Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 20

Société Générale fraud[edit]

Could you please bold Jérôme Kerviel instead of Société Générale since it is the more detailled article. Chris DHDR 11:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but a better place to mention these issues is WP:ERROR --Step hen 23:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Cable cut[edit]

This cable -> FALCON (cable system) has just got cut. [1]. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Cable cut[edit]

A fourth cable snaped [2], [3], [4], [5]. ––Bender235 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical importance criterion?[edit]

I know we spend a lot of time hashing out what to include or not to include and I (obviously) don't have to time to read the entire archives or discussion to see what the consensus is on borderline cases. However, I wonder, if as a rule of thumb we might consider this criterion for ITN inclusion:

If it wouldn't make it on the year page, it shouldn't be on ITN.

Look to 1958 and compare the day-to-day events that we debate about and wonder if they would have been included 5, 10, 25, 50 years from now - more often than not, they will not have been included. I think this reflects the broad consensus that ITN shouldn't cover every breaking event for every day, only those of such historical notability that they would warrant (a) significant revision or expansion of a Wikipedia article and (b)mention or recollection years or from now. I understand this may set an unreasonably high bar for many of the "relevantists" who want to ensure ITN is updated more than once a week - but so much of the news everyday is not newsworthy. In this way, we also have a means of addressing the "death" and "sports" controversies that often appear. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to do, in hindsight, some events that appeared to be minor then turned to be out to big deals as time went by... and vice versa.

And we can only positively, absolutely determine this after the year's done. --Howard the Duck 08:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki hr[edit]

Please add [[hr:Predložak:Novosti]]. Thanks Andrej Šalov (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zurich Thieves Grab Impressionists, Van Gogh Worth $163 Million[edit]

How about adding a note on the Zürich heist of Van Gogh, Cézanne, Degas and Monet paintings from the Foundation E.G. Bührle? [6] --Bender235 (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its been suggested on WP:ITN/C already, but it hasn't been acted on. Charles Stewart (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article about the heist? JACO PLANE • 2008-02-11 22:17

Not so far, and the Foundation article is a stub, and the paintings don't have their articles. --Step hen 00:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, their is one article on Edgar Degas' Viscount Lepic and His Daughters. --Bender235 (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria/Guideline Proposal[edit]

After working on this with some other ITN contributors in my userspace, and then labelling it an essay for a week, I have decided to propose this as a new guideline or criteria for In The News. Input is appreciated. See WP:ITNSPORTS Random89 (talk) 08:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African Cup of Nations[edit]

"Stephen" has changed the name association football to the Yankophile "soccer". Despite the fact that the Wikipedia community has long extablished concensus to have the article at "association football", as thus that is its agreed upon name. Stephen's edit needs to be reverted. - Animagentile (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "Yankophile": it is the word used throughout the English speaking world, including England, whenever use of the word "football" is either taken to refer to another sport or is ambiguous. The phrase "Association football" is archaic and, although it has a quasi-official status, is totally absent from colloquial use. Kevin McE (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but I agree. Especially in ITN blurbs, economy of words is at a premium. Why say association football or football (soccer) when we can just say soccer and get the point across that much quicker? Also, might I remind Animagentile that upper class English schoolboys created the term soccer? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an exact same discussion on WP:ERROR that dismissed association football in favour of soccer (football is ambiguous), hence the change. --Step hen 20:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No way. The word soccer is not yankophile, it's also used in e.g. Australia and South Africa, but in this case I think football should be used, even if just for the fact that the organising confederation is the Confederation of African Football, not the Confederation of African Soccer. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this never' should have been added. The South American, North American, or Asian tournament was never added. Second, it is, and should be association football. ---CWY2190^T^C 21:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least football (soccer), the sitewide consensus. Daniel (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to use a single word, we should use "football," as it is the more universal term. That said, we really have been including a lot of soccer games in In The News of late. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around ITN much recently, but have we really included that much football/soccer items? I recall Brazil being awarded the 2014 World Cup back in October, but other than that? A ecis^Brievenbus 18:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've had, if I recall, Cup of Nations, FA Cup, and UEFA Champion's League in the last year. Curiously, we didn't do Copa America, making the Cup of Nations a bit odd, as Copa America is undoubtedly the tournament with the more substantial and important international teams. Most of these are somewhat justifiable in any case (though I still think the FA cup was stupid), but it's still much more than we feature a lot of other sports. Still, it's a more widely watched sport than any other. For the most part I would not be averse to having Champion's League (since it's the largest and most prestigious club tournament), World Cup, and any results of continent international tournaments. But I think we're fairly idiosyncratic here, by and large. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have reservations about the inclusion of continental competitions at club and national level, I agree with Phil here. There are fundamental inconsistencies pertaining to the inclusion of sports competitions and it's frustratingly complicated by the.....insularity of the various North American sports (i.e. their respective international competitions being "obscure"). Disregarding the obvious notability, surely the respective titles of the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB are equivalent to the UEFA Champions League, AFC Champions League, Copa Libertadores, etc - rather than the Copa America, European Championship, African Cup of Nations, and so on? For example, is the Stanley Cup not effectively subordinate to the Ice Hockey World Cup and Ice Hockey World Championships? If the aforementioned tournaments are indeed considered to be equivalent, are we prepared to engage (as we have done) in some traditional systemic bias? ;-) Do we feature all competitions or continue to use media coverage and popularity as criterion for their inclusion? That has caused inconsistency: e.g. the European Championship has a far greater profile compared to that of the CONCACAF Gold Cup and it's inevitable that ITN will feature the final of Euro 08. SoLando (Talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, for the most part. I think in the end, as much as we want to create lists months in advance of what is and is not ITN worthy, we are just forced to make a judgement call. If I could simply offer one point, it would be that if we have to make a tough call, I think in the future we should err on the side of inclusion, rather than exclusion from ITN as long as the articles in question are reasonably well put together. I know I'm not the only person who gets bored with seeing the same ITN blurbs for a week at a time sometimes without hardly anything getting added. Keep in mind NPOV applies mostly to the content of the encyclopedia. ITN is more a collection of what we choose to highlight within the encyclopedia, so I think allowing the particular interests of whatever cultures that speak the language of the encylopedia to be accounted for does no actual harm to the content of the encyclopedia as a whole. Anyway that's my two cents. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue this discussion at WP:ITNSPORTS so there would be enough consensus for it to be an official ITN guideline. --Howard the Duck 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Primaries[edit]

I'm a bit surprised these aren't being mentioned. I know we try to avoid US bias, but the US primary results are a top story on the BBC, it's the second world news story on The Australian, it's the top read story on The Times Online, and a top three story in the Guardian... Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't get the Iowa Caucuses, New Hampshire Primaries, or Super Tuesday added. No reason why we would add the Potomac Primaries. It might be difficult to add the actual nominees when we know them. ---CWY2190^T^C 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and this is what I'm disputing - we should have added some or all of those. They have been top headline or near-top-headline news in multiple countries. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Speaking as an Australian, from my observations IRL, the people who are most disapproving of the US and its policies are the ones who keep a close lookout on every move made by the US. So even though people might want to not admit to it, there are a lot of non-Americans out there keeping a close eye on all the polls because whether they like to admit it or not, these internal US polls are affecting them a lot and will affect the world a lot. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of these primaries should have been included, but in order not to draw massive heat and give the US process undue or extraordinary coverage, we've basically established consensus that when each nominee is selected (reaching the threshold with pledged delegates by winning enough primaries, alliances between candidates, or the dropping out of all serious candidates) then we will post that. It will probably be only another few weeks before Huckabee drops out, which means McCain will have clinched the nomination (Ron Paul would have no way of taking enough pledge and superdelegates to dispute McCain's nomination if Huckabee drops out). On the Democratic side either one of the candidates will broker a deal to drop out or we will have news that there will be a brokered or stacked convention before too long, either of which will be posted. So my advice is for everyone to just hold tight. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 02:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, one ITN item for each nominee once they are confirmed, and another for the results of the actual election, assuming we don't get another Florida issue, ala 2000! - Shudde ^talk 04:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is going to be a brokered Democratic convention then we should put a blurb up on that too in addition to the eventual resolution. This will be a MASSIVE (I couldn't find enough typeface changes to differentiate this) story and the first time this happened in almost 50 years. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on reporting U.S. presidential primaries - ITN will report on each party's (Republican and Democratic) presumptive nominee by the following criteria: the nominee crosses the mathematical threshold necessary to win the nomination by the first of: (a) election/appointment of delegates by a primary/caucus (b) assignment of another candidate's delegates (aka endorsement) to the nominee (c) drop-out of all other legitimate candidates. In the case where neither of two candidates has emerged as the presumptive nominee (e.g., Clinton and Obama), ITN will not report on any party candidate's status until the (brokered) convention offically elects a nominee.

Please edit the text of the blockquote and lets keep it somewhere prominent on the talk page. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think that a brokered convention is enough of a story that there should be a blurb about this when it is a certainty. Please keep in mind that we would know this by May/June and the convention is not until September, meaning we would have three months or more between these blurbs, so it's not like there's going to be a flurry of US Primary blurbs. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The DNC is August 25-28. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well either way the last primary is Puerto Rico on June 7th, so we have almost 3 months between the end of the primaries and the convention. Like I said it's not like the convention is a week after the final primaries, so we won't have a bunch of US political news on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the soccer and keep the space station[edit]

The Africa Cup is a relatively old news item and a source of on-going controversy while STS-122 is an on-going mission. Can we replace the soccer match on the template with the STS-122 story? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, yes please. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, STS has already been on the main page, and the fact it's an ongoing event is prob even more of a reason not to have it on ITN. Also, the Nations Cup is an African sports event, and we certainly don't get those on ITN very often. - Shudde ^talk 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you don't often meet someone who is all that interested in a regional African sporting event. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do if you live in Africa I'm sure. - Shudde ^talk 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's jsut it. It's a regional event. Who otuside of Africa pays any attention? One continent is hardly worldly, even if there's dozens of countries on Africa. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very insular attitude. Every match was broadcast live on BBC TV in the UK. 89.18.65.97 (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the make-up of the teams involved. Most of the star players (including Samuel Eto'o, Didier Drogba, Michael Essien, Kolo Toure etc etc and so on) ply their trade in Europe. Since when was interest in at least two continents not sufficient for ITN? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of western europe since rather a lot of top teams have lost players to the cup.Geni 16:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the soccer match is gone, but can we put the STS-122 back up there? Perhaps drop the 4-day old Grammy Awards? Madcoverboy (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the fascination with space news; it's barely in the news anyway. --Howard the Duck 02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because people die, politicians fail, buildings burn, teams win, and disasters happen - but it's worth being reminded that we're all in it together down here and there's literally a universe of possibilities out there. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be true, but this isn't exactly a story we're beating off with a stick. If I didn't watch cable news 8 hours a day I don't think I would have known if not for the 10 second blurb every 3 hours. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The STS story is important for a number of different reasons, including its possible effect on satellite planning, the public interest in the potential dangers and the national and international politics of it all. I think it is also fair to say that the internet fraternity has a generally above-average interest in Space anyway and I, at least, am very grateful for at least brief mentions of space news, since it is badly under-reported in most UK media.

However, I do feel that the STS headline is inappropriate, since it is not known what damage had been done to the satellite, only that it had been hit, thus "Destroyed" was, IMO overplaying it and "Hit" would have been more encyclopedic. Indeed, it still has not been confirmed that the tank has been destroyed. IceDragon64 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NIU Shootings[edit]

Can someone add the NIU entry, per Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copiedfrom candidates) Can someone confirm that among shootings in the last 6 months - Louisiana Tech shooting, 2008 Lane Bryant shooting, Kirkwood City Council shooting, Westroads Mall shooting, Delaware State University shooting, SuccessTech Academy shooting - none were promoted to ITN? Madcoverboy (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ma near 100% sure that the none of those were on save for the Westroads Mall shooting. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that there was a car accident that killed 7 in Maryland. I don't see anyone imploring ITN to cover it. Are their lives worth less? Is this accident any less tragic? Or is it that the story isn't saturating the media because it doesn't fits into pre-configured media narratives? It's "just" a car accident - but NIU was a school shooting... with guns! ...and a gunman! ...and victims! ...and surviving family and friends! Is one less normal than the other? I think if we understand the reasons for not covering this car crash, we can begin to understand the reasons for not covering the school shootings. If it bleeds, it does not have to lead. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three to Five?[edit]

Wikipedia:In_the_news_section_on_the_Main_Page#Criteria_for_adding_entries says there should be 3-5 entries. As far as I can remember there's always been about seven. I think we should be looking to change the guide to a more realistic number. LukeSurl^{t c} 13:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it. No need to discuss what seems to be a fact. Charles Stewart (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

total inbalance of news items[edit]

I hate to break it to you guys, but I don't give a fuck about the screen-actors guild strike, the grammy's, or whoever just elected president in a country I know nothing about. I'm much more interested in things like Steve Fosset, or the Maoist attacks in India. Things where life and death are in the balance are far more interesting and deserving of being in the news than most of the bullshit you guys come up with. The Grammy's? Seriously? WHO CARES? What significance could that POSSIBLY have in my life? Meanwhile people die without it getting noted at all. It's pretty disappointing to see what used to be a damn good source of news being reduced to insignificance. GrimmC (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that people tend not to write much about such events. Write more about them and they are likely yo get mentioned more here. Remember countries that you know nothing about also have wars and their heads of state are of some importance.Geni 15:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Things where life and death are in the balance are far more interesting and deserving of being in the news" - "life and death in the balance" and "interesting" are not criteria for ITN. "than most of the bullshit you guys come up with" - then propose candidates you'd like to see. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see how you can argue the Fosset thing is of more significance then the strike, which like it or not has affected many people in many countries. Fosset was an interesting guy, but he died a long time ago, all that's happening now is it's being made official Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All wikipedia knows about the maoist attacks is this:

Nayagarh_district#Maoist_attacks. not really enough for a link.Geni 18:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose topics here. Either way, ease up on the profanity and take it down a notch or two. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest with you, GrimmC, but just because you don't care about something doesn't mean it's not news worthy. If you want certain things to be on the itn, then you create a good article and then you nominate it. Quit complaining. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we can all agree on something. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan unanimity?[edit]

Although the word was not used ONCE in the various suggestoions on the candidates page, somebody has posted the headline that the declaration of independence was unanimously endorsed. Is there a source for this, because given that 10 seats in the Kosovan assembly are held by Serbian representatives, I think it unlikely. Kevin McE (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbian representatives boycotted the vote.[7] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it was unopposed, but not unanimous. Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience this always happens. You can spend ages coming to an excellent consensus wording for some future event (ITN or whatever) then when it actually happens some admin who didn't partake in the discussion adds it without noticing the previous lengthy discussion and it never sees the light of day Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Nil Einne's frustrations about drive-by admin edits - shouldn't the power to edit ITN be vested in a dedicated ITN admin (like Raul654 & FAs)? I also have a problem with the word "unilateral" since it evokes POV assertion that it is somehow illegitimate or aggressive (e.g. Operation Iraqi Freedom). All declarations of independence are necessarily unilateral! It's just a declaration of independence! Madcoverboy (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, speaking as someone with a background in International relations, the acronym "UDI" is pretty ubiquitous in the literature. And there are declarations of independence that aren't unilateral, it's just that they're comparatively rare: in the case of say, Montenegro's independence last year, it was carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions set up for that very purpose. The Tom (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I brought up the wording of unilateral on the candidate page, and emost editors seemed to be in favour of removing it, yet it remains. There seems to always be a few issues with well-intentioned but misguided admins making changes to the template without consensus. Without trying to arrogant or condescending, i would venture that there are quite a few regular editors who are seemingly more qualified to edit the ITN template than many admins. Random89 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have removed unilateral, although~~ I agree somewhat with the technical definition of UDI as the parent state was not party to the declaration, but it does have overtones of aggression. --Step hen 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Rock[edit]

As much as it pains me to kick my country out of the incredibly US-dominated ITN, I have doubts as to whether the Rock is of international significance. --78.149.195.33 (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock is a significant European bank that suffered heavily as a result of the US subprime collapse. --Step hen 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? European bank? --78.149.195.33 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is in Europe. --Step hen 02:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, there is one item in ITN that is US-based, so I would hardly call it US-dominated. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks[edit]

I haven't really seen this being reported anywhere. It's not really of international interest. It seems more of a promotion of a site than anything else. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to remove it until I saw the wave of support at WP:ITN/C. I don't know how this item received such a wave of support though; it has hardly been covered outside tech sites (especially in comparison to the other stories). -- tariqabjotu 04:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take it off. Charles Stewart (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had strong support for inclusion of the NIU at ITN/C, but an admin here thought it wouldn't be a good idea. But that's off topic. ~ UBeR (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly consistent precedent for not covering shootings because they unfortunately happen relatively often. As I pointed out, there were a string of shooting over the past few months, none of which were promoted. Some just strike a nerve with the media more than others. Likewise, there were massive suicide bombings in Pakistan and Afghanistan killing 20-80 people and those weren't covered either. As another editor mentioned, we should disabuse ourselves of the notion that "if it bleeds, it leads." Madcoverboy (talk) 13:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point wasn't to complain, but to show that admins don't necessarily follow a consensus all the time. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) See WP:VOTE. Indeed, consensus formation is often distinctly undemocratic since it weights the opinions of regulars more than passersby or assumes that a lack of support from regular editors is an implicit opposition (A topic of research I am very interested in...). Not that it's a bad thing — I'm often the first to rail against the drive-by editors and admins unfamiliar with criteria and norms who support/oppose their cause and don't otherwise contribute. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is covering the story. I support its inclusion, especially as this is of major importance to purveyors of free culture such as the WP readership. - Chardish (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was added because of the consensus at ITN/C, there were no dissenting voices, but a proposer and 4 supporters after a few hours of it being proposed. --Step hen 05:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 2008 ITN entries[edit]

I've gone back and looked at all of the ITN entries so far in 2008, not including ones that were quickly removed. Here's what I found:

There have been 42 ITN entries this year (minus any I've missed), for an average of six a week. This means that on average, the bottom entry is about a week old. To me, this backs up my opinion that we've been a bit too conservative in ITN approvals; I think we should adjust the criteria, or our interpretation of them, so the average winds up at about nine per week.

There have been 10 entries from Continental Europe; seven from the USA; five from Africa; five from East and Southeast Asia; three from Australia; two each from the UK, Middle East, and the Americas minus USA; one from India; and four not from a particular country (the International Space Station, the seas (2) and global stock markets).

Of the 12 European events, only four were truly "international" events -- Kosovo, the Nord Stream pipeline, the Adriatic oil spill that didn't happen and the Eurozone expansion. The latter two events are "international" only because Europe is broken down into little states.

It's interesting to look at the U.S. ITN entries: The Golden Globes, the Grammies, the end of the writers' strike, the Super Bowl, the Mercury probe fly-by, the Space Shuttle lift-off and the Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. Only the tornadoes are the kind of subject matter that typically goes in the A-section of the newspaper; the others were entertainment, sports or sci-tech news.

There were six European politics stories and four European business stories compared to zero for the U.S.

I'll let other give their thoughts on these findings before I add my thoughts -- I've got to get going at the moment. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that there were about half a dozen American political stories that would have been posted if the US were "broken down into little states" as you say. Also, the Grammies and the Super bowl are the highest level of competition in their particular field while the US entertainment industry (which heavily influences worldwide television and movies) was ground to a hault by the strike, so while I agree that these are sports and entertainment, it's not like we've been posting every time Britney Spears gets out of rehab or anything. I agree that the Golden Globes, strictly speaking shouldn't have gone up, but like you said it's not like we've been posting tons of stories on ITN. It seems to me that you're advocating an increase in turnover on ITN, but don't seem to think that many of the stories that have been posted should be considered ITN caliber. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it is. Each state is considered sovereign. That's why they're not Provinces. Charles Stewart (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, refer to American Civil War for the answer to this question. But nice try ;) Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting results, but I'd have to agree that there was a bit of a sampling bias since January-February is awards season, superbowl, and major entertainment strike. I would be interested in sampling the whole year to look at distributions (I'm not asking anyone to do it!) or clusters within timeframes.To the extent that there is a lack of ITN coverage about American topics, I think US-genic economic problems quickly become worldwide economic problems (falling under your no particular country), and other major news stories (random shootings, Iraq/War on Terror, election coverage) don't warrant ITN inclusion given the regularity of their occurrence/coverage. I would have to agree with Mwalcoff about bumping up the number of stories covered, the fact that the Grammies, Super Bowl, etc. lingered for almost a week is a bit embarrassing. Perhaps we should make it a habit of nominating every topic on Portal:Current Events at 00:00UTC for candidacy? Seems drastic, but it would increase the churn on the candidates page.Madcoverboy (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to artificially increase the ammount of blurbs on ITN, but I agree we need to be a little more relaxed about what we allow to be on ITN. I mean for Christ's sake we're not running the be-all-end-all account of what is and is not important in the world, we're trying to highlight interesting current events covered by an online encyclopedia. As I said before, all we need to do is start with the mindset of erring on the side of including more things on ITN and that will solve the problem. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been meaning to bring this up, but Mwalcoff beat me to it. I do think that ITN stories are staying on the main page for way too long, and I think that too many good stories are opposed on WP:ITN/C. These two problems are directly interrelated: the less often we update ITN, the more contentious each nomination becomes. The solution is to update, and update often. For example, sports events, even big ones like the Super Bowl, should stay on the main pagfe for only one day, two days tops. Once a match is over, it's over. The same goes with deaths (Hillary, Ledger, Suharto, Fischer, etc.). Let's report the death, leave it up for a day or so, and replace it with something else. Even the "big" political stories need daily updates. For example, in the case of Kosovo, we should have a series of ITN blurbs. Last Saturday, we could have had a blurb saying that Kosovo was going to announce indepedence. Sunday, we'd have an item saying the did. Tuesday, we'd focus on international reactions, and so forth.

Ideally, we should replace ~~all~~ most ITN news items at least once a day. This would solve a lot of problems. First off, less notable stories would get some time on the page, if only for 24 hours. Likewise, if Celebrity X dies on Tuesday, Y dies on Wednesday, and Z dies on Thursday, we'd only have one death on the page at a time, rather than three deaths "cluttering up" the news feed for a whole week. We could also report more sports (all types of football), more space (shuttle goes up, shuttle comes down), more economic news (Yahoo, Northern Rock), and more politics (more Kosovo, and yes, maybe even U.S. election coverage). It would allow us to support more ITN candidates and get more editors involved in editing current events. In short, it would help us put the "new" back in "news".

What do you think? Lovelac 7 06:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the spirit of your argument - indeed, I think we could do well to increase the churn on the template by knocking some items (sports, awards, deaths) off altogether after a day rather than merely bumping them down 5-6 times. I, for one, will hereafter modify my "vote" to include the 1-day inclusion or standard inclusion. I am, however, worried about the POV warriors who look for previous precedents and the subsequent slippery slope into covering notable, but definitively minor musicians, athletes, academics, etc. Indeed, arguments often devolve into "well it doesn't matter if NYT and WP covered it, BBC and FT didn't!" Many nominations are put forth by drive-by editors who know little about how media saturation does not require ITN coverage. Perhaps the criteria could be made more explicit. While I don't think the book should close altogether on an item once its up there, indeed many of the items do change in their wording along the way, but I would be hesitant about constantly reposting items. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't disagree with you more. I think you're on the right track by saying that we shouldn't dispute quite as many of the candidates, but I think this system being proposed increases the turnover much too artificially. We all have to face the fact that sometimes, whether we like it or not, there just isn't any news worth putting up, but putting up multiple entries on the same stories will not help that problem. This is an overcorrection. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that I strongly oppose any "mandatory time limit" on anything on ITN. Let the process proceed as normal, just a little faster by being more open to inclusion of items on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a mandatory time limit for all stories is too much. I'm scratching that out of my initial post. However, I do think that most ITN news items should only be up for a day or two. I really like Madcoverboy of adding a one- or two-day inclusion clause on our ITN/C votes. Lovelac 7 06:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the key things that seperates ITN from conventional news media is that we talk about things after they happen rather than trying to predict them.Geni 12:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that this (relaxation of ITN criteria) had been discussed before but either everyone got too lazy or too busy to continue discussing. There's one problem with the mandatory time limit, though: if there aren't enough ITN suggestions the template would be empty, and IMHO, I'll rather have a stale rather than an empty ITN. --Howard the Duck 12:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lovelac to some extent. I think we can improve the "freshness" of ITN by including a limited amount of stuff that has until now been ruled out as insufficiently international or "not ITN material." There are some U.S. items that may not interest too many people overseas but would nonetheless be an improvement over leaving a stale entry up too long. (After all, they would be no worse than a two-country European event that doesn't interest Americans.) And I don't think we'd be doing any harm by going somewhat middle-brow and including things like Heath Ledger's death -- which, of course, interests a lot of people. The key is that we replace items quickly enough that there isn't more than one U.S.-centric item, entertainment item, soccer item, or whatever at a time.

(That said, this is an encyclopedia, and I wouldn't want to have Britney Spears' latest arrest on ITN. We all have our limits.)

I was thinking about all this, and I don't mean to open up an old can of worms, but I think it was a mistake to rule out U.S. presidential primary news before nominations were clinched. I supported that consensus, but looking at the numbers, we have had too few ITN items and have room for more from the U.S. I think a limit like no more than three mentions of a topic (such as the U.S. election) per year is artificial and unnecessary. I don't see the harm in mentioning other important events on the primary calendar, such as Super Tuesday, provided there's no more than one up on ITN at a time and that it drops off after four or five days. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by admins[edit]

I'm going to start keeping a list of drive-by admins who don't respect WP:ITN/C consensus and put up or take down whatever they feel like. Already have one today: Madcoverboy (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be renamed admins who removed something I wanted. Seriously, there was consensus to add because few people care about ITNC unless they add something they want on the main page, so they can tell their friends "Hey man, go to Wikipedia. Ya see that story on Paris Hilton's tits, totally my idea. I'm the fucking man"

If something awful gets posted, like say an injunction against a website most people who 'read (yea, Wikipedia is for our readers, not ourselves-Non nobis solum) this site don't care about, people will complain. And they'll do so in logical places like Talk:Main_Page#Wikileaks. Charles Stewart (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Note: I only added RockMFR to illustrate how dumb this section is. Charles Stewart (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subheadings[edit]

Would it be appropriate if we asked that when a new suggestion to WP:ITN/C is made, its given a subheading. Look at Feb 18's suggestions for why this really helps. Charles Stewart (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure[edit]

lol Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castro[edit]

Re-add the damn thing. Not including it is policy wankery at its best. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you appear to have misunderstood the purpose of ITN which is not about the 'news' but about highlighting significantly updated articles about recent events of international interest. Until and unless this happens for the Castro article, then we are doing our reader a great disservice by ignoring the well established criteria based on someone's perception of the importance of the story Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. The Castro article has almost nothing about his resignation, and as such is not yet viable for ITN. This is not "policy wankery", this is the very basis of this template. We are not a news ticker service, we highlight articles that are significantly updated due to current events. JACO PLANE • 2008-02-19 09:21

The thing is that a) the inclusion criteria for ITN are counterintuitive and b) Wikipedia pages are edited by whoever happens to be interested at a given time. That's a problematic mixture. Haukur (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria for ITN is not counterintuative when you get over the problematic name and consider the purpose of ITN. We can't help what our editors are interested in, what we can do is not direct our readers to articles our editors are not interested and therefore are unsuitable for readers. In any case, in this specific case the article reached a reasonable level within hours and it is unlikely to be removed now despite the unfortunate wheel war earlier. Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The criteria for ITN is not counterintuitive when you get over the problematic name" And apart from the assassination I thought the play was pretty good :) Haukur (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is though that ITN is working okay as is and makes perfect sense. Although we get the occasinal complaint, most people are able to understand ITN. The name needs to be changed, which many people acknowledge but so far no one has bothered to do. Having said that, I'm not convince changing the name will actual help as much as people think. The problem is, a lot of people simply don't understand that wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a news paper, and if they want up to the date minute news they should check out a news paper like wikinews or the millions of others newspapers out there, not an encylopaedia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eclipse[edit]

a lunar eclipse is significant worldwide news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.204.32.91 (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes.

News? Probably not. Interest? Yes. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish it had been newsed that it was GOING to happen :) I missed it! IceDragon64 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was. Read your local newspaper more often or get a better local news paper (I usually see these things in the local papers I've viewed throughout my life). I presume you are reading some at least some news paper or news site and not relying on an encylopaedia for your news :-P Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venezuelan airplane crash[edit]

Could someone add this: 2008 Santa Barbara Airlines airplane crash? – Zntrip 03:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITN/C Charles Stewart (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now that article is too underdeveloped. I'm pretty sure the airplane crash (If and when it is reported) is itn worthy, right now it isn't. Update the article some more and then nominate it at WP:ITN/C --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German tax probe[edit]

How about adding the 2008 German tax affair? Latest report: Financial Times: Swiss bank dragged into German tax probe --Bender235 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNN now has the story on the frontpage: German tax probe nets $41M, 163 people --Bender235 (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please nominate items on WP:ITN/C. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested change to criteria[edit]

As has been discussed, the criterion that an ITN item be of "international" interest may lead to a bias in favor of European items and against items from large countries like the U.S., China, India and Australia, simply because those countries aren't divided into lots of little countries like Europe is. Truth be told, we've had plenty of items that aren't really international but are really important to a certain country, such as election results in Barbados.

So I recommend we replace this:

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

With this:

It should be either: (a) A story of intercontinental interest; (b) A story of great interest to many people on a single continent, subcontinent or large country; or (c) A story of extraordinary importance to many people in a single country, such as the result of a national election.

Mwalcoff (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a great idea. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I support the proposed change. ---CWY2190^T^C 04:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Lovelac 7 18:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not disagreeing with the change, Australia may be geographically a large country, but they are relatively small population wise so I'm not sure if they should really be compared to the other 3. Also, the biggest problems with Indian and Chinese items is probably not that stories involving them aren't generally taken to be international interest, but that we rarely get articles of the quality necessary for ITN. Finally elections results I would argue are of international interest. No country nowadays operates in complete isolation. Who forms the next government is therefore of international interest even if it may not get great news coverage. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about this... I'd imagine American sports are sorta followed elsewhere but most of the political news isn't really that important to other nations. For example, on August 2006, someone suggested that the Democratic Party primary, Connecticut United States Senate election, 2006 should be added at ITN since it is "international." I'd also imagine several U.S. political scandals aren't that widely followed elsewhere since other nations are too embroiled in their own scandals.

As for national elections/referenda, they'd always be added, no matter how small they are.

And what is the definition of "a large country"? Population? Area? --Howard the Duck 17:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the intercontinental part, but anything else will not work. Example? There are roughly 300 million people in America, 100 in Mexico, and 30 in Canada. Population wise that will never work due to the large amount of people in North America being located in the US. The primaries matter in the U.S., so they would all go up, irregardless to the lack of true international importance. Something of similar importance that happens in Mexico or Canada would not go up, because the overwhelming majortiy of people in North America would not care. Attributing large country to size would mean Russia, Canada, China, the U.S., Brazil and Australia would get the itn to themselves. Also, what counts as extraordinary importance varies between countries. I like the idea of changing the criteria (We really should make a page similar to Wikipedia: Sports on ITN to get a complete discusion on the matter instead of these small, random talks about changing it), but I don't see how this would work. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been discussed on this page, we need to be less conservative about what goes up on ITN in order to keep it fresher. The only way to do so is to allow some items that, while important to many people, are not of "international" interest. My suggestion is meant to be a starting point for discussion and can probably be better worded. The point I'm trying to make is that not all single-nation events are equal. An event of significant interest to a billion Chinese or 300 million Americans outweighs an event of significance to 2 million Slovenians. But an event of extraordinary interest to 2 million Slovenians may be of equal weight to a merely "significant" event of interest to Americans or Chinese people. Basically, when considering the worthiness of an ITN item for inclusion, editors should consider: A) The number of people interested in an event; B) the degree of their interest; and C) how geographically widespread the interest is. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, but that means a significant event that affects 10 million Australians will be ignored in favor of, say, some Terry Schaivo thing in America since that gets covered on CNN every night. Also, wouldn't this mean that near everything that effects the Chinese and Indians will go up? It's not often something news-worthy from over there affects only a handful of people. To do this, I think we would need to set some kind of benchmark for what defines a single-country itn worthy event, whether it be by population, area, or in case of disasters, cost of damage. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the word "international" is enough already. As long as 2 nations have shown great interest, it is "international." --Howard the Duck 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Howard, but nations that have huge populations like the US, China, India, and a few others get the short end of the stick because of the fact that they are not broken up into more than 50 countries like Europe is. I think the point that is being made is valid. If there was a drought or massive flooding in the Balkans and several nations were affected then that would qualify for ITN, but if something similar happened in New England or the Southeastern US, the inclusion of a similar item would be questioned. Even the coverage of elections is biased toward small nations. The state of California has one of the largest economies of any nation in the world, but the gubenatorial races there would never be on ITN, even though the elections in Moldova would be. Again, something that is deeply important in the United States China, etc. should be given a little more weight than something that has marginal importance to two smaller countries. Something being "international" just because 2 or more countries are involved or interested simply doesn't cut it anymore. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 08:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see, we do include natural disasters from the U.S. (the most recent was the Super Tuesday twisters), but rarely for political news. I'd say that is right unless of course the news affects other countries. To make it fair, other nations' political scandals aren't reported either,; the only political news that are reported are regime changes, elections and coups.

And as a follower of U.S. news, the California gubernatorial election isn't even reported widely, unless of course the recall election some years ago. Elections are balanced for the U.S. since the end result of the primary elections will be added.

Summing up, those who cry "U.S. CENTRISMZ" are just trolls, no matter how much you explain, the won't be swayed. So why bother? --Howard the Duck 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and my point is exactly that the Moldovan election results aren't widely reported either, but because elections are sacred and Moldova is a small, but independent, country their results go up. The simple fact is the US gets the short end of the stick because many of its states would be more significant than many European, African or Southeast Asian countries, but because they are part of the US they don't have the same status. My point is that if I suggested treating the EU as one big block I'd be laughed off the proverbial stage. To include the Moldovan elections as a no-brainer, but not include the Super Tuesday results despite considerable support is simply a foolish overemphasis on a faulty criteria. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 04:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have a pseudo-rule I use myself: if it is not the end-result, don't include it. The Super Tuesday is only a step on the road. We'd report only if the GOP or the Dems already have a clearcut candidate. The fact that we'll be reporting on the results of the U.S. primary elections (we don't do that anywhere else) is enough balance from reporting elections from third world countries. --Howard the Duck 04:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro[edit]

Can we get rid of this? How is attaining a special number notable? Do we have an ITN event every time a currency reaches a record high? Or is this really about the US dollar? Do we have an ITN event every time a currency reaches a record low? Big round numbers do not have special notability. - Chardish (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Euro is at near all-time highs against currencies other than the dollar, including the pound sterling. The rearranged sentence giving the dollar precedence doesn't take account of the fact that the psychological value of €1 > $1.50 has been reached. I have changed it back for now.

As regards the story itself being on ITN, ITN is just about articles on Wikipedia that have been updated reflecting current events. It is not a judgement on what news stories are the most important. zoney ♣ talk 11:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ITN/C, please, for more discussion on this matter. There is very clearly no consensus for this to be here. - Chardish (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death criteria[edit]

What's the status of the proposed revision of the death criteria? Has any consensus been reached?

I ask because since it's been an otherwise slow past couple of news days, it might be worthy to add the death of William F. Buckley, one of the most important and influential thinkers of the postwar era, at least in the U.S. But he certainly wouldn't fit under the old criteria. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we never got around to actually changing it, which seems to happen every time we suggest a revision (Outside of Wiki: Sports on ITN). Like I said above, we need a place where we can list every proposed revision and talk about it. And, until we do, I think it would be best to not add any deaths on the itn, save for assassinations or really important deaths (Like the Pope or the Queen dying). Buckley would be too controversial - he would probably be Bobby all over again. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Buckley is one of the most important men of the last half century, and he should be included in the news portion. This is as important as the death of President Reagan in terms of historical impact. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt he is important as the most loved president of all time. If you want to see him up, nominate him. As it is, there is little on the article about his death. I see about two lines, and no admin is going to dare put him up due to the "He had diabetes it wasn't unexpected" arguement. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The most loved president of all time? I'm sure if ITN was around in 1865, we'd include Lincoln's assassination. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comes from The Greatst American. And of course we would put the assassination of a president on itn. But, as it turns out, Buckley wasn't a president, nor was he assassinated. Why bring that up? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro -- newsworthy?[edit]

I'm not sure the Euro beating the dollar is really newsworthy. Recently, it's hit record highs a lot -- if my graphs are correct, 29 times in the last six months:

September 12 -- 1.3898
September 18 -- 1.3962
September 20 -- 1.4066
September 21 -- 1.4072
September 22 -- 1.4077
September 25 -- 1.4134
September 27 -- 1.4150
September 28 -- 1.4181
October 1 -- 1.4227
October 18 -- 1.4284
October 19 -- 1.4287
October 25 -- 1.4310
October 26 -- 1.4375
October 29 -- 1.4411
October 30 -- 1.4431
October 31 -- 1.4466
November 2 -- 1.4487
November 6 -- 1.4553
November 7 -- 1.4609
November 8 -- 1.4666
November 10 -- 1.4698
November 20 -- 1.4826
November 21 -- 1.4838
November 22 -- 1.4845
November 23 -- 1.4859
February 1 -- 1.4862
February 26 -- 1.4865
February 27 -- 1.5051
February 28 -- 1.5203

While it's been down below its highs for a few months, its highs over the last few days aren't a new thing, even though it is at a record high. Is the currency issue worth mentioning in ITN? Ral315 (talk) 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the item is that $1.5 was consider a psychological barrier of sorts, similar to the way $100 a barrel for oil was consider a psychological barrier. Whether this is true or not, I don't know, I don't see any mention of this in the aritcle. Also, I believe it was also considered significant because it was seen as a sign of the strengthening of the euro versus the dollar, which is ongoing and has been happening for a fair while but obviously doesn't have any clear set point of significance. The $1.50 in this light was seen as one of the best points to pick to represent the overall story. There were definitely a few news reports that mentioned it cross the $1.5 mark. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old news items[edit]

I see that we have several news items that are getting a little long in the tooth: the Cypriot election was held 11 days ago, Santa Barbara AIrlines Flight 518 was 7 days ago, and USA 193 was 7 days ago as well. We'd still have plenty of items up there (5) if these were removed, and no outward "USA B1aZ" either. Can we make it a point to remove news items after a week? Madcoverboy (talk) 05:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any time limit on ITN. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should have a hard and fast date requirement (for major events, longer than 7 days may be appropriate), but those items were clearly pretty old, and two were removed. Ral315 (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to avoid stale items on ITN is to be more liberal about allowing new entries on ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN is not a news service, it shouldn't be updated as frequently as news websites. Unless of course the item stayed for a month already. --Howard the Duck 08:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]