[[Image:Sts123-launch.jpg|right|thumb|Can this photo be cropped for use on the main page? --[[Special:Contributions/199.71.174.100|199.71.174.100]] ([[User talk:199.71.174.100|talk]]) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)]]
[[Image:STS-123 patch.png|right|75px]]
[[Image:STS-123 patch.png|right|75px]]
'''[[STS-123]]''', carrying the first [[Japanese Experiment Module|Japanese element]] and Canada's [[Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator|Dextre]], is launched on an assembly mission to the [[International Space Station]]. [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] ([[User talk:Hektor|talk]]) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
'''[[STS-123]]''', carrying the first [[Japanese Experiment Module|Japanese element]] and Canada's [[Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator|Dextre]], is launched on an assembly mission to the [[International Space Station]]. [[User:Hektor|Hektor]] ([[User talk:Hektor|talk]]) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Place new suggestions at the top under the appropriate date heading (create a new date header if necessary).
Remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There must be an existing encyclopedic article on Wikipedia regarding the subject.
Do not link to external news sites here. If the article has been appropriately updated it should speak for itself (Instead, consider adding those to the subject's article as references to improve the article).
Please use the following format for the candidate item:
Start the entry with a dot point/bullet (type an asterisk)
Another person has continued the discussion --User's Name 12:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
And so on. When continuing the discussion please refrain from using dot points/bullets to allow the candidates to stand out from the discussion. Indent your comments for clarity.
I know I said earlier that the amount of space items doesn't amtter, but this one I don't know. This is different from the rigns and the ISS, since this is another ISS item. Is there a way we could somehow combine the three? I think this shoudl be on the main page, but with the other item up there I'm not sure how many people want there to be 3 space items, with 2 being very similar. Mild Support --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full support - this is a very important mission from an international point of view, as it is the first time that all partner nations have a permanent presence aboard the station, with the first part of the Japanese lab launching. Colds7ream (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I put it up, after trying unsuccessfully to succinctly combine the two, but revert me if you think it's too much. Then again, people tend not to complain about multiple election results... We can only post what is suggested here. Maybe there are some other ITNs that can be proposed to mix things up? --Stephen08:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're giving undue weight to spaace-related articles in ITN right now. I support, but I think something needs to go down, perhaps the Jules Verne. SpencerT♦C11:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image is marked as being GFDL, but is uploaded by a redlinked user and looks to be an official photograph of office. That suggests to me that it is a copyvio, and that the uploader does not have the rights to relicense the image. - Mark01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with different picture. I suggest a picture of the prime minister for two reasons. First, pictures of people grab people's attention better, since human beings have a natural attraction to faces. Moreover, the electoral map of Spain's provinces may confuse many people, since the conservative PP is colored red blue and the liberal PSOE is colored blue red. I realize that's the way they do it in Spain, and like many other things (metric system), America goes counter to the rest of the world, but to avoid ambiguity either way, I suggest we keep the map of the main page. Lovelac704:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I got mixed up in my above comment, which only goes to prove my point that the red/blue distinction is two confusion to use on the main page. Lovelac705:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Posted, and for the record, we don't post map thumbnails on the mainpage - too much detail in too little area. --Stephen08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The text is seriously flawed. Zapatero was elected only as representative of his constituency: his party have a plurality, but not an absolute majority, and it is crystal balling (albeit confident) to say that his party will be able to form a government. In the Spanish General Election, the Socialist Workers' Party win an increased share of the vote and a plurality, but no absolute majorit perhaps?
I have bolded the link to the Jules Verne, now that it has its own article. It is the subject of the blurb, and bolding it is much more intuitive than bolding resupply spacecraft. AecisBrievenbus19:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support The amount of space news on the itn is irelevant. This is a newsworthy and encyclopedic discovery, and it deserves to be on the main page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest changing the picture from the flag to the rings image. I know its just an artist's conception, but it is as informative and far more aesthetically pleasing than the Malaysian flag. Random89 (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was suggested by User:ARC Gritt on the talk page. I have no opinion as nominator until further infomation is given. If he stepped down due to the whole Kosovo problem, then I support it, but if it was for any other reason I don't know... --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1]The move follows his failure to get his cabinet to reject closer ties with the European Union in the wake of Kosovo's declaration of independence. Didn't realise there was a nomination page here, thanks for sorting it out for me Plasma Twa 2. - ARC GrittTALK18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I noticed the update was indeed really short. Thanks for removing. About POV, he actually said that the problem was a disagreement over Eu and Kosovo. --Tone20:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Tone. I meant the POV tag on the Vojislav Koštunica page since February. I'm not sure what that was about.
A change of government is ITN-notable by default, like elections. (But aren't we waiting for the results of the elections instead? I knew we did that a while back...) --HowardtheDuck05:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is one sentence about Bush vetoing it in the waterboard article. There does not appear to be a article on the bill itself. This does not deserve to be on the main page. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plasma Twa 2 is correct that there appears to be little in Wikipedia about the anti-torture legislation itself. If that changes, I would support. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In terms of face notability, I don't know that this would even make it into the top 10 failings of this administration. It's mostly a political stunt attempting to paint the President into a corner, not the watershed moment in the history of human rights some would make it out to be. The appropriate articles haven't been thoroughly updated either, as mentioned before. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know we had so many Bush believers in here. Actually this is a historic milestone in human rights history. For the first time, a western democracy allows torture and admits they're already using it. Of course this is notable. Google News had it as #1 story. You guys are absurd. --Bender235 (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that there is no article that has been sufficiently updated, as the guideline says. If there was an article with a more exhaustive coverage than one sentence in the waterboarding article... Maybe vetoes issued by Bush? --Tone10:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, something like a national general election doesn't need to be cleared ahead of time. Simply write a blurb when the results are known. -- Grant.Alpaugh13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good...but I think we should say how many seats it lost. I still can't think of a way to add it in...I've been toying with it, so...I think it's good. Maybe we should say that Barisan Nasional is a political party, I don't know. SpencerT♦C22:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This needs to be updated, and the frequency with which death tolls etc are updated establishes that there is no objection in principle to doing so here. Colombian armed forces launch an attack in Ecuadorian territory, killing a FARC commander, and startinging a diplomatic crisis, since resolved, with Ecuador and Venezuela.Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To my knowledge and reading of the event, no one notable was injured or killed and it was not the deadliest attack of its kind. I would suspect that the attack is tied in with the on-going conflict in Gaza. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question, while relatively high quality, is still short. Just like shootings in the US, violence between Palestinians and Israelis is unfortunately all too common - there are any number of previous incidents that involved greater loss of life that weren't covered either. We certainly didn't cover any of the bombings in Afghanistan or Pakistan that involved 50-80 deaths. I continue my oppose on the grounds of slippery slope precedent. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably we should have covered bombings/shootings where deaths of that magnitude occurred. What I feel sets this apart from US shootings is that this isn't just some kid who got depressed and thought it would be a good idea to go kill some innocent bystanders; rather it's an act of terrorism. I don't think previous exclusion of terrorist acts in the Middle East should prevent ths from going up. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason we haven't had similar stories up isn't so much people opposing them, but more to do with no one suggesting them. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The NIU and Kirkland shootings were both nominated and rejected. I also don't see how the deaths of students at an American high school is any less of an atrocity or crime than the deaths of students at a yeshiva. "Act of terrorism" is an ill-defined concept for which almost any violent crime can be ascribed (in my POV). For that matter, why is this "act of terrorism" any different from the other "acts of terrorism" committed before the Pakistani elections last month or everyday in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Columbia, Congo, Chechnya, and so on that don't saturate media coverage? You begin to see the problem in lowering the ITN bar for violence against civilians. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take your points. I'd argue that this is of particular interest because, as the BBC puts it, "the outpouring of public grief will add to pressure on the Israeli government to end the peace talks with the Palestinians". You could probably argue this is crystal balling a bit though. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that shootings in America were "less of an atrocity or crime", but that they have less international impact than these shootings. Anyway, I just thought it would be good to freshen ITN up a bit. Hammer Raccoon (talk)
Strong support -- This is a major story, and it should be on there already. To address the comment above, it is significant because it is the first massacre of its kind in two years, and because of its potential impact on the "peace process". 6SJ7 (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion I don't know how many shootings happen in this area, so I can't be the judge. Maybe if this was anywhere else in the world it could go up, due to the conflict in the area. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support (Full disclosure: I nominated this article). This could be a major turning point in the peace process (or lack thereof). I think this is notable since things have been heating up in the middle east in the last week or so. Plasma Twa 2: There had not been an attack on this scale in Israel since April 2006. See the first footnote in the article. -ReuvenkTC17:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: This is the first time I have been involved in an "In the News" discussion, and I have to ask: Is this how long it usually takes to decide things? Because at this point, this incident is starting not to be "news" anymore. (The impact of it will probably create news for weeks and months to come, but the incident itself is now two days old.) For that matter, the most recent story on the main page right now is still John McCain wrapping up the Republican nomination, four days ago. What goes on here? 6SJ7 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, it should take a ay or two, maybe even less. For some reason, though, the past week it has gotten really slow, with at least two well-supported items not making it on the template within a reasonable time (AKA in a time where it would still be considered news). Granted, some items take so long because, as with this one, there is not a clear consensus to either put it up or keep it off. As it is, there are three supports, one oppose, and two neutrals, which is hardly a consensus and doesn't mean it will make it on the itn. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not the smartest thing I've ever seen an admin do, but it doesn't really bother me. I'm jsut glad someone actually updated the itn. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support once more information about the circumstances of his arrest and alleged crime come to light. The summary should remove more POV terms like "world's mot notorious." Madcoverboy (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. labeled his as "the world's most notorious", but:
Seems to suffer from a bit of WP:OVERLINK. I would just wait until he is indicted so we could list the specific or number charges and under what jurisdiction is he being accused and tried (UN, US, Russia, etc.) Madcoverboy (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bombing at a military recruitment station in Times Square.
Oppose as nominator. Let's just get this one out of the way because you can be sure this is going to saturate the news cycle, pundit talkathons, and blogosphere. Famous landmark, yes - but bombings happen all over the world everyday involving far more insidious motives and greater loss of life. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because there will inevitably be a drive-by editor saying "OMG! But it's the lead story on CNN, MSNBC, and BBC!!!!" I'm saving us the trouble of going through the usual histrionics about "wait for this to develop more" and "make sure there is an article first", followed by the "is this notable" debate and the WP:WAX counterarguments, and then the decent into American/Euro-centrism arguments. If it develops into a bigger story, we'll revisit it - but no one was hurt, the damage was minimal, and it was not part of a wider issue. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. There's no article, there's no serious damage, and from what I gather it's not even certain (although likely) that the recruitment agency was the target of the blast. AecisBrievenbus17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course Oppose and not even worth an article, other then significant coverage and of course that the city is still on high alert because of 9/11, this incident had relatively little impact other then material damage, no human impact and it was also not (or more likely) a terrorism act. --JForget18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say I'm a little worried about this "there's no article" nonsense that's been happening lately. Nowhere in ITN policy does it state we need a new article for the bolded link in the blurb. That is a threshold that almost no item can meet. All that is needed as far as updates go is a well written and encyclopedic update to the pertinant articles whether that be a few sentences or an entire section. Just wanted to clarify. -- Grant.Alpaugh22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Times Square article a while ago, and I saw two sentences that said the same thing: A bomb went off om March 6, 2008. Nothing informative. I think that an article for a nominated item kind of supports it's news-worthyness, to put it simply. I guess this might just be another flaw for the criterias and whatnot. And, while I'm here, Oppose. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the People's Congress already covered in October? I guess I'm just ignorant of the parliamentarian pretenses of this autocracy, but how is the plenary session different or notable? Madcoverboy (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 1. The article National People's Congress has not be updated to mention this session. 2. The article on the 11th session is a one-line stub. 3. How is the beginning of a legislative session notable? The current US congress was added for the sole reason that a woman was the leader of the House. ---CWY2190TC16:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. There's nothing on ITN policy about having to create a new article. Come on, guys, you all know better than this. If there are significant updates to the relevant articles then I support, the idea that this isn't encyclopedic is ridiculous. Wikimedia has made a significant cultural impact in the US, at the very least (I have no idea about the popularity of Wikipedia in other countries), and I think most people view it as a pretty benevolent thing. If these accusations are anything more than complete hogwash then I think they call that into question. -- Grant.Alpaugh12:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, ITN is not for starting new articles. But, what would people think, who have heard about Jimmy Wales in the media, when they consult WP for additional information, only to find that the article doesn't mention the allegations in one single word? --Camptown (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. Bias can also be a problem of omission. Like I said, if and only if these allegations make it into the relevant articles (whether that be the article on Jimbo or some other new or existing article) I think this warrents inclusion. -- Grant.Alpaugh13:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not even close to being notable. People get accused of using company funds for personal reasons all the time. ---CWY2190TC12:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If I had a penny for every time a British MP gets accused of taking liberties with their allowances... And I still don't see any relevant updates anywhere. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should also try to avoid self-references to our projects. Unless it's a worldwide notable event, we shouldn't post it on ITN. - Mtmelendez(Talk)13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Charges or indictments haven't even been filed, much less any judgments reached—ITN isn't the place for rumors or innuendo. As with every other news item, there is no race to be the first to "break" this story. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
March 5
Zimbabwean Dollar
The Zimbabwean dollar reaches a record low of $25 million for $1 US.
Oppose Same grounds as the euro news - it's just a psychological barrier and likely to change every day. Nothing worth noting 5 years from now. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all wordings Warren Buffet is filthy rich. Bill Gates is filthy rich. One of them is now richer than the other. Move along, no news here. Madcoverboy (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the name of churn. I'm being a cranky bastard opposing everything when I'm also trying to make the template more dynamic. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Random89's looks fine to me. You're welcome to your opinion. Believing in "here today, here tomorrow", investing against the U.S. dollar and offering to back everyone else's bonds and succeeding are entertaining ideas. I'd say congratulations. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what more you need? Just checking in and I don't know who "you" are but imagine an admin. Four supports now plus me for a story that is positive and non-political for a change.-Susanlesch (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I hear more cries for the need for a dedicated ITN group that's responsible for updating the template. But seriously, this should go up, as it has a number of supporters and a single user opposing. Random89 (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is happening more and more often, it seems. This happened with the Prince Harry item, too. Random's got a good idea, it seems.--Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is more reason than ever to make a dedicated ITN group. Does anyone want to make the proposal up so that we can submit it official? -- Grant.Alpaugh03:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the blurb about Buffett. Truly, not important enough to warrant inclusion in ITN. One's rich; one's richer now. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It was there, it was removed and I'm saying I believe the removal of the blurb was a good thing. Do you understand now? - Bobet18:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How disappointing, MZMcBride. Including the crisis in South America, after John McCain whose article logged over 300,000 page views in four consecutive days on the main page, Mr. Buffett was the most requested article of any news candidate on Wikipedia this week. Without the benefit of the main page ITN, Warren Buffett had over 70,000 page views in one day, and, loosely, 140,000 views over those four days. P.S. I wrote that out pretty fast and it is sure to have errors but I hope it helps people get the idea. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While he is one of the most known players in the NFL, I doubt any retirement in any sport would be notable enough. ---CWY2190TC20:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo pretty much dictates that the only thing notable in presidential politics is the results of a general election, not the results of a psychologically key primary such as Super Tuesday.--WaltCip (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, recognizing the objective fact that the US Presidential elections are longer, more expensive, and more important than literally every other election on the planet is not exceptionalism, it's rational. Grant.Alpaugh04:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: If this gets posted, this will be the first U.S. political item on ITN. And that's saying that in the last 3 months, news agencies the world over are devoting much of their airtime to the U.S. primary elections. Heck even Singapore's Channel NewsAsia had a day long coverage of last month's Super Tuesday. --HowardtheDuck05:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While i do support this going up, we do have to make a choice. Either this goes up now, when the nomination is clinched, or when the Rebublican convention happens and he is 'officially' nominated; I really can't support this going up in both instances. That said the wording is fine, and in theory support it unless it is determined that it would be better to have come convention time. I prefer to have it now, as when the convention rolls around it will be pretty much old news, considering that it was a done deal. Thethinredline (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who knows anything about modern American Presidential politics knows that the conventions are usually nothing but a formality. This years' Democratic convention appears that it might be different, but not the Republican one. John McCain is the Republican nominee, and the Convention is irrellevant. We will know at some point that this is going to be a brokered convention for the Democrats, which I think is worth posting. First time in at least 25 years and probably more like 40 (depending on your definition) since this has happened. That is newsworthy and we'll know about it several months before the convention. If this happens then I think we should still post when the nominee is chosen at the convention. So long story short we should only post the conventions if they are brokered, and we should post both that there are going to be brokered conventions and what they decide, as these two events will be months apart. Grant.Alpaugh04:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion said that the U.S. nomination goes up when a person wins the nomination - that is when he surpassed the number of delegates needed. The U.S. is no ordinary country where other non-U.S. news agencies cover the primary elections. --HowardtheDuck02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support There was wide consensus on this page and on talk about promoting this as soon as a candidate secured the nomination. All this gnashing of teeth about American exceptionalism has already been hashed out and the pertinent issues addressed - by every NPOV metric, the campaign for the American presidency is the longest, most complicated, the most internationally covered, and most expensive of any leadership post in the world and a major milestone such as this definitely warrants coverage. Please take your anti-American POV elsewhere. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of commenting in the wrong place again, now that this tagline is up can I also suggest changing the picture to one of McCain? The item on Medvedev is now several items down, and there are a number of free pictures of McCain (e.g. his profile photo) that are readily available.
Looks good. Can you say "clinches the number of delegates" rather than the nomination, which he will receive surely, but not until the convention? -Susanlesch (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He has not yet clinched the nomination. I do not see why people are jumping the gun here, it reminds me of when Montenegro held a referendum on whether to secede from Serbia. Some wanted to say that after the referendum Montenegro was automatically a country, but it wasn't until they declared independence that that actually was the case. Likewise, McCain is not yet the nominee as the actual nomination has yet to occur. ~Rangeley (talk)22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am suggesting we wait until he has secured the nomination before we say he has secured the nomination. He is the "presumptive nominee" according to the press - he has yet to secure the nomination according to any reputable source... and thats because a reputable source would know that he will not have secured it until the convention. Perhaps using the language "presumptive" would be suitable for us as well? ~Rangeley (talk)23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2 points: 1) One of the criteria we had chosen for putting this up was that when all other serious candidates drop out, we post this. With Mike Huckabee dropping out yesterday the only candidate with an active campaign in the Republican Party is Ron Paul, who had no chance of winning enouch delegates to contest the nomination in St. Paul. 2) Another one we had chosen was that if a candidate broke the delegate barrier via endorsement (ie other candidates give their delegates to another after they drop out). Depending on the source you use McCain might have crossed this a week ago. I know because I considered posting after the updated McCain and Romney totals crossed 1191. McCain has crossed that barrier himself by everyone's count, but if you add in Romney's (and potentially Huckabee's after he made a call for "party unity" as he dropped out, indicating he would support McCain's nomination) numbers he is several hundred delegates over the threshold by everyone's count. Thus, an extremely unlikely or unfortunate (but definitely newsworthy) series of events would have to occur in order for McCain not to be the nominee. He would basically have to die or have a scandal break that was so serious it would end his career/public life. Since neither of those is very likely, we'll just go ahead and post this now. Basically it's like saying that it is only presumed that the sun will come up tomorrow, or it is presumed that the tides will rise and then fall, or maybe it is presumed that any time a US item gets proposed it is accused of bias. --Grant.Alpaugh00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the wording to Susan's proposal. Fact of the matter is he is not officially the nominee. It would have to be an act of Chuck Norris porportions for him not to be the nominee, but in the end he still isn't. It should stay up, since it is the first truely international news of this whole race. But, as I've said before, we don't post the results of a championship before it is over, no matter what the score. It's the same for this. People can complain all they want, but the bottom line is he is not yet the nominee. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that someone else came up with those terms at the top of this whole discussion. Someone corrected me yesterday so I do agree it would be nice to be a bit more careful with the word nomination. -Susanlesch (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from WP:ERRORS
The news thing about John McCain is misleading. He's not the GOP nominee at all until the convention. Plenty can happen to make him not be chosen at the convention. xihix(talk) 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we should avoid ambiguous terms on ITN. People will start asking what "virtually" means. I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but I've seen many news organizations posting our headline (i.e. secures the nomination). - Mtmelendez(Talk)14:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the article says the threat of starvation is caused by energy shortage as Otebig's hook suggests, but rather both are caused by cold weather. (support for the first half of the hook) Narayanese (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs to be rewritten, but I support the inclusion of some story about the energy crisis, as it is a well-written articles. Random89 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By what definition of the seasons is March "middle of winter"? Does the Central Asian winter run from January to May? Inaccurate colloquialisms should be avoided: during its coldest winter for five decades. Kevin McE (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone. I'd say let's consider this one when he is publicly displayed. Right now, there isn't much coverage, but even then the display may not be notable worldwide. - Mtmelendez(Talk)15:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might need some rewording but I haven't much time right now. Anyway, it's all over the news right now and the operation has it's own article. Feer17:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support on basis of brevity - I suggest rewording or simply omitting the second sentence; it's misleading, but it also doesn't bear any direct relevance to the event in general.--WaltCip (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colombian armed forces execute a attack in Teteye, Putumayo, during which one Raul Reyes, the second in command in the terrorist organization FARC is killed.
My first attemp to suggest something for In The News, is a very very VERY important news and damn if it deserves to be put in the main page.--ometzit<col> (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is unlikely using a phrase like 'terrorist organisation' in the narative voice for an ITN headline is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Current wording avoids the whole grounds for the diplomatic crisis. Putumayo is in Colombia, and would not be grounds for a diplomatic incident. The trigger for the crisis is that Reyes, was in Ecuadorian territory when he was killed. Suggest Colombian armed forces execute an attack on a FARC training base in Ecuador, killing commander Raul Reyes and 16 others, and triggering a diplomatic crisis
A result hasn't been announced (because the election hasn't happened yet); this should wait until after the election has occurred and a result roughly determined. - Mark11:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, use of the word 'election' is highly controversial. Most monitoring organisations and western Governments would never call the Russian process an 'election'. Also, although the election has not happened yet, the poll is fixed for Medvedev to win, and for turnout to be very high, as always. I wouldn't put this poll on ITN, but equally I couldn't put the fixing on there either. 86.166.227.112 (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree - it's not as though Raul Castro's election was an exemplary of a democratic process. It's a change of head of states involving a major nation and it will go up when the "results" (however contestable) are announced. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In support of the above, and having read TIME's "man of the year" article on Putin, it seems that it is common belief that Medvedev is Putin's puppet that will make Putin the Prime Minister, so as to overcome the two consecutive terms barrier for presidency (that also applies to Russia). I think we should hint to this major issue of Putin's term being prolonged "from the window". NikoSilver23:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (btw TIME goes as far as to quote a Russian joke: Putin is in a restaurant with Medvedev and orders for a steak. When asked by the waiter "what about the vegetable", he replies "yes, the vegetable will have a steak too".)[reply]
Time might claim it to be a qu; it might just ote, but is the word "vegetable" used in that sense in Russian. The joke was on UK TV about 20 years ago (on Spitting Image), and proves little.
Time claims that it is a popular joke among Russians. I don't speak Russian, but the word vegetable is used the same way in four languages I happen to speak. Sure it's old; it's the Medvedev part that's new in it. NikoSilver00:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the heavily part is necessary, even if slightly more accurate. Endorsed is sufficient to convey the sentiment that he's Putin's man. Also, most sources I have read/heard haven't gone so far as to suggest Dmitry is Putin's puppet, while acknowledging Dmitry is only there because of Putin they tend to suggest no one knows how Dmitry will fit in and what role Putin is going to really play in Russia after this, which makes more sense to me. If we do want to do this (I don't really care either way), I would suggest:
Colombian armed forces execute a attack in Teteye, Putumayo, during which one Raul Reyes, the second in command in the terrorist organization FARC is killed.
My first attemp to suggest something for In The News, is a very very VERY important news and damn if it deserves to be put in the main page.--ometzit<col> (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is unlikely using a phrase like 'terrorist organisation' in the narative voice for an ITN headline is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Its been the worst fighting since Israel withdrew from the Strip in 20005. At least 52 Palestinians were killed as well as two Israelis soldiers. Hamas also responded by firing 50 rockets at Israel. Of the Palestinian causalities eight were children and 16 were militants. Abbas referred to the attacks as "more than a holocaust" while Ehud Barak said "Hamas and those who fire rockets at Israel are responsible and they will pay the price". Khaled Meshaal (Hamas leader) also referred to the attacks as a holocaust. At least 91 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed in the past four days. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a new article is necessary at this time personally. I suggest you start with expanding the section in the existing article. If/when it gets too large for it's on article, then you are welcome to split as necessary Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the news toolbox
.jpg){kind=link}
