Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 | Archive 2


Technical issues


Konqueror has a problem when viewing this section of the Main Page: it displays texts of the events with the same width as the text of the first event, showing large blank area below the image. I have changed sample template on this page so that it is displayed properly in Konqueror. Is it acceptable? How does it looks in other browsers? Nikola 09:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • I have feeling this is related to the use of
    markup in the template, for the image. I don't know why we are using html instead of wikimarkup. blankfaze | (беседа!) 12:02, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ITN was vandalised

Some anon just replaced it with a mention of our controversial childlove article, with a wikilink to an article on VfD. Would it be prudent to block this user ( Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He did it again. Reverted, message left. Hajor
User has been blocked for 24 hours by Ilyanep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For me, main page vandalism is automatic grounds to block someone for 24-72 hours. →Raul654 17:47, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Any reason we don't protect this article?

Is there any reason that these main page template articles don't go the path of the main page and become protected? People could still suggest changes to it via this talk page...Then we wouldn't have the chance of a vandalized front page, which ihmo is a horrible thing! マイケル 14:06, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Due to continual vandalism, I've protected this page. These new main page templates didn't exist when I used to contribute to wikipedia, however it used to be consider preferable to have only sysops edit the main page, and keep it protected, than to allow anyone to edit it, including would-be vandals. This was considered justifiable because our main page is our most visable page. It might be that this concensus has changed since I've been gone. However seeing as this page is getting continually vandalized, and does reflect a section of the front page, I have protected it following our OLD policy. Anyone is more than welcome to unprotect it if concensus on this issue has changed, but I think we should seriously consider keeping front page templates protected. I'm sure there are plenty of sysops willing to update it continuously. マイケル 20:53, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I believe the reason these template articles aren't protected is because if they were then non-admins couldn't edit them, and that's a bad thing. Temporary protection during periods of vandalism by multiple different IP addresses is reasonable, though. anthony (see warning) 20:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, this didn't used to be considered a bad thing. In fact, most users, including those who were not admins, agreed it was preferable to our MAIN PAGE being viewed while vandalized. A few sysops watched the talk page for suggested changes, and made them when necessary. マイケル 21:22, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
We aren't all admins Dmn / Դմն 21:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've unprotected for the time being. →Raul654 21:11, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I realize this, as I've stated in my above reasoning for keeping it protected. The process with the old main page involved putting requested changes on THIS talk page, and then sysops would make those changes. No one ever complained about it, becuase it was prefered to the continual revertion of vandalism. I realize it is less likely with the new template system, but vandals are starting to get smart. They see a flaw, and we should plug it, before it becomes a problem noticable to outside visitors. マイケル 21:22, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we should let the recent vandalism cause these templates to be locked. That seems too much like letting the vandals win. If you look at the history, you'll see it was reverted within three minutes. I've given reasons for not protecting pages before 1, 2 3, so I won't repeat myself here, but I oppose protection of these templates. Angela. 00:36, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Whilst I do not oppose the protection of most of the main page templates, I think this one should be an exception. The in the news section needs to be able to be edited quickly sometimes (an important story breaks). For this reason all users need to be able to edit. We can deal with vandalism by reverion, temp protection and blocking the vandals. it's annoying bu reasonably easy for admins to revert vandals. For non admins it's slighly harder but not that bad. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott Sig.gif]] 00:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keeping this page editable only to administrators defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia, and is a complete failure of the system, IMHO. --Cantus 01:50, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Elmer Bernstein

I tried to correct this edit - Bernstein died at 82, not 92. Can some admin please do this for me? Marcus2 01:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The template is currently protected. I'll mention this on the Edit Summary to get some attention from someone. Hope this works. -- PFHLai 01:52, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
Thanks to User:Hajor, the problem is now fixed. -- PFHLai 02:28, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)


Arena Football

This seems really unimportant. Despite the comment for the edit, this is not the popular American football league. The Wikipedia article says that the average attendance of these games is about 10,000, and several news sources report that the ArenaBowl XVIII had an attendance of about 18,000! This, compared to the hundreds of millions of people that follow the European football championships, and the many other important news stories that could be put here. This replaced the Euro news item also, which certainly belongs more than this one does. If the Arena football does not belong alongside the Euro news item, it doesn't belong at all. Are we going to put the minor league baseball championship and the dozen(?) college football bowl games on as well, even when they don't have any major update in their articles? This news item is minor even in the United States, and this is supposed to be an international website. If we're putting minor U.S.-specific news articles in, there are many others much more significant than the Arena Bowl. - Centrx 23:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It was on national television on one of the three big networks. San Jose is a city of about 1 million people, Phoenix is also a very large city, therefore it is newsworthy. This was the championship of the league, not a semi-final game. When there is a Euro champion, then it might belong on the main page. Gentgeen 00:15, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
... and EURO 2004 was on, err, pretty much every major network in Europe (except where they conflict on target audience); many many millions of people watching. It's a different scale.
James F. (talk) 00:26, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If the criteria is that they be finals, then neither should be there. The ArenaBowl is simply not that important, and there are many other, more significant, U.S.-specific things that we could include and they would all be of more relevance to the en.w.o world than the Arena Bowl. Why is that the criteria anyway? It can't be interest, because hundreds of millions of people are interested in the Euro 2004 first-round matches (not even the semi-finals) yet the final had an attendance of only about 18,000 for the Arena Bowl. In other words, if that's the criteria, we should place every Major League Baseball game result on the In the News before we put the Arena Bowl championship. It can't be the quality of the athletes, because many of the top-notch American football players go to the NFL rather than Arena football, yet the Euro 2004 teams are national teams that are some of the best each country can proffer.
It doesn't matter about the size of the city if it's not a popular sport. People play all sorts of obscure sports and it doesn't mean they're popular just because the city the team is in is large. It just doesn't matter what the size of the city is if only 1% of them are interested anyway. And in direct response to this argument, the Czech Republic has over 10 million people and Denmark has over 5 million, and the other countries mentioned have over 37 million people in them combined. The level of interest of the populations of these countries is also significantly more than that in the United States. Quite simply, magnitudes more people in English-speaking countries other than the U.S. are interested in the Euro championship than the Arena Bowl, and I wouldn't be surprised if more people are interested in it than the Arena Bowl in the United States too.
In addition, there has been no significant modification of the articles that are mentioned in the Arena Bowl news item, including the bolded item, which is a criteria for inclusion here.- Centrx 00:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


And now we have a story about a baseball team as the top story! Why? This really is local news. Filiocht 13:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's merely local news. Major league baseball has an international fan base. Each team's roster is also filled with players from various countries. The relocation is not just sports news, but also business news, methinks.... It's now old news, so never mind ... -- PFHLai 23:59, 2004 Sep 30 (UTC)
The Major League is not even an international league. And the news is not even about who won this year but only about who hit the ball more often than others. Shall we next start writing about David Beckham's new hairstyle because girls all over the planet fancy him? Get-back-world-respect 00:36, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Major League is not even an international league. The people of Toronto would like to have a chat with you. --Golbez 02:57, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
Neither Montreal nor Toronto is in the United States. ..... And major league baseball has two leagues .... never mind. Sigh .... An 84-year old record was broken by a "Japanese import" playing in America ! How can it be related to Beckham's hair ????? Please stop trolling. -- PFHLai 08:30, 2004 Oct 3 (UTC)
Would the French soccer league also qualify as international as Monaco has a team? Come on, in how far does a baseball record affect the world more than Beckham's hair? Get-back-world-respect 00:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to apologize for accusing User:Get-back-world-respect of trolling. I no longer think this way. It's more of a case of people not familiar with the baseball world. There are indeed low level news items in baseball at the Beckham hair level. I sincerely and honestly think that the hits record (a feat) and the loss of the one and only franchise in French Canada (end of an era) were not random news, but legitimate top news items, and will likely be featured in "year in review" type TV programming. They're old news now, never mind. -- PFHLai 16:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

We really need to decide on a sports news policy. We clearly can't have news stories posted by any random about the fantastic Port Klaxonborough Tigers Baseball Team in the Super Major Bowl League and how they've just got a new CEO and snatched the flank winger pitcher batter forward from the reigning Premiers, the New Borg Goats. It seems lately we have had over-excited sports fans posting very localised news which they seem to think is relevant to the whole world just because there are fans in countries other than where it is played. I guarantee you 99% of Australians wouldn't give a toss about anything to do with American baseball. I don't know about other countries, so I can't speak for them. Either way, I feel we really should keep sport out of In The News except for very large-scale news like Superbowl, FIFA World Cup, Paralympics, Olympics, stuff like that. Can we sort out a policy about this? - Mark 05:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am kind of tired of having people at CNN, etc. dictate what I learn about the world. I encourage postings on news items about the latest development in anything significant in Australia, or any country. Please keep us updated and enlightened, and please don't restrict the scope to just politics and natural disasters. Life on this planet includes many other things that can be considered news. Please don't categorically censor out sports news, as sports is part of human culture. Random news ? No. Trivia ? No. Top news items ? Please do. -- PFHLai 16:36, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

"Americanism" vs. "Internationalism"

See /"Americanism" vs. "Internationalism"

Suggestions for stories

From Main Page News

This page is about suggestion for Main Page, section In the news:

I suggest include information about human cloning, specially in the UK. Seee,9865,1280916,00.html (User:Mac)

[[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 11:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Czesław Miłosz died on August 14, 2004

A great Polish poet, winner of Nobel Prize in Literature in 1980, Czesław Miłosz died on August 14, 2004. Rafał Pocztarski 20:16, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now posted on the Template:In the news and in Current events. -- PFHLai 15:34, 2004 Aug 15 (UTC)
Thanks. Rafał Pocztarski 00:46, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Qs about particular stories


Is this really news? Well, I suppose it is in some sense, but interesting enough to warrant its inclusion in the hallowed Wikinews box? mat_x 15:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I kinda like it; to me, the ITN box is for things that are interesting, but less likely to be found in mainstream press. Example: the Serbian coat of arms and anthem; the new Saturnian moons (picked up mainstream but I saw it here first), etc. Maybe have one story like that, and one "real" story, like Hurricane Charley or the latest in Iraq. That's just my feeling about it.
Put another way: The Regis thing should go into ITN, but it should not go into Current Events. That's straight news. ITN is more of a "hey, look at what neat things just happened" to me. --Golbez 15:44, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Péter Medgyessy

Should the Péter Medgyessy article be posted on the Template:In the news ? It's been tagged as dubious and "in need of attention" ! -- PFHLai 03:31, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)

I've just removed it. The Olympics is taking so much space on the MainPage, anyway.... -- PFHLai 04:45, 2004 Aug 22 (UTC)

A major civil war in Iraq is likely ?

Which article has been updated regarding "The British Royal Institute of International Affairs reports that a major civil war in Iraq is likely, affecting the entire Middle East." ? I can't find it. Should this item be removed from Template:In the news if there are no updates in the relevant articles ? I assume someone is typing. I may check again later today .... -- PFHLai 15:29, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Serbian evolution crisis

Is this really major news? Looks more like Serbian local news. I don't really think it belongs here. [[User:Anárion| (Anárion)]] 13:15, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Software protests

Just to let everyone know - I have a rough draft for tomorrow's ITN to include the European software protests. It's a bit out of the ordinary in that (a) the image it uses is horizontal instead of verital, and (b) it has an external link (to the official protest site). →Raul654 18:04, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

I think this issue is insignificant (especially when compared to all the other articles). Would you see this on the front page of a paper newspaper? This is not Slashdot. And don't forget:

Please do not add stories to this page that have not had their articles updated yet in light of the story. Do not add links to stubs or poor quality articles.

Kent Wang 04:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Canadian election

Oh great God of the "In the news" section, Centrix: I will be adding the election to the news in roughly 14 hours from now, and I would ask that you don't revert it. Perhaps the Serbian election is important for now, but it's not as important as the Canadian election. In spite of popular belief, Canada does have more people than Serbia, plus the election page for the Canadian election rivals no other. (Just look at how big they are!). Earl Andrew 02:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with Canada itself. The fact is that there are hundreds of national-level elections worldwide in election years and it is simply not possible to put them all "In the News", and foolish to have two news items for each, one before advising of the forthcoming election and one after reporting the results. The Canadian elections do not compare to the Serbian elections in significance, and it has nothing to do with population. The reason the Serbian election is important is because there was great fear that the ultranationalist ally of Milosevic would, if elected, lead the nation back to the violent and ethnically divisive past. This is a party that advocates uniting all Serb lands under a single "Great Serb state". That effects a whole lot of people, many more than the Canadian elections. Under his leadership, by the way, many people were killed and hundreds of thousands of people were displaced from their homes, resulting in NATO intervention and further violence. Unlike in Serbia, there is no international peacekeeping force from 30 different countries threatened by violence in Canada (indeed, in this way, the populations affected by this election far exceeds that affected by the Canadian election). There is no danger of armed conflict dependent on the outcome of the elections in Canada. The people of the United States do not fear ethnic cleansing coming from the north. This is not the first test of democracy in Canada in 60 years, and one after several failed votes. I will not so fully exemplify the Pakistani resignation, but it is a significant indication of the current balance of power in the nation. That is, the army seems to be the de facto power. This is a nation with nuclear weapons in a longstanding feud with India; it is in a crucial position in housing and fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. These are particularly unusual and international situations, unlike that of the Canadian election. This is the reason that both these news items have been in the top two stories of Google News, a fair indicator of the importance news outlets have placed on it. It is the reason it is the top story in the BBC website's Europe section. It is the reason that it will be on page A3 instead of page A20 of tomorrow's paper.
So, I don't see how you can think the Canadian election is more important than either of these, and I thoroughly don't understand how you can think that the Serbian election only has importance "now" yet the Canadian election has some longer-standing importance. From the issues listed in the article, it doesn't look like any of them are important internationally. The only one of international effect (Iraq war) is no more important than the several other nations that supported the war and have no troops there. Anyway, I hope you at least see that its silly to put a news article about something that hasn't even happened yet, when it isn't of a groundbreaking nature and it is quite clear when it's going to happen and that the article is going to be modified quite substantially. Should people read the article before the election and then wade through it again after the election after its modified in the news? No, as it says many places on the site, "Wikipedia is not a news report." The article is not yet of an encyclopedic threshhold at which past facts are recorded, at which the facts of the matter are, if not fully documented in the encyclopedia, still determined in reality, etched in the stone of time. - Centrx 06:38, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I do not agree about the importance of Serbian election. It's primarily important to US media because of the longstanding past conflict between US and Milosevic. In Europe (where I'm from), we have had very little coverage of Serbian election (about as little as Canadian election). I'm afraid that "events of international significance" are getting substituted by "international events significant to US media". Andris 03:25, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
The "In the news" currently has a rep on the Canadian election stating "give them one short, 154, of exactly half the seats in the House of Commons." - maybe that could be "give them 154, one short..." - sounds better -- Aparajit 09:39, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Re: "Why do you keep re-inserting "at age 95"?

Sorry, User:Simonides, i don't mean to keep editing what you have posted. It's not another silly edit war.

IMO, "... has died aged 95 ..." really sounds awkward to me, hence my changes. I feel strongly that "...has died at age 95 ..." is better ("... has died at the age of 95 ..." is even better, but it's too long), and I wonder if the past participle "aged" is misused here. I also thought about ending the sentence after the word "died" to 'weasel' out. (The place of death is not important, anyway.) However, I am not going to edit it again, in case my grammar is wrong.

Have a nice day, or evening wherever you are.

-- PFHLai 06:31, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; I guess it's merely a matter of personal choice. The alliteration in "died aged" could be avoided, but IMO it's at least tighter than "at age" - the latter seems more appropriate for youthful accomplishments, ex. "won a medal at only 17". -- Simonides 06:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The OED says that the "aged" terminology is used specifically for a horse. Note also that this is not a wine, etc. - Centrx 20:59, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image of TV Screen?

Is the poorly named photo Image:Pict1797.jpg appropriate for this template? I have no objections to its content except for the fact that it is not even a screenshot of a TV frame but a photo of a TV screen. — Mr. Grinch 33451 (Talk) 19:09, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ugly pic, eh ? You're right, Mr. Grinch. Thank you for pointing that out. At the time, I just wanted sth new to bump off the 2004RNC logo. I shouldn't have posted that, not on the MainPage.  :-( Someone has fixed the image problem for me ..... -- PFHLai 05:13, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad to see that someone has replaced it now. 33451 | Talk 18:53, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

School Hostage Situation in Russia

Up until now (1820 UTC) ITN has described 100 people as hostage in the school in Russia. I have changed this to "between 100 and 400" due to a conflict of information: the BBC is currently saying 150 people, and has done so throughout the day; Reuters is saying "up to 400"; FoxNEWS were saying "between 120 and 400". For more figures please browse through the descriptions at Google News. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 18:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At this point, all figures are guesstimates. I've changed it to 'hundreds'. Updates can go to the article with boldfaced internal link.
BTW, is there any way to make the Ossetian flag show better ? Add a border ? gray background ? Right now the white top isn't showing well on the faint pink background and I don't know how to fix it. -- PFHLai 19:37, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

I thought that the Coat of Arms now shown belongs to South Ossetia instead of North Ossetia..... Can someone confirm this, please ? -- PFHLai 00:42, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Oh, schieße, you're right. Someone should change it back. I don't have time, sorry. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:12, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Changed. -- ChrisO 09:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we have the updates in the article but not so much on the Template:In the news, please ? IMO, there is way too much info right now, and I think we should only have 'highlights' or headlines on the template for the MainPage. -- PFHLai 13:05, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

Space bias

<satire>There is a space bias in the ITN section. 2 out of 4 articles are about space. I demand that they be removed and something relating to the real world be added. </satire> Gentgeen 02:27, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Remember the guidelines

NOTE: Any bolded item that appears on the Main Page must be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page.

I'm seeing too many stories that don't follow this, especially the Supreme Court story. I nearly removed it, but that is a worthy story -- so would someone please make or update an article on it? --Golbez 19:00, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the Supreme Court topic is important, however, I would prefer if we could restrict the five most important current news to events that already happened rather than include announcements. Get-back-world-respect 00:33, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Two of the current stories, on Israel and on the Nobel Prize, follow this rule only nominally. The Israel story links to a timeline, in which the update is basically the sentence inserted on this page. The Nobel Prize story also links to a list (of each year's Nobel Prize), where the update is again almost a duplicate of the story from this page. This does not seem adequate. Mateo SA | talk 23:31, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

"Pictured right"

Golbez removed the reference "pictured right", saying "we never had 'pictured right' before and i don't remember it being discussed.. seems to artificially lengthen the item" — actually, see Image notation above. Mateo SA | talk 23:17, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I was wrong. :P This has already been pointed out to me. Stop rubbing it in, meanies. :) --Golbez 23:37, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it's often been left out, but ought to be in there. - Centrx 19:35, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The current main story is something about baseball. I don't think anyone outside the US really cares about the happenings in that league and, while perhaps news-worthy, I can't see how it's the headline story above "Belarusian opposition leader Anatoly Lebedko is allegedly severely beaten by police while protesting the country's recent referendum allowing President".

Main point being: can we avoid US-bias in the news section, please? violet/riga (t) 22:08, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think its newsworthy until after tonight's game when, if the redsox win, will be the first time a team's come back from three games down to win. And, considering a large percent of the world's internet traffic is American, I think a "big news" story in America, whether it is sports or not, deserves a top news posting. [[User:Tomf688|Tom]] 22:49, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
P.S.: I've seen soccer news in the "top news" section regarding European players/events I've never heard of, so I don't see why American Sports should be neglected. [[User:Tomf688|Tom]] 22:49, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Also, Violet/Riga, I think a lot of people in Japan, Latin America, and other places are going to care about baseball. For us baseball people, the idea of the Red Sox beating the Yankees to the World Series flies right in the face of accepted precedent. See Curse of the Bambino.
People get beaten by police every day. The Red Sox have yet to beat the Yankees to the World Series. Sekicho 03:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
I've posted the basic history of the story below. Perhaps the fact that the Red Sox will go the World Series is news, but the initial story about the Red Sox beating some baseball statistic seems of extraordinarily minor interest to me. I would think only a baseball fanatic would be interested in that. Mateo SA | talk 04:50, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
It's just the reverse, actually. Every year, two teams qualify for the world series — that's practically commonplace! What made this such a big news story, far beyond the Boston market, is that the Red Sox won despite 1) their rotten luck over the years, particularly vs. the Yankees 2) the unprecedented 0-3 deficit they overcame. These transformed a statistic into an amazing story — not the other way around. Granted, the Tuesday versions below may have been premature; but the Wednesday version, the one you endorse, is missing the story and therefore totally bloodless. Doops 22:01, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

History of the story:
Tuesday: In baseball's American League Championship Series, the Boston Red Sox defeat the New York Yankees to become the first Major League Baseball team to recover from a 3-0 deficit to force a seventh game.

In game six of Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series, the Boston Red Sox defeat the New York Yankees, the first time any team in Major League Baseball history has recovered from a three-game series deficit to force a seventh game.

Wednesday: The Boston Red Sox defeat the New York Yankees in game seven of Major League Baseball's American League Championship Series, earning a trip to the World Series.

At any rate, I would be willing to wager that more people, in more countries, on more continents, care about the Yankees-Red Sox series than a reorganization of the Swedish government. No statistics, but just a strong hunch. ;) - Sekicho 19:03, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson

This certainly isn't of international interest to be on the front page - in fact, do most people in the US even care?? I've removed it anyway. sjorford 13:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added this entry and I do NOT agree with your removal. The guidelines specify that "It should ideally be a story of an international importance, or at least interest." The entry fits that description, it may not be of incredible importance, but it is newsworthy, and among youngsters, I will assure you, defenitely important. Previously we have had items about baseball, I can tell you that a large part of the globe really does not care at all baseball. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:33, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Also, look at the section as it is now, we are only reporting very heavy negative news items, we should lighten up and also report on lighter events that DO interest people, and put things in perspective. I am adding the story back, if it is deleted/reverted again by someone else, I will leave it at that. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that every thing on their is pretty negative but that is, sadly, the nature of news today. If you can find other happy news then great, but Ashlee Simpson doesn't even merit a comment on the BBC entertainment page [1] and it's really not that big a deal - most youngsters here don't really know who she is anyway! As for baseball see the section above discussing that. violet/riga (t) 13:49, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very well, I cave, but I'd like to add that there is defenitely plenty "happy" news to report, but it is in Man's nature to weigh more important to negative aspects of life than to the positive aspects. This makes it seem like negative events are actually more important, while they are most certainly not. Actually weighing the importance of baseball against lip syncing artists is obviously hard, but then why not just cycle the news faster, instead of only keeping the "most important" items for days on the main page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
PS. The event is the top news item on People magazine's website.
Wikipedia is not People magazine :-) sjorford 14:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Neither is it CNN. You probably know as well as I that plenty people care more about what Madonna is up to lately than about yet another natural disaster. Instead of bombing the main page with disaster related events we should also put shocking lightfooted news items on it. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think it should be more CNN than People, at least the Current events section. I agree that some more happy news should be found for the main page, but I just don't think this is it - surely there are internationally notable good news events that aren't about comedy variety shows? sjorford 15:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You have a good point that news should be cycled faster - for example, the Chuestsu Earthquake is no longer on the main page of most news sites and I don't think keeping it there will add any further info to the articles. Papa Wemba is a big story for Africa but with few African editors it doesn't get much of a mention. Perhaps some sort of Current Events Wikiproject could be set up with controbutors working on the In The News and current events pages along with the articles in need of updates after a news item hits. violet/riga (t) 14:20, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, maybe meta:Wikinews will solve this issue. It will most likely have a main page with categories of news, as Google news has. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:08, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

IMHO, a better choice for an upbeat news item would be the success of the Brazilian rocket, which blasted off the same day Ashlee Simpson was caught lip-singing. It's a more newsworthy feat. Too bad the Wikipage doesn't exist yet. Wish I knew more about rockets to start the page ..... -- PFHLai 16:54, 2004 Oct 25 (UTC)

"Regis Philbining" ?

“Sarah Michelle Gellar admits to charges of Regis Philbining her parents.” — What does this mean? There's nothing about what this might mean on Sarah Michelle Gellar. The edit summary say it's a test, is it a joke or something? -- 21:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My test had to take place on the Main Page, it was a test of the main page. I found a glitch earlier that took to the “View Source” for the main page when I typed in and I thought that Template:In the news might be protected now. Also, I was testing how long it took for the so-called “vandalism”—It was not vandalism—to be reverted. 10 minutes. Not bad. Let's not make a big deal out of this, it was a one-time test. RFC me if you will, but let's leave it at that. — El Chico! Talk 12:12, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You could have just asked somebody else first… sjorford 14:26, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ask somebody else what? If there was a glitch? How long it took for a revert? Some things just have to be tested…this was one of them. — El Chico! π 15:47, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Let me put it's the Main Page. It's the most viewed page on WP, and the first one that all casual visitors see. It doesn't look good if our "In the news" section contains gibberish. As for what you could ask...well, yes, just ask if anyone else is seeing the same problems as you. Who knows, perhaps somebody else already tested it? We're a community, you know, people do talk to each other. sjorford 08:06, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Radiation leak

I hope our only source for the radiation leak story isn't an anonymous question on the Wikipedia:Reference desk. Why is this here, where did it come from? Rhobite 15:40, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Nothing on Sky, nothing on TCH (major Irish newspaper company), nothing on the Irish Times, etc.
Hoax, anyone?
Kiand 15:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Election irregularities

2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities

I must say that I'm concerned that this issue is being discussed on IRC and not on this talk page. This has never been the way we do things on Wikipedia, and gives us no transparency in our actions. That said, it appears that the main objection is that this is "not in the news". It didn't take me long to find that ABC had an article at [2]. And now USAToday has an article at [3] - Ta bu shi da yu 02:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're citeing one article from Nov 3, and one from Nov 5 and still trying to make a case that this is "in the news"? -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
It may not be in "the mainstream news" but they are highly POV and not likely to want to be the first to highlight this... anybody remember Watergate? How can major discrepancies and unusual irregularities, and possibly even tampering and fraud in the actual vote-tallying and collection of votes in an election be not as significant as burglarising the opponents to get some edge in an election. It's of huge importance. We don't have a policy that says we only post news on the ftont page if (x news source) posts it on their front page. BBC, CNN and ABC have amply shown they have bias towards both the Democratic republican party and the democratic Republican party, which IMO are two halves of the same coin.Pedant 18:11, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

As this "story" is not front page on any major news network, it does not belong on our front page. Please view:

-- Netoholic @ 02:20, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Indeed, ITN goes on the front page. Like it or not, this is not front page news. A good guide is ed g2stalk 02:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please point to the policy where the news story must be front page. I think you are pushing a POV when you remove this news. I notice that the news article about Émile Louis is also not front page news either. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} -- Netoholic @ 02:31, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
What's to fix? That's a news story! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you're pushing a POV quite clearly when you promote this news—are you promoting it because you think it's truly newsworthy, or because you're a political partisan? The latter seems more likely. That in itself might be acceptable if it were a decent article, which it is not. It's based on amateurish statisical correlations from which unwarranted causal conclusions are drawn, mostly either original research or something put up on some random website. There are no rigorous statistical analyses cited in the article. Look, I voted for Kerry, and I think there might well have been vote fraud. But this article doesn't present a reasonable case for that, and what case it does present is mostly original research. --Delirium 02:27, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hardly. I don't reside in the U.S. This is a news story. Don't assume bad faith on my behalf! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think that a story being not on the front page of other media is in no way a criterion we should use for choosing front page news. If the election has been tampered with, is it any surprise that mainstream corporate news doesn't cover it?. I absolutely believe that the election tampering is one of the 3 most important stories on any day since November 2 2004. That's not to say I think that our article is presentable at all, it isn't yet. But there is enough info available from 'mainstream sources' to show a strong indication that something is amiss. over 90,000 votes discarded in Ohio? A discrepancy in the amount of provisional votes of over 200,000 votes? Precincts that reported more votes for Bush than the number of voters? Hell, I don't care who is President of the U.S., I voted for a Political prisoner for president that could never be legally inaugurated. I'd be ready for revolution in the streets regardless of whether Bush beat Kerry. But I hate to see the wikipedia look like a bunch of fools that can't decide whether it's 'In the news' that there are allegations of irregularities in electing what could arguably be considered the world's most powerful man, whether or not the decline in his "sentence-by-sentence speaking skills" over the last decade indicate a "cognitive deficit symptomatic of pre-senile dementia" as was reported in Atlantic Monthly. Maybe he'll suddenly freak out and declare unilateral peace on the entire world.Pedant 05:26, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Please don't edit war or NPOV-stamp this page

This page is included on the frontpage of Wikipedia. It looks very silly if a story keeps appearing and disappearing, or worse, an NPOV dispute header is shown right on our Main Page. The people working on this template are all experienced enough to know this.

This matter seems to be about whether or not the story about the election irregularities should be reported here. That's a matter that needs to be discussed. That's what the talk page is for. Please try to find a consensus by developing a coherent policy on current events, so that we can all agree to abide by it. No controversial edits should be made until the matter is amicably resolved here, either by vote or by consensus.--Eloquence*

Considering that Netoholic tells me that this was all discussed on IRC, you should understand my annoyance. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly haven't discussed it on IRC, but on Wikipedia. See Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities. --Delirium 02:38, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
This needs to be talked on THIS page. The reverts were happening on this template. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:40, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether or not policy should be discussed on IRC as a general rule, I did so, after reverting the template twice. I eventually reverted myself after Ed G2s spoke with me on IRC. I intend to play no further role in this article's placement or lack thereof on ITN, and personally I think a fair amount of NPOV could be done. If anyone can find a site that expresses a reasoned belief that no tampering occured, it should be added as an external link to the article.
On another note, edit warring on the main page is to be avoided in general, and I wish I'd been more sensitive about that during the mixed reports re Arafat earlier this week. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requests for edits during election controversy and vanunu page protections

I've protected the page due to an edit dispute over the Vanunu story. Thank you. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:49, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Would some admin or sysop or whoever has the power to do so, please restore the word "controversial" to the Alberto Gonzalez story [i.e. so that it reads "controversial White House Counsel" or suchlike]? It's not POV to say that his tenure as counsel was controversial — i'ts just plain fact — and that point is a lot more newsworthy than his status as (potentially) the first Hispanic Attorney-General. Doops 06:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um, I actually posted the above comment last night while the page was page-protected over the election results issue. Since then, it's apparently come off protection and gone back on again — but somehow nobody's heeded my plaintive request. If you read the article on Alberto Gonzalez it should be perfectly clear that he was a controversial White House Counsel. Doops 17:10, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please change the word scientist to technician in the Vanunu bullet. Thanks. Jewbacca 14:46, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Why Neutrality (who recently featured a Israeli flag on his page), Jewbacca, and Viriditas want to censor information about Vanunu is a mystery of astronomical proportions. Admins should avoid conflict of interests in protecting pages - Xed 15:12, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Removing bias is not "censorship". You posted an editorial, not a news headline. The description you offered deviated from objectivity in a number of key areas. One, you claimed he was a scientist to bolster his credibility, when in fact he was a subordinate technician. Two, you claimed that he gave an interview (no evidence of which was given) where he made a wild claim about Israel and JFK, (an insane claim since JFK was the biggest supporter of Israel ever, at that time). Thirdly, you tried to connect his arrest to your claim, and by doing so you invented a news story that did not otherwise exist. Lastly, you seem to be incapable of recognizing your bias, which I find highly disturbing for someone who runs a project devoted to eliminating bias. Physician, heal thyself. --Viriditas 21:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
How am I "censoring information about Vanunu," Xed? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 14:58, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
Tell me where I stated he was a "scientist". And are you telling me he didn't give an interview? - Xed 08:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please put:

  • Israeli police arrests recently freed Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu for allegedly passing on "classified information to unnamed international parties".

for the Vanunu bullet as this is a more accurate description. Jewbacca 14:50, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Xed's entry for Vanunu - "Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu is arrested for allegedly passing on "classified information to unnamed international parties" three months after saying in an interview that Israel was behind John F. Kennedy's asassination." is totally unsupported by any news article I've seen (check ). It's true that Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page doesn't say "don't post fringe theories" but Xed's edits certainly go against the spirit of the guidelines, i.e. that news stories should be well substantiated. In the light of his/her repeated reversions I've protected ITN temporarily. -- ChrisO 11:48, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You didn't look very hard -

You should unprotect and revert now. - Xed 12:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mainstream media, which those are not. And there's no "should" about it. -- ChrisO 13:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So first it's "totally unsupported by any news article", now it's not Mainstream media! I assume you mean the sources above aren't owned by corrupt media magnates. Below is a source that is. - Xed 13:32, 12 Nov 2004

Please don't distort my words. I said "totally unsupported by any news article I've seen", i.e. those indexed by Google News, which does actually spider a few sources that "aren't owned by corrupt media magnates". Your Jerusalem Post article does refer to Vanunu's theory on the JFK assassination, but it doesn't support in any way your attempt to link this claim and his recent arrest. (Please also make sure you sign and date your posts - thanks.) -- ChrisO 13:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"totally unsupported by any news article", "not Mainstream media" and now "doesn't support in any way your attempt to link this claim and his recent arrest."!! I thought I was discussing this with someone who had some intellectual honesty, but I see you just move the goalposts whenever it suits you. - Xed 14:12, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point: DID VANUNU EVER SAY THAT? I think the answer is yes. However groundless it could be, THE ANSWER IS YES as reported by the above news agencies. Did that cause his arrest? Maybe not. But that particular speech could be a good start of closer scrutiny. By the way, if Pravda and Al Jazeera are not mainstream, what else is mainstream? Did you mean only papers printed in the U.S. by a big fat deep-pocketed and ultra patriotic boss are mainstream? -- Toytoy 15:24, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)


Somebody has again reverted out the word "controversial" used to describe Alberto Gonzales' tenure as White House counsel, calling it "inherently POV." I don't see how this can be the case: the word "controversial" means that something has led to controversy — which is simply factually true about Gonzales. And it's not irrelevant to the AG nomination; the AG is a position within the legal system, and it's Gonzales' legal advice which raised controversy. To my ears, that word isn't inherently biased; but if my ears are faulty, somebody please suggest an alternative.

Anyway, rather than starting an edit war by restoring that word, I've instead removed the mention that, if confirmed, he'll be the first Hispanic AG. If our hands are somehow so tied that we can't include a real newsworthy issue, then we certainly shouldn't include feel-good fluff. Doops 02:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "controversial" is neutral and relevant to Gonzales, but I'm not sure it belongs in this template. He is a controversial figure, but putting that in here is like putting it in the first sentence of a news article. What information you choose to elevate to that status is in a way POV. Rhobite 03:09, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed new criterion for In The News stories

I've added a new criterion for In The News in response to the recent flap over adding fringe claims on Mordechai Vanunu to the template:

  • The article must be well substantiated and covered by the mainstream media (i.e. no fringe sources, unsubstantiated blog entries etc). Stories should be findable on at least two mainstream sources through a Google News search.

What do people think? Comments to Wikipedia talk:In the news section on the Main Page please! -- ChrisO 13:20, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I worry that (whoever) will either not accept this standard or not accept that their addition doesn't meet it. For instance, Vanunu's JFK theory can be substantiated but clearly does not belong. I suppose it was only a matter of time before this template became the site of serious edit wars. VeryVerily 13:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Vanunu/Kennedy story meets those criteria so youll have to move the goalposts again! - Xed 14:29, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the mainstream sources have to be English and published in the U.S. or U.K., they can be all more or less biased to a certain side. The NY Times dare not say much to the invasion of Iraq even until today.
Personally, I do not believe in Vanunu's JFK or KFC or whatever conspiracy theory on the ground that he was not supposed to know it when he was working for the Israeli government. At best, he could only retell the story that he was told. That means his words are not quite believable if without other evidence. But if that speech DID partly cause his arrest (who knows), it is worthy to report.
Anyway, mainstream itself is not ALWAYS a good criterion. -- Toytoy 15:06, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
That's just it -- there is absolutely no evidence that his conspiratorial comments about JFK caused his arrest. None. --Viriditas 00:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

The term Anti-French violence is linked to Anti-French sentiment which itself is a redirect to Anti-French sentiment in the United States, not in any way relevent. How can I edit the page to remove this mistake? --

I removed the listing for now, because the article had a single line of information on the current violence—less than the summary did. It looks silly when we have a news story with a bolded link inviting people to click through for information, and then there isn't actually any information there. IMO, the sequence should go: 1) See a news story; 2) write a detailed article about it; 3) add it to "in the news". People seem to do 3 before 2 though. --Delirium 21:27, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

No. The sequence is 1) See a news story; 2) update relevant Wikipedia articles (or possibly create a new one); 3) add it to Current events.
4) For the same or a different user later, once the item has been on current events for a bit (for people to amend): add to "in the news".
If its a really important story and people are really sure of themselves (one thinks the updated content is good and encyclopaedic), then 3 and 4 can probably safely be merged.
There are of course no hard and fast rules (as with everything in Wikipedia), but I believe the above fits with the guidelines, and it seems logical to me. zoney talk 21:45, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S domestic news

Could the murder trial item, which is clearly U.S. domestic news, however much it may be an important story, be removed from the template? I'm reluctant to do so myself as the page is protected, and I do not want to break policy or raise heckles. zoney talk 21:52, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it. Wikipedia is not Court TV. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC) (a proud American)
I'm ambivalent on this. When the Marc Dutroux murder trial in Belgium came out with a verdict, we had that on the template for a while. Major domestic news is of international interest from at least a perspective of "this is an issue drawing a great deal of attention in [Belgium / the US / etc.]". --Delirium 10:37, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I've never heard of that trial and it's not international. If it is so important in the US then the reason should be mentioned, otherwise it just sounds like a normal murder case. violet/riga (t) 11:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Reports indicate we now have full control of Fallujah (Woohoo!). Please update. - Calmypal 01:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

"We"? The page has been protected. Besides, ITN only includes news items where the relevant articles have been updated to reflect the news. — David Remahl 01:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Look, I understand that most Americans and most non-Americans here are constantly fed garbage, trivia, and inanities raised to the aura of worldwide significance, or GO USA GO-style news on TV to soothe their general complacence, ignorance and/or lack of curiosity, and I'm tired of arguing about this again and again, but can we please just set up a policy that will restrict ITN editors from filling the template with (usually idiotic) US-only news items, no matter what the justifications?

Please look at the difference between the template a half-hour ago and now, result of the efforts of yours truly:

I hope there is some agreement that it is possible, with very little effort (all the stories were found on a single site, BBC news) to find something both relevant and truly international, instead of: #1Death of obscure US rapper, #2Health of members of the US administration, #3 General camaraderie between the US administration and other frat boys.

I am not keen to read any more boring and stupid replies like "this is a mostly American site, if you don't like it, leave", I want to know if any admin are going to do something about this, because if they can't, I am going to change all the templates about ITN and several other pages to make sure this doesn't keep happening - let Wikicivility, policies and all that trash go screw itself. -- Simonides 21:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if you're some sort of red-necked conservative reactionary, please do me a favour and read these messages before replying to the above because I'm sure some of them already encompass your unoriginal reply: Americocentrism, Insular headlines. -- Simonides 21:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I take offense to this remark. Retract it please. --Golbez 23:26, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I don't see how the piece on the Bhopal disaster is "news." It sounds like something that might be more useful as a featured article. - Sekicho 21:53, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
It is news because the reporter that went to the site of the disaster tested the water and found it contained some 500 times the highest permissible contamination level, contrary to the claims of Union Carbide that opened up the site again in 98 claiming it was free of contamination. -- Simonides 22:13, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simonides, I agree with you, but name-calling is not going to help matters...We all have to work together, americentric or not, so we should try to keep open communication channels, not clouded by personal or general attacks. That said, great work on the template! — David Remahl 22:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You're right, I already regret my condescending tone, but coming across the same behaviour every other day, looking at the good efforts to work against bias sink back into the same routine, does not help matters either. That said, I would like to see some actual change to the editing instructions, as I'm not looking to exchange arguments and/or insults etc. (which apart from being unpleasant and obstructive is an enormous waste of time.) -- Simonides 22:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If enough people are monitoring, editing and amending ITN I really don't think it matters. I actually enjoy trying to find articles and current news events that can allow me to kick off the Americentric additions. violet/riga (t) 22:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violet, I find that with very few exceptions (you, Jiang and perhaps the occasional passer-by) the people editing this page fall into the same pattern. Notice the current efforts by Neutrality to remove the Bhopal incident, which has affected and continues to affect thousands, with the Iraqi conflict news, which dominates the headlines all the time in any case. While I have plenty of sympathy for the other thousands affected by the Iraq war, I don't have any for those editors (or anyone else, in fact) who keep emphasizing the importance of victims publicized in the news over those who don't get any airtime (notice the complete oblivion Afghans have sunk into because the media doesn't care as much anymore). -- Simonides 23:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's true that it is quite depressing that people forget that there are so many wars raging (over 100 at this moment, I believe) and that we are so media-led. Unfortunately that often dictates what we know about and thus what we can write about. The heart-condition of some US politician (yes, I know his role) is hardly massive news when considering the enormity of other activities around the globe. violet/riga (t) 23:42, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And who effects the enormity of other activities? Dick Cheney does. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

DO YOU MEAN TO CALL HIS GREATNESS THE Ol' Dirty Bastard OBSCURE? YOU FILTH! - BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bhopal story.

The Bhopal story should be in the anniversary section, not 'In the news' section, I'm going to replace it with Iran's halt on nuclear enrichment. Neutralisation 02:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Did you read the BBC article like you were asked to? There's a slight possibility you'd know what you were talking about if you did. -- Simonides 21:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The post deals with a new investigation into poisoning occuring right now. It's unquestionably news. --119 04:15, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Can we get this template unprotected please, a protected news template seems highly unproductive. It seems to me the ODB vandalism was coming from one single person using different user names, I think the solution would be blocking that user, not protecting the news page. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:29, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I agree; protection of ITN should only be for a short time, long enough to block the vandal. --Golbez 10:27, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)


The evidence is is not as strong as the team is making out and this would be what the 2451th time that atlantis has been found. The team leader makes some slightly odd claims

"People who dismiss this have not really done their homework, skeptics don't really understand. To understand the enigma of Atlantis you have to have good knowledge of ancient history, Biblical references, the Sumerian culture and their tablets and so on," said Sarmast. "[4]

Biblical references? Where?

In short this isn't really news and ashould not be the top item.Geni 11:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, the entry adheres to all the guidelines, international interest, it is being reported by some major news agencies, the article surely warrants updating, which has been done, it is listed on current events as well. Whether Atlantis has actually been found is hard to prove right now, but that doesn't mean it's not news, also, what does Sarmast pointing to Biblical references have to do with this being news, it is unclear what point you are trying to make. I'd like to point out that there is a general tendency to value news where deaths are involved more important than anything else, I'd like our news section to be somewhat balanced. Further more, it being the top item has nothing to do with importance, the order is by date, although entries where no image is available can be placed lower. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 12:10, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The reason that quote is of interest is that it shows all the clasic signs of junk science. Attacking sceptics by claiming they don't understand and making vage refuerces to documents which you don't make precises enough to be of any use (ok the bible is reasonably precise but I've read thorugh it and I can't recall a mention of atlantis anywhere).Geni 16:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ITN, and wikipedia, is not a news site. We are neither obligated nor supposed to have the latest breaking international news. What is more important is news items relevant to an encyclopedia, and Atlantis is certianly one of those. --Golbez 12:26, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly, the goal of the ITN section is to illustrate the news and to point people to encyclopedic information, which is usually somewhat static, historically oriented, that is actually changing because of recent events. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, do you know how many times they've "found atlantis". This is not front-page international news. ed g2stalk 13:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then how is a fairly randomly timed statistic on the Iraq war effort in Fallujah front-page news? Do you know how many soldiers and civilians have already been killed in Iraq, not to mention in all the other wars currently going on (about 100 according to statements above). Atlantis is of international interest, it spurs peoples interest, whether is can currently be proven or not. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 13:45, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The BBC now also has an article on the discovery, note that hey also point out the controversy, that does not make it any less newsworthy. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:50, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
The BBC story is in a section on "Also in the news" on the Europe subpage, hardly front page news. Fallujah is front page news on just about everywhere. Compare google news: "atlantis": 883 results (157 since yesterday), "fallujah": 61,000 results (3,540 since yesterday). It's not front-page news, and it shouldn't be our front-page news ed g2stalk 15:02, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Google news is not a guide of importance. Its simply a guide of whats reported. See [5] for an illustration of news media bias. - Xed 16:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please read the above comment by Golbez, it sums it up nicely, we do not have to report just the most important breaking events, we should report on internationally interesting events that have a decent Wikipedia article that is thereby put in a new perspective. Further more, what is wrong with having a fast news cycle, our rotation speed on Did you know is way faster than the news section. We should focus on adding entries, not removing anything that might just not be important enough for the entire world population. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 15:09, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
But the Atlantis article is not put in a new perspective. It has gained 3 lines and a link. IT already has a huge number of atlantis found stories mentioned.Geni 16:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How to edit the template

  1. Look for headlines on the BBC or Yahoo News pertaining to regions other than the US, US areas of interest (Iran, North Korea, etc) and UK.
  2. Help to avoid systemic bias by finding important articles about these ignored regions, unless there is a VERY important article that relates to a completely new event rather than some record in a long, ongoing process (ex. invasion) in the above named regions. Remember that not more than one headline per country is allowed.
  3. Update as per guidelines, etc.

A good suggestion would be to post major headlines from different countries on a separate page as and when you see them (perhaps Current Events, or this Talk page) and other editors can check them out before adding new headlines and updating the relevant Wikipedia articles. See the wealth of information, for example, on : BBC - Europe, Yahoo - Latin America, Yahoo - Africa and so on; these are all good places to start though you should by no means restrict yourselves to those sources, unless they are not as reliable. -- Simonides 22:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this map is a good way of viewing the biases of places like Google News and the other major news outlets. Reload that page a few times to get an idea of the biases involved. Often something significant, affecting millions of lives, is taking place on one of the blue areas of the map, and it only gets a passing mention in the 'international' press. - Xed 02:37, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who put ODB back?

Hold on a second, we're actually giving an ODB obituary top placement on the main page? Above the resignation of four US cabinet members? I disagree with this, he hasn't produced anything notable in years. It's a shame but it isn't front-page news. Rhobite 00:21, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Why do people keep replacing the news that Iran has agreed to stop it's uranium enrichment program with stories like Bhopal and the Ugandan peace deal. As significant as those two stories are they are not more significant than the Iran story, especially since that topic is or was due for the UN and is forming a bulk of US and World foreign policy. Neutralisation 11:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your argument is characteristic of the brainwashed masses each of whom think they are independent critical thinkers. Yes, Iran is enriching uranium, and so what? Why is that causing you so much concern, more than the huge stockpiles already kept by militaristic countries like the US and Russia? Because Iran is part of the "axis of evil". Because Iran is a furrin cuntry filled with brown or something like that people. They can't be trusted you know. What if it gets into terrorist hands? There's no chance of it happening in Uhmerica of course. Flood the news with what Iran and other mid-East countries are doing and step up the panic levels and keep braindead foreign policies thriving among the public.
"That topic is or was due for the UN and is forming a bulk of US and World foreign policy". How about the millions killed, tortured or mutilated in Sudan and Uganda and elsewhere who are also on the UN agenda? Why don't those keep turning up prominently on your news sources? Does it ever occur to you that you keep posting or reading about the same bunch of countries all the time? If it has, did you ever think about why?-- Simonides 12:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you didn't have to revert to personal attacks. Contrary to what you have said I am not one of the "brainwashed masses each of whom think they are independent critical thinkers". I'd also appreciate it if you didn't immediately assume that I see this as important news because I am some gung-ho militaristic patriot who laps up every word Government's say and agrees with every opinion Government's give. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that by finding this news important that I am racist and that I think that nukes in the hands of "brown or something like that people" is more dangerous than Nukes in the hands of the US or Russia. I'd also appreciate it if you didn't assume that I think countries like Iran would be more liable to helping terrorists than America. I'd also appreciate it if you wouldn't assume that I'm anti-Arab or anti-Middle Eastern and only opt to use news that reflects the Middle-East in a bad light. The simple fact of the matter is that this is major world news, the simple fact of the matter is that _if_ Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weaponry it is in violation of agreements and treaties it has signed.
"How about the millions killed, tortured or mutilated in Sudan and Uganda and elsewhere who are also on the UN agenda? Why don't those keep turning up prominently on your news sources? Does it ever occur to you that you keep posting or reading about the same bunch of countries all the time? If it has, did you ever think about why?"
I'd appreciate it if you didn't automatically assume that I don't care about Sudan or Uganda, I do, and it's tragic what's happening in those countries. The news that Iran has agreed to stop its uranium enrichment however is significant news and it should be "In the News". Neutralisation 12:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done, what's the next step? How can you contribute to defining positive and genuinely NPOV criteria for editing this template, as I and a few others have tried to do over the past months? -- Simonides 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Simonides, this is the news, you can't NPOV the news no matter how hard you try. You'll always have disputes about what news should be in the 'In The News' section and what shouldn't be, and periodically you'll get disputes over how to present that news. To one man it may be important, to another it isn't. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't jump to conclusions and assumptions in future, you have no idea what my beliefs, morals, thoughts and opinions are, at least you cannot know that on the basis of one dispute or difference of opinion, so please don't act like you do. On a sidenote, please stop with the insults, Wikipedia is meant to be a friendly environment, don't make it any more hostile than it unfortunately is at the moment. Neutralisation 02:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You don't have to NPOV the news, but on the basis of NPOV you can try to moderate bias with a few simple guidelines. As I may have said to you before, you can't necessarily eliminate or uproot discrimination, but you can go a long way in preventing, working round or mitigating it. It is really that simple and I don't see why there is so much resistance to this "revolutionary" concept. -- Simonides 19:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

England smoking ban

I've removed this story, as for one thing, it's not an actual certainty of yet. Even in that situation, it would be of debatable international interest. I think with all the tirades against US domestic stories (which I support such a protest), similarly non-international stories this side of the Atlantic should be curtailed. zoney talk 14:25, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, its been swiftly replaced (I admittedly broke the markup). I still stand by my comments above. zoney talk 14:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree, it is a highly controversial issue in countries all over the globe who are thinking of imposing a smoking ban, it is also featured on major news agencies and balances the ITN section's current content. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 14:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Righty-eo. I'm not sure it's so very controversial. Certainly in Ireland, the clear majority favoured it, even a significant no. of smokers. zoney talk 15:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think some people see it as internationally important because some people see it as a violation of human rights and a scheme that could transfer itself across the world. Neutralisation 15:26, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, it's evidently an issue worthy of ITN. In any case, I've added yesterday's announcement by Bhutan that they are introducing an outright ban on tobacco sales.
Maybe it is more controversial elsewhere, although I think it's reasonably obvious that smoking in enclosed public spaces, certainly in workplaces, violates others human rights. I'm sure the scheme will indeed spread around the world. zoney talk 16:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ITN protected

And yet again the ITN template is protected, it saddens me to see the hard work me and others invest in keeping this section balanced and up to date made impossible. Simonides, I support the intent of your actions, put the means and the result are both depressing and unfruitful. We should work towards a balance based on policy, but the ITN is but a small section which sometimes makes it a tough effort. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:44, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

k, I'm here in talk. Now stop your pitiful revert war. (well, stop when it's unprotected) Consensus obviously doesn't exist, so rather than risk getting blocked for violating the three revert rule, if such an amendment to policy passes, how about, oh, I dunno, we discuss it? --Golbez 09:22, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

The section has been discussed to death, but for the most part only by me, because the others shy away rather than admit their shortcoming/s. I only want to see if anyone has a good reason not to implement my suggestions, and it seems pretty clear there are none - hence the refuge in a distortion of "concensus" or "policies" . -- Simonides 22:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British Hunting Ban?

Not really important news at all. Why is it here? --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 00:17, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I assure you it is important to some people. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 00:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A few british hunters maybe? Who else? --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 00:22, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Shows that you are not from the UK. From the way I hear it, this is a very important issue at the moment. I would advise you to look into it more and stop making this judgement call, especially if you don't live in England. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Most of the population of the United Kingdom has an opinion on the issue. The use of the Parliament Act is notable too - it is rarely used and of great constitutional importance [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 03:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In re Ta Bu: I looked on the BBC news website, and saw it not even in the top three headlines for the continent of Europe, so I assumed it to be a rather menial issue. --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 04:26, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough, but it is a pretty huge issue, from everything I've read here in Australia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It matters to the varius aninal rights groups, farmers and a few back bench mps. I think pretty much everyone else lost interest about 6 bills ago. It's getting so much coverage because there isn't much else going onGeni 06:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There are two versions of the BBC News website. The hunting story tops the UK edition, whilst in the world edition the hunting story is the lead story on the UK section. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 08:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And now it has been overtaken by a story about Prince William. I hope no one thinks that is significantGeni 17:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Its a BIG issue, and its significantly more important on an international scale than the Sears merger.
The WP is so US centric some times it seriously infuriates me. News of pissy minor events in the US gets put above major issues that are covered seriously EVERYWHERE else on ITN, US spelling seems to reign supreme, etc. Kiand 02:33, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Big issue? Total number of times I herd it mentioned today outside the media=0. The correct way to deal with any US bias is not to replace it with minor stories from elsewhere but to replace it with major stories from elsewhere. The lastest bussness over Kashmir for exampleGeni 02:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree, it's a big issue in the UK. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Hans Eichel and Iraq

"Any bolded item that appears on the Main Page must be updated and listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page."
But as far as I can determine the news fact on Hans Eichel and Iraq isn't updated in any of the linked articles. Can someone either fix it and put it in the most appropriate article, or just remove it? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 18:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Ol' Dirty Bastard

Who the hell keeps on adding him and why the hell do they think his death is important in the slightest? The man died nearly a week ago it's old news, not new news and even if it was new news, I would still oppose adding him to ITN. He is insignificant, his death is insignificant and is made even more insignificant by the fact that whoever is trying to add him to ITN is removing other more appropriate and significant news to compensate. Whoever keeps adding him read what the template says "Only of international importance or atleast interest", ODB is neither of international importance nor interest, he's not really of international importance nor interest from an Entertainment news standpoint. 18:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iraq Flag POV Message

The file Image:Newiraqflag.gif seems to have a POV message in one of its rotations. It says "Governor Adolph Bush did it only for the oil!" in big red letters, as can be seen in a screenshot I just uploaded: Image:Inthenewsscreenshot.png. This image should be deleted and a new flag image should be made, preferably a png so this can be avoided. I'm posting this on WP:IFD as well. Telso 21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've stripped the second frame from the animated gif and reuploaded as Image:Newiraqflag-2.gif , that should do it for now. Not sure about the copyright of the original image, though. - JohnyDog 21:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The similar Image:Iraq_flag_large.png is apparently [6] from the CIA World Factbook [7].

Are you sure there was a problem with Image:Newiraqflag.gif? I thought the problem was only in Image:NewIraqflag.gif, which I have since deleted... Evercat 22:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The big image on the page itself is ok (not animated), however if you link it as thumbnail (look at the version of this template just before my edit and wait for minute) you'll still get the animated flag - maybe the thumbnail wasn't updated correctly, or there is bug somewhere linking thumbnail from the (deleted) image with capitalizes 'i' ? - JohnyDog 22:21, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Odd. Images always are dodgy on Wikipedia. They never work right... Evercat 22:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presidential election in Ukraine

Why is it that Yanukovich is pro-Russian and Yuschenko is western-leaning (and not pro-Western)? This is sooo biased. KNewman 03:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Be Bold. --Golbez 04:37, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Because I didn't want the short blurb to sound repetitive. If you think that "Russian-leaning" and "pro'-Western" sounds better, or somehow lesssss biased, then go ahead and change it. Michael Z.
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 05:01, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Both Image:Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych prime minister of Ukraine.jpg and Image:Viktor yushchenko.jpg are likely copy violations. One is listed as being GFDL, but this is unlikely to be correct as the image is featured on the official state website (see User talk:Steschke). Fair use is hard to claim as these images do not fall under U.S. copyright law, I would assume. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 11:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Winamp "news"

Can we please reserve "In the news" for at least slightly important events? - Fredrik | talk 22:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Winamp's contribution to digital audio can't be understated and millions of people around the world will be sad to see it wither away. So I know for next time, what's the test for importance because I only thought about putting it there after I saw at least a dozen articles on it in major newspapers when I ran it through Google News. Enochlau 22:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just because it was featured in a major newspaper doesn't make it front page news, which I think is what this section is reserved for. Winamp news is likely page 6 news, at best, or "Electronics" section news. Which doesn't mean it isn't news, it just isn't deserving of a place on the top five or so new items of the moment. Unless it is a slow news day, maybe. Molasses. --Fastfission 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dan Rather

While this is most definitely not international news, Dan Rather has been a cultural icon in America for nearly a quarter a decade.

I seem to recall the British hunting ban had little meaning outside of the Uk, yet that remained. Please don't scream "Americocentric trivia! Americocentric trivia!" every time a news tidbit is posted which is deemed unimportant by those unfamiliar with it. Quit removing it. --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688]] 02:06, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

In fact the hunting ban got taken down pretty fast.Geni 02:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another edit war on this page.... VeryVerily 03:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is for English speakers or users. Since Dan Rather is a household name in one of the largest English-speaking nation, I think it is marginally acceptible to post his retirement here. However, if you put William Safire's retirement in this area, I may object. Even though I'll be glad to see this old loser buried alive, Mr. Safire is not that popular to those U.S. citizens who could not read. -- Toytoy 04:01, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
I think William Safire may have a stronger influence than Dan Rather on people's thoughts. This Dan Rather news is pretty weak. -- Toytoy 04:21, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
The fact that there has been such opposition to this news story indicates that it probably shouldn't be up. It isn't hard to find three news stories of real internatinoal significance that we don't object to. A newscaster's retirement is never going to be front-page international news, no matter how many American's have heard of him. Ed g2s 14:16, 24 Nov 2004
It's not of international importance or interest that one newscaster is retiring in four months time. violet/riga (t) 13:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Anywhere outside the US, the reaction is most likely to be "who he?". Would Americans consider the retirement of Trevor McDonald (a famous UK newsreader) to be international news? -- ChrisO 13:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If Dan Rather decide to retire because of a news fiasco (Jason Who of the NY Times), tragedy (someone was killed because of me), political conspiracy (I know who killed JFK), international spy war (the woman I slept last week was sent by the Martians!) or any other reason other than the fact that he is getting too old, post this piece of news. -- Toytoy 15:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Toytoy, forgive me if I am wrong, but I gather that he retired because he made false allegations against President Bush. i c u r i t e 09:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the news temporarily protected

I have temporarily protected Template:In the news due to this revert war. Come on guys, it's about a newsreader. Please find something else to argue about, and keep it off the main page. - Mark 03:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And in case any of you think of accusing me of taking sides, the page was changing so fast that all I could see on my end was a cached version, so I really had no idea what version I was protecting on. - Mark 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahem. If you couldn't see what was being changed, why did you protect? This also wasn't an edit war, I did a rollback because I thought it was vandalism from an anon IP, then I did a revert with an appropriate edit summary. If it had been changed again I would have taken this to talk. I find it entirely inappropriate you locked this page. I'm going to unlock it. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said to you on your user page, I sent the same message to all three users who reverted more than once. I did not single you out in particular, and I completely understand what you did (if I had not seen the history of reverts on this topic already, I would probably revert it too). I merely temporarily (i.e. 10 minutes at most) protected the page to stop the reverts from going any further, which it seems to have achieved. As I've said countless times before, I wish people would find more controversial topics to argue about than this. - Mark 04:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ta bu - regardless of whether or not it was appropriate of Mark to protect, I don't think it would be/was appropriate of you to unprotect, as you have been involved in the dispute. Just my 2¢. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy and conciseness

I've made a number of changes to the Ukraine story, but I'm a bit concerned by the way that story has been represented on ITN. It was far too long, for a start. It was also seriously inaccurate - Viktor Yanukovych is/was the Prime Minister of Ukraine, not the "incumbent president" - and there were too many typos. This really doesn't make Wikipedia look good. Could contributors please try to be more concise, to make sure the facts are right and that the stories are correctly spelled? -- ChrisO 20:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The inaccuracy was one specific instance (as you state), and was added by one specific contributor (and one other did not pick up the problem). I have been adding to the story, and would have fixed that immediately had I still been online at the time. As regards length - well, the current version is shorter - but not entirely accurate (the "consequences" threat was only from the EU - Colin Powell stated that the US could not accept the legitimacy of the result). My problem was that I did not want to represent only the US or EU viewpoint, and also I did not want to omit both statements from the ITN summary. I should point out also, that on Internet Explorer, with the image floating correctly, the ITN section was sufficiently short. The only problem is that the accompanying image creates blank space below in Firefox (thus requiring a much shorter piece if we have to accommodate that awkward formatting). zoney talk 22:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Stale news entries

All the current news entries are from November 24 (3 days ago!). These entries are stale and need to be replaced. Could someone help me with it?

Do remember, this is supposed to only be updated with stories for which the relevant articles have been updated. Apart from really big stories, or where someone has been updating the relevant article (such as with the Ukraine story), we should expect to see at least a day's lag on ITN (after all, the story should go on Current Events first too!). I'm quite glad there's only three sensible stories on ITN right now (and no two from the one country or the US!) - the oldest is indeed three days ago - but that is not so long ago in the context of Wikipedia - an encyclopaedia.
I think ITN has been in better shape these past few days than in some time.
zoney talk 20:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually the Ukrainian story refers to a significant development that happened today: that the Ukrainian parliament has actually invalidated the election. This is probably a vital tipping point in the crisis. Michael Z. 22:22, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Too spread out

Now we cover sports? How about technology news? Weather? It should be done more elegantly. Perhaps a simple "Other news..." could be added instead of the sports link and this Other news could serve as a category for multiple sections, including sports. Exigentsky

I don't think the Kazaa story should be there - it's simply pandering to many Wikipedians' inherent bias! ETSB anyone? zoney talk 12:21, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"ESTB"? And what's wrong with the Kazaa story? Many Wikipedians have an inherent bias against the Iraqi war, and that shows in ITN as well. --Golbez 17:31, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia that Slashdot built. And no, I am not happy with the ISRC story either - it does not seem to be in the headlines (or other news) anywhere but NYT - and is indeed again indicative of the bias of many Wikipedians (admittedly myself included).
Oh, and just to point out, a lot of the illegally held individuals at Camp X-ray were taken prisoner during the Afghanistan invasion. zoney talk 20:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't know which news sources you're reading, Zoney, but it's been very widely reported - it's on the front page of Google News as I write this! -- ChrisO 16:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just think anyone who complains about the content on ITN really has no concept as to what Wikipedia is, and really needs to learn the doctrine of Be Bold. --Golbez 21:19, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
The "be bold" does not extend to regarding Wikipedia as a scribble-pad. There are rules and guidelines, and for every single page - only some things are appropriate. Inappropriate work is of course submitted all the time - and it's the job of all of us to fix this, but hey, I reserve my right to gripe and moan about such content.
In this case, my fears as regards the Red Cross story seem to have been proven to be unnecessary. But I indeed can "be bold" in voicing criticism - and will continue to do so.
At least I am watching out for bias in Wikipedia. There seem to be many who believe we can do no wrong, and that we manage to maintain NPOV (probably mostly we don't!).
zoney talk 19:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaking News

While most or all the entries User:Zanimum replaced ITN with probably should be there - I do not consider that we can place them on ITN yet. It is in the nature of ITN that it will be a day or two behind but for very major events (that Wikipedians are fast updating an article on Wikipedia with).

ITN quite clearly exists to link to background articles related to current news stories. There must be at least one article updated with the news events - this is bolded in the story. If this is the case with Zanimum's articles, then bold the relevant articles.

Also, it seems that three stories is now the norm on ITN. Finally, at least one of the stories must be linked to the image on ITN.

zoney talk 14:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. Perhaps this could be added to the ITN guidelines? -- ChrisO 16:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do not believe I have myself made up any of the ITN requirements I listed above - I've definitely read each point elsewhere.
I do think we should more clearly point out that the stories may not necessarily be today's, or even yesterday's news headlines. There is already somewhere a point about this - that it isn't necessarily for "breaking news". zoney talk 17:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page. -- Cyrius| 17:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rwanda post inaccurate

I revised the Rwanda story for accuracy. This is the original text: The Rwandan army invades eastern Congo, attacking and burning villages. The last invasion started the Congo Civil War, which resulted in the deaths of 3–4 million people.

Congolese officials maintain they are being invaded on a daily basis, however UN observers from MONUC said, "A group of 100 men suspected of being Rwandan soldiers was seen by a MONUC patrol in Rutshuru this morning." [8] . A few sources like the BBC seem to be exaggerating calling this an invasion, disregarding the MONUC statement that they may have spotted Rwandan troops. --Dejitarob 17:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The MONUC chief, M'Hand Djalouzi, has said "Infiltration is nothing new but this is something else, it has the appearance of an invasion." And I don't see why the BBC would be exaggerating. - Xed 18:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was just in the process of adding that it is most likely Rwanda is invading DR Congo since its happened before and most recently Rwandan president has been citing Congo is sheltering Hutu rebels. Additionally, the UN SC pleaded a few days ago for Rwanda to not use military force. But my point is we need to refrain from conclusions until further evidence surfaces.--Dejitarob 18:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Dejitarob that the wording was incorrect. At most just one side is saying that. Yet Xed's wording states it as fact. This is clear violation of our NPOV policy. But that is moot anyway, since the entry does not follow the guidelines for putting things on this page. Specifically, no article was updated with the new info, nor was any article highlighted. Thus that item was removed. --mav 19:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The BBC and the UN say there's an invasion. Do we have to wait till three million are dead to report it? Also, Congo Civil War has been updated to reflect news. - Xed 20:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The BBC is reporting what the Congolese and the UN are saying. Your wording indicated as fact what the Congolese are saying. I fixed that. --mav 20:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Diplomats, Congolese authorities, humanitarian and religious sources have reported that Rwandan soldiers had actually crossed into the DRC." - [9] Are you waiting till you see them with your own eyes? - Xed 20:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What are thousands fleeing from? Is it all a mirage? [10] - Xed 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Xed's reverts

By inserting, and then re-inserting the Rwanda story 4 times (1, 2, 3, 4), User:Xed is in violation of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule and is eligible to be blocked for up to 24 hours. -- Netoholic @ 20:33, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Article (Congo Civil War) was updated between reversions. - Xed 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We should not be having a reversion war on the ITN template. The claim of a Rwandese invasion is quite clearly POV, so Mav and others have been justified in reverting it. I've protected the template to give people a chance to calm down here. -- ChrisO 21:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Serbian president "assassination attempt" scare

Serbia's interior minister says the "assassination attempt" on Serbia's president Boris Tadic was a case of road rage against his motor convoy in Belgrade traffic. [11] Just wanted to give a heads up so when the page becomes unprotected it can be changed to reflect this update.--Dejitarob 00:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it is still unclear was it assassination attempt. the driver of a car which hit one of the cars is Serb working in US embassy which reported him to police. [[User:Avala|Avala|]] 14:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Why is the page protected at the moment? [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 01:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It had to do with a brief series of reversions regarding Rwanda's "invasion" of the Congo. I suggest it be unprotected if the issue has passed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh silly me, I see it now. Thx [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 02:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think the death of Bernard is of international importance. And it should be noted he was 93 years old. I hope the template will be unprotected soon. Gerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 09:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I'm Dutch and I don't even think it belongs here, his death was not unexpected, he died at old age and is not known worldwide. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 17:24, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Jeez people, ITN is not the primary source of what is important to 50%+1 of the people in the world. Stop thinking it is. --Golbez 20:32, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Of course it isn't. I don't see what it has to do with the point Solitude and I are makingGerritholl aka Topjaklont | Talk 23:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's unprotected now, so if you can think of something else to put there please do so... -- ChrisO 00:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lori Berenson

(See BBC) This is *enormously big* news in Latin America. Any chance of its being included?

It's not obvious how to edit the In The News section. I have added it.--Gbleem 05:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Galloway and Hussein

Regarding the back-and-forth about Hussein and Galloway, I've linked to Galloway's picture so perhaps that solves that. Ruy Lopez 15:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Should each ITN item have a link to a corresponding Wikinews story, if there is one? It would provide more current news than WP is meant to provide. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:35, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes it should. Only thing, the front page gets changed as things happen, and the Wikinews article takes another day or two. Its more WikiSNEWs then anything, takes so long to -- user:zanimum

Kofi Annan "under fire"

As far as I can tell, only Republicans are seriously questioning Kofi Annan's character. The choice of words here is all wrong anyway, and shows strong bias; "under fire" and "admitting"? It isn't sensible to use "admit" unless you're talking about guilt, and virtually nobody seems to believe he is guilty of anything.

The first thing that happened after Norm Coleman got his headlines was that the ranking Democrat on the Senate's Permanent Investigations Subcommittee, Carl Levin of Michigan, split from his chairman to say there was no justification for calling on Annan to resign mid-investigation. [12]

Even Tony Blair, the United States' current closest ally supports Annan. He is also backed by Jacques Chirac and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero; in fact, he has unanimous support from the UN Security Council:

"There was certainly a unanimous view that this was the right thing to do," Baali said.
"Nobody in the room called for Kofi Annan's resignation. On the contrary, we all expressed our confidence in the secretary-general," said German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger. [13]

It is ridiculous to say Annan is under fire when there is only one group that views things in such polar terms.

Chirac told a news conference he questioned the "hidden motives" of some of those who had spoken out against Annan.
He added: "We in Europe hold Kofi Annan in high esteem and recognise his unstinting efforts in the cause of peace and democracy."

Unlike in the United States, European leaders generally do not cling to foolish beliefs. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀]] 18:43, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Despite your unnecessary and inflammatory final sentence, it appears that you are correct as regards criticism of Annan. There is, in fact, a single political leader - Repulican senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota - calling for his resignation. I have edited the item accordingly. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 19:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That event (Coleman calling for Annan's resignation), as I recall happened several days ago. Are there any newer events happening in the world? or is it common for this template to have such old stories on it? -KS 23:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NZ Civil Unions

I was wondering if anyone objected me to rewording this to read:

The New Zealand Parliament legalises civil unions. The new law provides a way for de facto couples including same-sex couples to gain legal recognition of their relationships, but stops short of same-sex marriage.

Evil MonkeyTalk 07:19, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Local News

Enough already with the Scott Peterson story. We do not need the minutia of a single murder case in the whole world, added here simply because the US media focussed on it.

If it becomes an issue over international criticism of the US executing criminals, then it is of some relevance to the rest of tht world. At the moment, there is no reason why Wikipedians from any other country shouldn't add their country's murder trial.

zoney talk 10:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A local murder trial, that happens to be on the front page of the BBC news word edition right now. Oh, and the top stories page at, the World Latest page at the Guardian, the news page at CBC, the World News page at the Australian, and El Diario's front page. Gentgeen 12:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's top news in the US, that I do not deny. It is not on the BBC News front page (world edition) right now, and is in fact, only a side story even on the "Americas" section. This is entirely the weight I would suggest that should be accorded to it by any truly international news reporting. And certainly, with Wikipedia only having at most five stories, I do not agree that this should be one of them! zoney talk 12:50, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)


The "cannibal" murderer story in Korea is sensationalist journalism at best. This is not "front page" news by any stretch of the imagination, even if the gruesome case is indeed newsworthy.

zoney talk 10:27, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This one's on the International News page of the Irish Independant Online. Gentgeen 12:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Whoop-de-do, it's top of our parochial little newspaper. That's possibly somewhat unfair to the Indo (actually my preferred broadsheet), but the point I am making is that it is not necessarily the standard for what counts as one of the 3-5 most important international news stories. zoney talk 12:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

British and Irish current events link

I have to question why this is on the template. It seems to be not a well used page and a geographical bias. Evil MonkeyTalk 07:54, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I put it on the template as it is a current events page, and all the other current events pages are there. I only created the page last night - which explains why it's not yet well used. Only time will tell if it's a success or not. OK, there's a geographical bias (Wikipedia has lots of pages with a geographical bias - it allows us to cover issues in more detail.) But the geographical bias is clear from the title, and there's nothing stopping others starting other pages with a geographical bias. Of course, if we had lots and lots of regional current event pages (so that we'd need a fourth line in the template to cover them all, say), we'd need a more efficient way of linking to them. But we don't yet. I'd be grateful if we could see whether this one takes off and flies rather than smother it at birth. :) jguk 08:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regardless it should not go on the front page! We have a current events in science and technology, but it is not on the front page, it is linked from the top of Current events and this is as it should be, otherwise we will end up having dozens of links to various "current events in..." on the main page which will further clutter it up. I am reverting (preserving link on the current events page, however). --Lexor|Talk 13:32, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
I am removing the sports current events for the same reason. --Lexor|Talk 13:33, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

I've readded them in a way that does not take up much room, but in line with the approach that we should give a reader useful links. We don't yet have dozens of links from the Current events section - we only have 6. If it got too large, we'd need to consolidate it (eg I would not like to see 4 lines of links). But it's not too large yet, so we can leave that to a later day. jguk 13:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This shouldn't be on the front page. The type of page in general (current events in a country/region) is a good idea, but perhaps instead of linking each country individually, someone should start to compile a list of all countries with these and link to the LIST from the ITN template. Otherwise, its geographical bias and should be removed (god forbit an United States current events page be linked to ;) ) --[[User:Tomf688|tomf688 (talk)]] 19:25, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
So far the only country specific pages are British and Irish current events and Canadian current events. I agree with you about a list if we get loads more of them. The two news pages are new pages - and it does no harm to advertise them on the front page to see if they take off. Perhaps we can keep them on the main page and as is for now, and reassess in a month's time? jguk 19:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Err, why was UK&Ireland removed but NOT Canada?
Yet more north-american bias on the Wikipedia, I fear Kiand 20:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

EU-Turkey negotiations

European Union leaders agree to invite Turkey to begin negotiations to join the EU from 3 October 2005.

How can something "begin from" a certain date? It begins "on" a date, doesn't it? Brianjd 09:02, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Template:In_the_news vs Template:In the news

I think the second form is better. When editing, it looks better. The link looks better without the underscores. And there are no caching problems because the both links will point to Yet this page, near the start, uses the first form. Brianjd 10:39, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)


I know I put the Person of the Year story up there, but do we really need to see Bush's ugly mug again? :) (just my fourpenn'orth) jguk 18:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No we do not. And why does some magazine's opinion on who is the world's most influential person qualify as "In the news" material? --NoPetrol 21:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because. --Golbez 03:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Because. I agree. It deserves to be there. --Randy 00:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And by this time tomorrow, it will be gone and this entire conversation will be 100% moot. --Golbez 02:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Oil giant?

Shouldn't it be "oil company" instead of "oil giant", for the sake of neutrality? Isn't in opinion that the company is a "giant"? --NoPetrol 21:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not really. It became the largest oil producer in Russia by a long, long way. I don't think there's any doubt that it's a giant. Besides, it's not a complement, just a statement on its size. (You have to be pretty big to rack up a USD27bn tax demand! :) ) jguk 21:45, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, the way I look at it, a statement is an opinion if it is not completely TRUE or FALSE. For example, a statement like "the stove is hot" is an opinion, because there is not a specific temperature that the stove must exceed to be considered "hot", therefore such a statement is neither true nor false. A statement such as "the stove is hotter than the grill" is a fact, because it is either hotter than the grill or it is not; there is nothing in between the two states. That is why calling a company a "giant" is an opinion, because there is no set size that a company must exceed to be called a giant. I think it would be more appropriate if the headline read "Russia auctions off the main production unit of YUKOS, the country's largest oil company...” Let the reader decide whether the company is a giant or not. --NoPetrol 03:33, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Taking the approach of NoPetrol would pretty much prevent us using any adjectives at all. If we followed this no musician could ever be called popular, no politician unpopular; no person could ever be tall, no company large, no sports player great. Do we really want that? DJ Clayworth 17:24, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That is incorrect. It is not our place to decide if a musician is popular, but it could be a fact that the musician is one of the most popular. Miles Davis is one of the most identifiable contributers to the genre of cool jazz. Yukos is Russia's largest oil company. Many people consider Plan 9 from Outer Space to be the worst movie ever made. Microsoft is a more powerful company than Apple. Fox News is a conservative news station compared to CNN. --NoPetrol 21:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to AP news, Yukos is in fact only the second largest oil company in Russia anyway. --NoPetrol 23:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not a fact that a musician is "one of the most popular". How do we quantify popularity? How do we decide who is even the most popular, let alone "one of the most popular"?
By comparing the popularity of one musician with that of others, you can say that a musician is more popular or the most popular. But to call a musician "popular" is an opinion. --NoPetrol 01:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Coyright images on the front page

I think these should be avoided as it sends out a bad message to new Wikipedians that copyright images can be used. Fair use images should always be a last resort. ed g2stalk 20:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's a load of crap. Fair use was invented for a reason, it's not something we should make too big an effort to avoid. Of course, other things being equal, public domain images are preferable. Brianjd 06:57, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

FBI memos

OK, the FBI internal memos recently obtained by the ACLU (see links below) are enormously important news. I wanted to put them up in the box — but I can't find any updated article (per the requirements) to link to. Can it really be possible that the revelations haven't reached the wikipedia yet; or am I just looking in the wrong place? Doops 06:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) Washington Post article New York Times article


The David Blunkett article as far less certain in the fall from power section than this article suggests.--Jirate 00:15, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

I know. I'm trying to improve it with a new David Blunkett scandal page, but it needs working up - and I haven't had time to add the Budd report details, or say anything about the biography. jguk 00:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've changed what is written here to better reflect the conclusions. DJ Clayworth 17:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tsunami headline

Shouldn't the image for this tsunami story, which involves about four times as many deaths as the September 11 Terrorist Attacks, be larger than it is now? This is not a normal news story. --NoPetrol 19:30, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For formatting's sake, no. The size limit was picked for a reason, I imagine. Perhaps we should have a blinking red dot for major major stories, like Drudge uses sirens. I'm not being facetious, that would let people know that a story of truly massive proportions has occurred. --Golbez 21:01, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
News stories seem to be sorted by importance, occurance, and how many persons are impacted naturally, so there should be no need for a blinking light or anything of that nature. --tomf688 (talk) 03:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


Removing the item the instant a safer prediction comes along is not good. This item has still not finished and the predictions have not been studied enough. This is still a major story. The constant remove seems to show a lack of understanding of even the most basic newtonian physics.--Jirate 15:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Actually, your posting as imminent news of the scant potential of an asteroid impact that wouldn't even happen for a few decades on the front page of one of the world's largest websites is going to create panic among people who don't have the slightest clue about anything related to science at all. Furthermore, those of us that do have an interest in science don't appreciate it when someone jumps to conclusions before all the experimental data has been collected. So don't do that. Thanks. --Alexwcovington 15:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Actually the posting, not by me, was up for most of the 27th. and it has now been removed it. Those of us with a knowledge of science rather than just an interest in it would be happier if once a story has been started it is left to run it's natural course rather than have it removed by someone who jumps to conclusions before all the experimental data has been collected. So the story should be restored and allowed to wind down in public rather than having it disappear.--Jirate 16:10, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
You're not the only one with a knowledge of science. As of now, 2004 MN4 is no longer a current news story at all, any more than 1997 XR2 or 1950 DA. -- Curps 16:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I do understand that with 1950 DA there is a 50 year interval between observations, allowing a very acurate calculation, 2004 MN4 is still only about 9 months. The degree of uncertainty on 2004 mn is thefore much greater.--Jirate 16:25, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
The folks who actually study asteroid impact probabilities for a living disagree with you. They have come up with new values on the Torino and Palermo impact scales that rate the risk as much lower than before, and this very low-level risk is no longer front-page newsworthy. -- Curps 16:28, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well as you seem to think you have a direct line to them ask them how done and dusted this is?--Jirate 16:34, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
I don't have a direct line to them, I rely on the same publicly available information as anyone else, and some of the external links on the 2004 MN4 page are a good place to start. That being said, I do have a particular interest in asteroids and have contributed to some of the pages about them on Wikipedia. I have full confidence that the folks who do these threat assessments are entirely competent. -- Curps 16:38, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See for instance — the threat of an impact in 2044 is now assessed at about 1 in 70,000. -- Curps 16:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is not enough info on that page, it contains the probability not the degree of confidence. Is this at the 90% 95% or 99% level. I notice now that you didn't say you had a knowledge of science. Perhaps you need to go and look up things like f tests and t-tests to understand what I'm talking about--Jirate 16:49, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Do please stop with the arrogance. It shouldn't be there, it's not there and that's the end of it, surely. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
How does it manage to be arrogance on my part? As far as I can see it curps and Alexwcovington who are being arrogant. and your just demonstating ignorance.--Jirate 16:59, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
It's quite obvious, really:
  • "constant remove seems to show a lack of understanding of even the most basic newtonian physics"
  • "Those of us with a knowledge of science rather than just an interest"
  • "Perhaps you need to go and look up things like..."
All obviously arrogant statements. violet/riga (t) 17:06, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
And when you consider that
the first line is a respose to an accusation of spreading "FUD".
the second is a response to "Furthermore, those of us that do have an interest in science don't appreciate it"
and finally the 3rd is an attempt to point someone in the direction of stats that might
It show what a sham you and your POV are.--Jirate 17:20, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
Poor excuses for a poor attitude. violet/riga
and that's an even worse excuse for you pomposity.--Jirate 17:29, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
There is some discussion of methodology on that page, below the table ("Impact Table Legend"). Do your own research if it fascinates you. But the bottom line is, the threat is now much, much too low to be front-page newsworthy, and that's all that matters for the purpose of this discussion. PS, I'm not so sure about your own knowledge of science. You seem to be one of those folks who wants to post "original research" to Wikipedia. -- Curps 17:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't need to do any research, all I need to able to do is read what is written down and note which data is missing, from normal statistical work, as for the discussion of work other than admiting in can be out by a factor of 10, it doesn't actually give any data. You seem to beleive NASA web site because it's NASA rather than what is written, if anything showed a lack of understanding of science that does. --Jirate 17:14, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

Around this time, I was keeping my eye on BBC World News and DW Journal. No mention was made. I only heard it on my radio. This is not news, and never was, according to my observations. Brianjd 06:51, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

I have also heard that we could be a few seconds away from an asteroid colliding with Earth and not know it. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, then this wouldn't be news even if the risk were 1 in 300 (article) or 1.6% (radio story). Brianjd 06:53, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Looking at only those people who visit Wikipedia, I think if they don't understand science, it is generally their own problem. Potential panic should not be a factor in deciding what news stories to put here. Brianjd 06:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Myself, I was watching Wikipedia for more news about the asteroid. It seems to me that it was definitely noteworthy, if not an immediate threat. Furthermore, it seems silly not to put out the all-clear on a story which showed up here, regardless of the circumstances of its placement. I don't think it was a mistake to place the story, but if it had been, it would fall to us to defuse it. Wikipedia may not be a news service, but we should keep at least as much integrity as we would expect one to have. -FunnyMan 22:42, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

The initial edit war arose over "Near-Earth asteroid 2004 MN4 may possibly impact on Earth on 2044-04-13, according to latest calculations," added at a time when the latest calculations were about 1 in 24000 for the 21st century as a whole and 1 in 71000 for 2044-04-13. I had no problem with the later "New observations rule out the possibility that asteroid 2004 MN4 will hit Earth in 2029." —Korath (Talk) 23:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed that we should put up a follow up. All too often the news media doesn't follow up science stories and controversial claims by fringe groups. I know that Wikipedia is a news source but we should be responsible. Evil MonkeyTalk 23:44, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
The updated stories were on Current events and none of the asteroid stories really needed to be on the front page. Yes, it was newsworthy and maybe it wouldn't have been so quickly removed if it had been written in a decent format. violet/riga (t) 23:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


What a suprise despite having lost the rational argument Violetriga feels free to impose it's views on everyone, just one more demponstration of arrogance and ignorance.--Jirate 23:08, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

No arguments lost. No views imposed. No arrogance or ignorance. No point talking to you. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes plenty of arguments lost by you. You have demonstrated you don't understand statitics, physics or just about anything else. --Jirate 23:52, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
You have demonstrated you don't have any communication skills or common sense - let's leave it at that. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We aren't talking about common sense or communication skills we are talking about rocks in the sky and maths, but how typical of someone who's dug a hole that they try to change the subject, All you've managed to communicated accuratly is your lack of understaning of either common sense or communications skills and your excess of arrogance. --Jirate 00:04, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
At no point have you been able to convince anyone of your argument. You're just feeling sorry for yourself because you've not got your way. violet/riga (t) 00:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No not at all. I'm angry at you for making assasment of subjects way outside your area of compidence and also your dishonesty in making excuses for yourself.--Jirate 00:26, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Interesting how well you claim to know me and amusing that you get angry so easily. violet/riga (t) 00:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've not claimed to know anything about you that you haven't demonstarted on this page.--Jirate 01:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Hey, kids, I just read this entire section, and wow, it has nothing to do with ITN. In fact, in the "Surprise" section alone, I can find no context to figure out what your fight is. You have your own talk pages; please use them. --Golbez 00:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like a personal issue between the two. They should take it to their user's Talk pages. —Cantus 07:39, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, but I don't even know who he is! violet/riga (t) 11:01, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is a discussion about your activities in this page. It stay here--Jirate 11:27, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I've twice tried to take this to my talk page but Jirate insists that it remains here. Deary me. violet/riga (t) 13:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let it be noted the Riga twice tried to destroy the context of this conversation, for political reasons.--Jirate 13:33, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
And then coninued to attempt to destroy context.--Jirate 13:48, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Susan Sontag

I'm interested to know whether others feel this warrants being on the front page. It doesn't even have an entry on the Current Events page. Evil MonkeyTalk 23:49, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

It is of far less significance than the on going story of 2004 MN, predictions of which have changed yet again.--Jirate 00:04, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
How, Sontag actually died, the asteroid has been, incorrectly, predicted to hit the earth in 2029. When it actually hits the earth, it will be news. oh, and Susan Sontag does appear on Current Events, if you know where to look. Gentgeen 00:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The predictions, claculations and observations are still going on and in this case will go for some considerable amount of time. This asteroid and it's angle of approache etc make it a complete sod to do calculations on. In the last 24hrs it gone from 4 on a scale to 0 back upto 1 and then stayed at one but the dates changed. If you look at the predictions, it has many earth close encounters, all of which will influence the rock. Any small error in the inital position will have a cunmlative effect during these encounters. This is an on going story and demonstrates the difficulty of making these important predictions. The current story is the ongoing work to workout where this rocks going to end up.--Jirate 00:26, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I guess it comes down to the fact that everyone has a personal bias as to what they consider news-worthy. Personally I'd never heard of Susan Sontag so didn't think it was that important but was very interested in 2004 MN4 as I'm studying astronomy at university and am interested in those sorts of things. Also at the time I looked at Current Events there wasn't an entry there. Evil MonkeyTalk 03:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
I had heard of Sontag - couldn't tell you about anything she's done though. Also, the few days since the 2004 MN4 story broke appears to have created a much more extensive article than Sontag manged in her whole life. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 03:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just because WP contributors are more interested in writing articles on asteroids than prominent intellectuals is less an argument for their relative importance than it is for the type of people who contribute to Wikipedia. --Fastfission 23:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed but there is a precendent on the Current Events page not to have entries for the death of someone unless they are extremely important. Evil MonkeyTalk 21:12, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
If that's the case then it certainly doesn't deserve mention on the ITN and main page. violet/riga (t) 11:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of course, but my point was that noting which had a longer article hardly informed such a distinction. --Fastfission 01:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While it may appear on the deaths list it should appear as an entry if it's ITN-worthy. violet/riga (t) 00:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I removed it originally but after seeing it on the main BBC News page think it may be worth being there. I've removed it because of it not being on current events but won't object to it being added again once that is done as long as it's below the earthquake/tsunami story. violet/riga (t) 23:59, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake

See Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 2#Magnitude clarification.

non current stories

The current stories are not current. Susan sontag died several days ago and the earth quake was even further in the past. Using the criterial laid out for other items they should be removed.--Jirate 12:03, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Ahem - Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. What you did was vandalize the main page and you could very well be blocked for it. →Raul654 12:05, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
No I didn't vandalis the page. I made it consistant with the rules that have been outlined here. If I am blocked for it, it will be as a result of the dishonest and lack of integrity of the blocker not for vandlism. The deletion of 2004 MN is vandlism it self by the dishonest.--Jirate 12:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
I spotted it pretty quickly and reverted it. What exactly does count as a major story in your world, Irate? 70,000 people dying with the death toll still rising not enough for you? Yes - the story is several days old, but new developments are happening all the time. I dont agree with the Sontag story being there either, but what you did left a great big hole in the front page and that could make a very bad impression for first time Wikipedia visitors. If you think you can find 3 or 4 stories that are bigger at the moment, then knock yourself out. -Zaphod Beeblebrox 12:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The rock story is bigger, far more the 70,000 peoples lives depened upon it.--Jirate 12:15, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Zaphod is exactly right. Just because you disagree with how the page is lain out does not give you the right to vandalize it. When editing on wikipedia, you are expected to exercise common sense (and blanking a main page template is a textbook example of the opposite). If you can't do that, then your editing privileges will be revoked. It is as simple as that. →Raul654 12:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
No Zaphod is not right. Common sense is not capable of understanding the rock story. The reason we have the Sontag story in is lack of common sense. If you block me to enforce your views I will simple change my IP and ID and carry on. Using yoru admin privilidges to enforce your scewed sense of vandlism needs to be stopped. As do the illogical and irrational users, who rely on political skills to hide their vandlism.--Jirate 12:23, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
PS "Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Not just those approved of by member. Though another inconsistency between what wikipedia says it does and what the admins want to use it for is going to be lost in the heep.--Jirate 12:34, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, Irate

You've really got yourself worked up about this whole asteroid thing. Now that it's passed, you can relax... take a break or something, because you're not getting much done trading insults here. --Alexwcovington 13:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm wound up about the dishonesty and lack of integrity of Vile Riga not the rock itself.--Jirate 13:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
Hmmm. I hate having personal battles in Internet arenas... I usually duck out for a bit until the air clears. End up on the wrong side of too many people and you end up getting banned. Never felt like going that far. Knowing that it's not a simple edit war I'm satisfied you were carrying out some degree of good faith, but the intensity of the infighting at the moment warrants more sober discussion elsewhere rather than right here. --Alexwcovington 14:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


This template is protected. Please work out your differences, and do not edit war on the main page →Raul654 13:53, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

What a suprise. Seems you locked it in the opinion you prefer.--Jirate 13:55, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
The only version I have any partiality to is that I prefer having one with text over a blanked one. Beyond that, the version I protected was whichever one happened to be up when I noticed this edit war. →Raul654 13:57, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
Ok Sorry.--Jirate 14:08, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

Rephrasing news as time passes?

How about something like:

The death toll in the Indian Ocean earthquake and subsequent tsunamis has risen 60,000 deaths in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Somalia and other surrounding coastal areas.

instead of:

The strongest earthquake in 40 years, measuring 9.0 on the moment magnitude scale, rocks the Indian Ocean off Sumatra; tremors and subsequent tsunamis result in over 60,000 deaths in Sri Lanka, India, Indonesia, Thailand and other surrounding coastal areas.

so that it doesn't look like a 3-days-old news? -- Paddu 14:13, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I personally think present tense for all ITN tidbits is unnecessary, but I haven't taken any journalism classes so I wouldn't know. --tomf688 (talk) 14:38, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

death toll

the death toll has increased to about more than 116.000. CNN,Google, [14]

Indonesian ambassador's claim of eventual 400,000 dead in Indonesia

Whether eventually true or not, the fact that Indonesia's ambassador to Malaysia made this statement is in itself newsworthy. See , or go to Google News and google the ambassador's name ( Rusdihardjo ). -- Curps 22:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bush's Election

The results of the end of the Ohio challenge and Bush's formal election have been twice removed by Wikipedia editors who should know better on the basis that the story is "parochial" and of "no international interest." Evidentally it is of international interest, as Google already shows it is being reported by Xinhua, Reuters, Swissinfo, Turkish Press, and Guardian of the UK. The template clearly says anyone who vandalizes it will be blocked, and I will do so. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I really think that you should try discussing things properly without using the terms "should know better" and "vandalism". Further, you certainly should not be threatening to block people, especially not on the template itself. Please note that Google News currently has far more sources for "Delta airfare cuts benefit mostly business travelers" and "Harmison's last stand fails to save Vaughan's ragged England" than the election story, so should we include them? violet/riga (t) 00:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Differences of opinion over content is not vandalism, and to block someone over such a thing is a misuse of your admin powers. RickK 00:27, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

When you remove a story of wide interest on the main page over your personal opinion that it isn't important when the entire world has been watchng the US election and criticizing it is vandalism. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree with Rick. I don't think this disagreement qualifies as vandalism. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not vandalism, it is a difference of opinion. Your threats to block people could easily be seen as an abuse of admin power and I really do think you should refrain from doing so. Please discuss this properly. violet/riga (t) 00:31, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Its not of international interest - he won either way, so its completely pointless. Its about as internationally important as my local bye-election next month. Just because US based editors assume everyone wants to know about the US doesn't me we do. Kiand 00:34, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is English Wikiedpia and it is now listed in the top stories in Google U.K., Google U.S., Google Canada (English) and Google Australia. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yet it doesn't appear on BBC news, Ananova, Times Online and loads of others. violet/riga (t) 00:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. It isn't of international interest, at least not of such international interest as In the news requires, and threatening blocks in the issue is very inappropriate. --fvw* 00:38, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I just want to clarify that In the news does not require an item to be of "international importance"; that is not policy and I recently removed that "rule" from the ITN page proper. 00:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The core problem is that such a large segment of Wikipedia thinks that if it interests Europe and not English-speaking North America it is "international". If it interests North America and less Europe it is "parochial." If Europe is so disinterested in Bush's election, why did you all have so many vocal opinions and demonstrations about it? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:45, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then there's the problem of paranoia about Americans thinking people outside of the US are totally against them and are trying to remove all traces of them from Wikipedia. The election result was important for the world, not this little segment of sub-news. And saying that we "all have so many vocal opinions and demonstrations" is a ridiculously generalistic statement. Further, by definition, if it interests all of Europe it is more international. Yes, US-based stories may interest Europe too but this one doesn't. violet/riga (t) 00:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I express no opinion on the importance of the story, but I entirely agree with RickK. Threatening bans is completely inappropriate. Mark1 00:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If people should know better about anything, it's simply that you should not revert war on the main page, please. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, if you make a change and it gets reverted, go directly to talk. Threatening to immediately ban people is also irresponsible. Rhobite 00:50, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

The template clearly states that blocking is punishment for main page vandalism. Naturally those outside the U.S. feel they have the right to determine what is and isn't important. How many people in the U.S. (pop: 300 million) think Nelson Mandela's son's death is a top story? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is not vandalism and to threaten bans is totally inappropriate. violet/riga (t) 00:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Cecropia — this is clearly not a case of vandalism. I agree, your threat is completely inappropriate, especially given your stature as a bureaucrat. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In the Uk, the Ohio issue isn't really a big thing. The BBC website has failed to report it altogether. It isn't regarded as important, and reporting symbolic victories which occur long after the actual victory is really not what international news is about. CheeseDreams 00:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So who is threatening whom?

In addition to those generally warning me about threatening blocks: I believed in good faith that I was following policy as clearly expressed on the Template. Evidentally I am outvoted here so it is pointless to argue further. If you define as "important" on the basis of Wikipedia's European editors, who can dispute that?

But now I also see that Violetriga is threatening me with an RfC oddly enough in a comment on an edit summary on someone else's (Jguk's) talk page: "And I warn you, Cecropia, that you will be on the end of an RFC if you block him or continue to threaten people that disagree with you."

I have a long record of Wikipedia, including the fact that I have never blocked a logged-in editor. As I said, I believed I was acting in good faith on a matter involving the main page. You want to bring an RfC over this? It wouldn't be the first time that RfCs were brought by some Wikipedians' lynch-mob mentality. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It also wouldn't be the first time someone acted holier-than-thou over a content dispute by labelling the other side as vandals. -- Cyrius| 01:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, sure. And it wouldn't be the first time someone acted holier-than-thou by telling someone else that they are holier-than-thou. I believe I gave ample evidence that this is not an insigificant story. "Top stories" are ephemeral. In a few days this wouldn't matter, and those who might be interested will never see it. Where is the policy that a story about a major political figure in a disputed election should be removed rather than kept while editors war on the Talk Page? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The issue here is that you opened this so-called discussion with a threat to block as vandals those who disagree with you. That ain't right. -- Cyrius| 03:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, let's see. The first editor to remove the story said "remove minor and parochial news story." Frankly, I thought he was goofing and said so. ("It's not funny'). The opposite of "minor and parochial" is "major and universal." Let's look at some recent stories that have run "In the news" without a team of editors trying to excise it:
  • Croatian President Stjepan Mesić receives 49 percent of the votes in the first round of the 2005 presidential election, and will face Jadranka Kosor in the second round on January 16.
  • Turkey introduces the New Turkish lira, a new currency revalued at a rate of 1 million old lira for 1 new lira
  • President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal announces he will sign a peace treaty with the separatist group in the Casamance region of the country.
  • Jazz artist Artie Shaw dies at home in Los Angeles, USA, aged 94.
Now all those articles are worthy of note in Current News, but front page news? And these are just in the last week. But when the article involves the conclusion of a closely-watched (by the entire world) election, where the last chance to dispute the election became a non-chance, and the dispute is concluded, that is "minor and parochial," unlike the progress of the election of a Croatian president (which hasn't even concluded). So it seems to me that the operable difference is that Europeans hate Bush (shown by numerous polls) and aren't too crazy about the US either, so if my guess is that these are the reasons for removing an article under the guise of unimportance, I could probably be forgiven (except maybe by the people who I've seen complain that Wikipedia is "Americentric.") -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You're still trying to change the subject. It's your threat of blocking over a content dispute that's what I have a problem with. -- Cyrius| 05:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't doubt anyone's good faith in this: this is a question of judgment. The opposition to including the item is clearly based on the fact that the item deals with a minor technicality (albeit a minor technicality connected to a rather important election). Let's not assume prejudice which isn't there. Mark1 05:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To cyrius: I threatened a block when I thought this was actual vandalism, as I explained in some detail above. If that is not enough for you, I can't help you further. But we don't even agree on the subject here. The issue I see is that I made the same mistake travelers have made since time immemorial: I wandered up the wrong alley thinking that this is "the encyclopedia YOU can edit, right now" applied to the "In the news" page and that the subjects were chosen by objective criteria. Instead I found a group of regular editors who feel that they can rule on what goes in and what stays out. Looking in the week before, I see that twice we have a British Home Secretary who resigned and also Queen Elizabeth's annual Christmas message. We further find out that said Home Secretary had fast-tracked a visa application for his married lover's nanny. This is tabloid stuff. And as to the good Queen. She's a fine person. I actually once stood outside in Lower Manhattan to watch her entourage go by. But delivering her Christmas message is of no world moment. It is "dog bites man" news. If she had called for Tony Blair's resignation instead of "diversity" that would have been news. Every US president has a Christmas message, too, but if I were to include that here some people would have a cow. In fact, a whole herd of cows. Mad. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again you miss my point. I am not disputing the inclusion of the news item. I don't care about the news item. What I care about is that someone the community has trusted with the power to do damage has made a threat to use that power in a way that I and others see as an outright abuse. That you continue to ignore my concerns in favor of claiming unfairness in the selection of content disturbs me further.
Yes there's a damn anti-American bias going on the news pages. Yes, you have a right to be pissed off about it. But that does not give you the right to block someone over a content dispute, or to even threaten such a block. -- Cyrius| 06:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And Cyrius, you miss mine. The answer to your concern is already in my writings above. I only threatened blocking (which can easily be undone by any other admin) when, in good faith (unless you don't trust my honesty and candidness) I thought that actual vandalism was going on. When I realized that it was not perceived as vandalism, I did not continue to threaten blocking. I also have a record at Wikipedia; are you aware of examples of my doing "damage"? Have you examples of careless or malicious blocking? Or revert warring?
Does that answer your concerns? If not, what is it you expect of me? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:30, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Expect? You are not obligated to satisfy me, so I expect nothing from you.
What I would like from you is for you to try to understand why you got this reaction. You ask me to interpret your actions in good faith, but you did not extend the same courtesy to Jguk and Violetriga. Your calling the removal of the material vandalism was so baffling that it appeared to simply be a attempt to get your own way.
When informed of this, you dropped into a defensive stance which you are still maintaining. My mention of "damage" was not a comment about you, it was about the responsibility that comes with the admin powers. If I thought you were actually acting in bad faith to damage Wikipedia, I would be doing more than exchanging a few civil but not terribly kind words with you.
Feel free to yell at the anti-Americans. It's not the most productive mode of discussion, but I have done it myself. But you crossed the line, and you need to recognize that. -- Cyrius| 08:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, you are quite right. I am aware I do not have to satisfy you, but I have a habit of trying to engage my fellow Wikipedians, even when not required to do so. What I did would have been inappropriate if I had a clue of what goes on in this section. I am not one who runs around Wikipedia complaining about cabals, but it is evident that some groups of users consider certain sections to be their private preserve, and this is a private preserve that appears on the "front page" of Wikipedia. Shrugging off a story involving a political event that has previously occurred only once in over 100 years looked like vandalism to me. It took me awhile to realize it was just good-old Wikipedian anti-Americanism. I crossed no line that I can see, as I gave the two editors in question a chance to respond before taking any action. According to the template page, had it been agreed as vandalism, I would have been justified in blocking them without notice.
Even had I blocked them, even had I blocked them mailiciously, there would have been no lasting harm to Wikipedia. But the open and stubborn pushing of POV, no less on a prime page, damages the credibility of a putative encyclopedia to those who are simply expecting information, and aren't privy to the politics of this project. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:23, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bolded items

Viktor Yushchenko (pictured right) is declared the winner of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election following two months of bitter controversy.
PLO chairman Mahmoud Abbas declares victory in the Palestinian presidential election.

Shouldn't we either bold just the election link in both cases, or change the first case to be like the second? Brianjd 06:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)