Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scottwiki (talk | contribs) at 23:48, 9 May 2006 (Rephrasing item on Darfur conflict). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notes for users

Guide to writing news stories

  • See these sources to look for breaking news in various parts of the world.
  • Please endeavour at all times to have a NPOV in your reporting.
  • This means news stories should also originate from all over the world.

How to suggest a story for the main page

This page (Template:In the news) is the "In the news" section on the Main Page. To protect against vandalism, the page is protected and can only be edited by administrators. After following the process below, please make suggestions for stories at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. The template will be updated periodically by administrators.

  1. Since Wikipedia is not a news report, please check that the news item is important enough to merit changing the related article. If it is, continue to step 2.
  2. Any bolded news-related article that appears on the Main Page must be listed on its corresponding subject area page before being listed on the Main Page. For example, a news item should first be listed on current events.
  3. Bolded items must be updated to reflect the current event.
  4. The item must then be suggested at the candidates page.

See also the guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page.

Barbora Krejčíková and Carlos Alcaraz
Krejčíková (left) and Alcaraz
Ongoing:

Notes for administrators

Please read before editing the section or making comments on this discussion page.

Main Page: Updates and Caching

The main page does not necessarily update immediately with updates from the "In the news" section. The next update to the Main Page by an administrator will make the change appear properly. This link will purge the cache of the Main Page so that the present version appears: //en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&action=purge

Image protection and notation

Before updating Template:In the news with a new image, protect that image and add {{Mprotected}} to the image's description page. Also, unprotect the old image that is being removed. When using images, parenthetically note in the text that the mentioned item is pictured. Example: "...leader José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero (pictured right) is sworn in..."

Corresponding "Current Events" item

Before adding an item to the "In the news" section, ensure that there is a corresponding item in page Current events with a URL to an article about the news story.

Copyrighted images

Before placing an image in the template, ensure that its copyright is well-documented and that it is legal for it to be displayed on the Wikipedia.

Avoid using fair use images. Instead, find a related free image (PD, GFDL, CC etc.) as an alternative.

Discussion

Archives

MILOSEVIC

Put Milosevic's photo in "In the news" it is the biggest news in decades. --Boris Malagurski ₪ 21:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image is not under a free license. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-11 22:05
Considering 9/11 was less than half a decade ago, no. --Golbez 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the biggest news in "decades". The fall of communism, the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain was the biggest news in decades. The Iraq war and European enlargement were recent big events. At most, the death of the war criminal Milosevic is one of the most important events to date in the year 2006. Johnny English 16:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Got one in there now. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH MY GOD, SOMEONE PUT RADE MARKOVIC'S PHOTO and stated that its MILOSEVIC'S PHOTO, CHANGE QUICK, ITS ON THE FRONT PAGE!!! --Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart Meri

Why isn't Lennart Meri's death important enough to be included here? Is it because he's neither American nor a war criminal? Note that throughout the entire history of Estonia, there have only been three Presidents of Estonia, so one of them dying is certainly a major event. JIP | Talk 18:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. These vague reversions are out of line. I think the guideline being cited is that death-related news items should only be included if 1) the funeral ceremony merits its own article, or 2) the death itself had a huge impact on the world (such as a current President being assassinated). While there is currently no article for the funeral ceremony of the Estonian President, I do believe it does merit its own article. For an actual example, Ronald Reagan's death was on the main page June 2004, but he didn't get a death/funeral article until April 2005. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 19:16
  • I thought that the guidelines were that that the death had to have an immediate and substantial impact on political affairs to be included. If the funeral turns about to be so shattering, why don't we wait until it takes place? Otherwise, you are opening a huge can of worms. Just look through the archives to see how many people have lost their attempt to install a famous death, political or otherwise, on this template. Tfine80 21:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is one of the criteria, the other being that the person's funeral ceremony merits its own article. In reality, however, deaths are generally limited to present or past world leaders, or other people who are or have been in powerful political positions. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 21:25
      • Political leaders are also denied frequently enough to make this inclusion very controversial. For all of Meri's fame in Estonia, the Milosevic and Pope John Paul deaths had greater impacts on immediate political reality around the world. That is why two admins reverted the initial change for Meri. Tfine80 21:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And what impact did Reagan's death have on immediate political reality? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:41
          • One crime does not justify another. --Golbez 22:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "crime" started when the rollback button was used, and has become amplified as only one side of the debate has bothered to reply on the talk page. How is a former president of the US worthy of ITN, but not a former president of Estonia (which has had only had 3 presidents). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:47
              • You disagree with Reagan being there, but yet you're using it as a reason. I'm saying, if you think Reagan didn't belong, then neither does Meri. So if you truly believe neither belongs, then stop asking for Meri to be put there. --Golbez 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, other than mentioning his date of death in the brackets after his name, the artice hasn't been updated with info on his death. Harro5 22:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might point out guidelines two and four: The current event needs to be important enough to warrant updating the corresponding article., which besides a death date, has not occured yet, and The article must be updated to reflect the new information and have a recent date linked, which (any update besides adding a DOD) has not occured yet. I'm against including this; I don't see the political or international impact of the death. Are we to include the death of all world leaders? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a specific requirement that the article detail the new incident, just that it be updated with reference to the incident. The article does link to news stories about his death, however. And it would be easy enough to update his article with specific details. It would seem less controversial to do that than to rollback and admin who adds the entry. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 22:58
      • I agree with Flcelloguy. If it's listed under recent deaths in the Current events page, and relevant pages are updated (eg. list of Presidents, date when he died, 2006, etc) then that is ample recognition. Harro5 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But I say that his death/funeral ceremony merits its own article. Therefore I have fullfilled the other possible requirement of criterion #5. There are two possibilities. So far, you have only replied to the first (that his death isn't that widely impacting). How is this any different from Reagan's death? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:02
          • But just because something could be written doesn't mean it should be linked to from the main page; there's plenty of articles waiting to be written - should they all be included in DYK? Regarding the Reagan inclusion - I'm not arguing that that death should have been placed in there; as far as I'm concerned, it's irrelevant because we're not bound by precedent. Even the ArbCom isn't bound by precedent; in cases where the policy isn't clear, we should consider each case individially. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've updated his article with recent content, including statements from 3 world leaders. Is this notable enough now, or does he still have to be American? I'm not sure if citizenship can be granted posthumously. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:14
            • As for his death meriting its own article, this is simply the statement used in the guideline. If you don't like the wording, get it changed; or, write a decent article on his death/funeral, and then submit it to AFD. Those opposing his inclusion seem intent to follow the guidelines exactly, except, of course, when they go against them. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-14 23:17
              • This is getting ridiculous; the template has been reverted no less than 9 times in a matter of hours. Can we please discuss this first before any more reverting? Regarding the update: I still fail to see what political implications or international consequences this has. The update gives quotes from the next leader and quotes from the Finnish and Latvian leaders; however, with any death, there are bound to be leaders who comment. Just because a president of another nation releases a statement or says something does not mean that the death has significant political or international implications. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we keeping Lennart Meri on ITN or not ?

I was accused of wheel warring when I removed it. I'm staying off the template for now. If we are voting, I'd vote for operating in accordance with the current ITN guidelines till the guidelines are revised, i.e. I'd vote for the removal of the obituary of Meri. Maybe it's time to review the ITN guidelines. -- PFHLai 02:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Allowed #2 (Terri Schiavo), #3(Artie Shaw), #4 (Peter Jennings), #5 (Johnny Carson), #7 (Edward Heath) and #8(David Lange), their death was posted on ITN before we got Criterion 5. Allowed #6 (Simon Wiesenthal) was indeed removed, but someone violated the guidelines and put it back. (Then I somehow fell asleep and edited it instead of removing it.....)
That leaves just one allowed. Please see another similar discussion like this one at Template talk:In the news/archive5 #Rosa Parks. Now, I repeat, Maybe it's time to review the ITN guidelines. I'm following the existing guidelnes till they are revised. -- PFHLai 09:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Slobodan Milošević ? That may be an exception, and no one has complained (yet). -- PFHLai 09:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure Peter Jenning's death occurred before the guideline was added? Since guidelines are supposed to be observations of how things have gone in the past, it's safe to say that Peter Jennings probably would have been added in after the guideline was created, if indeed the guide did come after his addition. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:07
      • In order:
        • Rosa Parks: Heavily notable in American society, though not at the time of her death.
        • Terri Schiavo: Was in the news, and therefore her death was a news event.
        • Artie Shaw: Shouldn't have been there.
        • Peter Jennings: I'm iffy on this one, since most of the news on his death was precisely because he was in the news, and news always reports best on itself. For the purposes of this argument, I'll say shouldn't have been there.
        • Johnny Carson: Highly notable to American audiences, but I'm not sure if he belonged on ITN.
        • Simon Wiesenthal: Almost definitely, his was one of the more newsworthy lives the world has had in the last fifty years. However, I can see how it would be a no, since it had no immediate bearing on the world.
        • Edward Heath: The problem here is, the Brits will complain if we let American presidents on but not British PMs. So I abstain from an opinion.
        • David Lange: See above, but with Kiwis instead of Brits.
        • ODB: Hell no.
        • Kerry Packer: Hell no.
        • Mo Mawlam: Not really, but a better case than the previous two because of the Good Friday Accord. But still avery weak case.
        • Ba Jin: Unfamiliar with him, but based on his intro he seems an important figure. I don't really know.
        • Johannes Rau: See above, but insert Germans for Kiwis. (Makes for a very poor tasting fruit salad) Though Germans have a much, much smaller presence here, seeing as how they aren't Anglophone.
      • All this just brings me back to a proposal I offered some time ago - add a small "Recent deaths" section to ITN, with the two most recent highly notable (i.e. what appears on Current Events) deaths. That would solve most of these problems. --Golbez 09:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree to such a section, provided that it was fixed in number, and possibly placed inside <small></small>. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:07
  • Remove, as per guidelines. Sad to see one person violating the revert rules without support but with several people in opposition. violet/riga (t) 16:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since it seems like most people here favor removing it, I'll wait some time, and barring any serious objections, remove it. We can then proceed to discussing the guidelines, if needed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The people I reverted had not even replied on the talk page once, and in one instance they used rollback. So, no, I was not "violating revert rules." Besides, numbers alone do not make an argument correct, and few of the replies I've managed to receive have bothered to actually discuss the argument, instead preferring to just say "get rid of it" and add 1 to their number. I can't help that the other people who wanted this article in ITN didn't bother to reply here. This is why Wikipedia is not a democracy. If the best you can come up with is "sad to see someone violating the rules, ignoring the numbers", then you should probably not bother to reply, as you are only deteriorating discussion. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:00
      • Violet/riga, Brian0918, let's all calm down - there's no point in escalating this conflict; let's discuss this respectfully. Brian0918 - have you considered the fact that most of us have given replies to your objections already? True, Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but the majority of people here agree that it should be removed. Wikipedia has always worked by consensus; while I'm certainly not claiming that there's a true consensus here, but the vast majority of people here favor removing it, and we've all given replies to your arguments already, which I won't bother to repeat again. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did my post sound hostile? I was just being to-the-point. Violetriga's post lacked any constructive content... As for the people who have replied here, all of the reverts came before the discussion here; and only 1 of those who reverted has since replied here. Of course Wikipedia works by consensus. That means that you discuss the matter, weigh the rationale, and eventually agree or at least agree to disagree. That doesn't mean that a dozen people can post a 5-second reply saying "get rid of it" and then never return to the page. Wikipedia is not a democracy, regardless of whether you want it to be in this situation. This is especially true on a page that can only be edited by admins, and that is so visible to the public... Of those who originally added the entry, or reverted to re-add it, only I have weighed in for/against the inclusion. Should we ignore them in order to paint it as, in your words, a "vast majority". — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:14
          • Checking the history, only two people - you and JIP - have re-added the item back in, while more people have removed it and even more people have commented here favoring removing it. Am I missing something? Both you and JIP have already commented here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I had thought Admrboltz was involved in re-adding it, but he only added a picture. How about replying to any of the other content in my previous post? You have repeatedly mentioned your majority, but completely ignore the fact that majority != right on Wikipedia. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:21
              • True, majority does not mean right, but neither does minority. We've tried our best to reply to your comments; I'm pretty sure that we've answered to all your comments already. Is there any point that you think we didn't respond to? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course minority != right. I never said it did, nor did I try to push the talk page in that direction. You have not answered why Rosa Parks and Peter Jennings are alright, but a former president is not alright. You have not said why you don't think the president of Estonia merits a separate article for his death/funeral ceremony, as did Ronald Reagan, as is a requirement for criterion #5. You have not really replied to any of my rationale, except to say that most of the deaths that were previously added occurred before the guideline was added, but you ignore the fact that guidelines are descriptions of how things have gone in the past. I would say, that if you actually agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, then you should ignore the replies that are simply votes and do not add any constructive content (Violetriga, Mike H). — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:29
                  • I never said that you said minority equals right; I'm simply pointing out a counterargument to the fact that majority does not always equal right. Regarding your points: PFHLai and Golbez have already responded in great detail to your questions above, and so have I, even though my argument differs from their opinions. I've never argued that anyone included in the past should have been included; I'm looking at the current case, and arguing that his death has no great political or international implications. We're not bound by precedent, and as the others have pointed out, the guidelines in question weren't written yet at that time; thus, how could the inclusion of the deaths violate a nonexistant guideline? Regarding the comments of others - everyone here has tried their best to express their opinions, even if it's just agreeing with past sentiments. I hope this clarifies things. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Minority != right" is not a counterargument to "majority != right", because the original argument was actually addressing a claim you were trying to make, repeatedly, by saying I was going against a "vast majority" without adding any constructive content. If I had even tried to claim that "I am therefore right because I am in the minority", then you could have said minority != right... You still have yet to say why his death/funeral doesn't merit its own article, as Ronald Reagan's did, and is the other possible requirement for Criterion 5, which says people's deaths must either be important or merit their own articles.... You still have not said why Rosa Parks was allowed, but the president of Estonia is not. Her death definitely occurred after the guideline was added, and Peter Jennings death likely occurred while the guideline was being devised.... As for your fellow supporters, I highly doubt that "I say remove" is trying one's best to reply... — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:55
                      • Well, since an article on his death/funeral has not been written yet, let's pose the question: why would it merit a separate article? Is there enough information and notability to warrant another article, given that it hasn't been written yet? Regarding the inclusion of Rosa Parks - have I not made my point clear earlier? Apologies if I haven't, but I haven't argued for the inclusion and/or exclusion of any past deaths; we're not bound by precedent, and we're looking at this case, not the death of Rosa Parks. By the way, please, assume good faith on the part of everyone here; people may simply agree with the above arguments. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Reagan didn't get a funeral article until almost a year after he died. I'm not sure Meri has even had a funeral yet. In any case, being the former president of a nation, I would say that his death/funeral ceremony do merit their own article, although the necessary content to make it a decent article may not yet exist. Regardless of whether the article exists yet, it does merit being created, and so fulfills the other option for Criterion 5... You follow guidelines that are created based on past actions, but claim not to follow precedent? Why exactly have you decided not to follow precedent, and why should I not follow precedent?... As for your claim that I am not assuming good faith, I am simply identifying those who have not provided constructive content to the discussion. I'm sure their votes were made in good faith, but voting is not consensus. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:16
                          • It's clear that this argument is getting us nowhere, as I'm pretty sure I've already addressed those points earlier. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. However, regardless of your opinion, most people here (in fact, everyone except for you and perhaps JIP) agree that the item should not be included. We've had a long discussion, and we've all addressed every one of your points already. I apologize if we haven't replied to your satisfaction, but we've all done our best, and most of us here agree that the item should not be included. There's simply no reason to continue including it at this point. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • So you are resorting back to democracy, and claiming that this discussion is going nowhere? I thought the discussion was finally becoming productive. I told you why I believed Meri's death/funeral merited their own article, but you have not replied to that. I asked you why we don't follow precedent, but you have not answered that. Can you reply to either of these, at least? I don't understand what your rush is to remove the entry; if you say that we don't follow precedent, then it shouldn't matter how long it takes to discuss its inclusion/removal, provided that we actually come to a reasoned conclusion, rather than a majority=right conclusion. You are, after all, a mediator. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:37
                              • (ec) Apologies if I didn't make this clear earlier, but I thought I did: not only are we not bound by precedent, but we can't just look at several individual cases in the past. It is possible that we made a mistake back then on including them; I haven't said that I supported - or have not supported - the inclusion of the deaths of those figures in the past. In any case, as the others have pointed out above, each individual case has its own unique circumstances; for the circumstances of this particular death, I still fail to see the international and political consequences of this death. Regarding his death meriting an article: I don't feel that his death merits an article, and judging from the comments of the other participants in this discussion, they don't either. Just because someone is notable does not mean that his/her death merits a separate article. Unless the death draws significant poltical and/or international notice and the funeral is exceptional, it does not merit mentioning; in addition, as I've pointed out before, this is a hypothetical article that hasn't been written yet. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Finally! A decent reply :) My mentioning previous instances (Peter Jennings and Rosa Parks) wasn't as a means to justify this article being included, but an attempt to re-examine what past rationale were and whether they actually were notable deaths. I don't believe Rosa Parks or Peter Jennings received significant political/international notice to warrant their inclusion in the template. I would suggest that we modify the criterion to remove the ambiguous content and state explicitly that only people who were in an office of power when they died, or who were key figures in their field and died unexpectedly or tragically, be included in the template. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:56
                                  • OK, so what you're arguing is that the guidelines should be modified? How about we compromise - since the death doesn't fit the guidelines now, we remove it for now, and then we can discuss the issue with the guidelines. For what it's worth, I agree with you that the guidelines could be modified. Does that sound reasonable? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • That is fine with me. I'm just trying to prevent the systematic bias that has clearly been a part of the history of this template, as evidenced by my list above. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 19:02
                                      • OK, great! I'll go ahead and remove it now. Also, I apolgoize if at any time in this discussion if I was blunt or if I didn't make myself clear; this was a rather long debate and it certainly wasn't my intention to be ambigious or tactless. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(De-indenting) I disagree with the result but am glad there is one. I am hoping that when the guidelines are revised, they're made sensible enough to allow mentions of deaths of famous, prominent, respected former Heads of State even though they've never been involved in controversial war crime trials. JIP | Talk 19:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I haven't argued my point here doesn't make my view less valid. I'm actually constrained by time and am not able to argue about petty things like this. Fact of the matter is that there were more people thinking it didn't warrant inclusion than thinking it did. You edit warred on a Main Page template. violet/riga (t) 10:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You also edit warred on a main page template; the only difference being that I was involved in discussion while you kept edit warring and continued to remain out of the discussion. Again, if all you are able to provide is your own personal vote, you should not bother to involve yourself in the discussion; this is not RFA or FPC. Not having enough time for involved discussion is not a valid excuse, as there are plenty of other people able to contribute constructively to the situation. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-16 13:49

Comment

Even though I am not Estonian, it feels kind of sad to see how much controversy Lennart Meri's death on ITN has caused in less than one day. Regardless of his eligibility to ITN, Meri was a highly respected political figure, and his death was a sad thing to happen (as is pretty much anyone's death). I'm glad this will remain a Wikipedia internal matter. If it would leak out into the public media it would taint Meri's memory. JIP | Talk 11:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If which part leaked? The fact that people don't want him on ITN, or the fact that they're alright with Rosa Parks and Peter Jennings, but not him? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 17:00
    • I was pretty much referring to this entire edit war. When viewed from the world outside Wikipedia, we seem to be arguing like a bunch of schoolchildren. This is not a good way to remember a well-respected politician. JIP | Talk 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about the discussion makes you think that it looks like a bunch of schoolchildren? Is it the length? The content? Please be more specific. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 18:19
        • Mainly the length, about 8 pages in 24 hours so far. This should have been settled with much fewer arguments. JIP | Talk 19:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the rush? I would rather that the rationale be thoroughly discussed and all sides agree, or at least agree to disagree, before removing content from a template that is so public and is only editable by admins. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 19:04

Main page redesign

Why don't we do like the German Wikipedia and just leave a different space for 2-3 notable deaths on the front page? Would solve this problem -- except for the new debates about notability. Tfine80 20:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idatirod?

Is this really news? I'd suggest restoring the note on Venezuala's flag, which is actually quite interesting, as it is convention only to include the most notable of sports. Case in point, people even hesitated about mentioning the 2006 Commonwealth Games. Harro5 08:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My general feeling is, if the sporting event is notable to enough have its own article, then it has a chance. Not an automatic one, but still. Also, I would not have hesitated on the Commonwealth games. --Golbez 08:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Iditarod is a big event in the Arctics, even though it's not notable in countries with no snow. The wikieditors involved always do a good job on those pages. I've put it at the bottom on ITN. It will be the first one to get off when a new item comes in. The Commonwealth Games should go on ITN, but I'm not doing daily updates this time. -- PFHLai 09:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TGN1412...

"Six young men are in intensive care after taking immuno-modulatory drug TGN1412." How is this noteworthy? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ITN is for decent articles that detail current events. This event has had decent news coverage, and according to the original submitter, our article is now the best source of information on the topic. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-16 23:25
  • I just want to add that the Wikipedia article is still the best article on the subject (at least that I have seen). There has been so much misinformation in other reporting on the mechanism of action, and the Wikipedia article collects a lot of facts from many different sources. Also, the story is still development at a face pace.

Larry's Picture

Could someone apply the proper copyright tags to Image:10003427yl6sp.jpg (probably {{GFDL-self}} ?) and get it {{mprotected}}, please ? It's on the Main Page right NOW. Thanks. -- 199.71.174.100 23:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a free pic of Larry: Image:20060319.1541.aqua1.x.geoir.17PLARRY.90kts-954mb-177S-1482E.jpg. --199.71.174.100 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's protected. Shimgray | talk | 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A big thank you to Shimgray & The Tom. I hate to see vandalism on Main Page...... -- 199.71.174.100 01:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Larry -> Cyclone Larry

The link should be to the latter. Larry's page was titled contrary to naming conventions for articles on Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclones as established at Cyclone Tracy and Cyclone Zoe. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 20 March 2006 @ 00:05 (UTC)

Tense of Commonwealth Games entry

Shouldn't the 2006 Commonwealth Games entry be in the present tense to match with the rest of the box? Melchoir 00:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Splashtalk 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Although... isn't "Australia sweeps" more natural than "Australia sweep"? Melchoir 01:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh interesting. I think I was using Australia as a kind of collective noun (or something) i.e. referring to the team rather than the country. -Splashtalk 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one getting sick of Australia absolutely owning every event? Case in point, the fact that we can do this and still be absolutely factual. I think we need to branch off into a separate Australian Wikipedia to recognise our dominance. Harro5 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is a little surprising to me that Portal:Australia/News doesn't even mention the Games. Well, whatever. Melchoir 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the opening ceremony, that is. (ahem) Okay, that's all, folks! Melchoir 01:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Commonwealth Games entry

Lead item wording

Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected in the Belarusian Presidential elections as President of Belarus amid widespread condemnation.

We should reword it thus imho: Alexander Lukashenko (pictured) is re-elected as president in the Belarusian Presidential elections amidst widespread condemnation of the election's validity.

Could someone with edit priviledges sort this out. 137.222.10.67 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Golbez 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laila Freivalds news item wording.

Currently the item in question reads "Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns following the Muhammad cartoons controversy". Now, this isn't quite right because it suggests the resignation came about as a direct result of the cartoon controversy (suggesting the crisis was mishandled by the minister or something). According to several sources I've seen (this being fairly representative) she resigned because of continuing questions over the Swedish response to the Asian tsunami and after admitting she knew about her ministry's role in closing the website of a political party that contained the controversial cartoons. I suggest it be reworded as “Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister Laila Freivalds resigns over allegations that she played a role in closing down the website of the Sweden Democrats which had contained controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad”. Mikker ... 18:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: there are two Mohammad cartoon controversies. (1) The worldwide protests sparked by the publication of cartoons widely seen as blasphemous in a Danish newspaper (see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy). (2) The controversy over the alleged censorship of the Sweden Democrats website. Freivalds resigned because of (2) not (1). Mikker ... 18:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mikker, the controversy in Sweden is certainly a separate event, but the part of it connected to the cartoons is so closely connected to the global events, both in content and in principles of freedom of press, that if one decides to call it two events, would it not be better to call (2) : Leila Freivalds resignation? After all, most journalists in Swedish radio and television clearly consider this just to be the last drop after what they consider the much bigger scandal of her alleged mishandling of the Tsunami help. Hearing their analysis, the cartoons themselves dwindle into insignificance. The fascinating story of how her lie was made obvious by the boring "Riksdag & Department" looking at public internal papers is much more a part of the story than the cartoons themselves. DanielDemaret 08:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC) As for there being two cartoon controversies: One might argue that there are many connected cartoon controversies.DanielDemaret 08:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, and yes, your news-link is very representative. Good choice there, Mikker.DanielDemaret 08:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I just read Splash take on it, and of course, the cartoons referred to where different, which of course they are. I assume this is what you meant when referring to the events as separate, and what I wrote above became superfluous.DanielDemaret 08:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the wording allegations I may have missed something, Mikker. Is it not clear what her role was by reading "Riksdag & Deparment"? She knew that a civil servant of UD intended to contact thos responsible for the web, and she at least tacitly approved of it. The events seem clear, not alleged. The legal implications are unclear, as they always are, of course. Can it really be against the constitution just to have a chat explaining the harm the web page could cause? I think it is against the constitution, but a court would have to decide.DanielDemaret 08:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Alleged is usually used when someone denies what happened, and Leila is did not actually hear Leila deny the allegations at her resignation talk.DanielDemaret 08:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is always a good thing to be cautious about such matters, especially on a high traffic site such as Wikipedia. I think "alleged" should stay even if you think (like me) that she probably did intervene improperly. We can let readers make up their own minds. Besides, WP:NPOV would also suggest "allegedly". Mikker ... 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o. The question, I suppose, is not whether or not she indirectly intervened in any way, but whether or not it was improperly done. Alleged, it is then. DanielDemaret 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Baseball Classic

The Japan-Cuba game was the finals of the World Baseball Classic, an event that started a while ago. Also, I think it's somewhat strange to say "in the U.S. state of California" -- not only does almost everybody know where California is, but considering the size of the state, it's better to refer to the city (San Diego). -- Mwalcoff 01:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've updated this accordingly to simply say "in San Diego, California". -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you also add the words "finals of the" before "World Baseball Classic?" Thanks -- Mwalcoff 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus election

The link to Belarusian presidential election, 2006 was added to the "In the news" template late. By now the election is old news. The election occurred on March 19. Today is the 22nd. It should be removed or at least be moved down to the bottom. 172 | Talk 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The election may be old news, but there are ongoing protests. And since democrats everywhere are hoping for a Belarusian version of Ukraine's "Orange Revolution," I think the item should stay. (though, as you suggest, it shouldn't be in first spot). Mikker ... 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps instead a new Belarus-news to make it afresh? It is certainly a historical even in the long term, even if each and every part of the event seems small now. I'll just pick one more recent event from the list... like... this one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4843690.stm DanielDemaret 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or this http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Leader_of_Belarusian_Opposition_arrested ?
Or perhaps this ? http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Violence%2C_arrests_end_Minsk%2C_Belarus_protests ?

The protesters have told reporters that their lives may depend on the reporters of the west staying a bit longer on them. DanielDemaret 23:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add non-breaking spaces between numbers and units

That is all, thanks :) porges 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Rahman (convert)

It says "a capital crime under Islamic law". To be more accurate it should acknowledge that it is a fiqh ruling... since fiqh is human effort to follow the Sharia... the Sharia is more of a vague concept. So, we should say "a capital crime under Afghani government fiqh ruling" or something. except... is it clear if it's codified law? It is an interpretation of sharia... and a very notable interpretation... but, saying it is sharia is... well, ambiguous. gren グレン 03:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's false to say he was "acquitted", i.e. "found innocent". The case was dismissed for technical reasons, no verdict was ever issued. Babajobu 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't describe anything remotely resembling an acquittal. Could an admin please fix the ITN template. Phr 20:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording now. Please let me know if the wording is clear now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's certainly better now. I think it doesn't have to be "clear" as much as "not wrong". People wanting clarity can read the article. Phr 23:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it should (hopefully) be both. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I see the article itself is in a pretty confused state right now. I'm sure people are busily working on it and will sort it out quickly. Phr 23:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial fake holidays

Nominations for in the news follow specified criteria and are approved for placement by others if they have merrit. Who said World Intellectual Property Day is a holiday? After comments below:

Please stop nominating trivial fake holidays for ITN. --Golbez 09:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Gregorydavid 09:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your semantic argument has no purpose, none of your recent nominations have fit the ITN criteria. --Golbez 09:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling in note about french protests

The item about the protests in France refers to protestors. According to dict.org the correct spelling is protester. Phr 19:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006 now on AfD

Solar eclipse on 29 March 2006 is currently on AfD. Should it stay on ITN ? Do we have a policy against featuring such articles on the MainPage ? --PFHLai 19:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been on AfD before it was put there, I wouldn't have put it there. However, it seems like it will survive handily. However, it could still be confusing for it to have the large template there, but I don't think it's that too large a problem. --Golbez 21:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorisation of USA

Why is it "NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency" and not the other way round? As far as I know, Russia has more to do with this space launch than NASA. So why are Americans always placed first? Voyevoda 23:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because we like to see people accuse us of a pro-US bias. --Golbez 23:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to point, that was the format I was given. However, the commander is Russian and the craft is Russian. If someone else wants to change it, I won't stop them, but I don't see a pressing requirement to. Anyway, NASA comes first in the alphabet, which could be considered the most neutral way of handling it. --Golbez 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt, that in cases where USA is the most involved side, the alphabetical order is followed. Voyevoda 23:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We do have that convenient "American" bit we can whip out, don't we. You are not assuming good faith. --Golbez 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction

The following headline..

A newspaper critical of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra agreed to stop publishing for five days amid protests about the way it referred to the King of Thailand.

...should be...

A newspaper critical of Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has agreed to stop publishing for five days amid protests about the way it referred to the King of Thailand.

No biggie, but still.  :) Nuge | talk 15:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On it. --Golbez 16:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mistake came back ! Should be "agrees".

Picture

It happens so often that the newsitem concering the picture is not immediately adjacent to the pic itself. Any reason why this is? It has confused me often, and a lot of anons as well judging from the reactions. Could this be remedied?

Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 19:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A (pictured) is usually placed to clarify what the image is for, and a description should also show up when the mouse is hovered over the image. The news items are placed in reverse chronological order; I'm not sure if moving up a news item because it has an appropriate picture would be suitable. Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that (pictured) indicates the news item which is pictured. However, in practice it is confusing nontheless. Comments such as this one are regular reoccurences on the discussion page. Apparently, the notice that something is (pictured) is not prominent enough.
I understand that, in general, we should use news items in reverse chronological order (thats what makes it news and not olds :-) ). But why hold stringently to a rule if it makes the Main Page less clear to inexperienced users?
Cheers, The Minister of War (Peace) 12:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argh!

Argh! Somebody correct the picture! That is not Moussaoui! The Minister of War (Peace) 12:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here to correct it!? Argh! The Minister of War (Peace) 12:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The 'pictured' note was moved to the previous entry. Ergo, it isn't Moussaoui, but the text no longer says it is either. --CBDunkerson 12:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was just changed [1]. It actually did say Moussaoui was pictured. The Minister of War (Peace) 12:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Ok, I see from the history that the changes to picture and text took place ~15 minutes apart. Hence the various comments on the mismatch. By the time I looked it was resolved by UtherSRG. --CBDunkerson 12:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Sign Language

An administrator needs to change this - NZSL is not yet an official language of New Zealand, at least not yet. The front page is misleading - yes, Parliament did pass the act, but it needs to recieve Royal Assent from the executive before actually becomining an offial language. I also posted something about it on the Administrators' Noticeboard. You can see more discussion NZSL's talk page, or on my talk page. Thanks, zappa 02:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just tweaked the template, changing "making..." into "to make ...". Hope it's better now. -- PFHLai 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The act did receive Royal Assent on Monday, so it became law on Tuesday. -- Avenue 01:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too late now. The item is no longer on ITN. -- PFHLai 20:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flood in Serbia

Pls see my response on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 00:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Jama Masjid Blasts

The 2006 Jama Masjid Blasts looks like a good candidate for Main Page. It is already listed on the Main Page of Wikinews. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see my response on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv Bombing

Why was there no mention of the Tel Aviv suicided bombing that killed 9 civilians nor mention of Hamas' refusal to condemn the act? That certainly should have made the front page. —Aiden 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a substantial update to an article about it? ITN is not a news list, it's a list of newsworthy updates to the pedia. --Golbez 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McCarthy CIA Firing

She wasn't fired for disclosing "black sites". She was fired for allegedly leaking classified information. It has not been dsiclosed what that information is. Wikipedia is reporting the speculation about what she was fired for, not the facts. --Tbeatty 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The leak pertained to stories on the CIA’s rumored secret prisons in Eastern Europe, sources told NBC. [2] Raul654 16:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly Mary O. McCarthy" ? If it's not certain, we shouldn't put rumours on MainPage. Perhaps the page to be updated and the link to be bolded should be black site ? -- PFHLai 17:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rumor. The CIA won't say who it is, but a number of other sources have. Hence, "reportedly". Raul654 17:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it's unofficial ? Hmmm... still not convinced this is ITN material.
BTW, please see ITN guideline #1 and Template talk:In the news #How to suggest a story for the main page #2, and add the blurb to Current events with 1 or 2 external newslinks. (I'm getting tired of enforcing guidelines....) -- PFHLai 18:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV with Bersculoni piece

May I suggest you remove the loaded word of "still" (refuses to concede) from the news brief of the Italian election. BlueGoose 12:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem

"House of Representatives" should probably like to Nepal House of Representatives and not Parliament of Nepal, or the link to it changed. 68.39.174.238 15:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highlighting item with picture

I noticed an attempt to highlight the news item that goes with the picture. [3] I remember seeing some discussion about it, and all supportive of the general idea. But the particular implementation didn't look right to me. I suggest making a draft template and work on getting it perfected - Template:In the news/highlight. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Flag of the Solomon Islands
Flag of the Solomon Islands
  • As King Gyanendra of Nepal continues to reform his country's government in response to weeks of pro-democratic protests, Girija Prasad Koirala is appointed as Prime Minister of Nepal.
  • Three explosions hit Dahab, a tourist town on Sinai Peninsula, Egypt.
  • President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lifts a 27-year ban against women attending public sporting events in Iran.
  • Darwin, Australia is spared a projected direct hit by Cyclone Monica, one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.

    • Wikinews – Recent deaths – More current events...

    The above is what [4] I came up with so far, including highlighting behind the bullet point and the image. It's still not quite right to me, but something to work with. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 23:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    minor grammar error

    In the part about the Great American Boycott, "continues" should be "continue". Thanks, zappa.jake (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed already. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    British elections/reshuffle

    Currently we've got this on ITN:

    After significant losses in English local elections, the British Labour Party government will see a major cabinet reshuffle.

    Seems to me that there are 2 major problems with the wording, it should be in the past tense as the significant part of it has now happened and I think it would be hard to argue that the government has done the reshuffling as not even Gordon Brown was involved. I propose this as the new wording:

    After significant losses in English local elections, British Labour Party Prime Minister Tony Blair conducts a major cabinet reshuffle.

    Ian3055 12:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Direct links to Wikinews Articles

    I have been discusisng this over on Wikinews, but it seems that they do not control the Wikinews box on Wikipedia. So, I am posting this here. This is my original query and proposal:

    Why do the Wikinews stories not have direct links to those stories? Clicking the Wikinews link takes you to the list of stories and I never seem to be able to find the story I am looking for. I think the bullet should link directly to the Wikinews story. I think that the logical idea that someone gets from that section is that you can read the news you are interested by clicking somewhere in that blurb, but there is nowhere to get to that story. When you go to the main page of Wikinews, you almost never can find the article you are interested. I propose that the bullet should be the link to the story.

    Can this be done? Otherwise I think it is useless to have such a section on the main page. But maybe I am just being picky.

    Cyferx 03:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing is, this isn't really supposed to be a Wikinews box. Although most people probably (quite fairly) assume that this feature exists as a handy newsfeed, it technically isn't. Rather, it's a subtly-different creature—a means of highlighting articles that concern subject matter that is, so to speak, in the news—demonstrating Wikipedia's non-paper ability to be up-to-the minute. Perhaps this could/should be made more explicit, because it's an ongoing issue in terms of a lot of items being submitted to it that don't contain substantially-updated articles. The Tom 04:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Then Wikinews should be removed from the box and it should be called something other than "in the news" which immediately brings to mind that you can read that as a news story. I think it is perfectly harmless, and quite useful to have it link directly to Wikinews stories. The fact that it doesn't seems to be actually dysfunctional in this hyperlinked world. It simply isn't intuitive that you cannot read the news story that generated that mention. Cyferx 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm somewhat curious if the title Topics in the news might make the feature's significance more clear. The Tom 02:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    mine collapse main page worthy?

    It's just yet another mine collapse. It is notable, but how many mine collapses were there this year? Plenty, I would think. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 01:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    extra period

    There are two periods on at the end of the second entry. Not life threatening, but a bit annoying.--72.146.173.79 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Rephrasing item on Darfur conflict

    The current section indicates that the Sudanese government and the SLA rebels have signed a peace accord "to end the Darfur conflict." This language might mislead some readers into thinking that the peace accord in fact ends the conflict. That is not true; whether there is peace or continued conflict depends on future actions of the parties to the conflict. I suggest changing the language to something less definitive, such as "with respect to the Darfur conflict." (My suggestion is a bit awkward; but I feel that it's on the right track. Perhaps someone will come up with better wording.) -Scottwiki 23:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=52399951"