Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 1a

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


The photo on the main page is not Abu Abbas and must be changed. Adam 06:16, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's Costas Caramanlis. RickK 06:19, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes I know that but the text beside it refers to Abu Abbas. Adam 06:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please take out the picture of the dude and his piece.


Can someone replace the Spanish flag on the Main page with this one by User:Pfortuny? Miguel 18:19, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)

File:Ribboned spain.png
Did you miss the edit link at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page? It is under the current version box. --mav 07:15, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Behind the news?

OK, I'll bring it up here since this is apparently the place instead of in the Main Page discussion (although I had no clue this was here... live and learn...): I've thought for a while that the heading should be "Behind the news" or "Background for the news"; "In the news" has always made me think that if I click a link I'll read the news, which isn't so; it's background for the news. Elf | Talk 04:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is that the sentences below the heading are news summaries, not background for the news topics. One has to click on the bolded terms to get the background. So the way we have it now (and the way it has been for a very long time) is a listing of article topics that are 'in the news', not behind it. --mav 07:39, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The featured article excerpt on the Main Page is just an excerpt, not the actual featured article. You have to click on the bolded link to get there. In fact, before the current generation Main Page, we just had links on the MP, no actual content whatsoever. Clearly, the headlines do not just refer to the content on the Main Page itself. I think "Behind the news" is more accurate, as none of the bolded links lead to news articles, but to background information about the news. It is also more appropriate for an encyclopedia.--Eloquence* 08:00, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
I also didn't know this discussion was here... I think "Behind the News" is more appropriate, and no less accurate. All the same, I also think each news blurb (both in ITN and on Current events) should include an external link to a source news article, for verification/further immediate "News" (and not background) details. +sj+ 08:22, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)
Agree with the former, a link to an external news story would be great. Behind the news/in the news, I see the argument but I frankly see it as a matter of semantics. Alex 00:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Insular headlines

Is it me, or are most of the "In The News" headlines inevitably Americocentric? There has to be a lot that is much more important than the fact Moore's documentary has attracted a lot of attention in the States, and that's not the only example; only a couple of days ago we were reading about the Jeri Ryan "scandal". The general policy of only putting up headlines that link to comprehensive articles induces a closed circle of options, in my opinion: comprehensive news-related articles are often focused on American interests or written from an Anglo-American perspective, so putting up a link to, say, the Darfur conflict in Sudan, or the Bolshoi Theatre in Moscow, means linking to a semi-complete article which will sooner or later be pulled down because it does not show Wiki in its best colours (the articles I linked to the ICC/Congo and the Kashmir dispute yesterday were promptly pulled down.) This also means that articles that need work stay relatively neglected. The possibility of attracting new users with specialised interests who may be able to improve those articles and round out Wikipedia also diminishes. Could we at least change the latter policy, ie link headlines to incomplete articles? We do admit to being an open-content encyclopedia after all. -- Simonides 13:32, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem, and the Senate scandal was an egregious example. However, keep in mind that events with regard to the U.S. often do have high international significance because the U.S. government is quite powerful and has its hands in places all over the globe. Fahrenheit 9/11 is an example of this, although not the most powerful one. This is a film being viewed by a record-setting number of people and may have a significant influence on the presidential election, which I hope I need not say is of tremendous influence in the world. Note also that it was the winner of the Palme d'Or international film award. It is recieving "top story" news coverage internationally. It is currently listed as a "Top Story" on the BBC website, it is a top story on the websites of the Guardian and of the Times (UK), it is on the front page of the websites of the Telegraph, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, and al Jazeera. In fact, at the moment it has higher billing on non-U.S. websites than sites such as the NY Times, the Washington Post, and CNN.
So, this particular item is appropriate, and generally U.S.-centered news stories often have international importance simply because of the balance of power in the world. - Centrx 18:16, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply Centrx, but I think you just offered an example of Americocentrism. Not that such a thing is inherently bad - the majority of people see the world filtered through the politics and culture of their immediate environment - but the point, when working on an international site, is to control it as much as possible. While I'm pleased to hear that long known political facts are finally being popularised enough to reach a broad audience in America, I personally think the conflicts in Sudan and Congo, which have resulted in many thousands of deaths, are at least as important as Moore's box office record. -- Simonides 19:59, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Huh. How large a problem is this really? Right now, for example, the front page shows two American stories (both with strong international implications), and two clearly non-American stories. That's probably as good as you're going to get, given that this is the English Wikipedia, and a rather considerable portion of the world's native English-speakers live in America. (And America really is the most important nation. Bow down before our might, ye petty vassals! ::grin::) Or does this indicate a shift since this thread started, or is it simply non-normative? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:33, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is a problem. Simonides brings up exactly what I brought up when the new front page was unveiled for the first time earlier this year -- the impact it has on newcomers and casual browsers. English does not equal American. English is a language, and it has increasingly become the common language of the world. As such, our front page should be very conscious to have global views. This is the risk of the new design, that passersby will simply dismiss Wikipedia has some Ameri-centric project. That would be a shame, because only half the articles in the entire Wikipedia are English, and additionally not all English contributors are American. Remember, the URL we give out to the press or to friends is www.wikipedia.org. That lands at the English Wikipedia. That means the English Wikipedians have an extra responsibility to make sure the "news" page has as inclusive a set of articles as possible. (It's no secret my desire is to reduce the "newspaper" design of the front page because of this, but that's another battle) Fuzheado | Talk 23:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't claiming that America *should* be disproportionately represented, just that realistically there's probably going to be some of that. But to be clear--you're saying that our current set of headlines, one about the Supreme Court ruling on detention at Guantanamo, one on a new beheading, one on the transfer of power in Iraq, one on Serbia, and one on Pakistan, is too "Ameri-centric"? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:00, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, all English speaking non/Americans who think English is restricted to the US and UK should get this straight: English has official or special status in at least seventy five countries with a total population of over two billion - just in case someone wanted to bring up the lame argument that since mostly Americans speak English, it's what we should focus on. Secondly, would we would be reading about (the US Supreme Court ruling at) Guantanamo Bay, or (the US transfer of power in) Iraq, even if the US hadn't shoved its foot down a few thousand throats in those places? That reminds me of a message board I used to post on, which had members from all the world - they were discussing Kabul. This was sometime in August 2001. An American poster asked what Kabul was. Less than a month later, not only did most Americans know what Kabul was, they more or less knew where it was too. I'm not saying that American poster was representative of Americans in general - but I hope it does illustrate my point that even foreign news can be Americocentric. -- Simonides 01:17, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(BTW, I don't at all disagree with the proposition that Ameri-centrism is bad; I'm just playing devil's advocate in the interest of clarity) Now, while I'm well aware that English is spoken in all sorts of places, I'm still guessing that most of the users on the English Wikipedia are going to be American. (Some of the reasons for this are, of course, more sinister than others.) And this is simply going to produce an imbalance of interest that's going to remain as a functional reality, methinks. I'm saying de facto, not de jure. Wikipedia has to grow organically out of the interests of its users, and I think to say that, "We have American news, so we won't attract non-American users," is reversing things. Perhaps we should be discussing strategies for the active recruitment of a broader user base, so that we don't have to artificially correct our public face.
Now, your second claim is completely irrelevant--the US's quasi-imperialistic practices (and I am happy to call them that) may indicate an Ameri-Centrist policy stance. In fact, I think that's pretty clear. But nonetheless, they're news to everybody. I'm all about making America less interesting, particularly in areas involving lots of death, but the fact is, it is. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:32, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Kukkurovaca, I know and agree that Americocentrism is a natural outcome of having a majority of Americans here on an American-created and hosted site and that it will probably remain a functional reality. My point is - so what? If this is going to be an encylopedia which pretends to neutrality and professionalism then we necessarily have to acknowledge a skewed perspective and work against it when and where possible. Yes, articles will grow out of the interests of their users. Does that make every single perspective, or some kind of ethnocentrism valid? No. So is what you call "artificial correction" necessary? Yes. At every step. That is part of what editors do at Wikipedia - point out NPOV, make articles inclusive of little known perspectives & info, and so on. We should be discussing strategies, true, but are you? I have already suggested that we change the rule about linking to comprehensive articles; I don't notice any response to that possible strategy so far.
My second claim is entirely in keeping with my first, but you failed to understand it. In pretending to provide "international news" you are simply linking to international news that is important to Americans, which confirms Americocentrism. Today, again, we have another example: a Marine has been killed in Iraq by militants. Well, of course that's depressing, but what about the Iraqi civilians who are dying daily because of the American invasion? How come that doesn't crop up on the Template either? Why isn't that "news to everybody" too? What about the daily murders in other conflict-ridden areas in Asia, Africa and South America where even important personalities on those continents don't often make it to the Template simply because they are not well known among Americans? I welcome Devil's Advocates, but you need to have a defensible argument in the first place; Americocentrism on an international encyclopedia is not defensible and it needs correction rather than compliant apathy. I would change it everyday, but 1) last time I tried, most of the stuff disappeared pronto; 2) I can't do it everyday. So more people need to be aware and active about it. -- Simonides 21:04, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I've said before on Talk:Main Page, North American editors need to make a more conscious effort to seek out news topics outside North America so they get adequately represented. And adding lots of Iraq-related stories that have great significance to the US is not enough. We have, or used to have, a guideline for In the news that no more than one story should be centric to any particular country. What happened to it? --Michael Snow 21:20, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've found that telling other people they need to act better is rarely effective; it's hard to get other people to do things. I would say, rather, that those who are concerned about Americo-centrism should find more/better foreign news items. Realistically, it's the only way to fight this. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:38, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
True Meelar, but 1) one can't do all the News editing oneself; 2) tweaking current policies would help to alleviate the issue. Can we at least do the latter, ie include a note in the guidelines saying a) no more than one item per country & b) headlines may be linked to incomplete articles? -- Simonides 00:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, I would certainly object to policy number a) right off the start, and as I always say, why is that all of you anti-Americans always want us Americans to change? If you think there need to be more non-American news items, then, do something about it and quit trying to tell OTHER people to fix something that YOU think needs to be dealt with. Oh, but no, you're too busy. Well, guess what? Then bugger off. RickK 05:20, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
Congratulations on your recently acquired rhetorical skills, but 1) criticising Americocentrism does not equate to anti-Americanism; 2) everytime I change the articles (as I did today as well) they are changed back to the usual articles within a couple of hours, something I mentioned earlier. Now, the reasons for removal may be legitimate, but I do wonder why the same headlines that were removed have to be put back on - perhaps it's laziness; 3) if you object to policy a), you could tell us why. Try to construct an argument. Or would you prefer some delicate suggestions on what you too could be doing with your time? -- Simonides 06:51, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Don't worry about Rick. If you look at his wider contributions, its clear he means well. It took me a while to figure what his hysterical over-reactions ("All you anti-Americans...", "Is this an attempt to stop us from deleting ANYTHING?", "You are all happy for trolls to overrun the 'pedia" - paraphrasing a little) reminded me of.. then it hit me ... Rick is the Daily Mail of Wikipedia. It is probably good to have that sort of person around as well those lefty, liberal, anti-censorship, open sourcey types. Allows us to get all POVs in the creation process of the pedia, as well as in the content. Pcb21| Pete 12:03, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This may be peripheral to the main point, but I've thought for some time that "In the News", as it currently exists, does not fit on Wikipedia at all. There are any number of well-edited, professionally-vetted news sources out there and the Wiki cooperative approach does not lend itself well to breaking news -- there have been several instances of factual errors going uncorrected in "In the News". I also have a problem with "instant articles" trying to cover breaking news stories, but at least these are not on the main page. I think "In the News", if anything, ought to consist of bare links to people, places, etc. that are currently part of the news so folks getting news elsewhere can come here for context and background. Jgm 00:36, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right now there are 3 out of 4 domestic United States stories, of little interest to anyone outside of the USA. This isn't right. Mintguy (T) 21:31, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lives or lights?

Hurricane Ivan, now a tropical depression, brings flooding rains to the Southern U.S. Ivan has already pummeled Alabama and Florida with high winds and flooding rains, causing extensive structural damage, and leaving 1.5 million customers without electricity and at least 33 dead.

Is there a reason why we consider structural damage and loss of electricity to be more important than human lives? Sorry, just me being my obsessively pedantic self, although I do worry that others may think this report was trying to use logical development. Should the loss of human life be listed first? - Icurite 04:30, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Legionella genome unraveled

I've added this to the current events yesterday, and I've entered some info in the article just now. Is it of sufficient interest to feature on the main page? And if so, what else do I need to do? The article could use the attention. :) [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:41, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Richter scale outdated

The Richter scale is phased out and NO LONGER USED! The USGS would call it a "magnitude 6.9" earthquake.

Wikipedia feature in the Guardian

may I draw to your attention [1] which seems a fairly good write up - two pages in the G2 supplement to Tuesday's paper. Thought this should have a link on the main page.. dave souza 22:46, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"before conceding"?

The sentence "John Kerry is still waiting on the decisive count of votes in Ohio before conceding" seems to me to suggest that Kerry *will* eventually concede. That does not seem to be a neutral position. "John Kerry is still waiting on the decisive count of votes in Ohio before deciding whether or not to concede" would be less biased. --Palnatoke 15:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the news John Kerry concedes defeat in the 2004 U.S. presidential election as incumbent President George W. Bush is re-elected. See 2004 U.S. election in progress for a breakdown of results.

Why is the emphasis on this para about John Kerry? It seems that it should read "President George W. Bush is re-elected as John Kerry concedes defeat in the 2004 U.S. presidential election. See 2004 U.S. election in progress for a breakdown of results. ?

Added new criterion to ITN guidelines

In the light of Xed adding unsubstantiated claims to ITN that "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." - a claim supported only by a small number of fringe or fringe-ish outlets - I've added the following criterion:

  • 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.

Does this sound reasonable? -- ChrisO 13:16, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, "mainstream media" is a much too ambiguous term. And Google News is not a good measurement, especially since it only includes English sources (as far as I know), with their particular biases. — David Remahl 14:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Do we ever link to non-English language sources on Current events?
Indeed, this is the English wikipedia after all. If foreign language stories aren't being covered by English news sources, they probably aren't of international significance. ed g2stalk 17:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I think the bottom line is that we need to have some way of ensuring that ITN deals with verifiable and widely reported headline news in a NPOV fashion, rather than being dictated by partisan agendas or being based on unsubstantiated, unverified or fringe sources. Can you suggest another way of achieving that? -- ChrisO 16:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Seems POV. Define "mainstream media"! that's a value judgement. I may not agree with you on what mainstream is. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:23, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's one of those "I know it when I see it" kind of things... :-/ Ed's comments below highlight one key issue - that the stories should reflect front page news stories on widely distributed, high volume sources such as the BBC, CNN, high-circulation magazines and daily newspapers. In other words, major media outlets. The other key issue is that stories should be verifiable and credible. We shouldn't let ITN be used to promote fringe theories on behalf of partisans and ideologues of any side(s). I agree that this is to some extent a subjective issue, but it's essential if NPOV is to be enforced here. -- ChrisO 18:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "fringe-ish" outlets ChrisO mentions include the Jerusalem Post and Pravda. - Xed 14:46, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the JP article, that's another distortion of what I said on Template talk:In the news. I won't go into specifics here because it's not the right place to discuss your contributions. The Pravda article does directly address the claims you were trying to make but it falls into the unverified category that I mentioned above. You would think that if the story had any legs it might have been picked up by the international media - but try searching for "vanunu kennedy" on Google News and see what you get (answer: nothing relevant). It's exactly this kind of fringe speculation that needs to be kept out of ITN if it's to have any credibility. -- ChrisO 16:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Looking at Pravda's Russian-language webpage [2], it appears they have indeed become a "fringe-ish" outlet. Five main articles on Pravda's front page include an article on plastic surgery with sexually explicit pictures, an article about whether Joan of Arc was a virgin and a crime story about a Canadian who killed his wife while sleepwalking (in 1987). More like a National Enquirer with some X-rated content, than a serious news source. Andris 06:03, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think what is important is that they are front-page news stories, as this is our front page news. Other mainstream stories go on current events. I generally find ITN has similar stories to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm, http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/ and similar. The election controversy story listed the other day wasn't front page news anywhere. ed g2stalk 17:25, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He didn't say it had to be front page news - he simply said that other mainstream outlets have to say the same thing. I agree 100% with this proposal. →Raul654 18:45, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with the proposal and I would also agree with adding a "front-page" requirement. Andris 06:09, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I've revised the proposed new criterion to the following in response to the suggestions received so far:

  • The story must be well substantiated and covered by major media outlets such as broadcast media, major newspapers and/or magazines (i.e. no fringe sources, unsubstantiated blog entries etc). Stories should be findable on at least two major English-language sources through a contemporaneous Google News search.

-- ChrisO 19:06, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Generally, I like that rough criteria, which should be what we've been operating on for quite a while now. (If I may rant a bit:) At a gut level, I'm not a fan of Wikipedia offering news headlines; I think that each of our bullets are a bit long, and that we'd be better served by instead of having three or four "blurbs" with some level of detail and links which are really irrelevant to the story. Headlines shouldn't try too hard to provide context; that's what the articles are and should be for. For instance, currently ItN reads:

Côte d'Ivoire

I'd much rather see bullets like:

Côte d'Ivoire

Think CNN's news crawl, not the lead paragraph of a news article. Anyhow, that's just my thoughts. I think that the purpose of ItN should be to draw people *into* the articles, so why give away everything on the main page? -- Seth Ilys 19:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and I would like to re-enforce a statement on WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a news report. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories. But of course creating encyclopedia articles on topics currently in the news is an excellent idea." Therefore, information on the death of Yasser Arafat very clearly belongs in Yasser Arafat, and not Death of Yasser Arafat, which is an article which was created in response to current events and which can at best become no more than a news report. The same applies to 2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities. Dan | Talk 20:47, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree fully. Wikipedia is emphatically not here to promote stories that are allegedly being underreported in the mainstream media. We're here to build an encyclopedia of timeless importance, and the "in the news" section is just to highlight some of our good articles that happen to be of timely interest. They should never be poor articles, and never look like we're trying to manufacture news by promoting stories that aren't actually "in the news". Perhaps highlighting underreported stories should be something WikiNews does, but it shouldn't be something Wikipedia does. I'd much prefer we have links to 3-4 good articles (maybe not feature article quality, but very good ones) even if they aren't necessarily the top 3-4 news stories of the day. --Delirium 21:21, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

  • I, by and large, do not have any good reason to oppose ChrisO's new "criterion". The term "fringe sources", though, is entirely objective and as such is really not a good phrase for a "criterion". Also, the word contemporaneous sucks. Can't you use coinciding or some other something? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's a good point. I think the word you are looking for is congruous. I support ChrisO's proposal. --Viriditas 00:58, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "new criterion" is just a fraudulent attempt to delegitimise news which ChrisO doesn't like. Phrases like 'major media outlets' and 'mainstream media' are disingenuous since when these are provided he makes up a new rule. He has moved the goalposts several times - Xed 23:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree with Xed, especially considering many important events, such as the deaths/harassment/torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (many of which are civilians) are either completely ignored in most "mainstream sources" such as CNN and FOX, or are given extremely belated coverage or a single tiny casual reference. I could go on about Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, or that Bush and co. are war criminals (assuming Nuremburg trial precendents), but I don't think that is necessary. --lvlarx 16:29, 19 06 2024 (UTC)

addition that was removed

I've removed the following text from the guidelines, as it was not properly discussed prior to addition.

IMPORTANT: There should not be more than one headline relating to the same country, including the actions of that country when it occupies another. Please take the time to find news headlines from under-publicized regions as this helps to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia.

I personally object to this addition to the policy. If the two most important events in the world right now happen to be happening in the same country, we shouldn't tie our hands and not be able to promote our articles on both. Gentgeen 23:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Obviously, the two most important events in the world, if not all of them, will keep happening in the same country if the new guideline is not followed. It is meant to help idiots out of a psychological loop - that what is important is what they see on the news, forgetting that other people decide for them what is important. I don't want to continue a long tired discussion with newcomers to the topic - people less perturbed than Gentgeen are encouraged to look at the Template's talk page or the Village Pump (miscellaneous section). -- Simonides 12:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suggest you find links to these articles if you want that addition included. This (and ITN) has now been protected until you can support your amendment with a community decision. violet/riga (t) 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

News Anchor guy

How important is it that this Dan Rather is resigning? I have never heard of him or seen him, so I don't know if he may be important in some way, but it doesn't sound very important to me. --Dyss 08:45, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Template talk:In the news, where this is being discussed at some length... -- ChrisO 08:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see. It seems to have died down by now (not that strange, considering the time) though. -- 20:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

external links

i oppose use of non-wikipedia links on the "In the news section on the Main Page" page, *even* if it is to a sister project like wikinews. Kingturtle 20:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More about "Americocentric" bias

I think:

"In the news Amid violence and threats to boycott the results, Iraq holds an election for its National Assembly, the country's first free election since 1953."

...is politically biased in favour of America. There is no justification for a "news" report to support the American and British government's false claims. These elections are not and can not be free. The terrorist, mass murder and war crimes invasion of Iraq has been officially confirmed illegal by the UN. And so the "elections" are not free they are illegal. They are not free in other ways as they are not an election as acccepted by any proper law or international law. A large percentage of Iraqis have said they can't vote because they and their families will be killed by the people who America has installed to rule the them. Also if it's still true that polling is not in all areas then it is not a proper election at all let alone a free one.

Also it says:"Amid violence and threats to boycott the results". This makes it sound like the Americans are some kind of lawful and protecting force in Iraq, and that it is only the people that America has installed to rule the Iraqis who are using violence and threats against the Iraqis. It says noting about the violence and threats the Americans (and British soldiers), have and are carrying out against the people of Iraq.WikiUser 17:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you care to cite examples for your outlandish claims? Your claim that the Iraq government is killing voters is ludicrous, unless you think that the al-Zarqawi thugs are the lawful government of Iraq. The rest of your statements are equally out there, but let's not segue into a political debate. Can you point out any factual inaccuracies in the News blurb? "Amid violence (which has happened) and threats to boycott the results (these have come from some Sunni leaders), Iraq holds an election for its National Assembly (this occurred), the country's first free election since 1953 (this is a true statement)." What do you suggest adding or changing? Or do you just want to replace it with a statement like, "The American and British Zionist liars hold rigged elections to justify their illegal war crimes in Iraq. Anyone who voted against the American-endorsed candidates was slaughtered in the streets."? --Slowking Man 23:09, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
You forgot Poland again. Gentgeen 23:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
To Slowking Man: I didn't make any outlandish claims. The news headline was fundamentaly biased and if I had just asked, par for the course it would have likely been ignored. I had to give my reasons and I gave some of them. No outlandish claims-UN have international lawyers who know int. law and after good long deliberation UN offially announced war illegal.

I can't understand your other stuff. Why do u say "point out"? My whole post consisted of me pointing out what wrong with headline "not free elections". I already said what needed changing. I wonder if Americans see the war on TV like we do in Britain. Bush made it ilegal to photograph the coffins of the men who he had ordered to die "for America".

"Your claim that the Iraq government is killing voters is ludicrous, unless you think that the al-Zarqawi thugs are the lawful government of Iraq." I never claimed the Iraqi 'government' was itself killing them. The Iraqi 'government' is not legal; put in place by illegal invaders. I'm against all deaths in Iraq.

By "that it is only the people that America has installed to rule the Iraqis who are using violence and threats" I meant the "insurgents". I meant American government's (Britain's not of much importance), anarchy state iis not necessary. When any other war has been won there's been more law and order than is the norm-not anarchy.WikiUser 20:05, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree......sort of

I agree with ChrisO that articles need more substantiation, but who dictates that? Who dictates what constitutes "fringe"? Also, phrases like "major news outlets" bother me because i think it's reasonable to suggest that they have agendas of there own that they're pursuing...so with that said it's difficult to think that what's bieng said is truthful and not just slanted information. However, Xed i think you bieng far too belligerent about this... easy does it.

order of in the news items

shouldn't the iran event be more prominent than the christening of a sub? (should it be on top?) Kevin Baastalk 20:06, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Texas City Refinery Explosion

Revised (and I believe final) body count is 15 [3]. Also, the FBI has ruled out Terrorism as a cause.

Small crit

When I went to add something to In the news today, after many months (maybe a year) since my last addition, I was surprised how hard it was to find this page, and the instruction creep that has ensued. This is not to say the system is flawed, but I'm surprised by how convoluted it's become. Fuzheado | Talk 00:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add the WTO ruling to the news section



Jack Abramoff, a key figure in a scandal related to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, is indicted on wire fraud charges. News like this needs a country like is done with Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar is shot dead by a sniper in Colombo. and Salva Kiir Mayardit is sworn in as the Vice-President of Sudan, succeeding the late John Garang.. We don't expect people to know the foreign minister of shri lanka or the vice-president of sudan but we need to know that news about some lobbyist comes from the united states by recognizing his name? Someone with the privileges to do so should edit it. -- 00:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

photo of Harriet Miers

The photo being used of Harriet Miers is not recent. I am switching it to a photo of this week. Kingturtle 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A little survey

I've formed certain impression of the main page In The News section over time. Today I sat down for an hour with Excel and went through the history of the template to conduct a little survey. The findings are quite interesting. TreveXtalk 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


20-day sample from 13 September 2005 to 2 October 2005. The in the news template was recorded each day at 12:00.

  • 20 days in total
  • Total of 78 stories (the same story appearing on two different days is counted twice)


  • On each day at 12:00, an average of 1.05 new stories had appeared compared to the next day. This typically means that there is 1 new story and 3 or 4 others which are at least 24 hours old.

  • 36% of the stories related to elections
  • 86% of stories related to Europe were about elections

  • Some single stories stay on for ages unexplainably: The Norwegian elections stayed on the main page for six straight days!

My observations

In my opinion...

  • There are too many stories about elections in Europe.
  • The page doesn't have a large enough throughput of stories.
  • The lack of stories about Africa and the Americas (excluding the US) is a disgrace.
  • When stories about seldomly covered geographic areas appear, they are nearly always about elections. This should change.

Concrete propositions

  • Admins should actively seek out stories rather than relying on the suggestions page.
  • The candidate suggestions page ([4]) is a clear example of instruction creep and should be abolised. Surely admins can pick stories from (Current events)? This would be:
    • Much simpler
    • And also result in a greater breadth of stories
  • There should be a larger throughput of stories: more stories should be on the main page, but for a shorter space of time.
  • The paucity of coverage of Africa/The Americas should be improved.
  • Less reliance on elections as news.

Perhaps we could rely on World news sections to give a good idea of what's being covered worldwide? I don't think this is being done at the moment.

TreveXtalk 15:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Could this be an effect of "brain drain" to wikinews? Maybe all the people really into updating news stories are over there now. Frankly, I never got the point of separating wikinews from Wikipedia, since all major events are covered on Wikipedia anyway, and the split just leads to a division of resources. Anyway, since we do have wikisource, we could perhaps feed ITN by copy-paste from there rather than via the suggestions page? 08:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I got into trouble for suggesting that the 2006 Commonwealth Games should be mentioned in the news section, So why the hell do we have to hear about "In the National Hockey League, the Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Edmonton Oilers to win the 2006 Stanley Cup."??? This is national news not world news.

A comparison would be: "In the Australian Football League, the Sydney Swans were defeated by the West Coast Eagles to win the 2006 Premiership." The AFL Grand Final is one of, if not the, largest national single sporting event in the world, but because it is national it dosent qualify for world news unless the rest of the world falls asleep for a week and the grand final is all the news there is.

I feel that any national news mentioned must be of high significance, like if the Carolina Hurricanes defeat the Edmonton Oilers for the first time since 1902 or somthing like that.

  • Considering 86% of the European stories were elections, it can be concluded that minus the elections, there is a massive bias towards the US.
  • News is somthing that is treated so stupidly by everyone, it must be of high significance as in, impacting the rest of the world in whole or part. The commonwealth games should of at least (and eventually did) get a small section like the FIFA world cup has got. They're events that affect many countries across the world, not a national sporting league. Nick carson 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Entries on ITN

After User:Silsor removed the entry on ITN about "President George W. Bush nominates Samuel A. Alito, Jr to the United States Supreme Court".[5], we both got into a discussion about the quote on Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page that says "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest."

My question: is there any sort of good way one can determine if a news story qualifies for that criteria so one can add it to ITN, or remove an entry if it does not fit? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest this method or a perfected or refined version of it:
  • The news must be noteworthy to the rest of the world in whole or majority of it.
  • The news must have some world wide/global affect on the world or majority of it.
  • The news must be of a high level of interest to the rest of the world in whole or majority of it.

If we followed these three steps I think everyone could edit the news section far easier and it would keep out bias towards things like european elections and the US in general. Nick carson 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't see why we should put up US Senate rulings on ITN. I've noticed that there have been a lot of pro- US, UK news the past few weeks. Why can't we select more international topics? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Because this is the English Wikipedia.
Well Mr. Unsigned. This is the English Language Wikipedia. It's purpose is to provide information from around the world in the English Language for people like me who speak English and want to know about lots of different things from around the world.--Gbleem 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


Is it just me, or is it a bit of overkill to still have this up here several whole days after his statements were made? Isn't this section for the latest news, not for stories from so long ago? Do I sense some pro-Israel and anti-Iran bias on the part of wikipedia by its lingering on this? Cognition 15:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Obit policy

Could we clarify or extend the obit rule for people who are really important or who's death has an emotional effect on the public.--Gbleem 03:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

As expected

I wasn't at all surprised to see Andrei Illarionov in the news section. As always, people claiming that Russia lost its democratic ways make the news. The rest of the day's news is less important and doesn't qualify as worthy of attention. How predictable. A big yawn. KNewman 20:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Windows security flaw

Is it a slow news day? I see no other reason why yet another Windows security flaw is in the "In the news" section. There's some flaw being revealed every few months it seems so why put it on the main page? Dismas|(talk) 01:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


As illustrated by the discussion at Template_talk:In_the_news/archive5#Rosa_Parks (and the precedent of leaving Rosa Parks on the main page for several days despite not having extensive information on her funeral) there is no consensus to exclude deaths from itn. Listing obituaries allows us to feature a variety of articles, not just articles on storms and elections. When someone of note dies, they become of current and widespread interest. The main reason we are purportedly excluding deaths is so that the news is not flooded with death notices (as they come so frequently. I propose rewording Critera 5 to "No more than one death should be listed at any one time." No other restrictions are needed. If the person is notable enough, their death will be a significant news event. --Jiang 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

2006 Hajj Stampede

A article has been started on the 2006 Hajj Stampede, if you want to link and develop that. BlueGoose 16:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

A Concern

I noticed that they had links to articles about the annual cellebration itself, but not one on the story. Where is it?--Calvinsupergenius 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


For 2005/Jan/23, Aníbal Cavaco Silva is noted as the "the first right-wing President of Portugal since the 1974 Carnation Revolution," but the article uses the phraseology "first elected right-of-center president since...." He is right-wing or merely center-right? Or does Wikipedia similarly consider Helen Clark "left-wing" and Fernando Cardoso "right-wing"? - choster 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new rule: No anniversaries

Today is Mozart's 250th birthday. It has worldwide celebrations, apparently, and is in some news sources, and the article might even be updated with it. Is this ITN-worthy? In my opinion, no. But the guidelines currently don't say that anniversaries by their very nature are not ITN worthy, because if it's in the news and has an article update, it kind of fits the criteria. I say these don't count unless there's a specific article about them (like we had for the 10th anniv of the OKC bombing), and even then it's iffy. Thoughts? --Golbez 02:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

As the unmentioned troublemaker, let me try to explain. Anniversaries of births were apparently listed in the "selected anniversaries" section long ago; see Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries#Selected_births_and_deaths. Now that such anniversaries are unwelcome there, they need a new home. Melchoir 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of the "in the news" section

The page says that the "in the news" section servs several purposes, but do not say which these purposes are. IMO it would be valuable to have this stated. // Habj 15:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mudslides in the Philippines

"A series of mudslides in Southern Leyte in the Philippines leaves hundreds dead or missing." How about "over a thousand dead or missing"? Or is that too sensationalist sounding? -- 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


What is the purpose of the current trends in the news all over the world? It is either about violence, arrests, drug abuse and trials, scandals, or about celebrities' lives and upper class lifestyle. It is journalism at its lowest so far. It is purposely tailored to completely divert your attention from social justice issues, proper family values, proper life values overall and ultimately achieving the goal of dumbing the middle and lower classes down to the ground. The less people know about the injustice, their proper rights, about the parliament scandals and bribery, the less education that masses have, well the better the chances of the rich and powerful to keep you down, working hard and looking forward to falling asleep in front of their mediocre TV, all in sweat, unaware that your kids barely know you anymore, or your wife or partner, even less so neighbour. Divide and conqeur is the rich people's strategy. The media feed you with soaps that highlight adultery, backstabbing, treachery, malice and manipulation. You start to practice the same on your workmates, neighbours or even friends and ultimately the less cohesive and supportive we are towards each other. So guess what, they have no threat in us for decades to come. If you barely know your neighbour even less talk to your neighbour what are the chances you will unite against the rotten practices of your local council, let alone politicians? Infinitely zero.

So, anyone willing to challenge the media reins of American rotten rich multinationals? Anyone sick of reading only about crime, scandals and celebrity diets? Anyone with surviving healthy brain cells?

Please, could we tidy up this journalistic filth? Eternally grateful, Gabrielle

What? --Golbez 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Right on, Gabrielle. Not everybody agrees with you, but nobody who listened failed to hear you, and nobody who wanted to understand failed to figure out what you meant.
67-21-48-122 16:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Nick carson 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dutch municipal elections?

As a Dutch citizen I feel honored to see our municipal elections mentioned on the main page. But, really, I question the global importance of this particular news item. If they were national elections I might understand; it seems a bit out of proportion to have an ITN item on the municipal elections, especially since the Netherlands is not that big a country. Junes 19:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Amendment to death criterion #5

I propose the death criterion #5 should be amended to cover deaths of famous and respected former Heads of State, particularly those whose deaths are gravely felt in their country and at least one foreign country. Lennart Meri is one such case. Not only does he represent a third (33.33%) of all Estonian presidents ever, he is the first one to die in half a century. His death has caused sorrow not only in Estonia, but in Finland too. Several Finnish magazines have reported Tarja Halonen expressing her condolescenses (gosh, that word is hard to spell). I, too, was moved, despite not being Estonian or even following Estonian politics. JIP | Talk 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I should also note that Ronald Reagan's death was such an example, featured on ITN for 1 week. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-15 22:04
    • I like the change. However, it's a little bit vague, in my opinion: what constitutes "high ranking office"? We could argue, theoretically, that the assistant undersecretary of the interior constitutes a "high ranking office", but we probably wouldn't include his/her death, if that person died in office. How about changing it to "national or international leader"? Also, for the second change: what constitutes "key figure" in that person's field? Maybe it could read "key figure in their field and have received significant press coverage." Surely we don't want to include the death of everyone in every field? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with all the above points, especially on the points about "national and international leaders", and also that we can't include everybody's death, even if they were the 3rd best known collector of lesser spotted gazelle tails... Nikevs 18:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

M'Naghten Rules

In the entry on Abdul Rahman, "mentally unfit to stand trial" links to M'Naghten Rules, which emphasises that the concept predominates only in western countries. It should link to something like involuntary commitment. BigBlueFish 21:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it. Thanks for your suggestion! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Grammer in the current news section

I'm not an expert on grammer, but doesn't saying "Cyclone Monica approaches Darwin, Northern Territory in Australia with gusts at 350 km/h." imply that Darwin has the gusts? It sounds like there should be a comma after Australia, but if I'm completely wrong please ignore me. :) -- Natalya 16:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Shortening the cricket headline

Do we really need to give such in depth detail right on the main page, when a simple click tells you who got it? Couldn't the headline just as easily read:

"The International Cricket Council awarded hosting rights for the 2011, 2015, and 2019 Cricket World Cups"

And save a whole lot of space? Or at least cut down on including who was involved in the "Asian bid" for the 2011 cup? I'm only even mentioning this because the headline is so very long. Staxringold 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree, that version is great. Nick carson 04:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsunami warning

I thought I'd mention this in case someone wanted to put in on the page. TSUNAMI WARNING ISSUED AFTER MAGNITUDE 8.1 EARTHQUAKE STRIKES OFF THE PACIFIC ISLAND NATION OF TONGA (Foxnews) PrometheusX303 18:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup

Should we have a small coloumn showing the scores of the previous day matches? Sasank 21:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No. "In the News" gives links to topical (in the news) articles. It is not a news service. Carcharoth 16:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the more general discussions at Template talk:In the news should really be here, if anyone wants to wander back and forth between these two pages. Carcharoth 16:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading "see more" links?

Given the clear guidelines at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page: "The section mentions and links to entries of timely interest that are (and this is crucial) nonetheless encyclopedia articles that have been updated to reflect an important current event - not news items.", is it not misleading to have the three "see more" links at the bottom of the template pointing to news-type pages?

WikinewsRecent deathsMore current events...

The editors of ITN may realise the difference, but the readers and also any editors who miss the guidelines, might think that "in the news" is a news service like Wikinews, or a listing of current events. This is a common misunderstanding. What is the best way to avoid it? For now, I sugest removing the "more" from "more current events". Carcharoth 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest inclusion of Valiant Shield

Operation Valiant Shield began today - it is the largest US Naval operation in the Pacific since the Vietnam War. For the first time, observers from China have been invited to participate. I think this is relevant to a wide range of readers, especially those living in the US and in Pacific Rim countries. Johntex\talk 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is newsworthy and of generaly interest, but it only affects the US and the pacific rim countries I'd doubt would all be interested, I know we here in Australia havnt heared a thing about it and we're close allies. I think there is more significance in the fact that observers from China have been invited. So perhaps somthing like: "For the first time in US naval history, observers from China have been invited to participate in a US naval opperation Valiant Shield, the largest since The Vietnam War." If the more important issues (in this case peace) are placed in prioritised position within the centence, it is of far greater likelyhood that it would be newsworthy. Go for it, I'd say its borderline, but if theres not too much else happening in the world, try to get it in there. Nick carson 04:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I figured out that suggestions are supposed to go to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates so I put the suggestion there. I worked in the mention of China, as you suggested. BTW, I don't know if you already read this in the article, but Australia has sent observers to participate. Johntex\talk 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for restructuring ITN

See also the proposal for a Current events portal here Carcharoth 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After all the recent confusion over ITN's actual purpose, the discussions regarding sports inclusions/exclusions, the accusations of bias toward certain types of articles and so on I've been thinking about how it could be better handled. One of the ideas I've thought of is to separate the entries into broad categories, one or two entries each to a maximum of 2 or 3 lines. In this way there will always be at least one representation of each category on the main page. A name change (as I've sugested before) would also be important, "Hot topics" is a working title, someone may come up with something better.

Mock up here

Some problems I can see that may occur would be

  • Slower moving categories would be on the page a long time with faster categories only seeing a short time exposure.
  • There might be a problem editing down some entries to only one or two lines.

Any thoughts? --Monotonehell 17:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I argued a lot about this matter in the World Cup In The News controversy so I feel compelled to make a comment. All I can say is that your proposal changes nothing. All you did was split up the section by category. The kind of events that show up would still remain the same. Would World Cup scores fit in the sports section any more than it does right now? People could use the same argument that the section should only be used for linking to articles that have been significantly updated to reflect the news, with scoretables not fitting that criteria, even if a single match result means the world to a very sizeable population. I think that the main complaint is that ITN should be more like a newsticker. Or maybe it has to do with policies being consistent, with the winter olympics and commonwealth games setting precedent for special templates for major sporting events. My point is, I think that nobody over that particular controversy was expecting a template change, unless it meant the creation of a special template to cover the World Cup similar to the previous events. In my view, the course to take is to push for a policy change, or at least clarification, to either allow the world cup to have the same kind of coverage the other events did, or to prevent other events from having more coverage in comparison. I don't see a reason why your template shouldn't be considered anyway, I just don't see the relation to the recent controversy, and while I am at it, I must say I missed a picture in that mock up and kept wondering how it would look, and how it would be a little worse if it didn't have a picture. PHF 05:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This idea would limit the entries from each category to one or two each. In that way even if every sporting event gets a mention, sports would only take up two spots on the front page at any one time. That way there would still be a balance of categories across the section.
"People could use the same argument that the section should only be used for linking to articles that have been significantly updated to reflect the news" that would still apply here. The same kind of criteria would get articles on the main page. IMO Wikipedia should never have a news ticker - that's what Wikinews is for. These entries would only consist of articles updated with recent events of an encyclopedic nature. This proposal is addressing several critisms of ITN not just the recent sports discussions. One of those is trying to move this section further away from a "news feel" more toward a "encylopedic feel".
I didn't put a picture in for size reasons. Also I was worried about which article should have a picture. It seemed better to leave it out but this is just a proposal and if anyone can work out a modified layout that includes a picture and works then great. --Monotonehell 07:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I personally think there is no need to balance out each category, and I would personally like it moving more towards a news feel, so our opinions are basically the opposite. PHF 17:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current layout of ITN. I think that your category idea would be good for another page, like a portal of items in the news, which might grow out of or be based upon Current events (see the talk page of that page here and also here). But having the category names in the template that appears on the Main page is a waste of space. So, in summary, good idea, but keep this formalisation of the editorial selection policy and balance of number of articles in the background.

A start would be to analyse over, say, a month, the items appearing on the Main Page by category and length of stay on the Main Page, and streamline that into a policy that is flexible enough to accommodate what is actually being submitted to ITN, and strict enough to keep a balance. Carcharoth 16:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I can also say the icons won't work. Icons used with the portal links (and other uses of icons) were considered and rejected during the main page design process, -Aude (talk contribs) 16:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Category quotas would by their nature limit our options in the selection of items– forcing us to lower standards, when already most items are either stubs or only have a one-sentence update. This would not be a helpful complication of the system. That said, I would support the idea of renaming ITN to something less "newsy".--Pharos 19:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against reforming (or abolishing) ITN completely, but the key point is not that a change in policy is needed- it's that the current policy is not being enforced. Numerous stories make the list that are not of international importance or interest, in so far as this can be defined by any objective external index. Some stories of parochial interest only ARE included if they pertain to a certain part of the world, whilst stories from other parts of the world seem to be under-represented (I must admit I am thinking primarily of a sporting context here, per most of the recent debate on this topic). David Levy has given an undertaking that he will ensure items are selected without prejudice in future and that precedent and policy are fairly enforced. I would be happy to give that a try before instigating wholesale reforms, but recent events have exposed genuine confusion over the role of ITN- confusion that frankly stems from an incomplete and inconsistent application of the existing guidelines rather than a simple misinterpretation of the name of the template. If the current situation continues, there may be some grounds for more sweeping changes, such as maybe a rename and refocus etc. Badgerpatrol 14:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe a quota on the maximum number of sports items for example, might be a good idea, but any guideline saying we must have certain minimum number of items per topic would only force us to lower quality.--Pharos 15:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting a minimum number of topics but a maximum. I had very little trouble finding items to fill each section from the current list. The only problem that I see is that some items would stay on the main page for a long time waiting for some other item in their category to push them off the front page. If you're going to put a cap on one particular subject, however, that wouldn't be fair would it? My proposal tries to gain a balance and be fair to all. --Monotonehell 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I somehow hadn't noticed the link to the mock-up before. Now that I look at it, I can say that certainly the set-off icon format takes up way too much space. I would also point out that recent crop of items has been unusual for its diversity, but still you were forced to put up a perfunctory H5N1 item (without an updated article apparently) under "Science and Technology", something that would not ordinarily be considered ITN-worthy. I think it's good as an overriding guideline that we try to be diverse, but formalizing it too much I think might not work too well. I only suggested a cap on sports items as they seem to be overrepresented and are usually only updated with a final score.--Pharos 16:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of any major reform. I think a name adjustment to Topics in the news might help rationalize the exclusion of some of the sorts of entries that routinely get skipped-over and thus prompt snarkyness. With the exception of the World Cup debacle, the last few months have hardly demostrated the feature is in need of a major overhaul. The Tom 01:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Valiant Shield

The article doesn't actually say that this is the biggest exercise overall since Vietnam, or at least it doesn't to my reading. The ITN entry by contrast does- which is correct? To be honest, per my comment on the candidates page, I question whether this entry really should be up there at all anyway. Badgerpatrol 13:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Montenegro 192nd member of the UN

When you guys put (flag pictured) maybe you should specify that it is the UN flag and not the Montenegro flag? I know people should be able to recognize that, but the way it's written is kind of ambiguous. Star Ghost 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

A wikilink would help

A wikilink to exit poll from "exit projections" would help the readers. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Renaming redux

I've started a straw poll here on investigating the potential of a section rename, and would greatly appreciate comments. The Tom 00:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings

Why not keep Image:11_July_2006_Mumbai_bombings_-_map_showing_locations.png on the main page. The Indian flag serves no purpose. Any admins here who can do something about it? - Aksi_great (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


Surely you should switch the space shuttle and the earthquake around - the shuttle was expected to land today, as opposed to the earthquake. Also, why not use the map location of the earthquake?  Killfest 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but please note that items on ITN are listed chronologically. The latest news goes to the top. The earthquake was the top news earlier today. And please provide a map that looks good at 100px, the usual size of images on MainPage. Suggestions can be made at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. For further discussion of ITN contents, please go to Template talk:In the news, not here. Thanks. -- PFHLai 15:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)