." presents the actual truth as Mohammaed stating his confession under no duress and with complete trust in the release itself, despite the fact that the confession was given in a closed, controversial military tribunal, not a public hearing or trial, and it is an established fact that the transcripts were censored before being released to the public. "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." is far more reflective of the reality of the situation, although in my opinion, it is still too generous to the US gov't, but that's my opinion, and doesn't change the fact that it would be more acceptable than the other version. Fifty7 15:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the history of Template:In the news generated by the MediaWiki software, I clarified the dubious nature of The Pentagon's transcript and moved the item to the bottom (reflecting March 10 instead of March 14). I've also vowed to stop being the flag-waving patriot that I obviously am (according to the MediaWiki software). -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check my comment below why I still feel The Pentagon releases is not good wording. & I just wanted to point out that I mentioned from the start I didn't think it was that big an issue as there are much more serious reasons to doubt the veracity of the statement (not the transcript). But I still felt we should choose the best wording because the wording you preferred didn't sound right to me (the reason I've tried to explaib below) & not just because there is automatic doubt when anyone releases a transcript, even more so when it's an obviously partisan organisation (& this applies to any country). Coelacan of course may feel differently Nil Einne 12:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

From WP:ERRORS

The headline states that reads: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped. . . " Should it mention that these statements are according to Pentagon transcripts, as the alleged confesion took place in secret. White Lightning 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It's fixed now, and reads: "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." — coel acan — 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it reads: "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl." This is a problem again, I think, as it's giving the Pentagon's account as Actual Truth, as though the Pentagon has never lied before. — coel acan — 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It should at least be reverted to "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks and the murder of Daniel Pearl.", which was generous enough as it is. Fifty7 00:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good enough. If we try to neutralize the statement much more, it will actually become more biased, suggesting that the Pentagon is lying to us. Should we say that the Cassini spacecraft allegedly took pictures of Titan? -- tariqabjotu 01:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If the Cassini spacecraft had a proven track record of lying... — coel acan — 01:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, there are heaps of reports coming out from US intelligence officials that say KSM is lying and the transcripts are trumped up (by KSM himself, according to these reports).[7] [8] [9] Seems that by all accounts, our reporting here is missing some crucial nuance. — coel acan — 02:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No; it's not. Those links you provided suggest that Khalid is lying, not that The Pentagon is lying. The statement as it is on the Main Page, and as it has always been on the Main Page, does not seem to imply that Khalid's confession is factual; it simply says that he state[d] he helped plan the terrorist attacks. -- tariqabjotu 03:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"As it has always been"? Apparently you haven't been watching. It changed. Previously, it said, "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states ..." which was perfectly fine. Again, we know the Pentagon lies, and it's not uncommon for them to reverse their previous stated position regarding events.[10] They admit this. Lying, arguably, is something that a military organization "must" do. But it does mean we can't simply present their statements as fact. We do not know that KSM actually said any of this. — coel acan — 04:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I have been watching the ITN section; in fact, I was the one who originally added the item, so I am fully aware things have changed since then. "As it has always been" is correct; if you look at what I said, I said that the item has always refrained from implying that the confession is true. The word states is used; not confesses, not admits, not anything similar to those two. I said nothing about the Main Page item addressing the reliability of The Pentagon itself. Regardless, let's take a look at the current item:

The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen successful and foiled acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Did The Pentagon release a transcript? Yes. Does this transcript have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stating that he helped plan more than two dozen acts of terrorism? Yes. Did those two dozen attacks include 9|11? Yes. Okay... entirely factual. If you have a personal issue with The Pentagon, that's your business, but your attempts to try to keep the sentence neutral are turning into attempts to push a point-of-view automatically discrediting The Pentagon. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Savidan says: "per the error report--a quick check of google news reveals any responsible news source makes sure to attribute this--feel free to tinker with the wording"[11] Now, what exactly is wrong with the version Savidan put up? It seems that "according to" is pretty standard for us to do here. Consider the following claim: "Coelacan releases an IRC log in which tariqabjotu states that celery sticks with peanut butter taste better than potato chips." But if you never said any such thing, how could you be "stating" it in my logs? You didn't state it. So you can't state it in my logs. How could I release logs in which you state it? That's all utterly impossible. The only way I can release such logs is if you did in fact say it. Now, there are easily understood sematic disclaimers available to us. But without an "according to", the phrase "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states" has only a simple meaning. It means "he said it", end of story. But we don't know that. It would be accurate to say "According to an IRC log released by Coelacan ..." but without that, there's an implicit endorsement. Other users, White Lightening, Fifty7, and Savidan, have endorsed the statement with this minor disclaimer. Against four other voices, why are you so sure you're right? What exactly is wrong with Savidan's version? — coel acan — 05:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Coelacan, I think that you're wrong about the usage of "state". If you released a log in which Tariqabjotu appears to say that celery sticks with peanut butter taste better than potato chips, then in that log Tariqabjotu does state it. In the play Angels in America, Roy Cohn states that La Cage aux Folles is the best play on Broadway. Did the historical Roy Cohn ever say that? I don't know, and I rather doubt it. But the verb "states" doesn't necessarily imply that he did. Similarly, "The Pentagon releases a transcript in which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states..." doesn't make any claims about what KSM said; it only makes a claim about the Pentagon's transcript. The phrase "transcript in which..." is semantically equivalent to "according to a transcript". I don't think there's a problem here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this one. It seems to me even if it is implied that it's only according to the transcript, it's better linguisticly to say according to. I don't think the movie is quite the same thing. In this case, you're referring to the character Roy Cohn in the movie. Your not referring to Roy Cohn himself. The transcript case is somewhat different since the transcript is claimed to be an accurate recording of what was said. If someone provides me with a transcript of the movie, Angels of America, but I haven't actually seen it myself, all I know is according to the transcript. If there is legitimate reason to doubt that transcript IMHO it's especially important to remember that all I know is according to the transcript as I have never seen the movie Angels in America so I don't know whether the character Roy Cohn in the movie actually stated what it is claimed he did according to the transcript. On the other hand, I don't think this is that big an issue since altho it's automatic that you would doubt a transcript released by a clearly non-neutral party like the Pentagon, the greatest doubt is not whether he actually said what it is claimed he said but whether he was telling the truth or exattegerating and/or telling his captors what they wanted to hear to stop possible torture or to protect his family. In other words, it's probably better to mention according to, but if people feel so strongly about it I'm not going to argue with them. Nil Einne 06:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Nil Einne has a point about the "character". In my (yet to be fabricated) logs, it is not Tariqabjotu who advocates celery, but the character of Tariqabjotu whom I have scripted. It's somewhat unnatural to speak of the two interchangably. Think about how you would speak naturally, off the cuff, about what you'd heard. If you and some other Wikipedians were hiring a caterer for Tariqabjotu's birthday party, would you say "Coelacan has some logs where Tariqabjotu extolls the many virtues of celery", or would you say "Coelacan says there was an IRC session where extolls the many virtues of celery" If it sounds semantically indistinguishable, try substituting "admits to killing a bunch of people" and really ask yourself if you would naturally, carelessly use the two phrases interchangably, or whether you'd choose the one that more explicitly indicated the "Coelacan said" part. I don't think we're using language quite naturally in the ITN template right now, and I think people are quite used to and comfortable with the "Secretary Soandso says" stuff. I certainly don't think that "According to The Pentagon's released transcript, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states ..." is in any way demeaning or insinuating about or discrediting the Pentagon. I think it's just the sort of wording that readers expect. — coel acan — 08:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Shall we compromise by saying The Pentagon releases a transcript in which a character named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed states he helped plan more than two dozen acts of terrorism, including the September 11, 2001 attacks.? -- tariqabjotu 15:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it fun to punch around that straw man? I've only asked that Savidan's version be used, nothing more. Plenty of editors here have said that it doesn't read right. Instead of ignoring these concerns because you're already right and you already know better, can someone just explain what is wrong with this version that was already up? — coel acan — 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

(redent) All the 'reliable and sober' media outlets are going with something like "According to a transcript released by the Pentagon, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to..." probably best to follow their lead as they have armies of lawyers writing policy on such things. It covers both ends of the argument. --Monotonehell 09:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? The Wall Street Journal is simply going with "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said...". Art LaPella 14:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've not seen anything in American media, be it in print or online, that presents anything other than a direct declaration by Khalid Sheik Mohammed. It is rather distressing, and one would hope Wikipedia would be more reliable in terms of providing the reality of a situation. Fifty7 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal isn't a 'reliable and sober' media outlet, they have a definite editorial line. Actually most mainstream US media has some kind of editorial alignment. --Monotonehell 16:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to my knowledge, the WSJ is a prime example of the separation of the newsdesk and the editorial staff. Their Op-Ed pages consistently lean far to the right, while the news pages supposedly have an excellent reputation for neutrality and evenhandedness. howcheng {chat} 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell from the article, there is some dispute as to how different the Op-Ed and newsdesk staff are. Regardless tho, even if some 'reliable and sober' as monotone put it outlets are not saying 'according to', it still seems best to me that we go with the one that arguablly most 'reliable and sober' news staff are and perhaps more importantly, the one that IMHO is least controversial (as this page has shown, both are controversial) Nil Einne 03:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Are they really both controversial? I've had my motives questioned and my concerns called ridiculous, but no one has actually said that there was anything wrong with Savidan's version. As you can see, the only reason Postdlf changed it was to "make clear what the event was on March 14". That's fine; a combination of both would read "According to a transcript released by the Pentagon ...", or shorter "According to the Pentagon's released transcript ...". If Savidan's version was okay then I don't see why either of those wouldn't be okay. I have yet to see what is the other side to this controversy. — coel acan — 03:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If you still care to know, (a) the wording you prefer focuses on the statement (March 10) rather than the release (March 14); (b) ITN is about mentioning articles that have recently been updated in a factual fashion without excessively qualifying every detail based on our perceived notions of particular governments (note the lack of According to... in the first item of this version of ITN, even though the Taliban still holds that this never happened); those details are left for the article; (c) the statement on ITN was factually correct, as I demonstrated earlier. If you felt my straw man argument was silly, I made my point (but not a WP:POINT). There is a point were qualifications can go to far, and that was a decent example. If the transcript were truly bogus, it really would be about a character named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (as you mentioned in your celery scenario, in regards to me). Obviously, though, that would be a bad idea; the qualification is a bit over-the-top. You keep mentioning Savidan's edit summary in which (s)he statements how reliable news organizations attribute this. I feel quite certain that (s)he was merely noting that The Pentagon was not previously mentioned in the item, but you have repeatedly used it as if (s)he was completely married to that wording (when in fact the summary also invited others to change it). Going along with your interpretation, however, 'reliable and sober' news organizations (whatever that's supposed to mean) may mention that the statement is according to the U.S. government (which has been known to lie and torture, naturally), but I have yet to see a news organization go to great lengths to discredit the integrity of The Pentagon in it's headline (not to say that there aren't any that have). Unfortunately, we're not one of those 'reliable and sober news organizations' (and not even a news organization) and thus we are free to discredit the Pentagon from the get-go. Go "neutrality". -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

( Just for the record my definition of 'reliable and sober' equates to organisations that report with NPOV. There's not that many that do these days. I'd point to ABC News and Current Affairs as an example of one that's outside of commercial influence. --Monotonehell 18:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC) )

I would have liked the more honest "NPOV" better than 'reliable and sober'. Wikipedians know how little agreement there is on NPOV. But 'reliable and sober', especially in quotes, implies that you are quoting what nearly all of us would say, and that we would say it only about the unexpectedly limited list of news sources you had in mind. And that was demonstrably false. Art LaPella 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry obviously the phrase I used isn't in such wide spread use as I assumed it was. It's a widely understood term in my neck of the woods. --Monotonehell 11:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to resurrect a dead duck, but I think your missing the point. If the Pentagon releases a transcript which is false, I don't really feel it's resonable to say that the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in the transcript is a character who states something. There is no character since this is something which is purported to be true. Rather if it's a false transcript, it's just a false transcript. I still feel it isn't that controversial or discrediting to say 'according to the transcript'. If we had said according to the transcript...allegedly... then that would be wrong. But in this case, I feel we're just stating the facts as neutrally as possible. According to the transcript... Some people, noteably you, feel that this implies the Pentagon could easily be lying, but with the alternative, others feel we're leaning on saying the transcript is definitely true. There doesn't appear to be any middle ground here and I still feel according to is the least controversial but obviously editor has their own POV Nil Einne 05:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean me? I haven't expressed any opinion on that dead duck. Neither version says the Pentagon is lying, and neither version says anything either side considers to be false. I objected only to the statement about how all 'reliable and sober' media outlets present the story, and we should therefore trust their lawyers. To me, the most straightforward interpretation of that statement was false and misleading. Art LaPella 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No I was replying to Tariq. It's a bit confusing given the multitude of replies but if you follow the thread mine is in-line as a follow up to his?. I don't want to get into the reliable and sober thing to much, I wasn't the one who choose those words anyway but I do feel on from what I've seen the majority of news outlets generally considered to provide a resonably unbiased level of coverage do in fact present the story in the way we've been talking about. I don't really know much about the WSJ, although from the article it does appear the alleged seperation isn't as clear cut as it may seen. But I wouldn't for example consider Fox News to be in the league of the unbiased news media. Of course not everyone may agree but it seems to me this is probably the most common view, especially when we consider the opinions of people who actually study the news media and I think the article on Fox News supports this contention. All media organisations have biases of course. Nil Einne 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This will probably be my last comment on the matter, it's now largerly academic anyway since the item has disappeared off ITN. I've been thinking about this a bit more & I'm coming back to what I originally thought which is that linguisticly the original wording (The Pentagon releases... in which...) didn't sound right but I've now realised more precisely what the problem is. Tariq felt it was better to say The Pentagon releases a transcript. On consideration, he might have a point that this is probably the better wording. However, and here's the key thing here. We should still say according to IMHO. Something like The Pentagon releases a transcript according to which Khalid Sheikh Mohammed stated he... during... To me, it's just not right to say someone said something in a transcript. At least according to my kiwi+Malaysian english. People don't say things in a transcript. Rather the trasncript is supposed to be a record of someone saying something. For example, I might say in the book Harry Potter 7, Harry Potter dies (this isn't a spoiler since the book hasn't been released and I have no idea what occurs in it) or maybe in the book Harry Potter 7, Harry Potter says he was responsible for September 11. I wouldn't say, in the BBC transcript (of an interview), Rowling says Harry Potter dies. I might say in the BBC interview Rowling says... If the Pentagon had released a supposed written statement from KSM, we might say something like The Pentagon releases a written statement, allegedly?, from KSM in which he states/claims. However to me anyway, you just don't say people say things in transcripts because as I've said they don't. They say things in interviews, trials etc which the transcript records. It doesn't matter whether or not we trust the transcript or the people who made the transcript Nil Einne 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That's an opinion at best - you'll notice what kind of news I consider reliable. Art LaPella 18:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not really an error, but should it be mentioned that he said he helped plan the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing? --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, it seems unnecessary. We mention the September 11th attacks because they're probably the most significant of the attacks he's alleged to have been involved in. Anything more will just make the section too long. And if we were going to mention another attack, surely there is more merit to mention the 2002 Bali Bombings Nil Einne 03:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this very long discussion should be moved to Template talk:In the news. No one is "reporting errors" here anymore. --199.71.174.100 23:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed property ownership law

I changed the link to a stub on the law itself. Also, the news media has done a pretty awful job describing the law and the controversy around it. In particular, it is not the first PRC law that protects private property ownership. --Roadrunner 15:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably a good idea as from what I've understood this particular law still protects the state's interests in property unlike laws in other countries and so is quite different. --Monotonehell 16:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Many non communist countries have some degree of consideration of the state's interests in property. Most for example, protect the state's right to regulate property usage based on environmental concern, zoning and other such matters. More significantly perhaps, it isn't uncommon that the state has the right to acquire property when it's needed for some sort of essential work even if the owner refuses to sell, although in many cases, that power is used extremely sparingly if at all nowadays. I have little doubt the law in China protects the state interests to a far greater degree and I haven't actually read the law nor am I a lawyer, but I'm not sure if the fact that the state's interests are protected in law is itself different Nil Einne 03:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Flight 471

With all due respect to the victims, I'm not sure an emergency landing resulting in 7 deaths is really Main Page material... - dcljr (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all airliner crashes notable? The mainstream media certainly seem to think so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Events in Zimbabwe

Could someone be so kind as to put all the info into 2007 Zimbabwean political crisis or some similarily title article? It's definitely something big, and I find it rather surprising that noone's written an article yet... —Nightst a llion (?) 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have any third party sources referred to it as being such? Looks like just the normal cycle of life in a dictatorship; resist, crackdown, repeat. Wikipedia is way to quick to decide what constitutes political and economic crises. Picaroon 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]... Good enough for you? ;) —Nightst a llion (?) 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Finnish Elections

Total bullshit now. There are no coalitions yet and perhaps new coalition will be centre-right. Please read these pages http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6463465.stm http://www.hs.fi/english/article/SUNDAY+EVENING+2355+ELECTION+SPECIAL+-++BIG+GAINS+FOR+OPPOSITION+NATIONAL+COALITION+PARTY+SDP+SUFFERS+DEFEAT+AT+POLLS+/1135225916469

--Zzzzzzzzzz 00:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've corrected the wording, which wrongly implied that the SDP would likely remain in government. The Tom 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Six Nations Championship

The Six Nations Championship has just finished, and being a large sporting event between large international teams, perhaps it should be considered for the news (France won closely on points difference). Many more minor events, such as the superbowl, are included. Matt. P 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Super Bowl is the top competition in American football, the Six Nations isn't for rugby union, although I'd rather wait for the 2007 Rugby World Cup. --Howard the Duck 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Prompt/prompts

I dunno about anyone else but the Zimbabwe entry seems to have incorrect grammar. I can see that "beating and detention" are two things and therefore need "prompt", but why do I keep getting a niggling feeling that "the beating and detention of" is one event altogether and therefore deserves "prompts"? --AdamM 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it should be prompt. Even tho perhaps you can argue the beating and detention are one event, people are criticising not just the event, but the beating and the detention. Nil Einne 19:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

SpaceX

SpaceX launched their Falcon 1 rocket for the second time this morning, this time succeeding in 90% of their objectives though failing to reach orbit. This is big news on the world stage because the rocket costs a fraction that others cost, and a number of places such as a Malaysian company, the Air Force and NASA have contracts with the company as well. Here's a Google News search of the keyword SpaceX. Mithridates 05:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there's been a lot of edits to the article in the past day, but not much actual information has been added. Once the article's been cleaned up (for example one part says that the previous launch is yet to come) it should be nominated see here for how to put forward a suitable candidate --Monotonehell 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer entry too long?

I always get annoyed when someone uses this as an excuse, but I've been sampling some cheap Cabernet Sauvignon and I may be saying things I wouldn't otherwise. Nevertheless, I was kind of thinking that eight lines of text (on the main page, in 1152x864 resolution, in Windows XP, using Firefox), is probably more than is really appropriate for Bob Woolmer. I don't mean to downplay the importance of the situation, but merely to put it in perspective compared to the other very important news events also listed. I was thinking that perhaps we could eliminate the last sentence. Thoughts? TomTheHand 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too long. I'll trim it now. Picaroon 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit-conflict)The entry about Bob Woolmer seems rather wordy. Its giving the Main Page a fairly lopsided appearance. I'd suggest just this: "Jamaican police announce that they are now treating the death of the Pakistan cricket team's coach Bob Woolmer (pictured) during the ongoing 2007 Cricket World Cup in the Caribbean as a case of murder." The portion with the details doesn't seem absolutely necessary to be on the MP, think that can be left to the relevant article(s).--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've cut its size in half. What do you guys think? Picaroon 02:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks alright to me. The boldness is appreciated, Picaroon! TomTheHand 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mea culpa" and I agree entirely; the first sentence suffices. Thanks for the repair, David Kernow (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Woolmer wikilink

Can we remove the wikilink to the Death of Bob Woolmer article. That article probably shouldn't have been created in the first place and will be merged back to the Bob Woolmer article asap. Having the death wikilink is directing editors to the "wrong" article. --Monotonehell 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I altered the item. I was about to ask why you didn't just go make the change yourself, but I didn't realize you weren't an admin. -- tariqabjotu 16:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

lol thanks, I'm just loud and not "in charge". ;) --Monotonehell 16:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

heart attack

someone please pipe [[heart attack]] to heart attack in the lead piece on Andranik Margaryan. cheers W guice 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Jean Charest

The headlines state that Jean Charest lost his riding, but this is not true; he narrowly won, see here. -- Jeff3000 03:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

True. Now where's the whole headline?? -- Jo9100 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Charest may have won or may have lost. According to the CBC, with 88% of votes in, he has a 650 vote lead, but for a while everyone was saying he had lost. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus given the uncertainty of the his winning or losing, Wikipedia should not be stating it as the headline. -- Jeff3000 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Charrest.jpg

Can we have Premier Charest's picture (pictured right) on ITN instead of the Quebec flag, please? --199.71.174.100 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Quebec newsworthy

The election in Quebec is certainly internationally newsworthy. It will decide the future of another independence referendum, and is currently the lead news story on Google news, with articles about it from over 450 international sources [25]. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Post it on the suggestions page; subnational entity elections are never added to ITN. Also there are issues with the correctness of the item you added, see this. --Peta 03:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware. The results just changed within the past 20 minutes. And this is an extremely major subnational election — and since Quebec is offically defined as a nation and is the current leading news story word-wide, I'm not sure why it's a problem. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If it does stay , it should be focussed, not a bulletin on the status of the Premiers riding. --Peta 03:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you take a look at the Google News results, you'll see the vast majority of those sources are from Canada. Even the United States makes very few appearances in those results. -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain then the article from Xinhua[26], the Guardian UK [27], Forbes[28], The San Jose Mercury News [29], Houton Chroncile [30], and BBC [31], et al. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PZFUN (talk • contribs)

Please don't treat me like an idiot; you knew exactly what I meant. I can read and I see Canada, Canada, Canada, with a few other places – like the ones you mentioned – mixed in. I clearly said vast majority, not all. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No-one is treating you like an idiot, and please do not go looking for a fight where one is unnecessary. But just from a simple scroll through of the top 20 articles on Google news, I found at least 10 from outside of Canada. And it is not surprising that the majority of articles should be from Canada, it is, after all, a Canadian election. The US-midterm election, which was on here, the majority of articles would have also been from the US. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. media always overdo coverage of events; note the wide coverage of the relatively trivial event involving the arrest of a punk rocker. So, I take the volume of USAmerican coverage with a grain of salt (unless it's very low, which might mean something). As for this election, it's a provincial election, not a national election. The U.S. midterm elections were national elections. Can you pinpoint the last time we have had non-national elections featured on In the News for awhile? -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu: I think you are getting unnecessarily defensive when there is nothing to defend against. No-one is questioning your intellectual capacity nor your ability to read the word "Canada"; it is merely the case that there are a number of international sources reporting on the event, and it is a patently usual thing for the country of origin for a particular event to of course have the most sources reporting upon it. And I don't believe that PZFUN interpreted your statement as being about "all" sources, either. Please, do try to assume good faith in these things. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anyone was questioning that I could read the word Canada; the Canada sentence had nothing to do with PZFUN making a belittling comment. I was merely taking offense at PZFUN's use of the question (or statement) Please explain then the article from [place x], [place y], [place z]. It's not like I could actually explain the sources. It was a belittling request / question. And please don't play the assume good faith card; it's really... um... I can't think of the right word. But it's never good. -- tariqabjotu 04:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The big story here is not that the Liberals "won the election" but rather that the ADQ won so many seats and held the Liberals to a minority. This is a Phyrric victory. -- Mwalcoff 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree, but I am trying to keep the election on the page at all — let alone the jucier bits! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 04:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as I may be off soon (or finally getting around to completing that article I have been writing), I said in my edit summary that I didn't think the Quebec item was international news as written. Although I still don't believe provincial elections are of international importance, the current wording is better. -- tariqabjotu 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)